Has he done more than Jesus Christ?
Has he done more than Paul?
Whom does he compare with?
"Well they're going to show up for me because nobody's done more for Christians or evangelicals or frankly religion than I have. You've seen all the things that we've passed including the Johnson Amendment and so many things we've nullified. Nobody's done more than we have. Mexico City, take a look at that. Things that frankly until Ronald Reagan, nobody did anything. So, I know they're very happy with me. We've seen they're very happy. The question is whether or not they're going to go out and vote when I'm not running. I have no doubt they're going to be there in '20. I hope they're going to be there now because it'll be a lot easier if they are, a lot better."
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/20 … angelicals
As a Christian, President Trump has done very much for Christians in the USA.
The former POTUS mocked the bible and Christians.
While President Trump has prayer meetings in the White House and is bringing back freedom to say "Merry Christmas," for the holiday that is all about the Birth of Christ.
Just those things alone have been a blessing to Christians.
As for laws, President Trump signed an executive order giving more freedom to federally funded religious groups.
order repeals Obama administration rules limiting the ability of groups getting federal funds to preach to those they serve. Under the Trump order, faith-based groups will no longer have to refer beneficiaries to alternative programs if they object to the religious teachings..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 577171002/
As for Americans, President Trump said that he is a nationalist. I stand with him on that. Here's why.
Leftist MSM is pushing that "Nationalism is Racist." Nationalist simply means:
a person who advocates political independence for a country
Soros, and the majority of the democrat party are pushing for Globalism, which is defined as:
a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
relating to or advocating the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.
As a Christian, I know who would love to have power over the entire world, as the leftist globalists want...and that is Satan.
If you don't think that this is a battle between good and evil, think again.
If Trump truly is supporting the use of federal funds in forcing people to listen to Christian propaganda in order to eat, then it is not "for" Christians or anyone else. It is also very much in violation of the intent of the Constitution, which forbids any such action.
Well, wilderness, Obama had set in place rules that prevented Christians for speaking under certain conditions. I don't think that atheists have any restrictions, and I wouldn't infringe on your right to say and believe what you want. Because it is an American right, I will use my freedom of speech and always answer, but never will I prevent you from speaking from your point of view.
Although I'll always request facts...and not just flighty accusations.
Tell me, what part of the Constitution forbids freedom of speech and/or religion?
I repeat: when federal funds are used to "captivate" an audience, as when soup lines (paid for with govt. funds) for hungry or starving people are formed, and includes a requirement to listen to a sermon, it violates the clause the govt. shall not establish a religion or prefer one over another.
You can argue that until the cows come home, but legal precedent up to and including SCOTUS has indicated that govt. cannot perform such actions.
Now, should the church use it's own funds for that soup line they are certainly free to preach all they want. But the whole thrust of your comment (I think) was that govt. funding is used to gather a captive audience.
Wilderness, get ready to fall on your fanny, but I am in complete agreement with you!. "Captive audience being fed with government funds" is the key here. Our Christian friends seem to think that they are entitled to do as they wish with government funds. That is how they see religious freedom. How about women's rights being violated in the name of religion carrying on business. I'm speaking of Hobby Lobby that objected to their insured employees being covered for contraceptives.
Ow! My fanny hurts! Don't DO that!
Yes, the "war against Christians" always seems to come down to something like that - their control over others, or their "right" to promote their religion through governmental functions, buildings and money is being curtailed.
(I'm against contraceptives being required on health insurance, too, but that's another whole topic. Hobby Lobby objected on religious grounds, which I do not.)
Nobody ever took away the right to say "Merry Christmas." This was a talking point Bill O'Reilly of Fox made up about 10 years ago. As a child and older, I often received cards that said-Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Season's Greetings. If you think of what we call Christmas Carols, those sentiments are also expressed in the songs. This is yet another false hoax perpetuated by Fox News. Nobody ever had a "War on Christmas." Many of us live in coastal areas or large cities where we have more people from different cultures, and try to include their customs with Christmas. Stop believing made up stories.
Also, this is a secular country, and you can worship all you want, but many of us don't care, and are actually sick of hearing, about how Christian you are.
Jesus said, "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and pray to thy Father, which is in SECRET." Why don't you do that?
Well. We can see you don't think much of your constitution.
"The former POTUS mocked the bible and Christians."
More fake news put out by the Trump media. They took this from a long speech made by Obama in 2006, the gist of which favors separation of church and state because this country contains people of many faiths. This is a false claim according to Politico.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … hristiani/
Christians actually make their own beds and expect everybody else to lie in it.
"As for laws, President Trump signed an executive order giving more freedom to federally funded religious groups.
order repeals Obama administration rules limiting the ability of groups getting federal funds to preach to those they serve. Under the Trump order, faith-based groups will no longer have to refer beneficiaries to alternative programs if they object to the religious teachings."
That one order alone is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. Christians want to promote their own beliefs at the expense of others. If their "Christian love" can't come without strings attached, it should not be federally funded.
The question should be reversed. Do the Christians in the US want Donald Trump as a President.
Do they really want a strong blond leader with blue eyes?
A leader who sees the media as the enemy of the state.
A leader who want guns inside the churches and temples.
Did Jesus want guns inside churches and temples?
Did Jesus forbid freedom of speech?
If you answer the last two questions with yes. Well then I presume President Trump is the one for you.
"Nobody ever took away the right to say "Merry Christmas." This was a talking point Bill O'Reilly of Fox made up about 10 years ago."
That is simply not true. I wasn't speaking about cards. I was speaking about the stores that make their biggest profits off of the Christmas holiday. There absolutely was a big movement to say, "happy holidays," rather than "Merry Christmas." It actually was an issue for many years. I don't care how you want to twist it, I actually experienced it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28370145/ns/u … -ELDZNKgdU
I also live in coastal area. I remember when my children sang songs about the birth of Christ in school. That has been done away with. Even you can't deny that.
"Also, this is a secular country, and you can worship all you want, but many of us don't care, and are actually sick of hearing, about how Christian you are."
The majority of Americans are Christian, whether you want to admit it or not.
You wouldn't say that Israel isn't a Jewish nation, even though Islam is practiced there. Stop trying to rob me of my beliefs. That freedom is contained in the "Bill of Rights."
I'll sing, tell others about Jesus, carry my bible with me no matter where I go, whether you like it or not.
"According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (May 2003), Muslims, including Bedouins, make up 82% of the entire Arab population in Israel, along with around 9% Druze, and 9% Christians. Projections based on 2010 data, predicted that Arab Israelis will constitute 25% of Israel's population by 2025."
In Brooklyn NY there is a daily call to Islamic prayer over loud speakers. Now that is intrusive.
You quoted Jesus:
"Jesus said, "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and pray to thy Father, which is in SECRET." Why don't you do that?"
It's hilarious to me, that you want to try to quote the bible, like you're really saying anything that means anything.
You don't even believe in Jesus. So I ask, why do you think you hold any power by quoting Him?
The passage you used is tied to a specific condition, NOT to telling others about the life that is in Christ Jesus.
So don't try to go there...seriously.
"In Brooklyn NY there is a daily call to Islamic prayer over loud speakers. Now that is intrusive."
More than the church bells next door? Or the Christian on the street corner with a bull horn? I think not.
I actually don't own a bull horn. I have also never heard church bells in the area in which I live.
There's a woman by the name of Brigitte Gabriel. I happen to think she is amazing. She grew up in a nation that was once Christian (Lebanon,) and like so many today, her country welcomed Islamic people with open arms, but as Islam grew larger, things changed very quickly. When she was a little girl her home was burned to the ground. Her family had to hide in caves in order to stay alive. Below is a link to her explaining what happened to her.
I doubt you'll pay attention, but her life's work has been about informing others of what happened in her nation, and how it is playing out the same way in other nations right now, including the United States.
Try not to use your disdain for Christians to push nonsense.
In Iran, Homosexuals are thrown off roof tops.
Just three days ago 7 Christians were killed in a bus that was heading to a church in Egypt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 … us-attack/
In Pakistan, a Christian woman, who was on death row for "blasphemy," (because she is a Christian.) was finally acquitted. She had been imprison since 2010. When the people heard that her death sentence was overturned, thousands took to the streets demanding that she be killed.
http://www.starbeacon.com/cnhi_network/ … dd9fe.html
In the USA, A Christian refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Do you see the difference?
If you don't see the difference, then I dare you to go into an Islamic establishment and ask them to make a pork dish for you. When you do that, come back and share your experience.
There is absolutely no comparison between Christianity and Islam. I already know the arguments.
Christians will stand for what the bible says, without a doubt, but I would have a gay couple in my home, and treat them with kindness. A christian's goal is not to "take over." The world is what it is.The greatest goal is to just be an example.
The President speaks to these facts, and the globalist media calls him a racist and twists everything he says.
He said he's a nationalist, which I was watching him speak when he said it, and he referenced it as being for our nation. It had NOTHING to do with "racism."
Globalism, is far worse. It gives a few power over the entire world. Nobody matters to globalists. It's all about power.
It's actually biblical and I know where it will lead.
Try to use a little wisdom.
Japan refuses to accept Islamic "refugees." Could it be possible that they know something you don't?
"Try not to use your disdain for Christians to push nonsense."
Disdain for Christians? Where do you get that from a recognition that religions other than Islam (including Christianity) make noise, too?
But I will cop to feeling a little disdain for people, of any religion, that feel their belief is better, more important or needs special dispensation from the public.
The excuse that "there's a lot of us" does not give that right. For Christianity specifically, it does not give the right to teach children creationism under the guise of science. It does not give the right to plaster Christian icons all over public buildings and lands. It does not give the right to demand that a school cease activity and turn to prayer, or that prayer be observed in public meetings or events. It does not give the right to deny marriage to couples deemed "sinful" in your God's eyes.
Consider that all of your examples occur in predominately Muslim areas, where Christians are a distinct minority. You don't like it when a different faith takes control, but need to "clean your own house" before complaining.
Freedom from religion is actually more important than "freedom of religion" for if we are free from it, we are also free to choose our own.
"Japan refuses to accept Islamic "refugees." Could it be possible that they know something you don't?"
Perhaps that Muslims have learned that freedom even less than Christians. AND that a great many Muslims co-exist peacefully with other religions when their radical portions are excluded. In that respect you might try a little wisdom yourself.
I really never experienced a "War Against Christmas." I have sent out Christmas cards all my teen and adult life. It was never a real issue. They do say Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings, and always have. Bible scholars know that Jesus was not even born on Christmas, most think he was born in the Spring, due to the planetary conjunction the Wise Men saw in the sky. I know a lot about planets and have studied many religions. So don't get so bent out of shape. Calm down already.
As far as stores, they start making Christmas commercial before Halloween now, and most make their most profit in the 4th quarter of the year. It's not about religion.
It's fine with me a great percentage of people in the U.S. are Christian, or whatever religion they choose. Just stop feeling persecuted when you are not. And we should respect Jewish, Muslim, and other people's religious customs too. Christmas is becoming a more secular holiday for many families in the U.S. Or some Christians go to Church for Easter and Christmas only.
I was raised by a Catholic Father and Dutch Reform Mother, who rejected their religions for reasons too long and personal for this forum. I did get to experience the Catholic Church as a child, and it gave me nightmares, so my Dad thought it best I stop going. I almost became a Baptist once. I did search all my adult life for a religion. Organized religion doesn't work for me. I also recall prayer in school and singing religious songs there. My best friend and I helped run a summer Bible school when we were teens. I have nothing against Christianity, I just don't believe it and don't want to be preached to all the time. How does that rob you of your beliefs? Believe whatever you want, but don't lie about it.
I quoted the Bible, I didn't "try" to quote it. I actually read the whole thing and did a two year Bible study in my continued search to find a religion I believe, but have decided I am a Pagan. I am very familiar with the Bible. I can even find verses with meaning and wisdom in it. Did you ever read the whole Bible? I enjoyed the study and made a good friend over that time, even though I never came to see it her way. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I never believe what I haven't extensively studied.
I do actually believe Jesus, the man, lived, and had revolutionary ideas. Wonderful ideas about love and the treatment of others. I do not believe he is the Son of God or in Virgin Births.
The passage I picked was perfect. It's fine for you to practice your religion all you want. I hope it works for you and comforts you at bad times. But I don't need it pushed on me by Christians who want to pretend they are so persecuted. When I meet a person, and the first thing they say is "I'm a Christian", I know already they have an ax to grind.
I wish you the Merriest of Christmases.
LOL I think you replied to the wrong person - don't think there is a thing in your post that I would disagree with.
Hi, Wilderness, Jean, Christian Writings, and everyone else:
Early Merry Christmas to you guys! Lively discussion.
Happy Thanksgiving too!
Hi Tim! Same to you! Have a blessed season (& lots of turkey)
I was thinking the same thing! We both feel strongly about the secular nature of our country. And don't care what religion people are, but wish they would keep it to themselves.
That is rare, we do agree on some things! I believe we need freedom from religion. It's important to remember this is a secular country, and we are hearing too much from Christians who think they are persecuted. I dislike the way they all think "their" church is the "right" one. It's oneupmanship.
The commercialization of Christmas is awful. When I was growing up, we put the tree up on Christmas Eve. When I got married, I began doing it about two weeks before, but don't even want to hear about it before Thanksgiving. This year I saw ads on TV for Christmas BEFORE Halloween. Ridiculous. Now I have stripped down all the nonsense, the expensive gifts and I make my own pine decorations, since I'm in the woods anyway. It gives me more time to enjoy the people I love.
I am sure I'll "see" you around before the holidays.
We wait until after Thanksgiving to do anything. Oh, we may keep our eyes open all year for a child's gift, and I may put up outside lights, but not turn them on, before the snow flies. But the celebration does not begin until after T-Day.
I shop all year too, you never know when you'll find something good. Plus, it's not crowded then. Being at a mall in NJ beginning on Thanksgiving Eve, is my idea of being in hell (if I believed such concepts)!
LOL I think you replied to the wrong post. I support and agree with pretty much everything you've said here.
(No merry Christmas here - I refuse to celebrate until after Thanksgiving. The rationale being that if the season is too long it takes something away from Christmas; it becomes just another day and it is far too important in my life to allow that. But if you won't use it until after T-Day, just set it aside and save it, I'll wish you one now as well. )
Wilderness, Christianity is based on Jesus being the only way to the Father. We are to witness to others about eternal life through Jesus. Of course, we believe Christ is the only way. AND we should love others and share our hope in Christ. We should not make funny of anyone or hate anyone. Which religion do you know of that thinks all religions are right. That's impossible.
Donald Trump is a symptom of the society. And he is not the only one.
I don't think it changes much to rant against him. As he is using the polarisation and radicalism to score a point.
Trump is an old king in new clothes. For millennia kings and the people in power care only about one thing. To enrich themselves.
You see it all over the place. CEO's giving themselves huge bonuses and never raise the wage of the people on the workfloor.
People in power give themselves huge tax cuts.
When looking at politics, look where the money goes.
So the last thing you should do is vote for a millionaire. Sadly enough one of the rules in the US is to become a president you need money. A rule that shows how corrupt the system is to start with. (and the US is not the only country with a corrupt political system...)
Theme's like immigration, abortion, same sex marriage, criminality, they don't give a damn about these subjects. They only use them to get votes. But after they have there votes, they sort out financial benefits for themselves first.
What about the Wall. Has Trump build it yet? Of course not. It's just a slogan used to get votes. He doesn't care about the wall. Only if he can make money out of it he does care.
The whole immigration from Mexico is a profitable story. Tech firms are cashing in big time. It's about money never about people. Old story.
I heard the US economy is booming. My question to everybody here is: Have you had a pay raise lately? Has your insurance gone down? Is the education fee gone down. Do you earn more and spent less?
I can not see how Trump is fighting for Christian Values if he is not helping the people in need, but instead enriching his friends.
Is it a Christian value to promote more guns INSIDE the church and temples?
We should take more care for each other. Not ranting but build bridges. We should try to help each other. Whatever the religion, political opinion, sexual preferences or different skin colour.
In times where politicians and media start to polarize people the best weapon is not an eye for an eye but caring for each other, helping each other. That's where the real power is. Unite.
The people in power don't want the "ordinary people" helping each other. They love to rule by divide an conquer techniques. And president Trump is a master at it.
Wow! Thank you! I couldn't have said it better if I tried.
Compared to biblical Christians, DJT has a lot to do. Compared with the Founding Fathers, he still has much to do. After all didn't they set up the whole nation because of a need for "freedom to worship?"
Ummm no. The rallying cry was "No taxation without representation". It was about Britain governing as it wished, with no input from Americans.
I agree. I heard a different reason when I started teaching public schools at 45. The view was expressed by a teacher who said they wanted to promote their own religion.. Hmmmm..
You are right, Diane. They had plans. None of our politicians are greater then Him, no doubt. But here's something interesting, Diane, and to keep the topic rolling wonderfully along:
Michael Pence and the evangelical right really need Trump and they supported him. I've read an article that suggested that they are willing to look over Trump's imperfections in the hope that he may be impeached or resign or something.
King David in the Bible rose to power after the kingdom endured an atrocious leader.
In essence, the evangelical right feels they need Trump to eventually get Pence in the White House. They see Pence as a great spiritual leader where Trump has failed in various ways. Although many equate Pence to being an outright Zealot and Zionist.
What do you think of that scenario?
I've thought of the same; however I've been embarrassed for him the way he gawks at Trump with admiration glistening in his eyes.
haha I agree Diane... its very uncomfortable the way he looks at Trump lol
Yes, it was about G.B. that we fought the American Revolution, but religion was definitely in there. We have heard of the Puritans. Trump ain't one of those guys, but again, he is mortal. He is not perfect, and he is subject to our laws whether he recognizes that or not. I'm sure he prays to his version of a God.
What's interesting is the atheists who fully support Trump though he claims to be Christian. Sounds like conflict of interest.
Trump IS the second coming of Jesus. Didn't you know that? He thinks so anyway. I think he's a retarded clown.
Trumpy wumpy wanted a wall
Trumpy wumpy had a great fall.
All the republican horses and all the republican men couldn't put Trumpy wumpy together again.
Why don't you guys actually practice your constitution and keep church and state separate?
Trump's comparing himself to other politicians I suspect. Is he right? I don't know, but I know he's doing a great deal to give Christians more time, though I don't think he knows that.
By having a sovereignist (or nationalist if you prefer) in the White House is slowing down the continuing move towards a global government, which Satan will eventually use. This gives Christians more time to get ready, spiritually.
So what do you think they will do to get ready spiritually?
Hopefully, we'll all work out our salvation as Paul says in Philippians. This is summed up for us in the book of James.
The two basic commanments are 1) Love God and 2) Love others as ourselves.. With all that is going on now, it doesn't matter how much we read if we don't walk in love for everyone.
It's not about reading Diane, it's about knowing and doing: "cleansing ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit", "draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.....wash your hands you sinners, and cleanse your hearts you double minded". Both these are commands given to Christians, and they're must do for all of us.
True.. So many of us are concerned about what others are doing/not doing that we have not looked inward.
Hxprof, in your view Christianity might well be the most important factor in your life.
However, for many others in your country and world-wide it is not.
To presume that your's is the one and only valid path is one of the causes of dis-unity, not unity.
Freedom: think about it.
Freedom of belief. Freedom to choose. Freedom to say, to feel, to accept, to reject, to like, dislike.
Freedom is yours and mine. Let's be thankful for freedom....we are indeed fortunate.
And freedom to accept that "my way" is true for each one of us.
Johnnycomelately: I have no interest in pushing anyone to embrace Christianity, none whatsoever. By commenting on Trump "helping" Christians, I wasn't implying that others should share that belief or interest.
I hope that helps.
If you commented that Trump has helped Christians I missed it and apologize. But if you think he has, can you be more specific in what help he has given? What has he done that has helped Christians specifically, more than any other group of people?
Here's a repost of my original comment:
"Trump's comparing himself to other politicians I suspect. Is he right? I don't know, but I know he's doing a great deal to give Christians more time, though I don't think he knows that.
By having a sovereignist (or nationalist if you prefer) in the White House is slowing down the continuing move towards a global government, which Satan will eventually use. This gives Christians more time to get ready, spiritually."
"What has he done that has helped Christians specifically.....".
Trump has slowed down what I believe is the ongoing move toward a one world government, which Satan will use. This provides Christians with more time to get cleaned up before the darkness becomes too great. I don't assert that Trump has done this on purpose - meaning, he didn't say to himself, "I'm going to slow down the move towards a one world government", but in asserting US sovereignty, he has in fact done this.
"....more than any other group of people?"
I don't know that he's helped Christians more than any other group of people, in fact, I kind of doubt that.
Got it. And now that I read it again, I DO have vague memories of seeing it before, though I had forgotten it was you that posted it.
Thanks - I understand your position much better.
I wonder where the Christians got the idea that Satan is the benefactor of the one-world government. The bible says that Christ will reign on earth, and my Baptist Church taught the reign would be 1,000 years. How can Christ reign over hundreds, thousands of independent governments? It seems to me and to others who believe in a 5th Dimensional Ascension of the earth that Christ's reign over the world will require a one world government. (Can of worms just opened, but I had to ask.)
Agreed. In fact, according to Revelations, the anti-christ and his minions reign briefly before Christ bust them up like the superhero He is, and then Heaven and Earth shall pass away. Then, He sets up His Kingdom for a thousand years. Right on the spot you are.
If those really thinking about it and praying about it - it wouldn't matter who's in charge if the Rapture happens during the Tribulation.
He'll only take White evangelicals (major not.)
I like the way you think. Frankly, I don't believe in the Rapture, but if it occurs, he may take white evangelicals all right...for soul reprogramming.
I agree. Indeed, we recognize there are good people in every denomination, but I've attended one of those churches, and the looks I got. Disturbing.
I found out later, the preacher informed my friend that "people should pray and worship with people like them."
If that's the mindset of some of these groups, they will not make it up there.
Besides, the KKK claim to be Christians. I figure somebody up there will have to clean all of those sheets, and this time around, it won't be the help.
Why would preventing a world government and delaying the end of the world and second coming be a good thing for Christians? Don't you want the bible to be fulfilled? You should be happy the end is near not trying to prevent it. It's as if your afraid the bible might be right, not happy about it.
We need time to get cleaned up, God's way, so that we're prepared for the coming times. What I'm seeing with God's people is that we are, for the most part, cruising along, still carrying with us the love of the world and the issues of our heart, as though we can waltz into the kingdom taking that stuff with us.
It's past time for all of us to get serious about pressing in, getting cleaned up.
When God is ready to end the world, when His plan comes to fruition, it will end and neither Trump nor anyone else has anything to say about it. There will always be people needing more time, but when God has enough true believers...Armageddon.
In other words, be careful what you wish for, all Y' Evangelical Fundamentalists. Don't presume you will arrive in Shang-ri-la. The place you go to might be hotter than you can bare - for ever!
Much better to get real now, while the going's good.
Yes. Even years ago when I read the Celestine Prophecies, the plot boils down to religious fanatics who WANT the world to end, so try to rush it as soon as they can. These God loving people will be the ones to cause Armageddon. They think they are going to beamed up to a better place, so will put all the sane people in danger.
Wilderness, God is merciful, and desires that "all come to a knowledge of salvation". He's also serious about sin, and "judgement begins with the church" - so we Christians, who have a tendency to believe that once we're born again, we're IN, are really IN for a very hard time if we don't cooperate with the Lord.
"There will always be people needing more time, but when God has enough true believers...Armageddon". Basically, yes.
Then by process of elimination it does not sound like Trump has done anything at all. When God chooses the world will end. Period. He has set the stage, He made the rules, He provides the actors and He changes all of it as necessary to complete His plan.
You'll note that I said "basically"...........I wan't about going into great detail.
To be concise, in the OT we see God choosing to grant more time for Israel or specific Israeli kings depending upon how they respond to God's desires. He often granted more time for them to repent in response to the prayers of his people.
God continues to act today, of course with full knowledge of the details of how things will proceed. It's up to us to cooperate and make our needs known.
Hope that helps.
Jonnycomelately: Of course. Nothing I've had to say regards this subject has, in any way, prevented you from continuing with you life, from living it as you see fit. I wouldn't have it any other way even if I could............
Also, when I say that "he's doing a great deal.....", I mean that every time he pushes back on a globalist agenda, that's a benefit to Christians.
Would you include your President as part of "Satan's" agenda? Or "God's?"
Would you include your President as part of "Satan's" agenga? Or "God's?"
God can and does use people all of the time to accomplish his will in matters, whether we realize or not, whether we want his will or not. I can't speak for Trump, though I certainly can speak for what he's done as an anti-globalist.
Great question Jonnycomelately. This potus seems to be used by the former.
I wasn't going to return to the forums until later, but Christmas came early with the Dems reclaiming the House. This is important because mankind is fallible, and our Founding Fathers recognized this. That's why power must be shared. Now, these men and women must learn to listen to each other to accomplish anything. Good idea.
I was reading about His Commandments, and essentially, when you have conditional love, there isn't any. Since man is imperfect, preferring most often his animal nature over his spiritual one, given too much power, men will act like animals, regardless of party affiliation.
Perhaps, the games and names will end or at least decrease so governing can continue without posturing and bickering.
There is no White, Black, Asian, etc. Heaven, but Satan will enjoy putting KKK members and those violent other groups together just for a laugh. If you can't get along with others here, God doesn't want you in His Paradise.
Good one, Tim. I can't believe this forum is still going. I'm happily surprised that regardless of what anyone believes, enough care about the spiritual side of their lives to weigh in on it, even as we can't push our beliefs or lack thereof on others. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
The question is has President Trump done anything for Chrisitans. This is not a question of religious rights or lack thereof in our constitutional republic.
As far as the real question I think Trump has only done well in the eyes of Christian and non-Christians alike who believe his political solutions are Christians only avenue for effectual influence in our country
Unfortunately this paints a perfect picture for critics of Christianity. And it also demonstrates Christians lack of faith in God alone. And it fortifies the negative stereotypes of the church (justifiably often a valid reason for keeping "Christians" at arms length).
Just the tone of President Trump is contrary to what should be the positive loving message of the Christian Gospel. Our nation needs healing, not the President's abrasive messages to all of those who don't follow himin lock-step. Even the God of Christ rules by the willfill choice and comliance of His Kingdom citizens.
Every facet of American society needs the healing touch of God in our intwractions with one another. And that needs to start in "safe" homes where every member of the family is valued. The divisiveness in our societyis a lack of willingnessto listen and trut one another. Unity is based on mutual respect which cannot exist in the "us versus them" dialogue that exits courtesy of Donald Trump.
No matter the material benefits that seem to occur because of our President, the growing lack of civility in our country will take two generstions to reverse (once and if we start).
I trust that God is a much better choice for fixing the core values of America than our broken politics. Expunging every bit of Christianity from America will only hurt us. No one is advocating the expunging of atheist points of view and displays in America. Christianity can always only be a choice that should not be taken away. We are allowed to have a point of view. The constitution in no way states freedom "from" religion - get real!
I enjoyed reading! I have also maintained that "Christians" who justify voting for him because he is a "Christian", are not holding him accountable for Christian character and humility. He doesn't even understand that all of us sin.
In addition, if "Christians" voted for him because they wanted conservative judges and are prolife, they are expecting DJT to resolve the problem. Christians get in trouble all of the time by trying to fix things rather than trust God.
I'm not saying they should have voted for HRC. I couldn't vote for her either. However, they could have encouraged Christians to pray and trust God. Many non-Christians know something about the Bible and bring up the contradictions. It's like the ultimate paradox.
You asked, Diane, Has he done more than Jesus Christ?
I say NO because nothing you say he said reflects "where the kingdom of God is" nor anything else concerning our reaching it.
Has he done more than Paul?
Again I say NO because, although somewhat altering Jesus' message, Paul did carry the message of the Christ to the gentiles and established organized churches, which was not the Christ's intention for thread church meaning "the called out from the world", since the church is the backbone of the west's civilized world.
Whom does he compare with?
He compares himself with the illusional person "God" has purposed him to have before being elected in order to manifest himself as the person "God's servant Nebuchadnezzar", who was made to live like any other animal represents. Jeremiah spoke it in chapter 27:6 and since the United States is Mystery Babylon what happened to the king shall happen to him, although I believe he will go to jail first. It reads, "now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him."
I can't argue with you Nature! :-)
"What Has Donald Trump done more for Christians than anyone?"
It could be hoped that such instability and narcissistic behaviour in one who has sat him/her self in the presidential seat would caution christians in their choice of a President next time.
"So help us God," lol! If indeed it were a laughing matter.....which it ain't.
All this could benefit christian- and non-christian people enormously.
Our situation is hell right now. 800K people on shutdown. It impacts their income, creditors, utilities, transportation, etc. Grocery stores will not have business of 800K people. Restaurants won't have their business for lunch. Air travel has increased risk as well as other transportation.
I'm sick of hearing him say stupid stuff in tweets and on television.
Now, Hi Jonny!
Impeachment of someone with NPD would be very difficult. From what I have read about it on the Web, and from dealing with it first-hand, they have so much experience in avoiding culpability, everyone in the US if A will need to get very smart if you want to stop his world-dangerous escapade.
There is one easy way to impeach the president and congress. All foreign wars beginning in 1898 until today, except maybe KOREA, were caused by a US act of treason and the Constitution's voice concerning Treason reads [Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court] which means to pardon a president who pardoned an act of treason like 9/11 was have committed treason and most people in congress were in during Obama's terms. NEED I SAY MORE?
Unless a President, or anyone else, actively promotes freedom of, and from, religion I'm not much interested.
To do anything else "for Christians" is not something I can generally support, particularly as that always seems to mean taking freedom of belief from others to promote Christian beliefs country wide. The huge fight to deny gay marriage is one such example. Prohibition was another, as were blue laws, no alcohol sales on Sunday, etc.
Maybe he is Jesus. Has anyone ever even seen them in the same room?
If true then the Shroud of Turin must be a hoax. And I was so sure.
I assure you, President Trump isn't Jesus. He's a man being used by God for sure.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him.
Ah, well if Trump is God’s puppet then that certainly solidifies my atheism.
That's interesting, have you always been an atheist? Or did you come to that decision later in life? I've met a few atheists who were formerly Christian.
God works in mysterious ways.
I'm Christian, born and raised, and I think Trump is NOT Christain. Maybe he is being used by God, who knows, but he definitely isn't Christian - he doesn't display any Christian values. He spews hate, and thats certainly not Christian.
What are Christian qualities?
One thing that I personally cherish is being real. Not acting, not pretending to be perfect when I'm not.
I'd rather have a person close to me who is real, that way I know what to expect. Actors and pretenders are far less trustworthy, because they aren't even honest with themselves.
At least with Trump, he's real.
You're right, he's about as real as a cheating husband who sleeps with pornstars and sexually harrasses women.
Or Elvis? Has anyone ever seen them in the same room?
Or Ray Charles. Has anyone ever seen them in the same room? (Never mind, scratch that. Ray would probably notice and probably leave back to the grave. Hmm.)
Jesus healed the disabled but Donald mocked the disabled. Total opposites.
I'm pretty sure my bible tells me that Jesus would never operate a "FAKE" university either, a place where susceptible elderly people and the under-educated were apparently targeted according to reports, and then fleeced of their life savings amid broken promises like Donald and his mega-corrupt family did according to past court complaints filed against them:
Seemed like a Bernie Madoff type scam, and who knows, maybe he's who they got the sinister 'get rich quick scheme' idea from:
Just another reason of hundreds why REAL Christians who plan on going to heaven not the other place down south when they are called home, stay clear of the Trumps because they surely understand that Donald and repulsive unholy preachers such as Jerry Falwell Junior along with complicit republicans in congress who say and do nothing about the mega-corruption and inhumanity, are nothing more than spineless cowardly charlatans who walk the path of darkness and fire, not the righteous path of light and honor:
"Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think"
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cas … -you-think
Hey! What do you mean "down South"? Don't you know better than to insult us Southerners!
Unfortunately, "down South" IS the Bible Belt, I'm ashamed to say. So would you please reword that to "down below". That's what I was taught to say here in the South when speaking the "H" word. LOL
Yes, true Christians (the ones with brains) steer clear from Trump and his corrupt family, who ironically were once German immigrants...
The media exaggerated it. I've actually looked at people and said things like "Duh," who hasn't? Who is perfect?
How can one compare Trump with Jesus? One is image of god and other a petty human
There is no comparison between Jesus and Donald: One represents light and love and the other represents hate, paranoia, racism, violence, and darkness:
Agreed ChristianWritings: It's remarkable to watch, Satan turning otherwise good people BLIND to the truth and light just as he did with Nazi Germany:
Unfortunately, the forces of darkness have infiltrated our ultimate power here in the USA and history dictates it may require a mighty struggle from the righteous to finally expel him and his minions:
emge, Exactly true. just like all of us. Only Trump was elected President of the United States, and most of us will never be elected to that office.
I voted for him the first time, I'll vote for him in 2020 as well.
Good point. Don't forget, for the duration of his ministry, Jesus was homeless by choice. What of the homeless without choice in America? Jesus crossed many borders and offered His universal healthcare through Love.
This is not making a political stance on anything, just if DJT really looked closely at Jesus, he would be quiet or call Him a left leaning radical. To the Romans and the established Jewish priesthood, He was.
That's a very generalized statement. It has no foundation whatsoever.
Making statements without any proof, would be a better definition of darkness.
Are you serious? How many examples of Trump's darkness would you like? I'm not sure I have a few years to take the time to post them all, but here's just one example of not only his disturbing darkness, but his retardation, uncontrollable fits of anger and just plain despicable behavior:
I know the republican party is rapidly shrinking because of him, but how anyone can still be a 'follower' of his is just unimaginable:
But then again, that eerily creepy 'Space Ships of Salvation' guy Marshall Applewhite actually induced many lost souls to drink the koolaid so I guess anyone can manage to bamboozle a flock of gullible humans if he or she tries:
Although Marshall Applewhite was much more intelligent and articulate than "Stubby" Trump, there are many similarities between the two madmen:
Hi JAKE Earthshine,
Yes, I'm very serious.
Are you a Christian? Because that is the perspective that I'm coming from. Not to mention discernment.
I don't care about videos, but your point of view.
I've heard it all really, and I simply don't agree with all of the anti-Trump nonsense.
I come from a Christian perspective and a biblical perspective.
So yes, I'm VERY serious.
Of course you don't care about film footage depicting Donald and all his darkness because it proves the fact that Donald Trump is about as Christian as Lucifer on a bad day:
But here's just another example of his violent nature and incitement:
For the sake of answering, I clicked on the video, and it's something that I saw as it happened. This was a Trump rally, violent leftist showed up, started attacking people, and it's not because of President Trump, it's the half truths that the media pushes.
Plus, I gotta ask you Jake Earthshine, Have you ever heard of self-accountability?
It seems that you are buying into the excuses that the leftist MSM is feeding you, to act out against others, and then blame others for your own actions.
As a Christian, I can tell you that when Cain slew his brother Abel, he himself lashed out, and he himself was held accountable.
That video actually proves my point...try harder please?
Also, stop trying to feed me the leftist P.O.V. which is prevalent.
Speak from your own actual understanding.
And you seem to be 'buying into' the phony "MAGA" nonsense Donald Trump and the rest of the right wing extremists are peddling, same as nazis did in the 1930's and 40's and by the way, my relatives who were part of the allied forces of good, battled in WW2 to defeat the nationalists like Bozo Trump, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller who to this very day is STILL employed at our white house:
Can you give examples of the "Nazi," right wing extremism?
I can give examples of how the democratic politicians are using Nazi type tactics.
I'm not calling you a "NAZI" Earthshine. I'm certainly not one, but the only way I can really answer you is if you provide actual examples that you've personally looked into.
YES, I can give many examples of Bozo Trump's nazi tendencies but not here to you because I already sense a 'fact denier' which means regardless of the number of fact based examples I give you, just like the previous film footage which clearly depict Donald Trump in his dark behavior, you'll simply deny the existence of said evidence so no, I don't play that game any longer with right wing conservatives becaue it's an exercise in futility:
And although his followers are rapidly shrinking in numbers, I now realize that mentally disturbed Donald Trump truly can shoot someone on 5th avenue and still maintain a tiny yet solid core of sheep, after all, he's already done worse than that and a few still remain loyal, for what reason, who knows and who really cares at this point:
How very interesting. You just gave an example of fake news.
Trump will not cut benefits to the elderly.
In fact, I did a check on the very liberal "Snopes," website...here's what it says:
"Did Donald Trump Say He Will Cut Social Security?
The unveiling of a Republican plan to "permanently save Social Security" by cutting some benefits has some wondering what will happen next."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump … -security/
And that "christian perspective" blinds you? You are sitting in the carriage being drawn by a horse. All you can see is the rear end of the horse. You think the charriot has some kind of magical jet propulsion?
Christianity and the bible play hide-n-seek in human minds.
I'm sorry you feel that way Jonnycomelately,
Do you think it's possible that I can experience something that you can't relate to and vice versa?
You have this image of who I am, who I believe, and why I believe as I do. Could you possibly consider that you may not know?
We can only know you, Ann, by what you post here. You show us the side of your life and your way of thinking that you want us to see.
Here you see my skeptical, satyrical perception of intentionally blind religious thought, by those who think they are blessed by a non-existent deity.
That's true, we can only know one another by what we share. How do you know that, in your words, I'm a "intentionally blind," thinker.
I actually used to think the same way, but then I came to the realization that it was my own closed mind that prevented me from seeing the truth.
It takes a very open mind to begin seeking the truth. It's far more intelligent to not simply write something off when we actually don't know what's behind it at all.
Yet you presume, Ann, that your beliefs in your God and your bible are all about the truth which you have decided to accept; and that those "truths" must apply to everyone else - and the destiny of your country.
Correct, I don't know that you are a blind thinker. Make that judgement of your self for your self.
We all can do the same.
Actually, that's not a correct assumption.
My beliefs have nothing to do with it. The truth has everything to do with it, and I couldn't begin to go into that with you as you already reject the truth.
You may call me what you will, but I will maintain that it is you who is closed minded because you won't even consider possibilities beyond what you can see, touch, and smell.
I sure wish you would consider, and maybe admit that there are things that you just don't know, or understand. I have to tell you that one day, you'll know that I'm telling you the truth. This is not an opinion. It's a fact that is more solid than the ground you walk on.
Just so you know, if you'd ever like to talk more on this subject, feel free to message me.
Well that's all Trump does. He can't tell the truth. He's a lying sack of shit.
What worries us more is the advisors stacked behind him - annonymous group of individials with ulterior motives.
Hi jonny! It's been more than a year. Great to hear from you!
Well exactly. His base are people like the KKK and other fundamentalist Christians as well other fanatics and ultra right conservatives. He's in love with dictators and clearly wants to be one. It astounds me that apparently close to 50 percent of US citizens don't see this guy as a danger the likes of which they've never known. Trump is Putin's puppet. Reagan must be rolling in his grave looking for his gun. Not to mention McCarthy.
I can only hope Muller is allowed to finish his job. .
I'd also like to ask you Jake Earthshine, If it is at all possible to have a reasonable conversation without all of the name calling, and anti-Trump slang? I mean, it really doesn't help your cause.
It does indeed help my cause and if my recollection is correct, you asked for proof of Donald Trump's 'darkness' and anti-Christianity and I'm simply providing you with facts in the form of film footage to prove he's the most unholy individual to ever be perched in our oval office and we'll just get much more of his darkness, violence, paranoia and insanity like he and republicans sabotaging our healthcare system and caging innocent children if republicans maintain control of congress on NOV 6th:
You provided an Inside Edition clip...I saw the actual event play out. Leftists showed up and begin attacking Trump supporters. There's zero excuse for it.
The actual violence is coming from the left. The only times I've seen any violence from the right, is when they fought back against leftists attacking them. I stand against violence on either side. It's completely unacceptable.
Now if you want to talk about healthcare systems. Since Obama-Care came into play, my insurance premiums skyrocketed to the point that I skip groceries for a week out of each month. I pay incredibly high premiums (higher than my house payment,) and I have far less coverage.
Obama actually "caged," children,and even handed them over to traffickers. If you don't believe me...check Snopes. Also, most of the "kids in cages," that MSM has been pushing, were taken from people who were proven to not even be related to them. Would you have rather let those innocent children be trafficked like Obama did?
Everyone check it.
You seem to be deliberately in the dark, while you accuse others of being there. You've covered your own eyes, and let the root of bitterness grow up in your heart.
* Everyone knows the violence comes from Bozo trump's office and the right wing republicans:
* ObamaCare covers ALL Illnesses and pre-existing conditions so if your current policy has LESS coverage you should check it, it could be one of Bozo trump's "JUNK" insurance policies that are a little less expensive, but cover far less: Trump's "JUNK" health insurance policy is about as useless as a "Trump University Diploma"
* Your health insurance premiums just like mine, are skyrocketing because Bozo Trump without haste and without regard for human suffering, terminated subsidies which were used by impoverished Americans to purchase health insurance and he also removed the mandate hence, less Americans paying insurance premiums hence yours and my health insurance premiums are skyrocketing:
But don't worry, if republicans maintain complete control of congress after NOV 6th, they will simply continue to sabotage our entire healthcare system bringing us backward to square one in the stone age:
BTW, if you have parents or aunts and uncles brothers or sisters, Mitch "Mutt" McConnell and his republicans have already vowed to SLASH their medicare and social security just so weirdo Steve Mnuchin can buy a few more mansions:
I'm so sorry Jake Earthshine,
I had to giggle as I read your comment, as it's worded in a way that I see with every anti-Trump person.
You know, I wasn't a big fan of Obama's. I didn't vote for him, but I accepted the results of the election and I respected the office in which he occupied.
I don't recall ever walking past a car that had an Obama bumper sticker and feeling the desire to key it. Nor did I ever feel the desire to assault a person for wearing an Obama T-shirt. I even prayed for him.
I honestly, was happy when he left office, but during his time in office, I automatically accepted that he was my president, and I respected that he was.
You are telling me that i should be paying lower rates for my health insurance, but there are no lower rates.
Before Obama care was in place, I took some medical classes. One of the things that I learned is that the middle class Americans get the highest costs when it comes to health insurance. The very wealthy doesn't have to worry much about it, and the very poor doesn't have to worry because the middle-class pick up the huge losses that doctors and hospitals incur.
When Obama Care kicked in, that entire system did NOT change. It only added financial burdens to the middle class, and premiums went sky high to cover, not only the needs of people sneaking into our nation, but also to help America's poor. The more people who have needs, the higher the premiums climb for the middle class. Don't think I didn't spend months researching my options.
With the high premiums currently in place, the more people who come in and draw on our healthcare system, the higher the cost rise for the middle class.
I honestly don't mind paying a little higher to help fellow Americans get the help they need.
If the borders were suddenly opened, there would be a rush of people from different nations coming into the USA, because who doesn't want to live here? Under that type of situation, the entire Obamacare system would collapse.
The first people to feel it would be America's poor. Our policies already offer free healthcare to people who come into the nation illegally, and they would continue to get that care before American homeless people, and families who are currently in poverty in our country.
Obama's policies are what drove costs as high as they are, and his open border policies (or Catch and release,) will collapse under the globalist agenda.
People are not going to continue working to pay for housing, medical, and the education of millions of others when the cost is so heavy on them. When nobody wants to work to pay for all of this "stuff," where do you think the money will come from?
People keep saying, "we can afford it." No we can not.
That is the problem with socialism.
People like to say that Social Security for the elderly and disabled is "socialism." It's not, it's different in that those who are elderly drawing Social Security paid far more into it during the years that they worked.
With Socialism, a person who doesn't work purposely, still gets paid, at the cost of the hard work of others.
I agree Social Security shouldn't be touched. Our elderly need to be taken care of.
P.S. Obama Care is still in place, the democrats will not allow any positive changes. Paul Ryan, a Rino....made sure that Obama Care have very few changes.
You can't possibly blame President Trump for that. The democrats are obstructing just about everything President Trump does, and even through that, he's accomplished more than any other POTUS in our lifetimes.
Right now our economy is fantastic. I'm seeing "Help Wanted," signs all over the place, and our unemployment is at record lows.
If the democrats take over, say goodbye to our outstanding economy.
If you don't want social security and medicare to be 'touched' you must VOTE Blue across the board and that's just a simple fact because here's exactly what will happen if we continue to give an insane unholy madman megalomaniac like Bozo Trump and his complicit republicans COMPLETE Power as they have right now:
The elderly guy who will be leading the way to push your family members into poverty by SLASHING their social security and medicare benefits is Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell who drove Kentucky into the 5th poorest state in the union:
"As GOP Moves to Cut Medicare and Social Security, 60% of Americans Say Repeal Trump Tax Scam Instead"
"Working families shouldn't have to pay for the GOP tax bill. The rich and big corporations must pay their fair share of taxes!"
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ … p-tax-scam
"U.S. Census Bureau: Kentucky has Fifth-Highest Poverty Rate in the Nation"
http://www.wkyufm.org/post/us-census-bu … n#stream/0
What's really unsettling is that, for most American children, the idea of growing up and becoming President of the United States, is a dream.
When an outsider finally does it, those who have been in control for far too long actually rise up against the person we chose to represent us. Nobody who goes against the globalist agenda will ever be accepted by the powers that be.
John F. Kennedy tried to warn us. He even asked for our help in showing others what was happening. Now it's right out in the open...and people are standing against the freedom of our nation. The video is less than 2 minutes long. In his own words. Please, at least give it a chance. Give him a chance to tell you. He was killed for it.
A person that openly mocks, ridicules, and badmouths his fellow Americans... a person that has unmarried sex with a porn star...a person that openly brags about grabbing women by their privates...using the same mouth that brags about doing such unauthorized things to women to then claim/brag that he is a follower of Christ has no merit, in my small opinion, of making such a claim.
The leader of this great country should strive, always, to be above the slandering of their own countrymen/women. To be above sleazy sex with a porn star. To be above bragging about what he/she can get away with doing to women, or the opposite sex. He/she should do better, especially, by definition, when they claim to be a follower of Christ.
If one dismisses or overlooks such behaviors because he says he's a Christian, I have to ask, is he really a follower of Christ or just a Christian? There is a HUGE difference to me. I cannot help but wonder, does he claim to be Christian largely because that helps to get him votes/elected in a predominantly Christian nation?
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe he has done many things for Christians. Has he done more than anyone? I don't know, I honestly cannot say. I truly, truly hope, though, that that's not all that matters...that that's not the only focus of his presidency. (I'm not accusing the OP of necessarily meaning or implying this).
Shouldn't he, as President of EVERYONE in this great nation in 2018, strive for and be focused on the betterment of EVERYONE in this country equally and not just or MAINLY for those that are in the largest and predominant religious group? All Americans are Americans and our president should think of and act for us all. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, Atheist, etc...all colors, all creeds, all races, all genders...ALL.
In this day and age and beyond, if a POTUS cannot or does not deliver on that, he/she should not be President.
This is just my opinion, of course. To each his/her own as is his/her right.
Melissa Meadow, you do understand that all of us are sinners right?
I'm glad that God doesn't judge us in that way. We'd all be in a lot of trouble.
Did you know that God can use anyone? Did you know that Cyrus, (whom God used to free Israel from Babylon) didn't even know who God was?
Is there anyone else here who knows what I'm talking about? Why are only the anti-Trump people throwing their rhetoric out there while those who know what's actually happening are being silent?
All of the things that you said, Melissa Meadows, are things that can be drawn from any human being. I recall a man who came out, and even testified publicly that he had "relations," with Obama.
Don't be a double talker. If you want a perfect leader, Jesus is the only perfect one who walked on this earth.
I'm baffled at one thing. How is it that so many can't see what's happening all around us?
The evidence of Globalism is out there..it's right in front of everyone, and people choose to hate President Trump more than they want to see the truth.
If you are claiming to be a Christian, you should know very well what is happening right now.
How is it that so many don't?
By your standards, King David didn't qualify to be a King in Israel. Yet God chose him.
I assure you, I'm baffled as well.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Please do not make assumptions about me and since you're only going to try to convince me that I'm wrong or incorrect or misled or mistaken, or led astray, corrupt, etc. because I do not agree or align with your "truth", I request that you please do not address me further at all. Thank you.
I have every right to state my opinion here as you do. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I did not address you in any specific way in my previous posting, I only and simply stated my own opinion in an open to anyone forum, so please stop trying to bait me into an redundant argument with the whole "I'm (You are) a better Christian than you (me, I am) and here's why". I find your tone condescending and 'holier than thou' and I'm flat out just not about it.
Well said Melissa: the only thing Mr. Trump has done for Christians is to EXPOSE many of it's leaders such as Jerry Falwell Junior, to be the unholy charlatans they truly are, the phonies we always thought they were, taking money from their flocks under FALSE pretenses, pretending they were worshipers of God when in reality they are not: Just like the orange elderly unholy guy in the white house I guess:
When God takes Donald down at his or her time of choosing, it will be swift and harsh, many of his remaining followers will be OUT of God's good graces as well:
I have never seen so much vulgarity and hatefulness from people who claim to be Christians.
The two atheists on this thread for far more pleasant.
I don't know who you're talking about but here's a FACT: This once great crumbling nation called the USA has never experienced such a crazy, self absorbed, narcissistic, mentally deranged, hateful, paranoid, vulgar and vile traitor who is systematically undermining our country like the elderly guy perched in our oval office right now:
I have faith that God will soon take away his power and expel him to the depths where he and many of his republican accomplices belong:
No, that's where you're wrong. Did you see the video where John F Kennedy explained what was happening? It's less than two minutes long. In it he talks about the globalists, and he talks about a secret society that has its tentacles in every facet of our Government.
Listen carefully, then consider what's happening all around the world.
Jim Morrison said: "“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”
That is completely true. Step back from your anger for a few minutes and at least consider that there's far more behind the news you're hearing and reality.
Then go research George Soros, and the open society foundation. He's part of the New World Order.
P.S. Hitler used the media to push propaganda, and he managed to kill millions of human beings. The same globalists are in control of the media NOW.
Why do you think the media has been against Trump since before the election? He's a threat to the globalist plan, and he may be our last defense against complete tyranny. Pay attention, please.
I've known this was coming since Bush Sr. was in office. Since I was a kid.
Do not help them along. This is a battle between good and evil.
I'm not even sure what you're even talking about Annkf but the fact still remains and it will always remain that until God removes him from power or he's indicted and impeached and finally tossed out on his flat head, we will be forced to endure the most vile, vicious, angry, simple minded, racist nut case illegitimate president in the HISTORY of this republic: An unprecedented, extremely dangerous and code red situation:
I wish you knew. I wish you would look into things for yourself.
This is a very serious time, but it's totally opposite of what you think.
I'll leave it at that. And say it was a pleasure meeting everyone, and discussing these issues...
lol funny how if youre not a Trump supporter you're labelled as an athiest?
Annkf remember that refraining from idolatry is one of God's ten commandments (Exodus 20: 3-6)
From a genuine Christian on the other side of the pond, one who thinks Trump is a joke (in a totally non-hateful, but more pitiful way)
Excuse me, I did not label everyone as atheists. I'm was speaking of two on this thread who told me that they are atheists. I commented that they were more pleasant than most Christians on this thread.
Do you always look at half a picture before you speak or form an opinion?
Hey Jean! I agree! Leave Annkf to wear her tinfoil hat. She mentioned Ritalin earlier, so I'm guessing she's familiar with the brand...
I for one am a non-American Christian (but have lived there most of my life), and I agree with you on most of what you say, Republican Christians in America are way off on such a tangent that they have made it all about 'religion' and not AT ALL about 'Christ' and His teachings of love, and acceptance, trust and tolerance. Only true Christians (aka the non-religious ones) know that all races, genders and nationalities need to be respected. But for some reason the Trump supporters are a ''special kind'' they only listen to their p****-grabbing orange leader and call him a Christian (which for the life of me I cannot fathom why) or their 'saviour destined to take down the globalist agenda' (HA!) He is only filling his and his buddies pockets, sadly the Presidency is baically another 'get-rich' scheme for him. I really pity all the good people in America and pray that he doesn't get re-elected in 2020!
Well said Christian-Writings: If the USA is still a land of laws which is now an open question unfortunately, the despicable orange perched in our oval office will be either imprisoned or worse very soon for his Crimes Against Humanity which continue to this very day, and blatant betrayal of our country, and that applies to his corrupt republican cohorts as well:
Perhaps OJ Simpson or Roy Moore or even the BONES of Charles Manson could be potential republican presidential candidates in 2020, they might be available and republicans simply adore CRAZIES, but it sure won't be the madman currently roaming the grounds of our severely degraded and disrespected white house:
All I can say is when God reigns down on the Trump's as punishment for all their blatant corruption and dark fowl deeds here on Earth, and he must lay his hand upon them sooner or later at his time of choosing, it will be with great disappointment in his sons and daughters: Trump cultees although not in their right minds which may be taken into consideration, will also be in serious jeopardy of the Wrath of God for their association and support of such an evil charlatan presidential impostor:
absolutely! The followers (although clearly not in their right minds and probably part of some weird MK Ultra experiment) will have to answer to God for allowing themselves to be fooled by their 'amazing', 'Christian' racist, xenophobia-inciting orange leader.
"You shall know them by their fruit."
Christian-Writer. You are a very vulgar human.
Though it doesn't matter what I think. God sees you and hears you.
So carry on...
Believe me Annkf, God saw this too: Sorry, but REAL Christians would never tell other Christians to VOTE for an alleged child molester like Donald did and Bozo Trump will never get into heaven nor will his last remaining bamboozled fans:
I'm sure he understands this now, at this point he's probably just trying to take as many gullible souls down into the pit with him, plain and simple:
Exactly Jake Earthshine! Its just astounding how many people are fooled by him, and how many people will go down with him too.
It's really sad to listen to these people. They think they are superior to all of us, but Jesus hung around with all the people who had nothing as far as possessions or money. ANNkf called you "vulger." A real Christian, or even a decent person, wouldn't call you names because you have different views. That's what makes life interesting, right? I gave up on organized religion after searching for years. I am a Pagan, an astrologer, and a student of metaphysics, with some Buddhist precepts thrown in. It works for me and I don't judge others.
I suspect these "rabid" Christians never even studied the Bible or even thought about it much. It's all about feeling better than others.
Thank you Jean! You're absolutely right, they are intolerant of opposing views, different races, genders and different nationalities. Which makes them fascists. And your'e right, they dont know the Bible nor the essence of who Jesus really was. Yes! He hung out with lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors. How is it that Trump supporters only follow what he (Trump) does? As if Trump can do no wrong. Thats idolatry. God didn't write that as one of the commandments, for people to take lightly or out of context. These Trumpets idolize that vile, fake, greedy, racist man. Its just sad really. Christ is all about LOVE. These people, and their leader President dont show ANY of it.
There is a great divide in the Christian community which, not caused by Trump, was magnified by Trump.
I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are yours. My opinion is that Trump is a joke, and has people like you blinded.
I think Donald Trump is a fraud and he would say or do anything just to get elected as the President of the US because that's what he wanted. He is totally obsessed with power and thinks very much like a fascist and a white supremacist. I certainly don't equate his thoughts and his behavior as anywhere near what Jesus Christ or what a true Christian is all about! Being so prejudiced against others based on their ethnicity and also treating some people so unfairly is just not what I consider a true Christian to be. And what about his corruption in using the presidency to enrich himself and cheat others? His hypocritical behavior reminds me of those that were corrupting the House of the Lord with their vice while at the same time masquerading as righteous who Jesus called out for denigrating his Father's temple! Let's not forget the lessons of history when Hitler and the Nazis used Christianity for justifying their horrific crimes against millions of people just because they were of different ethnicity and also because in Hitler's eyes they were less than human. Haven't we heard that phrase before from the lips of Donald Trump? Is that really consonant with Christianity? I doubt it! We need to be careful about letting ourselves believe anything without subjecting it to critical thinking and looking more closely at that person's actions and speech before we just believe anything that they tell us and will claim anything just to grab power and influence over others that they know can be easily swayed. If we want to maintain our Democracy, we need to be more vigilant, ask more questions, and subject that person and his actions to a more rigorous examination! And the real truth will emerge. After all, much is at stake!
Well Said Lora: Donald Trump is about as Christian as the dreg who he retweeted named Benito Mussolini, but we must have faith that the Good Lord will step in at the time of his choosing to halt Mr. Trump's unholy, mad, narcissistic reign of insanity:
Unfortunately, when Donald Trump was inserted into our white house by a minority of racists and white nationalists supported by our enemies in Russia, the deep dark forces were unleashed in our oval office and it may take a mighty struggle of super human proportions by our forces of "Good and Righteousness" to finally REMOVE him:
Amen! Fully agree. It's all part of God's plan, to sift out His real people from the false prophets I believe He has everything under control, because lets face it, all this idiot in the oval office is doing is BRINGING the good people (jews and gentiles alike) together! And that is something we can rejoice over!
I agree with you Christian. God is sovereign over all that goes on. He allows things to have to teach us and grow us. We need to study His Word to seek His guidance in difficult and trying times.
Well said! Amen!
I watched President Trump's Michigan rally last night.
A woman in the crowd collapsed, and President Trump stopped the rally to make sure she was alright. As doctors and medics went over to help the woman, the entire crowd broke out in song. They sang, Amazing Grace.
It was incredible!
It's something that nobody will ever see at a democrat/liberal rally. Last year democrats boo'd God at a convention.
Here's a link to the HUGE Trump rally crowd singing, "Amazing Grace."
There's nothing but love when conservatives come together.
President Trump is the best president in USA history. He is not only a president that stands for all Americans, he's standing with us against Globalist.
He's a real life HERO.
God is with him and with those of us who have prayed for years that the corruption in our government would be stopped.
A woman in the crowd collapsed, and President Trump stopped the rally to make sure she was alright.
He's a real life HERO.
“So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died. And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away. ‘Oh my God! This is terrible! This is disgusting!’ and you know, they’re turning away. Nobody wants to help the guy. His wife is screaming—she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming.
What happens is, these 10 Marines from the back of the room… they come running forward, they grab him, they put the blood all over the place—it’s all over their uniforms—they’re taking it, they’re swiping [it], they ran him out, they created a stretcher. They call it a human stretcher, where they put their arms out with, like, five guys on each side,
I was saying, ‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting! The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say Is he’s OK?” - Trump
Yes, a Hero.
I've actually been looking for the context, or a complete (full) video where that statement was recorded. MSM has a way of chopping videos in bits, and showing it in a way that will draw on a person's emotion rather than logic.
I haven't found it yet, but I'll keep looking.
I recall the "Coy fish," story..."Trump dumped all the fish food in the coy pond, and probably killed all the fish!"
When I looked into it, President Trump did dump the food into the pond, only after the Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dumped all of his fish food into the pond. MSM totally misrepresented it, and it was stunningly obvious. I've found that to be the case 99% of the time.
There are actually bigger things happening than the half truths that seem to get spread around too easily.
Some people have the ability to look through all the fake news clutter, some see a much bigger picture and actually know that the majority of MSM is owned by globalists, and others...like to get spitting mad and riot, and call people names that aren't true, like "racist, misogynist nazis," which is beyond stupid. It actually reveals that many who hate President Trump are completely emotionally led.
You can tell who is emotionally immature when they mention words that sound like something a four year old would utter. Such as: "Drump!" or The "Orange Cheeto!"
Those things don't bother me one bit. What does bother me is the blatant disrespect for YOUR president, (If you are an American Citizen, Trump IS your President.)
Now that is 100% REAL NEWS
At any rate, I hope anyone who hasn't voted today will go out and vote.
To those who voted RED, MAGA!!!!!
Thank you for the link.
This was recorded on the Howard Stern Show in 2008.
Trump started the story with, "I'm not good with the medical stuff." How SHOCKING, some people are actually not good at being around blood? Impeach him!...(I'm kidding of course.)
It's sad, but I personally don't like the sight of blood either.
That's awesome that the Marines took a stand. It sounds like they did an awesome job of taking care of the man.
The story sounded typical of being in a room filled with self entitled rich people, but those people could have been anyone. People react differently to emergency situations.
Trump finishes with, "he was okay," and "I just don't like the sight of blood.
He answered it quite well. God bless our Military men and women. They are the backbone of our nation. That was actually a great story that shows how awesome our military people are.
(Unless is a woman period. Ha.)
Well said IslandBites! Thing is, these Trumpets are brainwashed...so no use pointing out facts to them, they'll just call it 'fake news', like climate change. Lol they don't get tired of being proven wrong it seems.
I totally agree with your comment here, Tim. Being a true Christian is all about working together to solve problems and showing love for all mankind not just some based on race or ethnicity. Maybe now, things get done, because hopefully people will work together to accomplish important objectives to help our planet heal and improve the lives of all people. "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth."
Thanks, Lora. I say amen and I would feel comfortable worshiping anywhere you go to honor Him. (That includes: church, home, etc.) You think like a true American and a compassionate human being.
You've had 3000 years. The church ruled most of the world for 1600 hundred years. No amount of time is going get everyone "cleaned up" in god's way, as you put it. Christianity is dying around the world, and will eventually be like other out of fashion religions; practiced by a few here and there. We can only hope it dies gracefully.
Ah but it depends - religion (common) may die, but true Christianity will live on, and conquer it all someday.
There we go again, defining His concept of time by our standards.
His understanding is eternal and nonlinear and not dependent on any variables but the ones He chooses. Our grasp of time is linear, limited, and full of mistakes.
I was talking about "cleaning" sheets, not souls. Sheets only take a few hours, our souls only take an instance.
If DJT believes he's done much for Christians, etc., do you think I can borrow some of those expensive sheets. I am a sheet snob. (Bless me.)
Never mind. Walmart works.
I approach this topic with love and humor; peace on Earth, Good will to all!
Not likely, sorry. Religions last 2 to 3000 years, then die out. Christianity isn't special. You were the majority, now your heading toward minority. Short of god actually showing up, there's no way back now.
But Slarty, you have to belieeeeve, man! You need to put aside aaaalllll the logic you ever came across. Then get on your kneeeeez, and feeeel yourself bad, bad, baaaaad. Then say to an imaginary being....Yes Looooord!
Sorry I am being so facetious, but being basically good, having consideration for your neighbour, whoever he/she might be....and learning all the lessons which life throws at you....all this can happen independent of any god, heaven or hell.
Lucky, aren't we?
Or you could not. Hell doesn't care whether you believe or not, man.
Yes, your god created everything in a way that everything must kill something every day to survive. These things suffer pain as we do. He created diseases, suffering, and evil. And you can honestly believe it's better than any satan you can imagine?
That goes for any conscious creater who did this with intent.
If there's no god, there's no evil intent in this and it's just the way it is.
No conscious being could be forgiven for doing this. Lucky there likely isn't one.
lol Slarty, thats perfect, because it means the Bible is correct (again). There will be less and less believers. And yes, most Christians are annoying happy clappers, but you DO get some that are genuinely good people, and if you met them they'd never mention God/religion, but just help those in need. However, our mandate is to get the word of hope out there somehow to illuminate the paths of nonbelievers, because if it weren't for hope, some people would be prettttttty depressed. Oh wait. They already are. Nevermind.
Right you are, Tim.
I've never been depressed or bored. No god required. And world government is a good idea if done right.
And the people who wrote the bible weren't stupid. It didn't take a god to tell them nonbelievers would increase. It's always been that way. Who's trending today? For how long? Fans increase for a while, then they decline. It's just the way it is.
I have news for you, Christianwritings.
God is man-made and he/she/it is defined as one who meets a human need ---- and since there is a current human population of 7.5 billion (and counting each time my finger touches a button ), that implies a potential of 7.5+ billion imaginings of god.
Right you are. Every Christian has a different god. I've learned that from arguing with them. And see how obvious it is from how they argue with each other? What one believes, another doesn't.
I blame the Protestants, of course. Everything was standardized under Rome. Protestantism divided it in to a free for all and killed the religion. lol... Thank god.
Yet, as I have said before, here and elsewhere, personally I have nothing against any person having any belief(s) they choose, provided it remains personal, appropriate with the culture in which they live and not lied about, forced upon others as the only religion that must be accepted.
I warm to those who find their beliefs serve them well. But not to those who use it, and people, as their political playthings.
I agree with you, of course. People have a natural right to believe or not believe what ever they like, and I'd fight against any attempt to make any belief illegal. Or anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others, be it a religions person or an atheist. These beliefs are personal and should remain so. The trouble is, Christianity and Islam insist all must believe and adhere to their doctrine. Now that does need to be outlawed.
Christians might say if you don't believe you're going to hell but this country,even back when localities were run by Christians, had no laws allowing the murder of people who have different beliefs.
Don't lump modern day Christianity with Islam.
Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. Till the 1600s Christians burned each other and others as heretics. The US burned so called witches, and slavery was often justified by passages in the bible.
Its not the time, its the ideology that can be deadly if they gain power
For goodness sake. The only ideology that purports to believe barbaric and violent customs of times long past make sense today is Islam.
There isn't a soul alive who doesn't know the history of the Abrahamic religions. The only souls today who somehow believe religious history must be viewed separately from the history of civilization as a whole are disingenuous people with a mission.
I’ve found that many Christians don’t know much about their religion’s history. For one thing, Jesus, according to the bible, said not one of the original laws were dropped. It’s Paul, someone who never met Jesus, who said some of the Old Testament laws were no longer applied.
It’s also true that Islam began as a very peaceful and inclusive religion, tolerant of other religions, And it’s true priest wrote the supposed words of Mohamed as neither he nor Jesus wrote anything. Muslims’ were doing great in the world. Their science far out did Western countries of the time. They even knew how to treat plague by opening and washing the blisters. The Catholic church forbid doctors in the west from doing that. The scientific method was invented by a Muslim in1000 CE
But by 1100 CE, fanatic clerics started taking over telling everyone all the knowledge they needed was in the Koran, and science outside that was heresy. They’ve been splitting up in to factions since, and now we have fanatic radicals trying to spread their brand of religion throughout the world by force.
Christianity started with many friendly cults. They all had different texts and beliefs. For 300 plus years they were peaceful, we’re told. But one of the reasons Rome persecuted them was because some factions destroyed Roman temples. Not many know that.
Then Rome took over the religion, outlawed all the factions and cults, standardized their texts and beliefs, made god a trinity as they so often did, and made Jesus god. Something the Egyptian church rejected, and were deemed heretics for and slaughtered. After that, the inquisitions lasted officially till the 1960s., though not many were killed for heresy after the1800s.
In the 1600s came the reform. That sent the western world to war. In the end the Roman church lost power and the religion crumbled into hundreds of factions and cults.
The point is, when any belief that says it is the only right belief takes power, others suffer. Violence is inherent in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. It’s also inherent in many ideologies of political and other natures. Anything that is certain it is right and everything else is evil/wrong.
Right now there are few theocratic Christian nations. But that doesn’t mean some Christians in the US wouldn’t like it if you were a theocracy.
The only thing that keeps the peace is a multicultural society where religion is protected, but also the right to try to force your personal beliefs on others is outlawed.
Being born Catholic and becoming an atheist, I have no agenda but truth. How about you?
I'm afraid it is the non religious, like the overly religious who demand the letter and not the spirit be abided by. Jesus did, himself, point out the purpose of the law and the simplicity of it. You are welcome to rail against it, but I say you harbor resentment because you misunderstand it. Love God and give your neighbor the same treatment you expect for yourself and the law is fulfilled.
It's lawyers, biblists and atheists who find that difficult.
History does not change truth, no matter how often it is basterdized by those who try to make themselves look bright, godly or whatever.
I will add that Jesus not recording a word was pure genius. It was not a mistake. Christians in this country played a major role in ensuring the separation of church and state be incorporated into our constitution. Don't be fooled by people yakking as if what we are is not exactly what those who supported the ideal of separation in the pulpits of that time intended. Back then, it was Christians persecuting other Christians, but those being persecuted rejoiced in the fact that no one of any religion, or lack thereof, would have to go through that in this nation.
We atheists are often criticised, sometimes for generalising. But we are not the only ones, obviously.
You speak of Jesus as having been an actual person who lived, yet there is some doubt.....no authentic documentation. No proof.
You speak as though we, everyone, must come to accept as true, stories about god, etc. Christianity feels a need to evangelise, as though to do so will bring a ficticious god and jesus to reality.
As a person with atheistic understanding I feel no need to convert you and your religious views into line with my own, only ask that you will not try to change me.
I would never deign to suggest anyone change their beliefs. I raise an eyebrow when someone tells me what I'm supposed to believe. And that is what that atheist is attempting to do. Insist everyone share his belief.
You may have a point. The atheist insists that no belief system is right or superior...and expects the believer to understand and accept that concept. Or at least behave as if they do.
....and the believer expects the atheist to "understand and accept the concept" that their belief system is right or superior?
So that puts us all on a level playing field, right?
Ditto to the atheist. I can't count the number of atheists who approach the argument as if they are morally superior.
Heck. Let's be honest. There isn't an atheist I've run across who has joined the fray who doesn't approach the argument as if they believe themselves to be morally superior.
You need to meet more people
Actually, the online atheists are the nicest I've met. The ones in real life who think their belief is important enough to share are quite rude.
In a very general sense, most if not all religions lag behind the rest of society in what they find to be moral. It is only as the people themselves, driven by others outside the religion, begin to change their moral structure that religion is drug, often kicking and screaming about God's will, into civilization.
I hear that a lot too. Funny, since it was Christianity which drove the march to the Western civilization we enjoy today.
But, I get it. You weren't by any chance raised in a backward religious sect? I find that to usually be the case when presented with this particular argument.
If you're referring to Democracy, nope this was a concept that existed before any of the major religions that exist today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o … ic_origins
Nope wasn't talking about democracy, specifically. Of course that been around for a very long time. Historically including some very barbaric customs. I'm talking about a system that has allowed the steady progress toward better human rights and more inclusive societies.
LOL If anything Christianity drove the fight to slow, not progress towards the civilization we enjoy today. You might look up what religion did to Galileo, or Darwin. Almost any new knowledge fell afoul of religious beliefs (read: what the high priesthood declared to be true) and only heretics would promote such things; heretics that were fit only for death.
Well, I guess if "backward" means they have the only true way to God, I suppose that's true. They had their own quaint ways of separating the flock from the public, but then doesn't every religion? Their practices don't hold a candle to the pomp and ceremony of the Catholic church, and the beliefs aren't nearly as strange as that of Mormons. Adventists, with the insistence that they, and they alone, know when the "7th day" was come to mind as a little "backward" as well. For that matter it's hard to conceive of anything more "backward" than the wild tales told in Genesis!
(Is it "backward" for millions to actually think that people can live for days on end in the belly of a fish? Or that a zombie, 3 days dead and rotting, actually walked the earth 2,000 years ago? That there are disembodied, invisible "demons" that take over our bodies at will but that can be "cast out" into pigs?
What is "backward"?)
It all depends on perspective. If 70% of America calls themselves Christian, today, and a higher percentage historically...and Christianity is defined by you then tell me...why do we have gay marriage allowed? Why did localities vote to approve it? Why do we have legal abortion? Why do women have equal rights? How was slavery abolished? How did we end up with separation of church and state? If the majority was,and is, Christian.
As to your take on the Bible that is your take. Mine differs. I'm still a Christian.
Your interpretation and your beliefs do not define Christianity. It defines you. If your definition was the predominant one we would live in a very different world.
Maybe you need to explore the probability it is time to rethink.
Truthfully, I do not think our morality set differs that much. Beliefs may, but not the belief in what is right and wrong - only in the supernatural part of Christianity.
But you and I would be 2 of those voting for gay marriage, and frankly neither of us would likely have done so 50 years ago. Not a statement on either one of us, just the prevailing attitude of society then - an attitude that changed in society long before the church (most but not all of them) changed their official stance. The Church (meaning a conglomeration of all Christian sects) is still dragging it's feet even though society has moved ahead and done what is right. It is moving, but slowly as always, and will eventually catch up. It's been doing it for centuries.
"How did we end up with separation of church and state?"
That happened, pure and simple, because different colonies (notably perhaps the Puritans) had different ideas on what God wanted, and NONE of them wanted a different viewpoint to become law. Don't forget that the constitution allows STATES to form and require a religion, although that has been declared illegal now. At the time it was expected and allowed, though.
I agree with everything you said here. This is getting weird .
LOL Isn't that the case with any discussion on religion? Especially when the debaters try hard to be civil and actually discuss rather than simply spout their particular belief as factual!
Nice? Certainly, but you have (quite often) come across as believing yourself morally superior. No?
Is questioning bigotry being morally superior?
Is questioning the presumption of a religiously-adamant person that they are doing the work of a trumped-up vision of a god - is that questioning being morally superior? If it is, then I humbly plead guilty! m'lod.
Bigotry - yes. Natural as bigotry is no long accepted as being moral by most people.
Presumption - no. Question the source of data or the rationale behind a conclusion has nothing to do with morality.
I can agree that questioning bigotry is what we should do. There is nothing bigoted about the message Jesus shared. But, the word Christian comes from Christ. To chalk hatred up to his name is foolish.
I'm not an atheist but I also believe no system of belief is, across the board, superior. Each system helps its adherent to function in the world and make sense of it. We can argue the merits, for the individual, but if we approach the argument as if the individual must hold the belief in the way we would, or did, it is really more of an argument against self.
Don't know that I can agree with that. Religions typically "help" people to live in that religion, but not in any other culture. Women in Islam, for instance, are not taught to support themselves, and some Christian sects remain that way today. Gays were, and still are, tortured into agreeing they are not gay so they can live in the religious world. Some of this is due to organized religion vs "belief religion" but certainly not all.
More importantly is that religion denies any non-adherents much of anything at all; often not even the rights that adherents have. (Not a Mormon? You will work here only until I can find a reason to fire you.)
Yeh. That's true of Islam and I'm sure some other religions, in some countries. Which is why separation of church and state works quite nicely.
“I'm afraid it is the non religious, like the overly religious who demand the letter and not the spirit be abided by. Jesus did, himself, point out the purpose of the law and the simplicity of it. You are welcome to rail against it, but I say you harbor resentment because you misunderstand it. Love God and give your neighbor the same treatment you expect for yourself and the law is fulfilled.”
You prove my point. You all have different interpretations of the bible. That means you’re not to be trusted if given power. The fanatics will demand you adhere to all the laws and kill you if you don’t. Moderates exist too and you all seem to be reading different books or picking and choosing what you like. You’re dangerous. But as long as you don’t have power you’re kept in check.
“It's lawyers, biblists and atheists who find that difficult. “
Or people who can read?
“History does not change truth, no matter how often it is basterdized by those who try to make themselves look bright, godly or whatever.”
Right. But history can show what the truth is. Obviously you guessing and picking and choosing can’t change the truth, whatever it might be. Until you can prove your god exists, it’s speculation, not fact. So whatever you think is the truth, you can’t know it is, no matter how much you think you do.
“I will add that Jesus not recording a word was pure genius. It was not a mistake.”
Right. He was illiterate. Pure genius indeed. Lol… What do you base that bit of illogical insight on?
“ Christians in this country played a major role in ensuring the separation of church and state be incorporated into our constitution.”
Yes sir. I won’t deny that and in fact, I’ve pointed that out myself several times.
“Back then, it was Christians persecuting other Christians, but those being persecuted rejoiced in the fact that no one of any religion, or lack thereof, would have to go through that in this nation.”
Well we agree on some things. And that’s all Atheists are fighting to maintain. But America is being more fundamentalist as time goes by. Don’t forget, the KKK claim to be devout Christians.
Won wants power? You harp about power. I don't see any person trying to stage a coup here.
Different interpretation is the point and the goal. Each person is unique. Their experience is unique. Therefore their understanding must be unique. If you think every atheist who ever lived said 'there is no God' and left it at that then I say...wow. That's ignorant. Your view on the cosmos is uniquely you. You agree on some things, disagree on others. The binding tie is your belief there is no God. Same for Christians. They believe there is a God and tack onto that the qualifier that Jesus is an important part of the equation. They don't even agree on what part.
Your complaint about Christianity could easily be leveled against atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians, etc. Any group should be met with caution if they weld too much power.
People who can read who don't think, who choose to search for the negative and never the good are more dangerous to harmony than those who can't read.
I don't have to prove God exists because I am as free as you to come to conclusions based on observation and experience. I also consider atheists to be a natural part of the order of life. It isn't good, or bad, to not believe. The reasons for non belief are what matters. If they are good reasons, it is a good thing. If it results in harmonious behavior, bully for that too. You are the one with a problem with me, I have no problem with me or you. I say live and let live.
Jesus may or may not have been illiterate. He read from the scrolls in the Temple so I'd say you are wrong on that, but it doesn't matter. Look at Islam. Stagnating simply because some guy wrote something long ago and they are stuck with that. Had Jesus done the same Christianity might have been relegated to the same fate. It wasn't. It was designed to allow the evolution of thought. The growth of humanity, not the enslavement of it. Did the Church enslave? Certainly. Does it still? For some who want the letter, certainly. It certainly enslaved you and inhibited your ability to evolve.
And little miss, I can call myself a duck but it doesn't make me one. The KKK is like you. Searching text to find justification for judgement.
"Your complaint about Christianity could easily be leveled against atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians, etc. Any group should be met with caution if they weld too much power."
Absolutely. I said as much in another post. Any ideology that demands everyone follow their beliefs can be dangerous.
We agree on more than we disagree on. But the only one judging here seems to be you.
Believe what you like. But I'm a person who relies on fact. I don't believe anything. You can't prove a god exists, I can't prove it doesn't. I don't believe a god exists, but I also don't believe it doesn't. I believe nothing either way. I don't know and no one does.
That's hard for theists to understand. Lack of belief is not belief of lack.
I read the bible as written. Hence I get a different view of it than you or any Christian does. You have to interpret it, I don't. I don't have to make evil look like good. The god of the bible is a tyrant egomaniac that reminds me of Trump. I know you can't see it that way, but it's obvious to people with no steak in seeing it otherwise.
And who are you or anyone to say someone isn't Christian if they claim they are?
I'm not judging you. I'm simply questioning your 'facts' used to negatively comment on Christians.
Facts are a funny thing, when they apply to a cosmic view. Because we all use limited information and expand on that to support universal claims. Proving God exists, to me, is unimportant. Proving he does not, to me, is impossible; at this juncture.
None of that matters. What matters is how we treat each other. If God exists, it is a universal fact just as if he doesn't is. My main beef is with finality of opinion by any who claim to be thinkers on cosmic issue. You don't know, nor do I. Using a non provable belief to insult large swaths of humanity for one tiny aspect of each of those individual's beliefs is in direct contrast to the example set forth by Jesus. What I find humorous from the religiously couched comments from the argumentative atheist is that they, like the argumentative wannabe theologians is they stick their nose in a book, claim themselves armchair experts, then rant against the unknown populist hordes.
Jesus was, at least, just an ordinary guy who got it. On a level which gave humanity the tools to work crap through their heads, talk about them, and slowly defeat the barbarism of all the powers which evolved to stop the evolution of humanity into a kinder and gentler society. Against the will and arguments of both sides who attempted to weaponize his thoughts and deeds. At best, he was a cosmic breath of fresh air.
But, you were correct. People are, in their minds, what they claim to be. I've met atheists I'd define as agnostics. I've met agnostics I'd define as Christian. I've known self professed Buddhists who were more like fundamental Christians. As Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. On that note, the same applies to manure. It is in the power of the individual to understand why their rose smells like manure to others. It is up to them to determine whose problem that is. The litmus test of the second most important commandment is a good tool in the search for that answer.
"Jesus was, at least, just an ordinary guy who got it. On a level which gave humanity the tools to work crap through their heads, talk about them, and slowly defeat the barbarism of all the powers which evolved to stop the evolution of humanity into a kinder and gentler society."
That, for me, is the crux of the matter. Even if Jesus did not actually exist, the idea of a kinder gentler society was alive and well 2000 plus years ago. And still is today. If I like anything about Christianity its the idea of loving your neighbor. I'd be happy with universal respect and kindness and we don't need any religion to accomplish it, all we need is a universal desire to make it happen.
But if we're aspiring to intellectual debates and discussions, I've found that the way I learn best is through a trial by fire. I expect heated debate and I think it gets the best out of people. It makes them, and myself, try to do better.
If we don't take these comments personally, just as different perspectives and views to be mulled over and argued, we can all learn, and keep it separate from day to day interactions with people. .
Also, I think its important for Atheists and moderate Christians to work together against fundamentalism of all kinds. It's in all our best interests.
I appreciate your comments but I don't think trial by fire correctly defines the atheist stand in online forums. I think it would be more aptly described as insult the intelligence of any professed believer because it's fun to see if you can get their goat. I've never run across a reasoned and unique argument yet. Which is fine. I can't say I've run across a religious zealot with an interesting argument either.
Well I was speaking for myself. I can't speak for all atheists so I can't apologies for them.. Atheism means only one thing. It's not an ideology. Atheists have many different ideologies or none. It just tells you someone doesn't believe in conscious gods. It tells you nothing about what they do believe, if anything.
But it seems to me that Christians are often too easily insulted by atheist opinions. I've studied the bible, religion, and history there of for 60 years. And yes, I see it opposite in many cases than Christians do. But I've had very good logical, unemotional arguments with some Christians. It can be done.
I'm not insulted by the idea of someone not believing. As previously stated, I consider it perfectly natural. We were the last act of creation. Every level has infinite variety. If there were no atheist opinions we would be missing a valuable part of what we represent.
I don't take offense as much as I perceive a desire to offend. I've never had an atheist degrade me for what I do believe, but what they expect me to. And that's the problem. The atheist chooses to find reason for fault, through their own mental processes; without the benefit of knowledge. They want to find fault. It isn't emotionally healthy. Sure, it sates the desire for belief in moral superiority, but does it equate to that? The act of setting oneself up as judge and jury, using your own beliefs to condemn others, makes the person exactly who they claim not to be.
We were the "last act of creation." There you go: making a presumptive statement which is only established as a fact in the human mind which choses to believe it.
Any argument from any atheist must overcome, somehow, that hurdle of presumption....which we cannot do, of course.
"The atheist chooses to find reason for fault, through their own mental processes; without the benefit of knowledge." Likewise, the Christian chooses to find reasons for the atheist to feel guilt, there in need of redemption. It's also a mental process, without the benefit of knowledge, only belief.
Why would an atheist not feel pushed into a sense of frustration, especially when he/she is only hoping for an enlightening discussion?
I put that line in, specifically, to showcase the response. What harm does that belief, in and of itself, cause? Some believe in creation and some in random mutations which led to where we are today. You certainly can't argue that humanity isn't one of the last of the great mutations. We haven't been around that long. Nor does my statement assign more importance to humanity than other parts of the universe.
And,yet, it frustrates you enough to complain about it. You aren't looking for enlightenment as much as a chance to complain. From where I sit.
You do know that the theory of evolution fits in with the creation of the universe in 7 days concept right. If God does exist the way he is portrayed, his 7 days is not necessarily 7 rotations of the Earth.
But if you do believe in the story of Adam and Eve, men should have a missing rib, which is not the case.
These stories were given to simple people. If the story had been held off until today to share it...It would take a massive library to answer all of our questions.
I have no problem with the creation story because I don't see it as anymore than ancient people asking a question and being given an answer they can understand.
The cool thing about the question of God is that it fits into every scenario we bring up. The big bang or the big hand. Not much difference. Multiple universes answers free will. String theory...God is an integral part.
So, simple answers were given to simple minds, to build on. We are no longer simple minded, and God never was.
Fair comment but, if "God fits into every scenario," maybe God was designed to do just that.
Hmm! Who designed God? That is a veeeery interesting statement jonny!
How are you doing? BTW, where do you live? Do you celebrate Thanksgiving? Totally irrelevant to the forum but I haven't communicated with you for a while.
Hi, Di !
You first question: I see the "design of God" as befitting the needs of the believer. That's just my opinion. Therefore, if I warm to the person's needing, it removes my need to personally enter that belief. It's my understanding which might be helpful for that believer, not my disbelief.
I live right down south in Tasmania, Australia. No, I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, but wishing you joy.
May be. But I am fairly confident a bunch of goat herders didn't think that up.
Goat herders or not, the human mind then was as capable as the human mind now. They didn't have the tech nor did most of them have the skills to read or write, this does limit the brain to some extent, but in all other aspects, people back then were just as smart as people today. No huge change in brain size. This is especially true if you believe in the creation of man and no evolution.
Agree. I’m a little confused by the arrogance that we’re soooo much smarter than people in the past. Also the idea that we’re no longer “simple minded.” Maybe we still are, in the grand scheme of things.
The problem back then was not the amount of intelligence; it was the huge lack (compared to today) of available information/knowledge, and the tiny bit that was being taught on a day to day basis. Did those sheep herders concern themselves with calculus and solid geometry or with how to protect a flock of sheep, when they should be shorn, where the best grass was, where bandits had been reported, etc.? Frankly, we may be losing intelligence, not gaining it. It is no longer for survival; evolution says we are no longer selecting for it as a result.
We are probably more sophisticated - we'vd had millenia of exposure to scammers and liars more than those people had.
People fail to think about the sheer amount of energy one must exert to survive in a primitive society. It cuts back on other pursuits. Inventing the flute was an incredibly important step in human advancement. May not be curing polio but it was definitely something.
Each species, whether plant or animal including our own human species, acquires the faculties which equip it for survival in its preferred habitat.
With our modern lifestyles, this remains true. In ancient times, they survived as a species because their faculties developed to ensure survival. And as conditions changed their faculties followed suit. We must do the same.
Thus it's not a matter of superiority.
Who claimed superiority? If you found yourself in their situation you'd focus on the same things they did. Give me one big nuclear holocaust and an ancient would have a leg up on us, from a survival standpoint.
Yes and no. Much depended on the environment around the "primitives"; some areas of the world are quite easy to survive in, while others take everything a person has.
The time involved in doing some of the things we find "necessary" today (mowing the grass, washing the car, taking the kids to soccer practice, etc.) can be overwhelming. Our society is likely more stressful than any from the distant past and a lot of that comes from the time required for "necessary" things that are not necessary at all.
So true. Ancient cultures had vast knowledge of nature and its cycles, and best how to use them.
How can we explain how the Great Pyramids were built? Or other such giant structures? Who helped Abraham lead the Children of Israel and teach them things like basic sanitation and quarantining sick people so all the others wouldn't get sick? Or how to irrigate a desert?
Those people didn't know about concepts we know today, but they knew a lot of things that was knowledge we somehow lost along the way. Arabic and Asian people had great math skills, and much of what they knew was only rediscovered by people we celebrate for those "ideas" now.
Yes. We all have similar mental capacity, but our exposure to information is a great deal more than those people. Quantum physics, general relativity, string theory, etc would have been vastly far outside of the grasp of a person whose entire life was spent herding goats and baking unleavened bread. Not that they wouldn't be capable but their minds were moving in other directions,entirely, from the thoughts of today. To imply they pondered similar things, using the same information we have access to, is a little unbelievable.
What fraction of the population today has the intellect to grasp these concepts? They can't even understand climate change. They don't understand the simple concept that there is more carbon in the atmosphere today because we dug it out from the ground where it was buried.
I do not agree. I think the people back then had the same capability to grasp these concepts as the people today. No one today is born understanding the theory of relativity or quantum physics.
That's funny. You argue in defense of the intellect of ancient man then attack the mental capacity of modern man. Is it your contention that humanity has gotten dumber?
We have been exposed to ideas the ancients had no access to. Which open doors of thought. Certainly, had Einstein introduced his theories to the ancients, and had their basic needs been met to the extent they could pursue other avenues of thought in peace, with a communication system which allowed universal participation...We might have seen an Einstein, a Hugh Everett, a Steven Hawking thousands of years ago. And the world could have been built upon their shoulders.
No all I am saying is that intellect was the same back then and now. Intellect is a band and not binary.
So we say. We don't honestly know much about ancient man. I think we get smarter, toward the things that matter in this age because we instill learned knowledge in our children, each generation, so they can build on that. Of course, if you could go back in time and steal an infant, then raise it, I'm sure it would fit right in.
Yes, this is what I was getting at from the start. I should have put it like this. If you go back and get an infant and raise it today, it would fit in.
Absolutely. As long as we don't go too far back.20 thousand years is nothing. Certainly our brains haven't evolved that much physically since then. Since the beginning of sapiens 700000 years ago?, I'm not so sure. Though other humanoid species we mated with had larger brains and may have contributed to what ours became.
But I think Wilderness said it best earlier on. It's about our accumulated knowledge and information rather than a difference in structure. So I too have no doubt sheep herders of 5000 years ago were as potentially smart as any of us are now. But they didn't know what we know now.
One thing we know now is that the subconscious often comes up with new good ideas. But in ancient times. we didn't know that. Ask a writer or musician.They often feel like the character or song writes itself. It's as if good ideas come from elsewhere.
An example of this is modern natives who's traditions tell us good new ideas are the gods teaching us. The gods of Sumer and Egypt taught them to make bread, beer, and how to irrigate. And best of all, perhaps, Moses telling god he had the wrong guy. He wouldn't know what to say. God say’s something like: Who do you think puts words in your mouth? Just do it, I’ll guide you.
So early humans didn’t think they could come up with novel or good ideas. How could they? Obviously something outside was teaching them. Hence gods, spirits, ancestors etc. But now we know the mind is more complicated than just the part that identifies as I”.
Had we known that then, would we still have come up with gods? I rather doubt it.
I've never thought about the God concept this way, thanks for that.
I, of course, as you pointed out was talking about the present day human with the 3-5,000-year-old human as that's when the major religions have their origins.
I would like to raise an eyebrow about your Moses comments. Your explanation makes it sound as if Moses thought any utterance had to come from a deity, as if he considered speech to be some miracle.
It would be more along the lines of, 'I get tongue tied speaking in public' or 'I can't debate Ben Shapiro, he's too quick with responses, send someone else'. or (most likely) 'You've got to be joking. It can't be done.' It wasn't the fact that he had a novel idea. He wasn't offended by the idea of slavery. The mosaic laws prove that. He was offended by the fact that his blood were in slavery, but not enough to do anything about it. He had fled the land and lived many years elsewhere. That being the case, he probably knew he couldn't present a sincere argument. It would sound somewhat hypocritical.
He had enjoyed a lifestyle, growing up, and never bemoaned the fact that slaves made his life easy. He had never lived as a slave, so he couldn't reasonably assume the slaves would want him as a leader. He had fairly placed doubts.
This is a poor example you've put forth with an equally poor explanation of ancient man thinking a deity was responsible for simple things. No wonder your arguments continuously fall flat.
There is nothing simple about marching in and single handedly convincing a king to relinquish his workforce. Moses had no idea of the miracles to come. All he knew was he was being told to set out on a Herculean task, with no preparation and no delusions of grandeur.
Whether he accomplished the task single handedly, or not; the text hasn't created a simple scenario which makes the scene at the burning bush childish.
There is nothing more profound than the moment God revealed himself as I AM. Volumes could be written (and have been) without covering all such a statement implies.
So first of all, Moses was myth. He probably never existed, or if he did he was a minor player in one of at least 4 different times groups of Hebrews escaped Egypt. This according to top Jewish historians and scholars.
Around 900 bce king David was trying to bind the warring twelve tribes together. Miraculously part of Deuteronomy was discovered in the temple. No one claims to know who wrote it or how it got there. No one writes anything about Moses till then. Clearly David’s priests created a unifying history for them and tied it to David’s Judean form of religion.
No, not all the tribes believed the same thing. The Samaritans are close but have differences in their beliefs. Judaism isn’t the religion of the twelve tribes, it’s the religion of the Judeans who were the only priest class tribe left after the Assyrians defeated the other ten tribes and murdered, moved and assimilated them.
Later the Babylonians take Judea and not until near the end of their captivity do they compile their Torah, including some clearly Babylonian and Sumerian stories into the mix, skewed to the single god model. 400 bce. Later revised and finalized in 96 ce.
So I wasn’t talking about Moses as a real person. I was talking about a story that shows how man kind thought.
“10 And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?”
He’s god admitting to being cruel. But that’s how they saw god. Not all good, but all mighty. The only game in town. Clearly he’s modeled after a tyrant king, which they understood.
“12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.”
Exactly my point. Man kind thought gods taught them. And they didn’t even have to physically hear a voice. A thought comes in to their head put there by god. Where else would a thought like above come from?
13 And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.
14 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.”
So Moses, according to the story, knows Aaron is a good communicator. So now Moses gets him to convince the people. But it’s still god teaching them.
Again, ask current natives. They are told that when they have great novel ideas, it’s gods teaching them. Not that many probably believe it these days. The Egyptians and Sumerians and Hindus etc all tell the same story. Bread wine, beer, fire, etc, all taught by the gods. How are we dumb humans going to think of this stuff?
And again, any artist, writer or musician, will tell you the ideas just come as if from elsewhere. I’m a musician myself among other things, and I know music is only played well on automatic. When you’re good, and you’re improvising, too much thinking about what you’re doing is a recipe for making mistakes.
Wjen you learn a new skill, at first you have to think about it a lot. The more you do it the less you have to think about it. Eventually the subconscious is trained and the skill is part of who you are.
Thinking is too slow. A ball is coming for your face. Think about it and it’s hit you. If you’ve played ball most of your life you’ll probably catch it or move automatically, then think how good you are. But it came from the subconscious. You didn’t consciously consider what to do or how.
So it’s easy to see why people thought the ideas that come from the subconscious came from outside themselves. Ask god for a solution to a complex problem, a while later your subconscious comes up with an answer. You think god answered your request.
I’m also a trouble shooter by trade. Often if there’s a problem I just can’t solve, I delegate it to the subconscious and forget about it. A while later an answer springs up out of nowhere. Not nowhere, obviously, my subconscious that has access to all my experience and memory.
Of course, you have to be careful. The subconscious sends up answers but can’t deliberate. So often they are close, which is fine for hunting and gathering, but not for other things. A test was done on a few thousand math and physics students. They were told not to think about their answer and just write down the first thing they thought of.
A ball and bat together cost one dollar and ten cents.
The bat costs exactly one dollar more than the ball.
How much is the ball?
90 plus percent got it wrong, and 90 plus percent wrote the same answer. Try it on friends. So getting the answer from the subconscious is not always accurate. The only person I’ve met who gave the right answer without thinking about it was a math teacher specializing in teaching problem solving.
The answer most people wrote down was 10 cents. What was your auto answer?
So, the subconscious gives us fast auto response, but the consciousness deliberates and teaches the subconscious altering auto response.
So how was ancient Mankind thinking? You see your people suffer and want to help. You don’t think you can. Then an idea pops in to your head. You believe in god and imagine he’s telling you yeah right, I’ve chosen you for this job, hence why you feel guilty and want to help. But you’re conflicted. You don’t believe you can do it. But you feel like you have to. So if god chose you for the job, you better do it somehow. God will guide you.
Everywhere you look someone is saying god talks to them even today. No, not with a voice anyone can hear, but if they ask something he answers. They don’t know it’s coming from the subconscious and imagination. It may even be something useful, which they see as vindication.
So it’s not about Moses. It’s about a very real natural psychological phenomenon which I think is largely responsible for our initial belief in gods.
+++ you lift this discussion with information, way above rhetoric.
Thanks, Johnny. Not everyone agrees. lol...
Also appreciate the contribution of Live to Learn. It at least lifts the level of reasonable discussion. There is no need for total agreement.
How many people, honestly, do you think use those things to develop or base their religious or spiritual beliefs on? I don’t think access to scientific and intellectual material makes much of a difference at all.
I think people at any point in time ponder their own existence and mortality and I don’t think anything today provides more evidence for gods or a God than it did a thousand years ago.
I see it as a fair conclusion that when we observe and experience the complex beauty of this world, we might ascribe its origin to a "creator" in the image of a super-human beimg. Regardless of any argument of how that process of creation could have happened.
But then to ascribe to that creator a confused mixture of attributes like a loving father; an ultra- strict judge; a ruthless overlord; a killer of individuals he does not approve of ..... all these qualities are human reflections, metaphores relating to how we see our world to dance for us.
"Sin," "God," "Hell," etc., are constructs of the human mind. Nothing else.
I'd have to agree. To me, the fruit represents the beginning of our ability to judge, categorize, etc. We created the concept of sin. We choose to perpetuate it.
It's a pickle. We can't advocate a free for all but we should all live by our moral compass and let others live by theirs, assuming it is right for them.
The Golden Rule is as close as we've ever seen to a universal moral. Let all live by that and the world would be a much better place.
Thank you folks. Yes it's not difficult for us to agree on those points. And, of course, if we all choose our own path on such questions/matters, that very freedom would likely bring us into a lot of dis-agreement.
To be successful, Community requires that we have a set of reasonable expectations of all participants, hence culture, manners, etiquette, etc.
Even tiny things, e.g., in one culture, if a gift is offered, it's proper to decline that gift no less than 3 times before graciously accepting it!
So, what we might regard as "universal morality" can turn out to be not exactly that.
A Learning Curve which can bear fruit if given a chance.
There is a difference between morality and customs. Turning down the gift is a custom, not a matter of morality or ethics, while the golden rule says if a stranger violates your custom, give them a break and don't just assume rudeness.
Works for me.
I prefer: Do no intentional harm, as a golden rule. But it takes in the golden rule, so it's not a bad start.
+1. Exactly same story and sentiments.
Do you really suppose people needed laws allowing them to murder??!
Regardless of specific religion, people can always find an excuse for suppressing anyone that they dont like.
No duh. To blame present violence on past religion is pure ignorance.
To blame present violence solely on present religion is failure to incorporate all facts in one's opinions.
You are correct that violence will always find a way.
He has done post-graduate studies. He is a genius. He has traditional views for our country and patriotism. Many of the dims are traitors
Farside1234, welcome to Hubpages and we hope you have an enjoyable, fruitful discussion here.
However, your very first posting is somewhat sketchy and ambigous. Would you like expand?
You started the evening drinking I see. :
Are you saying that DJT's post-graduate studies, genius and views for our country and patriotism have been more helpful to evanelical Christians than anyone else? He doesn't have the vocabulary of a person who has done post graduate study. I agree that he is skilled in identifying concerns of some and them marketing himself as the only solution. In this case, he clothed himself in concern for Christian values - none of which he exhibits or aspires to hold. His views of the country and patriotism exploit what some perceive as acceptable.
I'm not a Democrat. I would like to know why they are considered traitors.
I admit that DJT's entry into politics has created fissures in the Christian church. They are not going to be resolved in the political arena. They are going to be adjudicated and worked out under the supervision of the Holy Spirit.
Succinct is apparently beyond your grasp, but ok.
Was Moses a myth? Does it matter? I have heard Christian scholars believe Jesus was a myth so, I doubt all Jews agree that Moses never existed (as all Christians don’t agree Jesus was a myth). Either way.
Last I heard, they were claiming the entire Torah was written during the Babylonian exile. It was a unifying myth (so they said) created to help the Jews not lose their identity as a group. So, they have evidence of Deuteronomy back to David now. And, of course, those who want to grasp on fiction have decided that must be the first. Not a problem either.
And, I see you are rewriting stories to suit your personal beliefs. I could ask you to explain why you believe that the nation of Israel, after the split, had different beliefs. But, it also is not important.
And, again, whether or not Moses is considered to have been real; you are right. It is about how humans thought. It’s funny that atheists jump in with a vengeance to ensure we are all in agreement that ancient man had the same mental faculties as modern humans; then insist on insisting that ancient man had no way of understanding the difference between thinking and intervention by an outside force.
God was not admitting to be cruel. That’s incredibly simplistic to say such. It is the cruelty of humanity which causes us not to take care of each other and see any type of what we perceive as a handicap as a cruelty inflicted.
I completely disagree with your assessment of that line concerning his inability to speak effectively. I think it is another example of a human pushing back and arguing with God, only to have God acquiesce and change his original plan; to accommodate. Plus, I believe the Bible attributes the invention of things to men themselves. Except for when Adam got something to put on, I don’t remember it mentioning god teaching them how to make beer, wine, bread, fire, etc. So, apparently the story tellers in this tale didn’t consider humans too dumb to think these things up.
There is no evidence that people in the biblical tales were having their subconscious minds come up with an answer to the major tales. Unless, it is your contention that we can, by the power of our minds, cause a drenched pile of wood burst into flames, conjure up multiple plagues, survive in the belly of a beast and come back from the dead.
You can compare the tales each of the ancient peoples told to explain creation and the advancement of humanity out of their hunter gatherer days; but it would be best not to mix them up with each other; or attribute the shortcomings found in one to another.
I agree with you in that I don’t personally believe God is talking to anyone today. I don’t think anyone has a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus but I will admit maybe I don’t clearly understand what that is supposed to mean; other than the obvious. It’s funny because the idea of God should create a sense of humility; a sense of your ephemeral insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe. But, those who claim to talk to God certainly don’t appear to have experienced that. But, to be fair, I don’t get that the average atheist gets it either.
But, even if God didn’t talk to anyone in ancient times it wouldn’t matter. I’ve stated before that the Old Testament is, mostly, a testament to the fact that God cannot be an active force in the world. The power is eventually taken for granted and was never fully appreciated. Having a really big buddy is a dangerous relationship and when you are out of favor it really causes problems. Did some ancient tribe have to go through those trials and tribulations in order for the lesson to be taught? I don’t know. But, I do believe that stands such as yours are simple minded because the historical truth is not what is important in the telling nor would it (if ever completely disproven) disprove the existence of God.
“Succinct is apparently beyond your grasp, but ok.”
Yours either. But it’s a complex subject. The longer the post, the more interest. I’m good with that.
“Was Moses a myth? Does it matter?”
No, it doesn’t. But I wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t arguing it as real event, just an example of the way humans used to think, and still do.
“I have heard Christian scholars believe Jesus was a myth so, I doubt all Jews agree that Moses never existed (as all Christians don’t agree Jesus was a myth). Either way.”
“Last I heard, they were claiming the entire Torah was written during the Babylonian exile. “
It was. Compiled from stories and traditions including stories they were exposed to in Babylon.. The written word didn’t come along till 4000 bce. At least not that we’ve found. Few but priests could read or write. The Hebrews didn’t develop writing till around 1800 bce.
“It was a unifying myth (so they said) created to help the Jews not lose their identity as a group.”
“ So, they have evidence of Deuteronomy back to David now.”
Sorry, actually I was wrong about that. I looked up my sources again. King Josiah’s temple actually found it, not David. So that’s 675 bce or so. But only part of it was found. And then completed by 500 bce.
“ I could ask you to explain why you believe that the nation of Israel, after the split, had different beliefs. But, it also is not important.”
Because it’s a fact proven by the Samaritans who say the Jewish version of the Torah is corrupt. As well, there is evidence in the bible itself. How many times did they go back to worshiping idols? Same was true in King Josiah’s time.
And, again, whether or not Moses is considered to have been real; you are right. It is about how humans thought. It’s funny that atheists jump in with a vengeance to ensure we are all in agreement that ancient man had the same mental faculties as modern humans; then insist on insisting that ancient man had no way of understanding the difference between thinking and intervention by an outside force.”
Many don’t know the difference now.
“God was not admitting to be cruel. That’s incredibly simplistic to say such. It is the cruelty of humanity which causes us not to take care of each other and see any type of what we perceive as a handicap as a cruelty inflicted. “
No. This god admits to creating blindness, deafness, and all manner of human ills. And if it’s our fault, why do animals suffer? This god also admits in Isaiah 14, I believe, that he created evil. And if he exists, he’s responsible for creating the conditions that make everything suffer disease, mental issues, cancer, you name it. He also made us, we didn’r make ourselves or ask to be here.
Any conscious being, your god or any other that creates a world of suffering and where every day everything has to kill something to eat, is cruel beyond belief, and downright evil.
Any yours is an egotist who needs constant glorification and worship. It’s an egotistical tyrant psychopath. Much like Trump. It’s obvious. Yet, like Trump, his followers try to make evil look like god. It astounds me.
“Plus, I believe the Bible attributes the invention of things to men themselves. Except for when Adam got something to put on, I don’t remember it mentioning god teaching them how to make beer, wine, bread, fire, etc. So, apparently the story tellers in this tale didn’t consider humans too dumb to think these things up.”
Perhaps not, But the Sumerian and Egyptian and Hindu and native American god’s, to name a few, did teach them, according to their stories. The Hebrews knew all about that.
“There is no evidence that people in the biblical tales were having their subconscious minds come up with an answer to the major tales. Unless, it is your contention that we can, by the power of our minds, cause a drenched pile of wood burst into flames, conjure up multiple plagues, survive in the belly of a beast and come back from the dead. “
No, those were myths. Imagination.
“You can compare the tales each of the ancient peoples told to explain creation and the advancement of humanity out of their hunter gatherer days; but it would be best not to mix them up with each other; or attribute the shortcomings found in one to another.”
Unfortunately, they were mixed. That’s clear. And according to the bible there were no hunter gatherer days.
“I agree with you in that I don’t personally believe God is talking to anyone today. I don’t think anyone has a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus but I will admit maybe I don’t clearly understand what that is supposed to mean; other than the obvious. It’s funny because the idea of God should create a sense of humility; a sense of your ephemeral insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe. But, those who claim to talk to God certainly don’t appear to have experienced that. But, to be fair, I don’t get that the average atheist gets it either.
All you need to do is paint one wall in your house black. Then stick a pin in it somewhere and remove it. Then move as far away as you can and see if you can find the hole. That’s you looking for the earth from Pluto.
A world filled 100 miles high in souls amounts to less than a virus on the butt end of the universe. If that doesn’t make you feel insignificant nothing will. Thinking that a god outside of the universe would be interested in what amounts to an atom and all us dots on it seems to be less than humble. Religion, on the contrary, tries to elevate us to something significant.
“But, even if God didn’t talk to anyone in ancient times it wouldn’t matter. I’ve stated before that the Old Testament is, mostly, a testament to the fact that God cannot be an active force in the world. The power is eventually taken for granted and was never fully appreciated. Having a really big buddy is a dangerous relationship and when you are out of favor it really causes problems. Did some ancient tribe have to go through those trials and tribulations in order for the lesson to be taught? I don’t know.”
Lessons need to be re taught constantly with each new generation. That’s why we have schools. If there was a god, I suspect it would show up once in a while. Why isn’t Jesus king of the world as he should be, were he real? Why one god and 8000 plus religions and beliefs? Makes no sense.
“ But, I do believe that stands such as yours are simple minded because the historical truth is not what is important in the telling nor would it (if ever completely disproven) disprove the existence of God.”
No it wouldn’t. Just like disproving evolution wouldn’t prove god. Nor can you or anyone prove god exists. Nothing can prove it either way short of it showing up, so it’s a meaningless question. It does, or doesn’t. Much like invisible pink squirrels living in my attic.
I’ve never said a god of some sort doesn’t exist. I just do not believe it does, regardless of there being no proof.
Couple of things.
One thing which bothers me is mainstream rejection of anomalous evidence of the fact that we don't know everything we think we know. Civilizations were around long before we originally postulated. Think about it. Even Neanderthals who were originally depicted as brutish idiots are now known to have been much more advanced than originally thought. Evidence of civilizations thousands of years prior to what we originally believed was the beginning of our march away from our hunter gatherer days. So, let's steer away from finite beliefs of what was. We have a lot left to learn.
That said. Science has repeatedly scoffed at claims in the bible only to have archeology make us pause and rethink. David could not have existed. End of story. Now the story is rewritten. Abraham could not have had domesticated camels. End of story. Now the story is rewritten. These are simply 2 examples, but I hope you understand the direction this is going. We cannot allow belief to blind our search for truth.
Your claim only the descendents of Judah remaining faithful is silly. Of course people fall away from faith. Of course they change religion. I don't know that it means all changed. I think it is evidence of what I've always appreciated about the Judeo Christian belief structure. God puts no ring in any nose. The whole book is about 'I believe in you, so follow Me'. But there is no real earthly compulsion to do so.
So, the Israelites put forth one explanation of creation and the rise of humanity. Other cultures put forth others. You lodge a complaint on the shortcomings of some, I point out the error, you agree but say it doesn't matter...basically even though the evidence points away from your statement the Israelites probably thought that way anyway. I'm not going to argue with such a flawed position.
Relegating eye witness testimony to myth and imagination is one of the weakest stands I run across in the atheist argument. You believe what you believe because of your experience, be it from personal experience, what you've read of the experience of others and what you have deduced from learning. You want credence given to your belief and experience but cannot afford the same courtesy to others.
The problem with this is, primarily, the supernatural is simply not yet understood phenomena. Dismissing, out of hand, eye witness testimony pushes us further back in our search for truth than almost any other act. I'm not interested in narcissistic belief structures and that is what that argument boils down to. And this belief you possess explains the constant declarations about the ignorance of humanity, from then until now. Only you (and like minded people) can discern truth. Disagree? You call that ignorance. Egotism, unbridled.
Where do you come up with the belief that the Bible discredits the hunter gatherer stage of humanity? It clearly states God made man and woman, then told them to be fruitful and multiply. Then he set Adam and Eve in the garden. The Bible focuses on God's relationship with humanity through the line of Adam. I suppose you expected the books included should then,occasionally, sidetrack to every other line in the world and document their history. It didn't. It isn't important to the lessons included.
You choose to see evil. The question is why? What need exists in you to see it? Human imperfection equates,in your mind, to an evil God. Consumption of food is evil to you. Again, I wonder why. Your litany of complaints goes on and on. Why doesn't God attend school? He must not exist. Woe to the believer.
I'd love to be presented with a valid and intelligent argument against belief. I continue to search for one. I will say, scientific theory continues to support the biblical narrative. I wonder, sometimes, is this sign of the miraculous nature of the text or is it indicative of the fact that our collective subconscious is so steeped in the historical evolution of our Judeo Christian society that it has sent us down rabbit holes. Is relativity a viable avenue toward a better understanding of the universe? Is multiverse pie in the sky? Is quantum physics all malarky? Is it all driven by flawed assumptions from the outset? It's a mystery. An incredibly interesting one I hope to live to find the answers to.
. “We have a lot left to learn”
To be sure. We don’t know much before written language, and even then it’s not all clear at all. We have a temple complex in Turkey dated to 12000 bce. Long before so called civilization was thought to have happened. We have megalithic building all over the world that couldn’t have been created by the people they are attributed to. There’s no reason another humanoid species like homo erectus couldn’t have created an advanced civilization without leaving written language 70000 years ago. Or sapiens could have had other civilizations that came and went. The earth is prone to disasters that wipe out entire species. DNA even proved we mated with other species like Neanderthal and homo erectus.
“That said. Science has repeatedly scoffed at claims in the bible only to have archeology make us pause and rethink.”
Not science. Historians, scholars, etc, yes. But science itself doesn’t have anything to say about people in the bible. What it does show is that certain claims about “creation” can’t be true. The earth is not just 6000 years old, for instance, It’s 4 billion years old. It’s not flat, etc.
“We cannot allow belief to blind our search for truth.”
Couldn’t agree more. Hence why I don’t invest belief in anything. Facts don’t require belief, and everything else is speculation. All I have are conditional opinions.
“Of course people fall away from faith. Of course they change religion. I don't know that it means all changed. I think it is evidence of what I've always appreciated about the Judeo Christian belief structure. God puts no ring in any nose. The whole book is about 'I believe in you, so follow Me'. But there is no real earthly compulsion to do so.”
Not what I read into it exactly. But no, I don’t mean all of them left their religion, I mean not all the tribes ever took on the Judean version of their religion. Some believed man and woman were created at the same time. Judeans believed in the Adam and Eve version. Both are in the bible. But more on that later.
It’s not clear that all the tribes were actually decedents of Israel. Hebrews were originally from Canaan. And worshiped Canaanite gods. We know that the tribes had wars with each other. Ten lived in the north, each with their own territory, not together. The Judeans and the tribe of Benjamin lived in Judea. There were various attempts to unify them under one religion and history, but they seem to have failed. Again, this is from Jewish historians and scholars. I don’t know if its all fact, obviously. But we do know the bible itself was written around 400 bce. We know from documentation that only part of “the law” was found in the temple 675 bce. There were oral traditions, but not much actual written text. So in essence the Judean scribes of the time put down their versions of the stories. And you know how oral story telling goes. It’s hardly accurate and prone to alteration over time. We know from various sources that more than one exodus happened, and we have yet never found evidence of all the plagues of the bible or the exodus of the bible in Egyptian texts. It does seem to have been a made up story originating from 900 to 700 bce.
And think about it. Moses was brought up in the Egyptian court. Apart from there being no evidence of his existence in Egyptian texts, if he knew how to write he would have been educated in Egyptian not Hebrew script, wouldn’t he?
“So, the Israelites put forth one explanation of creation and the rise of humanity. Other cultures put forth others. You lodge a complaint on the shortcomings of some, I point out the error, you agree but say it doesn't matter...basically even though the evidence points away from your statement the Israelites probably thought that way anyway. I'm not going to argue with such a flawed position.”
No, it’s a common human phenomenon that is likely one of the main reasons we “started” believing in gods. And again, even today we see it played out by people who are sure they talk to god and get answers. The Hebrews lived with the Sumerians and Egyptians and many others who did believe the gods taught them to make bread and beer etc etc. They didn’t invent those things themselves and learned them from other humans. So it shouldn’t be surprising that they don’t mention where they learned these things because it wasn’t of their god story nor their own.
“Relegating eye witness testimony to myth and imagination is one of the weakest stands I run across in the atheist argument. You believe what you believe because of your experience, be it from personal experience, what you've read of the experience of others and what you have deduced from learning. You want credence given to your belief and experience but cannot afford the same courtesy to others.”
I express my opinion. You decide whether you give my ideas credence or not. I do the same, hopefully and deliberately based on facts. Experience is great, but it can be misinterpreted. If experience was factual, I’d be a very religious person. So now I make models with facts. It doesn’t mean the model is fact, but at least it can be tested.
“The problem with this is, primarily, the supernatural is simply not yet understood phenomena.”
If it exists at all. Another thing no one can prove or falsify, it seems.
“Dismissing, out of hand, eye witness testimony pushes us further back in our search for truth than almost any other act.”
Accepting it as proof without real evidence pushes us further back in our search for truth than almost any other act. What supposed eye witnesses are we talking about?
“ I'm not interested in narcissistic belief structures and that is what that argument boils down to. And this belief you possess explains the constant declarations about the ignorance of humanity, from then until now. Only you (and like minded people) can discern truth. Disagree? You call that ignorance. Egotism, unbridled.”
Wrong. That seems to be more your position. Even though you can’t show a god exists you want others to take the idea as fact, and claim we’re ignorant for dismissing it.. It isn’t. You’re free to believe what you like, I’ve never called you ignorant. But I don’t buy it. Prove it in some meaningful way and I’ll definitely take it seriously. Otherwise I can’t.
“Where do you come up with the belief that the Bible discredits the hunter gatherer stage of humanity? It clearly states God made man and woman, then told them to be fruitful and multiply. Then he set Adam and Eve in the garden.”
Ah, you’re one of those. Lol… Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans? They were just the first with free will? You’ve been talking to Headly/Jeremy? It’s a good interpretation, but it’s not the way the Jews see it, nor the way Christianity views the texts. Particularly fundamentalists who don’t believe the earth is more than 6000 years old, and there is no evolution. But I assume you do accept evolution so you have reinterpreted the bible.
Continued in next post
The usual interpretation is that the first part of the bible is clearly just telling us what god did. The second part tells us in more detail about Adam and Eve. Chapter one creates man and woman in the image of Elohiym (meaning: powers). At the same time. After the seventh day chapter two starts. In 2.4 the writers first start calling him YHWH (he exists). Now the story of Adam and Eve starts.
“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”.
This is thought to be written by two different Hebrew factions. The first account by the Elohiym followers possibly included as a tribute to the beliefs of another tribe, and the second by the YHWH faction.
By adding the line I included above, they are acknowledging that both beliefs co-existed, and asserting that the Adam and Eve version was just a detailed explanation of how god did it, not separate beliefs at all. Another way to unify the people.
The problem with saying you’re ok with evolution but you believe in Adam and Eve is 4 billion years. That’s when earth was formed. 3.5 billion years ago life in the form of single celled animals started. Is that when god said go forth and multiply? That’s what humans developed from, single celled animals. And Sapiens only arrived around 70,000 years ago. Is that when god said go forth and multiply? According to the bible humans were created in one shot, fully formed in his image, whether you believe the first or second explanation.
And right away, after being thrown out of Eden, they started living in villages. So no mention of hunter gatherers.
“The Bible focuses on God's relationship with humanity through the line of Adam. I suppose you expected the books included should then, occasionally, sidetrack to every other line in the world and document their history. It didn't. It isn't important to the lessons included.”
No other lines are ever mentioned because according to Judaism and Christianity all lines started from Adam and Eve. Now I did say your version is a good one, only in that Cain goes out to get a wife from another village. Theology doesn’t have a real answer for this. I have read many explanations and the best of those is that Adam and Eve were first, but god created others after. Again, not biblical. The other is incest. Your idea that god created a bunch of unimportant people first and then put Adam into a paradise is to me the best one, except that he creates the unimportant ones in his image too and male and female together, but he doesn’t create Eve until asks Adam if there’s no animal he’d like to mate with, then has to create her from his rib.
So ok, say it happened that way. Say he follows the path of Adam to Noah. Again you have a problem with incest being the only way to repopulate the earth. But the problem is, genetics shows clearly that’s not what happened.
“You choose to see evil. The question is why? What need exists in you to see it?”
Are you kidding? When you see evil you can’t tell? Obviously not.
“ Human imperfection equates,in your mind, to an evil God.”
We made this universe did we? We made ourselves? Were your god to have created this the way it did I would have to conclude that it’s evil. He admits to have created evil. What more do you need? That’s intent. Don’t tell me creating evil intentionally isn’t evil. Also, creating us with the ability to be evil, and the conditions that facilitate evil, you can’t come to any other conclusion than that it is evil.
“ Consumption of food is evil to you. Again, I wonder why. “
It’s only evil if it was created that way with intent. If it’s just the way nature is, then of course it’s not evil. But if a conscious being created it this way, your version or any other, it’s evil intent. We’re not eating air or dirt, we have to kill living things so we can live. Plant or animal, it’s alive, aware, scared, and if it’s an animal it suffers.
So, say in my lab I create microscopic beings. Then it gets out that even though I could have created them in any way I wanted, I created them in a way in which they would have to kill and eat each other to survive, and that these things felt fear and suffered pain from this process, and I created diseases that would effect even children like cancer and Ebola etc, and then demanded they worship me or I’d put them in a place where they would suffer eternal fire and never die, wouldn’t you be the first to call me evil? And you’d be right. But when it comes to your god who you believe has done all that and more, he’s good? That’s hypocritical at best. Is it because he supposedly offers ever lasting life? I can think of no more selfish reason, can you?
“I'd love to be presented with a valid and intelligent argument against belief. I continue to search for one. “
Funny. I always wanted some one to come up an intelligent argument for a god. I too never found one.
“ I will say, scientific theory continues to support the biblical narrative.”
I certainly wouldn’t say that. Just the opposite.
“. Is relativity a viable avenue toward a better understanding of the universe?”
It’s proven itself time and time again.
“Is multiverse pie in the sky?”
It’s a hypothesis based on math. Not fact till its proven by experiment.
“Is quantum physics all malarky? “
Not entirely but it’s incomplete and it’s basic interpretations are constantly changing. Since Quantum field theory we know there are no individual subatomic particles and there is no wave practical duality. All there is, is waves/vibrations in non material, energetic, transformative and creative fields.
Apparently no god required. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one, but if there isn’t it doesn’t matter.
I am aware of what the standard interpretation is. That interpretation has been in effect since the texts were written, which is when humanity was not in a position to have access to the facts we now have. If we look at it from your viewpoint that there is no God and they just made it up as they went along, then that makes sense. If you look at it from the viewpoint that there is a God and they just interpreted the information given; in light of the facts they had….that makes sense also.
Either way you chalk it up, we see the version that makes sense; in line with our world view.
And, I am aware that it is assumed that the text was compiled from sources whose views were different. I read a fascinating paper written by a professor, years ago, where he did a line by line commentary as he translated the ancient text of Genesis. I printed out about a hundred pages and wish I hadn’t lost it. I have not been able to find it again online.
I get where you are coming from about the beliefs coexisting and the authors attempting to unify, however; that is a belief. Nothing more. We have no proof that this is true. It is simply an agreement made. Now, you can come back with a statement that scholars agree; I will respond that not all scholars do. And I believe that if the book is of God, then we have to be open to new information in order to better understand the text.
From a non-believer standpoint this will look as if someone is just changing their belief structure as conflicting information is presented. I get that; but, this is one reason I believe it will be almost impossible to disprove belief in Y-H (without some incredibly new discoveries) because the text, when viewed with the most current information at hand, is always a simplistic explanation of the earliest march of time.
I don’t have any problem with Adam and Eve being real or not. I’ve never considered it a deal breaker one way or the other, because the story is more about the creation of sin (by our perception), than anything else. It is the moment we chose to create categories between right and wrong, good and evil. The moment we began to judge. Is it a singular moment, or an attempt to explain one of the things which we choose to do; which causes the most angst between humans?
I have no problem with evolution either. I will say that the theory of evolution has a lot of unanswered questions which remain. Every answer creates 100 more questions. I consider people who proclaim it settled science to be detrimental to our search for answers. I think they do more to stifle creative thought and research on the subject than all of the crazies I’ve spoken to who claim there were dinosaurs on the ark.
I will say that, like other nonconformist believers, I have some crazy theories. I would love to have a team of mathematicians at my disposal to explore one of them. I won’t bore you with the details, but it could effectively explain the disconnect between the scientific calculations for the age of the universe and a reasoned approach to the age of the earth through the Biblical text. I say reasoned because there are a lot of variables that may be in play on the text prior to our ability to verify anything through archaeology. Again, the professor who was doing the commentary had some very enlightening ideas on Genesis and the lineages written in it.
I won’t bother to respond to your comment about the moment they were thrown out of Eden. I’ve already stated my views on that.
If you look at the text, assuming Adam and Eve were historical figures, I would say your question of why make humanity and then put just Adam into the garden until he asks for a mate…maybe this is another example of God acquiescing to Man. But, anything else I would say at this juncture would be off the top of my head. I’ve never really thought about why. I would think if we look at Jewish Midrash at the story of Lilith; that might shed some light. The guy who wrote that long commentary I read had, in my mind, an interesting take. He thought Moses had taken the stories passed down and combined them into the story of Genesis. Considering the patriarchal nature of humanity it would make sense that Eve would be spoken of as an afterthought.
As to your comment about Adam needing Eve to mate with; I take the word mate to be synonymous with sex, which I always saw as subsequent to consumption of the fruit Prior to that I assumed they didn’t do such, since no offspring were the product of the time in the garden. I suppose if I were a guy I would have assumed sex was the required reward for giving up a rib.
However, I wouldn’t assume people were ‘unimportant’. It’s like if I decided to write a story of your lineage. That wouldn’t mean no one else was important.
I don’t think the problem of incest is something to worry about. I read an article where researchers have determined that we are descended from one man and one woman; which I found comforting. To think that even in the worst cataclysmic event there is still hope for the survival of the species. Prior to that I think they guestimated at least 200 people would be needed to ensure the survival of the species. But, Noah had several sons and those sons had wives from other families. It wasn’t quite the bottleneck that a singular creation of one male and one female would have created.
Either way. It happened or it didn’t. If it did, it obviously worked. If it didn’t then it’s a moot point. It’s like Christ. I never understand the evangelicals who proclaim you have to believe to be saved. I say, that was over 2000 years ago. With no real communication in all that time; only a fool would think nonbelief was a deal breaker. Nonbelief is a natural part of our evolution as a thinking species. You don’t have to believe in good news to make it good news; and it isn’t good news if not believing in it negates the value of it.
As I stated (I think previously in this thread) I don’t advocate a free for all but we label a lot of things evil, or wrong, or bad. However, it is only bad if you choose to see it that way. If everyone doesn’t agree to label it such; what does that mean? Is it not bad? Is it universally bad if one person proclaims it to be? You see the world in a manner that is uniquely you. The same goes for me and everyone else.
The problem I see is that we attempt to push the conclusions a lifetime of experience has led us to as somehow superior to those of another. We justify our behavior, thus negating the ‘evil’ in our own actions; but don’t give others the full benefit of justification for theirs. How much bad would we see, how much evil, how much wrong, if we reserved judgement until we had not only all the facts but also gave full benefit of the doubt to others as we give ourselves and we created the same ‘mitigating circumstances’ scenarios we use to justify our own actions?
I cannot come to the conclusion that a Creator is evil. It’s like vegetarians. They slay me. I consider them to be egotistical and ignorant, to the extreme. Don’t eat meat. Think of how many life forms would be denied the experience of existence. Don’t eat meat. Think about the fact that it takes life to sustain life. I say if you claim to be a vegetarian because you believe in the sanctity of life, coexist peacefully with all life forms; don’t kill bugs in your house. Don’t kill rodents. Don’t eat plants. Don’t consume water. Don’t breathe. Life is contained in all of that. Life is lost when you use any of it for sustenance. To me, a vegetarian is simply deciding which life has value and which doesn’t. Based solely on how similar that life form is to his or her self. Your argument goes along those lines. You are deciding which life has value and which should be pitied., using yourself as the benchmark.
If you have a lab, and you think you can create a symbiotic ecosystem which is self-sustaining and does not involve any adverse interaction between all parts; please go for it and then show the work you hath wrought. I’d be very impressed.
You and I find the arguments of each other falling flat because we think about why we think the way we do and we are both searching for answers. I think the best example of full enlightenment I’ve ever heard was that it is the top of a mountain where you can look down and see all the paths leading to it. Whatever path you find works best for you is best for you. And, there have to be infinite numbers of ways to enlightenment because our minds are all islands. Whether created that way or simply a freak of nature, we are all alone; in the final analysis.
Most of the questions about relativity, multiple universes, etc. were simply to point out until we have a provable theory of everything; we have to remain open to all options. Well, not all options. You don’t have to have God as an option. You simply have to be open to answers from wherever they come from.
Sorry for the delay. I haven't had much time to write lately.
“If we look at it from your viewpoint that there is no God and they just made it up as they went along, then that makes sense. If you look at it from the viewpoint that there is a God and they just interpreted the information given; in light of the facts they had….that makes sense also. “
Absolutely, except that if there were a god and he wanted to tell them this stuff, surely he/she/it could have made them understand. And could have put in details that even if they didn’t understand, we would.
“Either way you chalk it up, we see the version that makes sense; in line with our world view.”
Without a doubt.
“And, I am aware that it is assumed that the text was compiled from sources whose views were different. “
Good. Not many are.
“I get where you are coming from about the beliefs coexisting and the authors attempting to unify, however; that is a belief. Nothing more. We have no proof that this is true.”
Well we do have historic evidence that supports the idea, but no absolute proof, I agree.
“From a non-believer standpoint this will look as if someone is just changing their belief structure as conflicting information is presented.”
Yes, but that’s good. That’s how science works. Everything is conditional on the possibility of new information.
“ I get that; but, this is one reason I believe it will be almost impossible to disprove belief in Y-“
Well, the supernatural is said to not interact with the natural or we would be able to test for it and prove it or falsify it. How do you prove a god exists? Well, were it to show itself we’d all know with certainty. I know some say we wouldn’t believe anyway, but surely a god could prove itself beyond anyone’s doubt. The other thing is, the bible is big on faith. No need for it if you can be certain. But to me, that’s just a way to keep people believing in a possibly nonexistent god. The other idea is that we wouldn’t be “free” to choose if we knew with certainty. Which again is absurd. How can one make a truly free choice without all the facts? So no, proving a god doesn’t exist is like trying to prove you don’t have access to weapons of mass destruction. I can say I don’t. You can’t find any, but it proves nothing.
“The moment we began to judge. Is it a singular moment, or an attempt to explain one of the things which we choose to do; which causes the most angst between humans? “
It’s the way we’re made, not a choice. Do you choose your likes and dislikes? No, you have them. Yet everything you choose to do is based on feelings you don’t choose to have but like having.
Again, if a god created us, it’s responsible for what we are as much as we are for what we do.
“Every answer creates 100 more questions.”
“I consider people who proclaim it settled science to be detrimental to our search for answers.”
Well, yes and no. Evolution is a fact as a method for how things change. But no, not nearly all the questions about origins are answered. But evolution is not about origins. It starts only once life has begun. It’s not it’s source, though patterns like evolution are.
“I would think if we look at Jewish Midrash at the story of Lilith; that might shed some light.”
It might indeed. Lilith was Adam’s first wife. She wanted to be equal in everything. Adam disagreed, so did god, so she spoke the real name of god and instantly turned in to a wind demon. Lived by the red sea and spawned thousands of demon babies, who the angels murdered. In return she kills babies by crib death and has sex with human males in their dreams and kills them.
But before she did all that, she was a Sumerian goddess who lived in a tree that a large snake moved into. Also, there’s the story about her husband who was injured and dying. She produced 8 tree babies. One for each of his wounds. One was called the lady of the rib, as she had been created to cure his rib wounds.
The tree and snake stories are much older than Judaism and the Hebrews by a couple thousand years at least. Sumerians had a lot of magic trees/gods/goddesses. Probably where the Hebrew stories originate.
“Considering the patriarchal nature of humanity it would make sense that Eve would be spoken of as an afterthought.”
And yet, pre civilization hunter gatherers were not patriarchal for the most part, as far as we know. Early farming communities weren’t. Even the Sumerians, the first civilization we know of weren’t. But at least some of the Hebrews were, and wrote it into their bible. Arabs are Semitic people too, and very patriarchal. Their bible too oppresses woman. And of course, Christianity has the oppression of woman written in to it as well.
“As to your comment about Adam needing Eve to mate with; I take the word mate to be synonymous with sex, which I always saw as subsequent to consumption of the fruit Prior to that I assumed they didn’t do such, since no offspring were the product of the time in the garden.”
Doesn’t seem they were there long. But really, why not? They were a male and a female. Why make them that way if sex was off the table? They just didn’t have those human feelings before even though all animals were made to go forth and multiply? No reason to be male or female if you don’t have sexual feelings.
“I suppose if I were a guy I would have assumed sex was the required reward for giving up a rib.”
Were there a god why the need to take a rib? Zero. This was clearly a story told to make women second class, owned by man. She is created for man, from man, and is ruled and owned by man. That’s the only reason to tell such a story.
Then, its her that eats the fruit first and gives it to him. He wimps out and says she made him do it. That made woman an evil thing in the eyes of Christian fathers. I don’t know how any self respecting woman can believe this stuff and want to be Christian or Islamic.
“However, I wouldn’t assume people were ‘unimportant’. It’s like if I decided to write a story of your lineage. That wouldn’t mean no one else was important.”
But no mention of them? Adam and Eve the first? A lie? Or were the others Inferior so not worth talking about? Adam not the first man, just the first Hebrew? But why make them separate from the rest? Some say Adam was the first with free will. Meaning the others didn’t until Hebrews related to him mated with them. Meaning until god tossed Adam out of the Garden the big original sin was contained. Nice guy to infect us all.
Also, look at Job. He losses everything because of a bet. Sure, in the end he gets his stuff back. But the original wife and kids are still dead. No one in the story cares about them, and they were innocent bystanders. Job is the only important one.
Then theres the Egyptian plagues that kill thousands of innocent people no one cares about and who had nothing to do with anything. No one but the Jews are important, as well as god glorifying himself. The bible is full of stories where whole groups of people suffer for no reason except to make a point to the “important” people.
“I don’t think the problem of incest is something to worry about. I read an article where researchers have determined that we are descended from one man and one woman; which I found comforting.”
Not exactly. Our species didn’t just appear. Before there were modern chickens, there were lots of birds/proto-chickens that were almost modern chickens. One or several mutations that formed sapiens may have originated from one female, and then evolved from there. But we aren’t a pure species. We are a product of several other species of humanoid, and before that we share a common ancestor that produced several humanoid species as well as apes and other primates. In the end we may well be directly due to one single celled animal and its specific mutations. Hardly the Adam and Eve of the bible.
“Nonbelief is a natural part of our evolution as a thinking species. You don’t have to believe in good news to make it good news; and it isn’t good news if not believing in it negates the value of it.”
I agree. It doesn’t make sense that it would matter. From my rather liberal Catholic upbringing, its how you live, not whether or not you believe. Too bad more Christians don’t take that view.
“As I stated (I think previously in this thread) I don’t advocate a free for all but we label a lot of things evil, or wrong, or bad. However, it is only bad if you choose to see it that way. If everyone doesn’t agree to label it such; what does that mean? Is it not bad? Is it universally bad if one person proclaims it to be? You see the world in a manner that is uniquely you. The same goes for me and everyone else. “
I disagree. Yes, good and evil are subjective, but they can also be objective. If I harm someone physically, that’s objective harm even to an objectively real subjective person. What we call evil is intent to harm. A tree falling on your head isn’t evil. A burglar hitting you on the head with a hammer is. Objective harm comes in many forms. So my golden rule is: do no intentional harm.
“The problem I see is that we attempt to push the conclusions a lifetime of experience has led us to as somehow superior to those of another. “
Agreed 100 percent. But discussing many perspectives without trying to push your ideas is not a bad thing at all. And fighting for your position until its proven wrong isn’t either. But holding on to ideas that are obviously wrong is self deception.
“if we reserved judgement until we had not only all the facts but also gave full benefit of the doubt to others as we give ourselves and we created the same ‘mitigating circumstances’ scenarios we use to justify our own actions?”
I have no issue with this at all.
“I cannot come to the conclusion that a Creator is evil.”
Because we don’t have all the facts? Ok, so you have a few choices. The god of the bible is supposedly all mighty. It’s not bound by any rules or conditions, it makes them. If that’s the case it could have created this any way it wanted. So if it created all this it had to have a reason. What would that reason be? Not companionship, certainly. If it wanted that it could have created other beings like itself. The only thing the bible says is that we’re here to be keepers of the earth. But all through the bible he’s constantly trying to glorify himself. Are we just amusing? That would mean cruelty.
We’re told that in heaven we’ll get to sing his praises all day long. He demands worship; fans. He sounds like the typical egotistical tyrant of 3000 bce till now. Kings often claimed divinity and were seen that way.
Jews call him a vengeful god. But then, he’s the only god around, created us, so it can do with us as it likes. It decrees morality, but isn’t bound by it himself. Islam sees god in pretty much the same light. Sing his praise or else. Love my, worship me, obey me, or go to hell. But Christianity ignores all that and trys to make him in to a nice guy. Problem is, you kept the old testament.
Ok, he makes us suffer because someone ate a forbidden fruit. I get it, though it makes no sense. But then if he gave us animals for food, why do they suffer? What sin did they commit? This is the profile of a cruel egotistical tyrant. And he had to have his son murdered in order to forgive us? We had to murder a god to be saved? Come now, and this god is all powerful and can do what it likes, and it does this? And that’s good news? It’s like a mafia don forgiving the trespasses of another mob if they’ll murder his son. Sound sane to you
Now, if god isn’t all powerful and it had to do it according to natural rules, but could have done it in many ways, its either cruel or inept and made mistakes. But then, its had 4 billion years to fix its mistakes. And it hasn’t.
But if it could only do it this way, why do it if not cruelty? Were this all a simulation created in the basement supercomputer of a 14 year old, and he or she knew the objective harm and suffering it was creating for its amusement, I’d certainly call it cruel too.
So, sometimes the argument is; if you don’t know bad you won’t know good. So we have to suffer. We wouldn’t enjoy our achievements because we wouldn’t have to work for them. I don’t buy it for a number of reasons. First off, that’s the way it is now. Its hindsight. The idea is to get rid of suffering and evil, and make life better. If life was eventually perfect, you wouldn’t miss adversity, would you? Would we bring evil back just so we’d know the difference? That would be ridiculous.
Therefore, what reason would a god have for creating this the way it is? There’s another alternative. What if god is messed up? We are its problems manifest, and our existence works them out. Ours and everything else’s. It does seem from science that the universe is constantly struggling for balance. Chaos breeds order. Complexity emerges from constantly and consistently following simple rules over and over again under different conditions.
It’s as if the totality is striving for some form of perfection. So either god is messed and trying to fix itself, or the totality itself is attempting to create the god state: absolute perfection. In other words, no god made us; we’re making god. Now that would give life purpose, wouldn’t it?
So who knows?
“ It’s like vegetarians.”
I’m not a vegetarian exactly because no matter what I eat I’m killing something. That’s just how it is. And again, it’s not an evil thing as long as it wasn’t done this way intentionally.
“To me, a vegetarian is simply deciding which life has value and which doesn’t. Based solely on how similar that life form is to his or her self. Your argument goes along those lines. You are deciding which life has value and which should be pitied., using yourself as the benchmark.”
No I’m not. Life is selfish, but only because it has to be. That’s not inherently good or bad. It’s only bad if it was intentional.
“If you have a lab, and you think you can create a symbiotic ecosystem which is self-sustaining and does not involve any adverse interaction between all parts; please go for it and then show the work you hath wrought. I’d be very impressed. “
Were I a god I doubt I’d have a problem doing just that. If I knew what I was creating would suffer because I was restricted in doing it, I wouldn’t do it. And who knows? Someday someone may well create such a world in a lab. I’ll be impressed too. But I’d be more impressed if we could find a way to do it here.
“Absolutely, except that if there were a god and he wanted to tell them this stuff, surely he/she/it could have made them understand. And could have put in details that even if they didn’t understand, we would.”
You ever wonder what it would be like, going back in history’ and grabbing an adult? Really far back where they were still chipping away at stones to make spear heads? You have a limited time to instill a couple of ideas into their heads….what would you focus on? What about if you took an incredibly large group of people who had come from a primitive culture, been enslaved for hundreds of years, treated like animals over generations? How would you work to bring them into a cohesive society which could evolve into a godly one?
We tend to look at things from a perspective of whom and what we are and where we are at the moment. If you were thrust into the past (not the same as creation, of course) you couldn’t change the entirety of mankind. You would focus on the individual, slowly educating and sharing ideas. You would have to work on their level, at the outset, in hopes that through time that individual could be brought up to the next level so that you could work to bring them up to another, then another, and at some point they might be close enough to your level to begin to understand concepts which had always been your goal to teach them.
Look at the mosaic laws. Anyone who thinks the Israelites weren’t a savage bunch need only look at those to see that this group needed some very, very basic lessons in fundamental basics of civilized behavior.
The story of Adam and Eve is little different. Having the capability of thought does not mean you actually do it. Could an ancient baby be transported here, raised in our society, and function well as an adult? Certainly. Could a modern baby be inserted into the past and be indistinguishable from another after being raised in that environment? Certainly. Adam and Eve are little more than a representation of the first ‘I am’ moment. The moment humanity opened its eyes as a thinking species. The moment of the realization of ‘I am me, what are you?’ The story focuses on the spiritual side of that moment; the ramifications of the realization and how that process devolved rather quickly.
“And, I am aware that it is assumed that the text was compiled from sources whose views were different. “
‘Good. Not many are.’
Your opinion is indicative of the impression I get that you have little respect for the thought processes of others. It doesn’t really matter how the ideas were compiled, it is the intent that is important. We weren’t destined to follow, or lead. We were destined to think for ourselves. Or, as you would put it, that is the way we evolved.
“Well, the supernatural is said to not interact with the natural or we would be able to test for it and prove it or falsify it.”
That’s where I disagree with you. I believe the ‘supernatural’ is natural. We just don’t understand it. I think, on some levels at some point in the infinity of time, consciousness made a conscious decision not to understand it. Why? It is possible that there is much to be learned through the experience of enlightenment. It is said all souls existed from the beginning and will exist, in some form, in the end. The Christian view is in the fires of hell or the light of heaven.
‘I am.’ It’s a hell of a realization. But, ‘Who am I?’ is the lifelong journey. Think about it. We want to consider ourselves good. What is good? We are slowly evolving into an understanding of the question. We are slowly finding ourselves in greater positions of ‘seeing’ more and more of our species within the world. Good and bad have been quantified within civilizations and now we are in the position to view how others have answered those questions and we are in a position to compare and reject, or accept, those judgments. As a species, if we survive, we will work our way toward a greater and greater good. Because that is how we are as a species.
As to your thoughts on the fact that you would believe if shown; would you? You are full of judgment and loathing. You look at this world through the eyes of someone who admittedly insists he could do a better job of creation. You look at the world through the eyes of a transient being within it. It’s like an ant laughing at Einstein because it can’t wrap its antenna around relativity. To judge from your position is ludicrous. We don’t yet fully understand reality so we can’t make long reaching judgments on its value.
‘The other idea is that we wouldn’t be “free” to choose if we knew with certainty.’
I’d have to disagree with you on that one. If you knew, for a fact, there was a vengeful God who was capable and willing to throw you into a pit of fire, to suffer for all eternity; you’d probably do whatever you could to avoid that fate. So that argument, for those who believe in that outcome, is perfectly within the bounds of reason.
‘Do you choose your likes and dislikes? No, you have them.’
I’m going to have to disagree on that one also. They were chosen at some point and time. Consciously and intelligently? Probably not. I’ve got a nephew who hates icing. He had a stomach virus in conjunction with the moment he went to a birthday party. He equates throwing up with eating cake. Did he choose that? Certainly. But that dislike is the result of an improper understanding of facts.
‘Yet everything you choose to do is based on feelings you don’t choose to have but like having.’
Yes. Every choice is the result of processing information gathered by your senses and then choices made when processing that information.
‘Again, if a god created us, it’s responsible for what we are as much as we are for what we do.’
To a certain degree. By your reasoning, a parent is responsible for the actions of their adult children. A parent must bear the guilt of birthing an eventual drug addict, a mass murderer or an abusive husband and, subsequently, the actions of all their grandchildren and great grandchildren and all others who came after. Your view is kind of like putting the original sin on the back of Eve.
‘Yes and no. Evolution is a fact as a method for how things change. But no, not nearly all the questions about origins are answered. But evolution is not about origins. It starts only once life has begun. It’s not it’s source, though patterns like evolution are.’
To quote you, good. Not many are.
‘It might indeed. Lilith was Adam’s first wife. She wanted to be equal in everything. Adam disagreed, so did god, so she spoke the real name of god and instantly turned in to a wind demon. Lived by the red sea and spawned thousands of demon babies, who the angels murdered. In return she kills babies by crib death and has sex with human males in their dreams and kills them.’
One would think, since I mentioned Lilith, I would know the story of Lilith; but thanks for the recap. Since Lilith is relegated to Midrash, other legends bearing the same name don’t really make much sense, as an argument for her not being real in the first place. She wasn’t real. It was Midrash. It’s used as a narrative to clarify a given set of circumstances. The story of Lilith was used to ensure the subservience of women.
I wouldn’t say that the Sumerian stories were copied by the Hebrews, primarily because we do not have a clear and undisputed archaeological record of the Hebrews. The best explanation I’ve ever heard was that all ancient man had access to the same facts and interpreted them in line with what their understanding of reality. The Hebrew understanding survived because it is the one which has remained most in line with reality as humanity can discern it as time passed.
‘And yet, pre civilization hunter gatherers were not patriarchal for the most part, as far as we know. Early farming communities weren’t. Even the Sumerians, the first civilization we know of weren’t. But at least some of the Hebrews were, and wrote it into their bible. Arabs are Semitic people too, and very patriarchal. Their bible too oppresses woman. And of course, Christianity has the oppression of woman written in to it as well.’
Again, there you go coming to broad ranging conclusions based on your preconceived prejudices. We don’t have the faintest idea how hunter gatherer societies were organized. Women were not ‘equal’ in ancient Sumeria although there is evidence they had a better plight in life than other cultures of the time. As to the Bible ‘oppressing’ women. Yes, women were suppressed but it is the Biblical text which points to the fact that in the eyes of God Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.. The Bible is an assortment of history, common belief, interspersed with divine guidance. We have to read, think about the spirit of the law and apply that spirit to our actions.
If God exists then reality is of God. What do you observe? Evolution. At all levels, in some way. What, through observation, have we discerned about human civilization? It evolves, just as does all else within reality. Nothing is stagnant. Nothing stands still. It is our duty, as thinking life forms, to strive to evolve to the good. Toward greater inclusiveness; toward greater compassion as we find ourselves in the position to identify that which is wrong, as it applies to our interaction with a fellow individual. It’s been a long road but we have made progress. I can’t look at the past in the same light as the present. Time is a progression and we have to take into account the evolution of thought.
‘Doesn’t seem they were there long. But really, why not? They were a male and a female. Why make them that way if sex was off the table? They just didn’t have those human feelings before even though all animals were made to go forth and multiply? No reason to be male or female if you don’t have sexual feelings.’
Really? Sure, sex is good. We all enjoy it. Do kids have it? Why not? The story of Adam and Eve is the journey from a state of innocence to evolving out of it. From the way I view the story, sex would not be a part of the Garden because Adam and Eve just were. They were not viewing the world from a perspective of ‘how is this different from that’. They just were. Their original purpose was not in line with the original purpose listed in the first chapter of Genesis. Their original purpose was to set the stage for the enlightenment of future generations. To set the stage for understanding, on a very basic level, why we are the way we are. You, again, are viewing things from the perception of a transient existence. You are thinking ‘how ignorant to think that a person could live without the thought of sex’. I’m looking at it from the viewpoint that, if we are eternal creatures, sex encompasses such a miniscule part of our eternal existence that its absence during the story is of no import.
‘Were there a god why the need to take a rib? Zero. This was clearly a story told to make women second class, owned by man. She is created for man, from man, and is ruled and owned by man. That’s the only reason to tell such a story.’
I’d agree that we interpret it such and it is a foolish belief. But, the survival of ancient societies depended on structure. If that was the structure of that time then interpretation would need to reflect that need.
‘Then, its her that eats the fruit first and gives it to him. He wimps out and says she made him do it. That made woman an evil thing in the eyes of Christian fathers. I don’t know how any self-respecting woman can believe this stuff and want to be Christian or Islamic.’
So, a self-respecting woman isn’t acutely aware of the fact that people transfer blame, those in power look for ways to maintain it, and women have gotten a bad rap throughout most of modern history? Interesting. And, you believe that self-respecting women should believe that, without the influence of a monotheistic belief, life would have been just peachy keen for them? Again, interesting.
‘But no mention of them? Adam and Eve the first?’
The text doesn’t support that statement. What of the ones created and told to ‘go forth and multiply?’
‘Or were the others Inferior so not worth talking about? Adam not the first man, just the first Hebrew? But why make them separate from the rest? Some say Adam was the first with free will. Meaning the others didn’t until Hebrews related to him mated with them. Meaning until god tossed Adam out of the Garden the big original sin was contained. Nice guy to infect us all.’
I feel like I am repeating myself but, again, it isn’t that no one else was worth talking about. You have plenty of sources where ancient man is talking about ancient man. They don’t talk about the Hebrews. Should we condemn all of these writings because they don’t explain all the beliefs of other civilizations on earth at the same time? I say no, apparently you feel differently. Adam didn’t infect anyone. That was an in-depth look at the loss of innocence. It shows the moment we step away from what was hoped for Adam and Adam choosing to take a different course. It is a lesson in the fact that no matter what God might have done with the individual, the individual will always chose free will over blind obedience; and the ups and downs of the ramifications of that choice. It is a theme played out over and over during the Old Testament text. God steps up to the plate, makes his presence known, does something fairly nice and at some point the portion of humanity which has benefited from the intervention strays again. It is a monumental attestation to the fact that God cannot play an active role in our reality.
‘Also, look at Job. He losses everything because of a bet. Sure, in the end he gets his stuff back. But the original wife and kids are still dead. No one in the story cares about them, and they were innocent bystanders. Job is the only important one.’
Yeh. That particular aspect of the story is creepily uncaring. But, it is also a lesson in whatever trials and tribulations crash into our existence we have the capability to persevere and to find a silver lining for ourselves. I suppose, if we looked at the story of each individual involved, we could ferret out a silver lining for those individuals; maybe not. But, it is also a story which highlights how insignificant we are, as individuals, in the grand scheme of the universe and how significant we are at the same time.
‘Then theres the Egyptian plagues that kill thousands of innocent people no one cares about and who had nothing to do with anything. No one but the Jews are important, as well as god glorifying himself. The bible is full of stories where whole groups of people suffer for no reason except to make a point to the “important” people.’
Conversely, we have the story of the Jews who are, in my opinion, unarguably the most persecuted people of history. But, again, the story is an incredible lesson in why an active God cannot be a part of our reality. Can you imagine if you found yourself enslaved, then a guy came along and said God was going to free you and God did, with plagues that killed thousands of innocent people, moved in front of you as a great pillar of fire, parted a sea and dried the bed for you to walk across, sent a plague through your part of the camp to kill ungrateful whiners, and dropped food out of the sky to keep you alive? Would you react as the Israelites did? We can’t appreciate the gifts of God because nothing is good enough. We always want more. We always want everything, but we do not want to sacrifice free will in the process. Blind obedience is not in our nature and without blind obedience we have no right to be elevated above others who are just like us. God has shown that it is not in our best interests for God to find us. We have to find God.
‘Not exactly. Our species didn’t just appear. Before there were modern chickens, there were lots of birds/proto-chickens that were almost modern chickens. One or several mutations that formed sapiens may have originated from one female, and then evolved from there. But we aren’t a pure species. We are a product of several other species of humanoid, and before that we share a common ancestor that produced several humanoid species as well as apes and other primates. In the end we may well be directly due to one single celled animal and its specific mutations. Hardly the Adam and Eve of the bible.’
You missed the point. Whatever came before, or after, there was a bottleneck which could have caused our extinction and it didn’t. The point is that we have a theory where a thriving species can arise from only two individuals. It has incredibly wide reaching ramifications not only for our species but all species on earth today.
‘I agree. It doesn’t make sense that it would matter. From my rather liberal Catholic upbringing, its how you live, not whether or not you believe. Too bad more Christians don’t take that view.’
There you go again, pushing your personal belief as superior to that of others.
‘I disagree. Yes, good and evil are subjective, but they can also be objective. If I harm someone physically, that’s objective harm even to an objectively real subjective person. What we call evil is intent to harm. A tree falling on your head isn’t evil. A burglar hitting you on the head with a hammer is. Objective harm comes in many forms. So my golden rule is: do no intentional harm.’
Yes. The spirit of the intent determines what is right or wrong, good or evil. But, you have to view the spirit of intent from all involved perspectives. If I feel that you have harmed me and you feel you haven’t then you have to determine intent and desire. I maintain that taking offense is more a choice of action than it is a reaction. Because not all react in the same manner so you cannot universally claim evil. But, you also have to look inside yourself and determine if you aspired to harm. If so, then we would both be at fault, you for attempting to inflict harm and me for embracing words in a negative way.
I say I don’t advocate a free for all because a civil society has to have rules of conduct. For example, you can’t steal. It is wrong, but on what level? What compelled your actions? That is where the spirit of the law comes into play. That is where giving others the same benefit of the doubt you give yourself becomes important and where looking at ‘mitigating circumstances’ is imperative. That is where sometimes we find ourselves judging evil where it didn’t truly exist. If we don’t attempt to mentally walk in the shoes of another we cannot be fair and equitable. We are in jeopardy of living by the letter and not the spirit of the intent of our vision for a civil society. We can initially ‘hurt’ each other, but we can also learn to understand that ‘hurting’ us is only a byproduct of the ‘hurt’ which compelled an individual to act in a certain manner. We can find out how we, as a society, failed that individual and learn from our mistakes so another person does not walk the same path; sharing the truths we have found to help others see how actions create reactions over and over again.
But, we don’t do that. We create more and more laws. We argue simple points within them to leave some feeling victimized and some feeling that their actions which are detrimental to others are justified; without really justifying them. We have a society here in America which is growing more despondent (resulting in higher and higher suicide rates) and getting angrier and angrier because instead of attempting to walk in the shoes of others we simply judge them evil and feel self-righteous in the process. We spit on the spirit of the intent of the law while scrambling to enslave our neighbors in the letter of it. Sorry, I digress.
‘But discussing many perspectives without trying to push your ideas is not a bad thing at all. And fighting for your position until its proven wrong isn’t either. But holding on to ideas that are obviously wrong is self deception.’
I agree. But, self-deception is not limited to those who believe in God. Self-deception is also displayed by those who hold preconceived notions of God and cannot allow for the possibility that their conclusions are not arrived at even through the same experiences by others. You, and others, deny existence because of your experience and your interpretation of whatever religious text you choose as your reasons for non-belief.
I had a life changing experience once which proves to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, on the existence of God and, by the experience I had, Jesus. I’ve always wondered why I cannot replicate that moment. Is it me? Am I unworthy? Have I done something to drive God from my life? Those questions do plague me from time to time. I assume that if I am ever in such a time of angst, and need, I will experience such a moment again. The fact that I can’t recreate that moment doesn’t negate my belief in God or the reality of that moment, it reinforces my acceptance that there are things I cannot understand. So, I keep my eyes open. I spend a great deal of time reflecting on these questions, reading as much as I can on discoveries from all angles within the scientific community, to help me better understand the nature of reality and, hopefully, find that little piece of the puzzle which will help me put that experience in perspective. Will that piece negate belief in God? It can’t but it can more greatly enhance my understanding of the force behind that moment. It could cause 180 degree shift in my definition of the term God, but facts remain firmly in place which limit some options.
‘We’re told that in heaven we’ll get to sing his praises all day long. He demands worship; fans. He sounds like the typical egotistical tyrant of 3000 bce till now. Kings often claimed divinity and were seen that way.’
Again, I will say that the Old Testament is a study in what God would have to look like, if he were an active force in our world and a testament as to why such a world cannot exist. The New Testament is a reflection of how God is. If the God of the Old Testament is an accurate reflection of God then Jesus would have come with an army, smiting the Romans with a flaming sword, and sending a bevy of plagues to boot. Didn’t happen. We can learn from that or we can choose not to.
‘Jews call him a vengeful god. But then, he’s the only god around, created us, so it can do with us as it likes. It decrees morality, but isn’t bound by it himself. Islam sees god in pretty much the same light. Sing his praise or else. Love my, worship me, obey me, or go to hell. But Christianity ignores all that and trys to make him in to a nice guy. Problem is, you kept the old testament.’
Yes. The Old Testament is important in understanding who God is, and isn’t. It’s like studying history. If you stop at World War II, claim that is indicative of all that humanity is, you might as well just hurry AI along and hope it eventually annihilates this evil race.
‘Ok, he makes us suffer because someone ate a forbidden fruit. I get it, though it makes no sense. But then if he gave us animals for food, why do they suffer? What sin did they commit? This is the profile of a cruel egotistical tyrant.’
By that thinking, we can assume you also believe that shielding our children from things while they are growing up is wrong, unless we continue to do so once they reach adulthood.
‘And he had to have his son murdered in order to forgive us? We had to murder a god to be saved?’
Again, human evolution goes along a linear path. You cannot judge that by modern standards. That gave a path away from animal sacrifice. For the ancients, it was life changing. Can you imagine when they moved the ark from one place to the other and they sacrificed animals at each step along the way? Ignorance by our standards. Or, the Romans sacrificing in their temples? The cultures who sacrificed humans to their gods? Theirs was not our world. But, I forget. You think God should have just arrived in Ur, or given suitcases full of books with scientific evidence explaining the theory of everything to Adam or Abraham; along with video proof of the afterlife. Since he didn’t, he’s just oh so cruel to let humanity grow, learn and evolve.
‘Now, if god isn’t all powerful and it had to do it according to natural rules, but could have done it in many ways, its either cruel or inept and made mistakes. But then, its had 4 billion years to fix its mistakes. And it hasn’t.’
Again, your argument would hold infinitely more strength if you could present me with an alternative scenario where a God exists and reality can exist, without natural and man-made circumstances existing which can be categorized as good, or evil.
‘But if it could only do it this way, why do it if not cruelty? Were this all a simulation created in the basement supercomputer of a 14 year old, and he or she knew the objective harm and suffering it was creating for its amusement, I’d certainly call it cruel too.’
Cruel? Certainly, if the 14 year old’s intent was to cause harm and suffering for his amusement. But, is there popcorn in heaven?
‘So, sometimes the argument is; if you don’t know bad you won’t know good. So we have to suffer. We wouldn’t enjoy our achievements because we wouldn’t have to work for them. I don’t buy it for a number of reasons. First off, that’s the way it is now. Its hindsight. The idea is to get rid of suffering and evil, and make life better. If life was eventually perfect, you wouldn’t miss adversity, would you? Would we bring evil back just so we’d know the difference? That would be ridiculous.’
And, I’ll counter that with the fact that we will always categorize. We will always judge good and bad. However much we evolve as a species we will always find reasons to say life is not perfect, we will always find reasons to believe we are suffering adversity and we will always define some things as evil and those definitions will change with each stage of our collective evolution. If you don’t believe that, just look at different moments in history and different societies.
‘Therefore, what reason would a god have for creating this the way it is? There’s another alternative. What if god is messed up? We are its problems manifest, and our existence works them out. Ours and everything else’s. It does seem from science that the universe is constantly struggling for balance. Chaos breeds order. Complexity emerges from constantly and consistently following simple rules over and over again under different conditions.’
Interesting, because (the struggles of the universe to the side) I see society as a constant fight for order and positive evolution. Chaos causes our desire for order, but chaos is always held at bay by our desire to work together toward order. I think if we do solve all of the manifest problems that success is evidence that God did not fail; but prevailed, because we start with diametrically opposed premises.
‘It’s as if the totality is striving for some form of perfection. So either god is messed and trying to fix itself, or the totality itself is attempting to create the god state: absolute perfection. In other words, no god made us; we’re making god. Now that would give life purpose, wouldn’t it?’
Or, we are made in the image of God, the universe is made in the image of God and it is all a time line of how God achieved some form of perfection. Maybe, our likeness will end up being our ability to bring order out of the chaos of humanity. Maybe the natural forces we observe are a reflection of the obstacles God experienced in the process of bringing some semblance of order to the chaos of the beginning. Who knows? One thing I do know is that railing against God serves no purpose other than self-indulgence.
‘I’m not a vegetarian exactly because no matter what I eat I’m killing something. That’s just how it is. And again, it’s not an evil thing as long as it wasn’t done this way intentionally.’
‘No I’m not. Life is selfish, but only because it has to be. That’s not inherently good or bad. It’s only bad if it was intentional.’
‘Were I a god I doubt I’d have a problem doing just that. If I knew what I was creating would suffer because I was restricted in doing it, I wouldn’t do it.’
Again, self-indulgent and totally useless, except as an opportunity for negativity. Without proof that another system of reality is possible, you are operating on belief and bias. I will take an imperfect reality over the possibility of no reality any day of the week.
I can only begin to digest a small amount of what has been written here.
Isn't what's quoted a reasonable summary of what Christainity (especially the evangelical variety) tries to do in order to gain coverts? Is it not stemming from a presumption of superiority?
And please tell me what you envisage as a "godly society." Is it not a collection of people who presume they are superior to an un-godly bunch?
And whom do you accept as being an infallible judge of the essential difference?
Sorry for the typo blooper. Covert should read convert, lol!
jonny, As a Christian, I consider "godly" to mean loving, considerate, moral and of good repute based on the Bible. I don't consider it to be superiority because vanity and pride are sins.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
I'm talking about the Israelites, in the wilderness. You've seen me repeatedly comment on their savagery. Maybe 'godly' was a poor word choice, considering the audience and the difference we have in definitions; but maybe not. The result probably would fit your definition of a godly society. And it sucked.
The intent of the entire exercise of the Exodus was to gather a people to God, give them freedom in every way. Physically, God would protect them. Spiritually, because they were to benefit from the presence of God. And the entire lesson shows the effort was fruitless, on the physical and spiritual scale. The diaspora showed the end of that lesson. Government can't be trusted to be godly. Theirs is the business of ensuring behavior patterns of all fit the minimum requirements of a semblance of order. You can't force people to do what is 'good'. Because 'good' requires an understanding of why it is good, not legislation and constant fine tuning until good is simply an exercise in following the letter of an ever increasing set of laws.
And that lesson was left to sink in until Jesus hit the stage. I've always wondered why, if Jesus is God Incarnate, why does everyone always go back to the letter of the law? If his teachings should take precedent (God, fairly unfiltered) why search the letter in hopes of ferreting out some spiritual mystery?
Who is the infallible judge? It comes down to the individual, doesn't it? That is what Jesus taught. To look in your heart to find the truth. If adultery is wrong, the thought of it is, also. Find the why of that truth and apply it to other scenarios and you'll understand.
Edit. I'd also like to add that doing what others consider to be good, because they consider it to be such, is not the same as doing good, spiritually. Following is not being. I've known plenty of people who do what is considered to be the right thing but begrudge the fact that they 'had' to do it. If you don't understand the why, the action is an exercise in confusion and angst.
I am not in any way a scholar of the bible, history or archeology. However, from what little I have seen from those who do claim to be scholars, the Exodus was a collection of peoples fighting for survival. They were being admonished for having allowed themselves to take on some of the undesirable traits of other cultures (wasn't it the Caananites?).
To now quote a passage from the bible, as Diane has just done, sounds so 'nice,' and when/if put into practice might produce a Shangrilah of our world. But we know in reality it is an attempt to make christians appear superior.
Such an attempt is aimed at controlling others usually, not at improving one's own actions and attitudes.
Any failure to achieve the latter is fobbed off by a claim to "believe in Jesus." Just clever strategy in my personal opinion.
Again personally, I have dropped any such belief and rely solely on my own achievements and failures, taking full responsibility for both. No need for fiction and make-believe. But others are free to make their choices.
And just as an after-thought, having read your latter post right through, L-to-L, I find nothing to argue with there. Thank you.
Diane shared her belief. While I may disagree on some points made by evangelicals, I've made myself clear on what I think, as a follower of Christ. I don't see the need to insult, or belittle, others by saying they think they are superior. If someone makes the claim that their belief is superior to another, then I respond. Otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt I'd appreciate others give to me.
From your response,you appear to be confusing the history of the Bible. The Exodus was the story of the Israelites being freed from Egypt. Canaan was simply the land they conquered. I'd have to read the text to double check, but I think although they knew they were headed to a' promised land' I don't know that the location was mentioned until they arrived.
Your experiences have led you to your preconceptions about Christians. Christians have beliefs as diverse as any group. I've seen you react negatively when a statement with a negative bent is made about atheists, as a lumped together group. Log in the eye syndrome, I suppose.
Christ condemned no one, unilaterally. Except maybe a fig tree. That I'm aware of. You will, of course, search for examples to prove me wrong.
With regard to Israelites in Egypt, that all started with Jacob's sons putting Joseph, their youngest brother in a pit because they were jealous of him.. What they did was evil but God used for good. Joseph was taken to Egypt, through a series of events, was imprisoned and later give power because he showed Egyptians how to survive a drought.
The king was holden to Joseph and had Joseph bring his father, Jacob, and their clan to Egypt. Everything was great until the king died and the Israelites were enslaved.
Moses was born and raised in the palace by the pharoah's (king) daughter. He later had a meeting w/ God at the burning bush. Joseph led them across the Red Sea and drowned the Egyptian soldiers following them.
The Israelites soon forgot that God had freed them and wanted to return to Egypt. When Moses went to pray and when he received the 10 Commandments, including though should have no other God before me, and returned to the camp People had made a golden calf as their god and were having orgies..
They were punished and roamed in the wildernes for 40 years. They had to fight to protect themselves. Not like going from England to France or California to New York, people were attacking them. They needed to protect themselves. Part of the protection included making preemptive strikes as is done in war.
Yes there was a lot of killing. It was necessary to survive. God had promised Abraham land where his descendants would multiply. They are there now in constant conflict..
There was reason for the fighting. If I go to Iraq, I am not promised I will survive. Saudi Arabian has shown that people they don't like are not safe in Turkey!
Short version. A lot was left out for brevity.. I hate long posts.
From my perspective, as soon as I see you claim to be a "follower of Christ," I detect a bias, that sets yourself apart from myself who does not make such a claim.
Is bias a fault? Not necessarily, but it's a fact of life which needs to be recognised if we are to gain understanding.
I have no idea why you detect a bias. It is your bias. If you say you love chocolate and I say I prefer caramel; am I insulting you?
This falls into the category of what I was speaking of in an earlier comment. If you claim harm and I didn't intend harm... who's at fault? You, for choosing to take offense. I had no intent to harm.
As you rightly say, Diane shared her belief. I greatly respect Diane and have said so publicly on more than one occasion. But should that restrict me in stating my opinion about christian matters in general? Why would you suppose I intend to insult or belittle Diane by doing so? Is it not your judgement that is triggered by your own "follower of Christ" bias?
Yes, I am biased also. I am biased on the side of self defense, against the christian presumption that anyone who is not christian is one of 'them," not "us."
Tribalism. It was true of those people coming out of Egypt and it's true of us today.
If you, L-to-L, see yourself as a "follower of Christ," please describe for us the Christ you try to emulate. Is there only one aspect of the Christ which is authentic? Or many?
You continually come from a defensive position when I see no-one playing offense. My claim to be a follower of Christ does not prohibit your movement in any direction. I shouldn't have to deny my nature to appease yours, unless my nature seeks to enslave yours. Although I consider your stand to be just that, in as much as you appear to think only your beliefs warrant respect.
I grant you that evangelicals can come off as condescending to me and the whole 'relationship with Christ' claim is a bit of a mystery, but that is their belief just as yours is yours.
My statement as to being a follower of Christ (since the mouse in your pocket wanted you to include him in the request for clarification) is simply that I believe he was God in the flesh. I judge my actions by his example. Of course I fall short, and always will, but I hold him up as the example of perfect human behavior.
Now, I can only use that by my idea of who he was. He didn't appear to judge anyone, he was kind to all, he didn't advocate religious conflict. He advocated understanding the why of your actions. To me, the point was so simple it's easily lost to those who need mystery. I remember reading a quote from the Dalai Lama about smart people not making good Buddhists. The point being people want to think they are smart and they want others to agree with them. The Bible says Jesus, even as a child, had an understanding that amazed the rabbis. That reflects the Dalai Lama's remark. Understanding what we should do isn't rocket science. We make it rocket science because we want to think we are good while ignoring the needs of others. We spend so much time searching for validation of our actions without caring about the effect.
I think religion hijacked Christ. But, isn't that the way things always go in human endeavors? A good idea gets diluted over time,in order to be more and more inclusive, those in power gain more power, and man enslaves man? We allow it to happen because it is easier than caring about others and having faith in them to care back.
I agree.. Religious and "spiritual" people have hijacked Christ.. I don't even know what spiritual but not religious means. Often non-Christians will say they are Christians to try to neutralize a position taken by Christians. Example, sex outside of marriage is sin according to the Bible. Pseudo-Chriistians will say that times have changed.
I'd have to counter that with Jesus inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone. Times haven't changed, people will always be people, looking to judge the actions of others.
I wasn't implying that Christians don't commit adultery or other sins. The point is that we are supposed to ask forgiveness.. The problem is with people who think it is ok to be disobedient and do not believe the Bible is relevant today.. Christians should be convicted that what they are doing is wrong and do 1 John 1:9. Donald Trump says he doesn't sin. That is not consistent with Christianity..
Agreed. But, Christians must, individually, put their own house in order, keep it in order, and understand it is each individual's right to do so also, by their own conscience.
Too often, those who profess to be Christian and preach their beliefs resemble empty sepulchres more than anything else. Embrace love God, love your neighbor as yourself and leave the rest to God. Conversion happens more effectively by the example of the good in your own life through belief than it does with a weaponized Bible. Jesus is proof of that.
You are free to envisage a Jesus of your choosing.
I see a courageous man, an upstart, who dressed and behaved provocatively towards the accepted and respected officialdom of his time. Never did he nor would he claim himself to be God.
I see the christ-ism of our time as a carefully crafted control mechanism, used by governments, commerce, fanatical groups, entrepreneurs, to gain control of human minds.
It seems to me they have largely succeeded.
This link to The Conversation will help to explain my point of view, if you care to read it.
http://theconversation.com/a-christmas- … he%20world
Well, when Jesus said I AM and everyone fell I'd say that is an indication. The resurrection is an indicator also. Walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, making the blind see.... I don't know. Another indicator, to me.
Your comments make him sound more of a showman, possibly a cross dresser, since no evidence exists that he dressed provocatively I have no idea where that imaginary tidbit was born.
But, I agree some sects have highjacked a lot. The Catholics come to mind as the best example. I like Catholics as individuals but so much of their belief is so far removed from the narrative of the apostles I scratch my head. Other ideas like prosperity ministry, Jehovah witness and Mormons, that's odd to me also.
I guess I've always been a thinker, always been willing to turn my back on what I see as bad theology and always used Jesus as the sieve to ferret out whether something sounds godly or expedient. I've never been hoodwinked, never been taken advantage of by a church or clergy. I have no beefs or biases which prohibit me from finding the good hidden in the bad.
God within each of us really is just that. We find the good hidden in the bad of each of us. But, if you don't search for your good and believe in the good of others it is easy to be blinded by the bad.
That's right. When he (supposedly, because there is no absolute proof the man ever existed) said I AM, that is the "God Within." That is where we find the truth. It is the way. And it's the well-spring of life.
If he was an enlightened person, he would never have declared himself God above all else.
We humans are very clever at building up metaphorical idols to suit our beliefs. Yes, that is true of myself also.
As for the physical resurrection, the Walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, making the blind see.....what a wonderful set of show-biz tricks to get a following!
As to the I AM, you have to remember he was Son of Man. But, belief in Jesus begins with a belief in a benevolent universe. You build from that. If you don't start with that premise, of course you can easily debunk the existence of anything you can't feel and touch in the here and now.
As I've always said, non belief is natural and part of the grand plan, or there is no grand plan. Non belief makes perfect sense, from the right angle.
I have sometimes known the Here & Now during meditation. Within that space there has been no feeling, no physical sensation.
This is purely from my own perspective, showing what is possible, but each to their own.
Uhh...here and now. I'm experiencing it at the moment. To be honest, I experience it at every moment. If you have to meditate to be in the here and now, I've got to say...that might be a serious problem.
Haha, no problem at all! Who is making a judgement now?
But then, you don't need to accept what I have said from my own experience.
You ask that I respect those of a christian belief.
I ask that you respect those who don't have a christian belief.
Lol. You were the one who made a ridiculous statement that being in the here and now required meditation. Most of us couldn't hold a job if we weren't capable of functioning in the here and now continually, on a daily basis. No mediation or religion required.
Come now, Denise, you have made a statement which is not true: "You were the one who made a ridiculous statement that being in the here and now required meditation."
Whether it's ridiculous or not is up to anyone to judge for themselves. But I did not imply that one had to be in meditation. I guess there are others in this forum who have experienced similar to myself. You might care to explore sometime.
But then I realise you are just having a light hearted dig....
I think the problem for many people is distance in time. In US history, how do we know George Washington was the first president. It is documented. How do we know about past wars - documented. There is documented proof that Jesus walked the earth. When approached from a skeptical point of view, it is easy to say prove it to me.
Lee Strobel, a lawyer and journalist, was shocked that his wife came home one day and said she was a Christian. He started out on a journey to prove that Christianit was a hoax.. He became a Christian by proving what he sought to disprove.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Christ
I hope this is not sounding superior. Do you think ALL Christians try to be superior?
Our mission is to show God's love and hope for the future. If Christians are not doing that, they are failing miserably.
No Diane, I accept that most Christians don't try to be"superior." Neither do I regard myself, or atheism, as superior.
Beliefs, either personally chosen or part of an inherent culture, I can respect because they can form an important anchor for people's lives. They can inspire, motivate, support, lend stability.
But beliefs and belief systems can alternatively be used for suppression, ulterior motive, imprisonment, coersion and control.
These latter negative traits promote anything but hope and love. They can also be applied for egotistical purposes and curtailment of choice, pulling a veil over greed and selfishness.
Hypocracy knows no bounds.
In my early life, I was strongly in to christianity. Around the age of 40-45 I saw rigid, obstinate, ignorant and unloving application of scripture and interpretations. I questioned yet found no one willing to open their heart to other points of view. So I explored further afield. That led me to other possible pathways. One of those was Hinduism; another was Buddhism. In the latter I have found what for me is a shining light of understanding. But it's also an open-ended journey which is totally in tune with the message of Christ, yet without the twisted and exploited interpretations of church and chapel.
Within all of these religions there is superstition. Each of us is free to decifer, but to do that requires an open mind.
Christians that do not do this are failing miserably: Matthew 5:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
It's now Christmas morning here, so signing off the rhetoric and wishing you all a happy, peaceful, safe and meaningful day in the best traditions that you would have it.
Marry xmass to all, and a great new year.
I have a question for you. I see you commenting repeatedly, demanding answers from any who profess belief in Christ. Demanding answers, as if you are some judge and jury. What about you? You claim your belief is in you. Why should any respect a belief which espouses no concern for others? No responsibility to other human beings? It's all about you, from what I've read of your responses. Do you consider a selfish philosophy to be of value?
There is a division with a mission. The mission is to invite those who are not followers of Christ to become followers of Christ. It is a matter of freewill. The door is open. The person chooses to enter or stay out. There should be no hatred when a person declines the invitation.
If following the true meaning of Christ is based on a truth, then it is not a fault.
And if it based on a belief rather than truth then it is a bias, and perhaps a fault as well.
So what is truth if Jesus isn't?
If you can't demonstrate it to be a truth to everyone...it has to be accepted as a belief.
Thank god, christians aren't always right!
Again, only you are claiming Christians claim they are always right. Sounds as if you have issues unique to you.
No, I was having a light-hearted dig.
If your god is well secured in your mind, he should be able to survive the occasional humour. Or is that taboo?
No, I was having a light-hearted dig.
If your god is well secured in your mind, he should be able to survive the occasional humour. Or is that taboo?
And you have stated something very profound here:
"If you can't demonstrate it to be a truth to everyone...it has to be accepted as a belief."
Go to Top of the Class.
Except that it does not have to be, and is not, accepted by everyone.
Thus there is room in this world for all of our perceptions, provided there is genuine mutual respect.
But....the Believer always preserves a But....
For myself also: But....please don't try to dominate the world by saying there is only room for one belief.
Wishing everyone here, your families too, a safe, happy and memorable Festive Season.
LOL. You obviously don't understand the definition of the word belief. I'll leave you to it, then.
Well, if that was humor, ok.
Clearly Jesus isn't, at least not the way he's portrayed. Jesus was a Jew. He never wanted anyone to be anything else. When he died his brother took over the church. They followed Jesus but were devout Jews.
Paul never met Jesus. He was chastised by James for teaching lies. But he was teaching the Romans and non-Jews. He was both a Jew and a Roman citizen.
The Jews hated the Romans. In the Dead Sea scrolls he's seen as a liar and a fraud.
When Rome took over the religion he took Paul's version because it was palatable to Romans, where as the Palestinian version hated Rome. Jesus was supposed to save them from Rome.
Then Rome did what it always did; it made Jesus a god. And then to go with the one god idea, turned him into a trinity. Doing that was common in Rome. Then Constantine had every other version destroyed, and "heretics murdered. Hence why the scrolls had to be hidden. And hence why Rome blamed the Jews for his death, when he was actually murdered for being a threat to Rome.
So what you all believe is a perversion of what the religion was supposed to be.
Fortunately Rome fell with out Jesus help. But the Roman religion ruled the world fora couple thousand years. Even Protestantism is just the Roman heresy altered a bit.
Lord have mercy. You've got a bs answer for everything.
So anything you don't want to believe, that might just possibly be fact, becomes bull dust? Or you read into it your own interpretations, from your own perceptions, so it's fit for the compost heap ? It's not unusual, I and many others do it too. But I have a lot of respect for the other point of view, even when I don't know or understand it.
It could most certainly, possibly, be true. I have a problem with comments attempting to pretend they are completely true, especially comments which we all know are opinions not universally agreed upon facts. I would think, as a professed atheist, you would appreciate the desire to ensure the distinction between truth and opinion was clear.
But, your comment about ' respecting' the other point of view can be seen as a stretch, by many comments you've posted in this forum.
To say that Slarty O'Brian has a bs answer to everything is anything but respectful of any opinion, but especially the opinion of someone who seems to have done a lot of research.
I was respectful earlier on in this thread when you seemed to be contributing to good discussion and I said so.
So, what is driving your input now? Is it disdain for atheist opinion? Masculine opinion?
Yes, I have my own opinions. They are not set in stone; I can and do change when reasonable argument is presented.
But you are not offering much respect as far as I can see.
Anyway, how do you decide upon the truth of historical data? Or do you only accept what sounds nice?
Very respectful response. Way to show me a good example. You can't make any concrete statements of fact, unless it is proven as fact. That's a simple concept
"You can't make any concrete statements of fact, unless it is proven as fact."
I suspect this is precisely Ron's view point, but he must answer for himself.
Personally, I don't have such a gift of, nor the stamina for, intensive research; so must bow to others' knowledge. I tend to go on subjective impressions, the way I feel about matters (rightly or wrongly).
Sometimes meditation can open new perceptions for me. Just my way of doing things, that's all.
I will point out that all the meditation in the world cannot prove anything. Slarty's entire comment presented opinion as fact. Not a good thing. You couldn't go on his 'knowledge' without believing in him. So he compounds a belief problem on the part of those who trust him to steer them in a particular direction of thought. No better, or worse, than trusting a preacher because slarty is, in a way, preaching.
Meditation is not intended to prove anything and I was not putting it up as such.
It is simply my way of opening up a part of myself so you can perhaps understand me a little more. That's if you wish to.
If you then take the oppoortunity to make a judgement about me, that is very personal on your part and it perhaps allows me to make a personal judgement about you in return.
Slarty's comments are opinions, yours are, mine are. Do we all try to evangelise? Do we all try to agree with what each of us thinks/says?
Occasionally I might do that, but not always.
If I respond to what I think is a load of drivel, and call it so, then if someone agrees with me it's encouraging, but if someone then calls what I have said as BS, it might make me stop and think again and question myself. It's most unlikely to get me "evangelised" to their way of thinking. Their BS might stick with them. Touché.
Sometimes preaching can get us nowhere useful. I have watched soap box preachers at Hide Park in London, arguing and arguing endlessly, never adjusting their opinion in the light of fresh information.
It never gets them anywhere, like they are glued to the box.
Sad really, because the enquiring mind is essential to the success of our journey, IMHO.
I agree that an enquiring mind is essential. And, I will note, you are never (from what I've seen) presenting opinion as fact. I tend to take exception when that is done. I get just as frustrated with a believer as I do with an unbeliever on that count. Truly, we know little more than what we can see and hear and our window into the past is extremely limited. Our personal beliefs should not cause us to look at the past with a narrow eye. It's full of maybes.
No, it represents fact. You may interpret those facts in different ways, but everything I said is fact. Facts about what is written by different factions. I can't even prove Jesus existed. I'm certainly not saying the bible or the scrolls represent historical fact. But I can factually report what the texts say. With some research anyone can.
I also know a lot of Roman history as well as Jewish history. Please factually point out where I'm wrong.
I've heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls but never had in depth knowledge. I just Googled. Josh McDowell, noted theologian, said Dead Sea Scrolls are consistent with the Old Testament. What is the major deviation?
https://www.josh.org/resources/apologet … LREALw_wcB
Now I can't stop research! :-(
This site addresses prophecy of the coming of Christ throughout the OT.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Shed Light on the Accuracy of our Bible
One of the most important Dead Sea documents is the Isaiah Scroll. This twenty-four foot long scroll is well preserved and contains the complete book of Isaiah. The scroll is dated 100 B.C. and contains one of the clearest and most detailed prophecies of the Messiah in chapter fifty-three, called the “Suffering Servant.” Although some Jewish scholars teach that this refers to Israel, a careful reading shows that this prophecy can only refer to Christ.
Here are just a few reasons. The suffering servant is called sinless (53:9), he dies and rises from the dead (53:8-10), and he suffers and dies for the sins of the people (53:4-6). These characteristics are not true of the nation of Israel. The Isaiah Scroll gives us a manuscript that predates the birth of Christ by a century and contains many of the most important messianic prophecies about Jesus. Skeptics could no longer contend that portions of the book were written after Christ or that first century insertions were added to the text.
Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide further proof that the Old Testament canon was completed by the third century B.C., and that the prophecies foretold of Christ in the Old Testament predated the birth of Christ.
And its a great thing to do to get to know yourself and improve yourself. Keep up the journey. I applaud you for it.
And one I am in total agreement with you on. Being science/logic minded, its my motto. Which is why I can't have faith.
Facts, however, can be interpreted in many ways, and are usually modified by other facts. Having one is usually never enough to give a clear picture.
So you either believe Paul got new information directly from a dead Jesus, or believe the people who say they knew a living Jesus and created the original Church. Up to you.
Study history, then if you want to refute what said please do so based on facts you find there. I don't pull this stuff out my or a bull's ass.
Have you read the bible? Part of what I said is from there. Part is from the Dead Sea Scrolls, (have you read them?) And part was from Roman and Jewish history.
I assure you, its all there for the knowing.
So, here is where you confuse me. You appear to agree that opinion should not be presented as fact, you then present opinion as fact, and then you make a comment which (by my estimation) condescendingly implies your opinion must be a fact since it represents conclusions you have arrived at by having access to the exact same information others do; who have come to different conclusions. Absolutely stellar job of self-validation but it doesn’t really cut it for proof that your conclusions are valid, or correct. You take too many things for granted, allowing your beliefs to close the book on something you aren’t in a position to pass off as fact.
Although I consider my comment to be fair and equitable, across the board of beliefs (atheism included) I will elaborate, since you have made a point of calling me out on it.
I like the fact that you said Jesus was a Jew. That tells me we can, at least, agree that this is a real historical figure we are discussing. But, you cannot definitively state what Jesus wanted for anyone, in particular. Certainly, there are comments in the Gospels which can be interpreted to believe Jesus had some disdain for non Jews; but there is ample evidence that Jesus held faith, from any quarter, in high esteem.
Remember the woman at the well? There was no Jewish law bandied about and used to bludgeon her emotionally. The Roman soldier is another example. So, your belief shaded your opinion on this one to such a point that you stated your opinion as a fact.
The fact that his apostles were Jewish is a silly point for you to use to make your case. It’s like saying Joseph Smith’s followers were Americans. He preached in a Jewish nation. In the ancient world, unless you set out for military conquest; of course your primary encounters were within your immediate vicinity. Did Socrates wander the world? Did the Buddha cross continents? Jesus was presenting ideas; ideas which were profound enough to spread themselves. But, the Jewish community was quite isolated from the greater Roman Empire on several counts; by choice, by status as a second class subset of the empire and by geography. So on that point, again, you present your opinion as some epiphany of fact.
Your comments on James and Paul leave room for a raised eyebrow also. The brother of Jesus was not a follower. He isn’t mentioned until well after Jesus’s crucifixion. So, I would say if we are going to look for the original usurper James might be a prime suspect. He knew the man and apparently rejected the message. Paul didn’t know the man but embraced the message. James was a Jew apparently by birth. Probably did follow Jewish law and embraced all Jewish resentment of Rome; but didn’t embrace the faith enough to have been a rabbi or figure of leadership in that religion. Paul was a Jewish zealot who was also a Pharisee prior to conversion. His actions leave little doubt that conversion had to have been a singular event. The only claim to fame James has, that I can see, is that he was the brother of Jesus. Jesus did not set out to build a dynasty; passing it to nearest kin since he had no children, nor did he present himself as the conquerer the Jewish nation longed for. For all of the complaints I can levy against Paul, his devout attempt to do the Lord’s work is not one of them.
To use James as an example of Paul’s transgressions is crazy. And, your claim that Paul’s version was palatable to Rome completely negates the trials Paul suffered during his ministry and the persecutions Christians suffered at the hands of Rome through 313 AD which was several hundred years after the death of Paul. Sounds to me as if the Roman powers were not finding anything related to Jesus palatable at all.
When Rome took over the religion he took Paul's version because it was palatable to Romans, where as the Palestinian version hated Rome. Jesus was supposed to save them from Rome.
Never did Jesus claim he wanted to save anyone from Rome. His words and his actions during his ministry are testament to that statement. His crucifixion, his rising from the dead, his actions after that and his ascension bear witness also. What the Jewish people hoped for and Jesus’ mission were completely at odds. The parable of the old wineskins is a perfect example to ponder when attempting to understand that a Jewish understanding of the ministry of Christ would be extremely hard. That cup was already full of history and tradition which had been built around it.
Then Rome did what it always did; it made Jesus a god. And then to go with the one god idea, turned him into a trinity. Doing that was common in Rome. Then Constantine had every other version destroyed, and "heretics murdered. Hence why the scrolls had to be hidden. And hence why Rome blamed the Jews for his death, when he was actually murdered for being a threat to Rome.
I would say that Jesus’s resurrection and subsequent ascension; coupled with the miracles performed by the early church influenced the belief that Jesus was God much more than anything the Romans might have hoped to achieve. I realize the word trinity is fraught with confusion and does cause some consternation but it’s a solid explanation of the Oneness of the nature of God being omnipresent. When you start adding your belief in and making assumptions you can get confused.
If we have estimated that the Dead Sea scrolls were hidden in the first century and Constantine began his rule in 307 how do you come up with the claim that Constantine is responsible for the need to hide the scrolls? Again, your beliefs cloud your ability to form rational conclusions. I am not negating the importance of the find, itself. I am questioning your ability to understand the political climates of the times they were written and hidden. I am questioning your motives for your claims, since you also claim that your conclusion are fact based since you believe yourself to have some knowledge on the subject.
You can’t say the Romans blamed the Jews for Jesus’ death. Every party involved bore responsibility. The history of the Jewish people is a bit of an enigma to me, since they are the most persecuted group throughout recorded history. Humanity is always looking for a scapegoat. You, also, appear to be attempting to find one. In Rome.
So what you all believe is a perversion of what the religion was supposed to be.
Thus says the preacher man, Slarty Obrian.
Fortunately Rome fell with out Jesus help. But the Roman religion ruled the world fora couple thousand years. Even Protestantism is just the Roman heresy altered a bit.
I love that you said this. I think I’ll just start viewing atheism as one of the fringe sects. Like Jehovah Witnesses and the like. Only they have ferreted out a secret truth. Only they know the answers.
Slarty, the past is shrouded in a translucent veil. We cannot come to definitive conclusions on a lot of things. We are too far removed to understand the mindsets of the individuals. We can read. We can ponder. But we cannot know for sure what anyone ultimately thought or believed. Best guesses are the best we can do. Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see is a good tenet to go by when attempting to formulate conclusions on any writings of those who claim to be writing for religious purposes; otherwise you run the risk of getting your hands soiled in a bull's ass.
Wow! Does this information come from Dead Sea Scrolls?
Part of it, yes. But you can find the rift between the two versions in the bible as well. I can look up the text if you don't know it.
Paul was sure he had the latest word from Jesus himself, even though he never met him, but clearly James and the Palestinian church, as well as the writers of the scrolls disagreed.
They also never mention Jesus divinity or any of that. He was a man in their eyes. A very special man, of course. But to put him on par with god was an absolute heresy.
The Egyptians often melded two gods together: Amun and Ra become Amun Ra. The Romans did it in threes. They had a lot of trinities before this one. No Jew would have dared thinking about Jesus in that way.
The church of Egypt were devout Jewish Christians, but didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. For that, they and the original church were hunted down and murdered; their texts destroyed..
The whole divinity thing doesn't happen until Constantine 300 plus years after Jesus died.
I would love to get references to contradictions within the Bible. It is true Paul was not with Jesus. He actually persecuted and killed Christians until his experience on the Damascus road.
Ok, the best way to approach this is by saying that you'll get lots of opinions from different writers. Here's the major issue: Writing analysis puts the scrolls at 100 bce. If true they aren't even talking about Jesus, or these events happened 100 years earlier than we thought.
But not everyone agrees. Yes, writing of Jewish script changed but the stories match and its not necessarily that the Essen monks/ scribes were not still writing in the old style. Particularly if they were older men at the time, and because they were an isolated sect.
Now, the other problem is this: They don’t mention real names. They mention a lying priest and the righteous one. The righteous priest insisted on keeping all the laws. The lying priest said the laws weren’t important.
This is explained three different ways: The good priest is Jesus, also known as the son of light. And the liar is Paul, or the liar is Jesus and the good priest was John the Baptist, or one of the Maccabe brothers were the good guy and probably another was the bad one, depending on the time line you believe.
Jesus the bad guy? If Paul’s/ the Roman version is true then as you believe, the laws about food and many other things like not working on the Sabbath don’t count anymore. To a Jewish sect that was heresy. Particularly for this cult who by some accounts hated the Romans. Jesus telling people to love their enemies and turning the other cheek wouldn’t have gone over well either.
But this cults priests also swore vows of celibacy and poverty. They considered sex base and sinful if not specifically for procreation. Things other Jews didn’t believe, but which early Christianity often did and some still do.
So, the rift between Paul and early original church should be familiar to most. James wrote several times that that Jesus taught that belief wasn’t enough. You need good works as well. Paul wrote that only faith was required. The Protestants still fight over that one. Works don’t just mean good works like charity, it also means following gods law/Jewish law.
So the second is traditional Jewish law. Jesus is said to have stated that not one bit of the law can be ignored.
Matthew 5:17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
Or the liar?
And Paul says it doesn’t count anymore.
The law reveals sin but cannot fix it. (Romans 3:20)
If the law worked then faith would be irrelevant. (Romans 4:14)
The law brings wrath upon those who follow it. (Romans 4:15)
The purpose of the law was to increase sin. (Romans 5:20)
Christians are not under the law. (Romans 6:14)
Christians have been delivered from the law. (Romans 7:1-6)
The law is good, perfect and holy but cannot help you be good, perfect or holy. (Romans 7:7-12)
The law which promises life only brings death through sin. (Romans 7:10)
The law makes you sinful beyond measure. (Romans 7:13)
The law is weak. (Romans 8:2-3)
The strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)
The law is a ministry of death. (2 Corinthians 3:7)
The law is a ministry of condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:9)
The law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:10)
The law is fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:11)
Anywhere the law is preached it produces a mind-hardening and a heart-hardening veil. (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)
The law justifies nobody. (Galatians 2:16)
Christians are dead to the law. (Galatians 2:19)
The law frustrates grace. (Galatians 2:21)
To go back to the law after embracing faith is “stupid”. (Galatians 3:1)
The law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (Galatians 3:10)
The law has nothing to do with faith. (Galatians 3:11-12)
The law was a curse that Christ redeemed us from. (Galatians 3:13)
Just to site a few. So it’s obvious there was a rift here. They even meet a few times to discuss it. Paul clearly had contempt for Jewish law. When talking about the food we can eat Paul even says: “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” Romans 14:14. Hardly Jewish thinking, or even early Christian.
First Jesus says not one bit of the law will be abolished until the end, but then tells Paul there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean? I thought god decided and decreed what’s unclean, not us?
Now, Third rift, sort if: the reason Paul taught what he did was to capture a Roman audience. They didn’t want to be Jewish. James was fine with teaching gentiles, but they had to become Jewish Christians, meaning they had to follow all the laws.
This has led scholars to see Paul as the creator of Christianity. No one called themselves Christian at this time. The stuff supposedly written by the other apostils probably weren’t, as the only texts we have were written 60 to 100 years after Jesus death. But those may be based on texts we don’t have, meaning they may or may not have been altered.
So again, some scholars think, like Paul’s teachings, that they were Romanized.
The Jews and Romans had a long history of hating each other. The Romans invaded; the Jews kept rebelling. Rome loved other religions and gods. Where ever they went they accepted the local gods and even worshiped them. But what do you do with a god who tells his “chosen people” he’s the only god and all the rest are demons? And the Jews hated them because they were Pagans, as well as yet another conqueror.
The Jewish messiah was supposed to be a man who would lead them against the Romans and defeat them. Some say since Jesus was seen by some Jews as their saviour he would have been more militant, like in the temple story where he throws out the money changers. And while Josephus doesn’t record the nice Jesus, he does tell us Jesus has an army. Couldn’t be the same guy, of course. But it would have made sense from the Jewish perspective.
The speculation goes farther. Jesus was gaining ground. Rome was being threatened. Pilot had him executed and later on as the religion grew in Rome the Jews were blamed. That way they made the Jews the bad guy, hated by Christians for ever more. Jesus becomes a man of peace and love and no hatred for Rome. That way there’s no threat to Rome, and they stick another nail in their enemies coffin with their own religion. All thanks to Paul.
Who knows for sure? No one. But one thing for sure, Christian history is by no means cut and dried or transparent.
I tend to not read post that have so much. I read enough to sense you see a conflict between the law and faith. The comparison should be law and grace. God knew that it was impossible for a person to not sin. Sin required a blood sacrifice.. Jesus led a sinless life and was able to substitute Himself for us on the cross. He imparts that substitute sacrifice to us when we accept Him into our lives. I won't take this any farther because the comprehension requires that you first accept that Jesus is the Son of God (trinity) born to a virgin, led a sinless life, sacrificed Himself in our place, and rose to conquer death and is seated at the right hand of the Father. I know it drives people crazy that Christians believe that. I thank God that I comprehended it and invited Him into my life.
Slarty - The trinity exists in scripture. It starts with (Isaiah 59:16 NIV) He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him.
And there was no rift between James and Paul just as there was no rift between Paul and Peter. Just as there was a rift between Paul and Barnabas - it's obvious they were on the same page when Paul took back Mark into his company who had been mentored by Barnabas.
James was the Elder of the church and as such was the glue for the leadership. He was the one who validated the early church's outreach to the gentiles. And he became a believer rather than a critic when the resurrected Jesus revealed Himself to James.
One thing that's missing in your understanding is the roll of the Holy Spirit who was the first to work with the church at Antioch. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to bring conviction. And in a Christian brotherhood of believers we will always need to love and admonish one another - because only God is perfect.
Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity in (John 16:13-15 NIV) 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.".
No, to be honest, it wasn't a light-hearted dig. I was unkindly laughing at a statement because of your way of making it. It reminded me of the 'relationship with Christ' statements. It's a perfect example of judging. You are correct in that. Your word choice seemed rather silly but I suppose 'here and now' can be used synonymously with what I equate to 'being'.
As a matter of fact; I'll also add that I probably misunderstood when you took umbrage to my comment that the individual must relegate their 'truth' to belief when discussing it; if it is not demonstrably true. But that is an example of my poor word choices when I made the comment. Although, at first reading, it appeared to me that you were stating that you were not obligated to accept that another person has a belief; you apparently think I was implying you had to accept the belief of another as truth. But, all in all, you were basically saying the same thing I have been. That each person has their beliefs and we must accept that their beliefs work for them. With the one caveat that you insist I am including as a 'but'.
I have not added a 'but'. I don't care what you believe as long as your beliefs do not put an unfair burden on the happiness of others. I see your individual stance as putting an unfair burden on me; caused by your preconceived notions.
Here's my preconceived notion. I'm assuming you reached out to religion at one point in your life and it failed to answer the questions you had, it couldn't fill the need you experienced.
I can't relate to that. I don't think I've ever reached out to religion for anything. I've listened to any who wanted to present their particular sect's take on the subject. I've listened to those who reach out to the community to present Islam. I've looked at the effect Buddhism has had on those who self-profess to follow it. But, I was raised with religion as being a block you check off to show yourself to be a solid citizen. The only rules laid down for us were that we were expected to attend church and, follow the commandments as they were pertinent to children but we didn't go all Old Testament on our lives. I suppose, because that was who our parents were, or who my Dad was. My mom was exceptionally led by her belief in hell but she held it in check as best she could; to give us the room to grow and come to our own conclusions. My father was exceptionally committed to his financial obligation to the institution and was still tithing 10% decades after he stopped attending.
We were strong, of above average intelligence, and it was drilled into our heads (and our backsides) to accept responsibility for our own actions. There was no blame game allowed. So, I do find myself to be biased against those who lash out at others; as if the belief of a third party is somehow responsible for their behavior patterns and magically guiding the actions of another who makes a general statement of belief. I admit, I cannot attempt to mentally walk in your shoes for any length of time in any attempt to understand your mindset; without finding myself slightly perturbed at the thought of your beliefs.
L-to-L, throughout this latest post you have presented your own opinions as fact. It is a human phenomenon that we can be shown a set of facts yet come to different conclusions, based upon our desired perceptions. Do you think you differ in this respect?
And when you sit before a mirror? .....
This is false logic: Even if it can be agreed Jesus would have been a Jew, it does not prove that he was a "real historical figure." You can make a presumption but that does not make it a fact.
One would draw that conclusion if one was reading the New Testament as a Christian and wanting to see the "evidence." Someone without that desire might draw a different conclusion. You still don't have factual evidence.
Do you know this for a fact? And I thought the purpose of this story was to demonstrate the human tendency to love throwing rocks/accusations at someone else in order to deflect attention from one's own shortcomings. Has this tendency changed in 2000+ years?
You repeatedly use this tactic yourself.
Do you know this for certain? If Jesus was a real historical figure, and if he was a rabbi, it is my understanding that a rabbi of those times would have almost certainly had a wife. But then, modern Christianity would hate to think Jesus would have had anything to do with sex.....
You speak of his rising from the dead and ascension as facts. They can only be represented from the basis of belief, not fact....unless you want to depart from the basic nature of this physical world....
Right at the beginning of this post you said, "So, here is where you confuse me."
Thus you have hinted at the basis for your confusion. It's in your own mind, surely? Are you not coming from a life time of being a Christian, needing to let go of much that you have learned to accept as "true," yet hanging on for dear life to those precepts?
Not an uncommon trick in any argument. When the logical consideration of the opponent seems to be winning, throw a remark that is intended to belittle the opponent, get away from the logical into the personal.
How very, very true! I hope you have cleaned the condensate from that mirror. Step back a little, you get a clearer picture.
Have you made any New Year's resolutions yet? I some times do, but very quickly drop back into the convenience of routine, like writing replies to HP at 3.30am!
Have a good one.
I'd add a roll eyes but I'm on a phone and I don't get that option. The only fact I've presented (that I am aware of) is that he can't claim fact, not by his stated reasoning.
if you're on a phone, good job. I don't get the option to add those. I'm too lazy to type it all out.
My old laptop on this occasion, very useful in the formatting which one can't do with a smart phone.
Now, you referred to Slarty as a "preacher." Hardly. But here we are joined by Jw Worcester...now there's a preacher for you, with only ever one point of view, always presuming that there really is only one way to consider the bible, interpreted by the holy spirit working in your mind to exclusion of any other possible way of thinking.
Don't even bother to argue because he's got gard on his side.
I'll agree with you on what I've seen of Jw Worcester, which is encompassed in this thread. Does seem to have one point of view, always presuming that there is really only one way to consider the Bible. I'd say he and Slarty might be twin sons of different mothers.
Poles apart: Slarty (like myself) defensive against the control-mongering threat of eternal turmoil after his death; chooses to think for himself.
Jw, offensive, has allowed his mind to be taken over by those with ulterior motives, who claim to have his eternal welfare at heart yet, in reality, find him a convenient and useful ally in their desire for control.
And do you know what normally happens when dictators and autocratic regimes take over? "They" exterminate those with independent minds who have the audacity to speak the truth.
If Jesus really was real, he would have suffered such a fate and for the same reason.
I, like you, am suspicious of cosmic philosophies that end up killing those who disagree. It hasn't been monotheistic religions, in our lifetime, that has done that to millions upon millions.
Jw, offensive to you because you disagree. Slarty, not offensive to you, because you agree. It's not anything other than your personal bias taking precedent over dispassionate review of the comments.
Not at all. It is not a matter of me disagreeing with their message. We are all free to agree/disagree.
Just yesterday evening I was greeted by three gentlemen of Islam. We had a very respectful discussion, on the street, in which I put my opinion gently but politely. Under their politeness was very obviously the intention to get me accepting their teachings. No different from JWs.
It is the presumption of their faith being superior in authenticity to my lack of faith which I find offensive.
The same frame of mind.
If I have no desire to "convert" them to atheism (which I have not), why must they try to convert me?
For sure, I can open my mind to what they are saying, no problem....except if I do they are likely to see that as my weakness and try harder to convert.
Give me an open mind, willing to enquire, assess new information, employ good logic and sensible ideas....give me that any day over the closed minds of religion.
By the way, it is Sunday morning. I need to get mowing long grass in preparation for the bushfire season. Yet I wait until after noon so the noise does not disturb the people in church. Is that not respectful? Meanwhile there is time for HP replies.
Sorry you live next to a church. I did once. It wasn't the picnic I had imagined.
The church should bring you cookies for being so thoughtful. We have cookie deliverers for new isitors. I remember when I received mine. Delicious!
Jesus did speak truth and suffered and died for it. It was prophesied in the OT and attested to by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A messiah was prophesier, yes. All over the place. But your assuming it was Jesus. He clearly wasn't the one prophesied. He didn't defeat the Romans. German barbarians did that several hundred years later.
Isaiah 9:6 describes who He was. Luke 2 is where Gabriel revealed the prophecy to Mary. He said, "Though shall call His Name Jesus." It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Romans.
Sorry, Luke is irrelevant since its NT. Again, lots of OT prophecies about a coming messiah, but in Jesus time there were several candidates, and what all the Jews expected was salvation from Rome, Even Isaiah tells us that.
Sorry, Isaiah is talking about how god is using Assyria to punish the Jews. Also he's talking about the fall of Assyria. Another earlier enemy of the Jews.
For Christians, the NT is most relevant. It is where the OT prophecy of the coming Messiah is fulfilled. The NT is where salvation was offered to gentiles. Paul's mission was to reach out to gentiles. Romans 11:13-14 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Right. I know that. But NT is after Jesus birth so not prophecy. Prophesy has to be before his birth, hence Luke doesn't count as evidence of prophecy come true.
important thing - prophecy fulfilled! There is also prophecy in th NT.
But is it, or is that just the claim?
That's the difference. A person must believe that it is true. When John the Baptist baptized Him, Matthew 3:16-17 The Baptism of Jesus
…16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”
If you place no value in NT, I can understand. The Christians' salvation plan is revealed n the NT. There is no way to be a Christian (though some make the claim) without believing what takes place in the NT.
I sure wish we could all get along.
I second that, Diane. It would be so nice if we could all get along.
I reiterate, there is a genuine place for your beliefs and faith for you and anyone else who chooses to follow them.
Yet there is also an essential need for the open-mindedness to be found in those who do not/cannot bring themselves to hold those beliefs; those who are willing and able to explore alternative possibilities. Questioning, thinking, pondering, searching, experimenting, sharing results, collaborating. This takes energy and determination.
If we settle back and relax; claim that all we have now in terms of knowledge, is all we will ever need; that God is in his heaven, He's got us covered, we have no cause for concern .... then we should not be surprised if and when our dreams of a Shangri-la fall crumbling into the dust.
Early-childhood life and experiences can and do influence our later adult psychological state. This constitutes a long and continuing area of scientific study.
But those influences can be manifest in profoundly disturbing traits and tendencies which, when coming from someone who is in authority and able to manipulate those around him/her into anti-social biases, can have frighteningly dangerous consequences. Not just for us as the human species but for the entire biological world.
Such psychologically disturbed individuals have the ability to create havoc that will be upon us before we know it.
Better start praying, Diane, because we are standing on the edge of turmoil if the bullies get their way.
Jonny, a relationship with God is individual and He doesn't want anyone forced into a relationship with Him. Anyone Christian who ridicules someone about not being a Christian or hates that person is either not following God's Word or that person's faith is in question.
Some of us get frustrated. Our job is to plant seeds, water, and/or care for those we witness to. We are to be patient.
I disagree with you on the merits of being inquisitive about life. Christians were not borrn Christians. They become Christians.. I became one at 28. I have total and complete experience on both sides and prefer to be a Christian.
You can read about pregnancy and giving birth; however, unless you have given birth, you don't have that experience. I do pray and I pray for you. You wouldn't know it unless I told you! Don't be mad at me, please.
"That's the difference. A person must believe that it is true."
If it was fact, you wouldn't have to believe it. Faith is only needed when you can't prove its fact. Faith is a guess.
Personally I can't believe anything.
I wonder who is trying to nudge/force whom to believe one way or the other. I posted this forum as a Christian to get input from Christians. I already know atheists do not approve of Christianity. Why post on a topic specific forum that you don't believe in. If I were to post on an atheist forum. I would be told, in no uncertain terms, along with cursing, to get off. I comment on different topics and forums all the time. If it's on politics, I discuss politics. I don't bring in Christianity because that takes the convo off topic.
What makes an atheists post on a topic directed at Christians if atheists don't want to hear about Christianity? Not angry! Just curious..
Who said I don't want to hear about Christianity? I've spent my life studying and researching religion, and specifically Christianity because I was born Catholic.
At age 6 I discovered there were Protestants. This blew me away. Why? I asked my mother: If there's one god,why is there more than one religion? She told me there were many religions, and many of them didn't believe in the same god.
I asked, well don't we know? Who is right? She said: We believe we are. It's a matter of faith.
I said: So no one knows for sure? She said no.
So I vowed that before I died I'd figure it out. I'm 63 and still trying. So it's certainly not that I'm not interested in Christian views. But forgive me for insulting you by asking you to consider possibilities you don't want to consider. It wasn't my intent.
If you prefer I won't comment any more
Oh stop being so sensitive!!! You might be able to be born Catholic but you absolutely cannot be born a Christian. When your parents are Catholics, you have no choice.
I went to church all of my life. That did not make me a Christian. The basis of Christianity is in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what Catholicism has in common with protestantism.
The difference between Catholicism and protestantism is a) how you become a Christian and b) worship of idols. I know Catholics that have become Christians. Most left the Catholic church after receiving Christ.
As I said, I have been on the non-Christian side. I was not an atheist but, as a child, I didn't like going to church. Once I accepted Christ as my personal Savior at 28, I have had no regrets.
Some people say they were Christians once. That is impossible and they don't know because they don't understand what it means to be a Christian. Some will say they were Christians because they went to church. Sleeping in the garage does not make one a car..
Is a part of the problem that there is no common definition of what a "Christian" is?
What if we simply define a "Christian" as one that believes Jesus walked the earth, was a god, and that the God of Abraham is the one and only god?
Forget having to accept the tenets and beliefs of specific, human, people - if they believe in the god of Abraham and in Jesus Christ then they are a Christian. Whether they think God wants what you do or not, for no one, not even the Pope, knows that for sure. It is incomprehensible that any single person, anywhere on earth, has all the answers to that question, which in turn means that every person on earth, Christian or not, has some errors in what they believe.
Why would anyone want to create their own definition? Because they want to do their own thing. Authenticity is very important. If you buy a Gucci bag, and find out it is not authentic, you want your money back. You have to prove that it isn't authentic. You do that by giving the specs of authenticity.
If you buy a car and want what you paid for, it should meet certain specs.
People create their own versions becaue they want credibility and to take away from the authenticity of what is real.
1. When was the term Christian first used? You first see it in the Bible.
Christian [N] [S]
the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament ( Acts 11:26 ; 26:28 ; 1 Peter 4:16 ).
2. What is the standard of being a Christian? It is contained in the NT.
3. Outside of the Bible definition, what makes one a Christian? On what authority?
The pope is exalted by Catholics. Also by others who admire his celebrity. That is part of the idol worship of Catholicism. Outside of that, who pays attention to the pope?
You are right! No human has all of the anwers ..... but God DOES! It is incomprehensible to many because people want to reason and explain.
The Bible addesses the things we don't know:
1 Corinthians 13:12
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Jesus replied, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.
You're right - if I buy a Gucci bag, then I want a Gucci bag, not some Chinese impostor. But the term "Gucci" is very well defined both physically and legally. "Christian" is not.
Does not John 11:26 pretty much define it? True, it does not use the term "Christian" but doesn't the verse say what I did: if you believe in Jesus you are a Christian (and will be saved for eternity)? Of course, if you are one that believes non-believers will also be saved it doesn't mean that at all.
Whereas 1 Corinthians 13:12 also says what I did: that not a single person on earth can have all the answers. No one actually knows what God wants in all matters (and even if they did get lucky and do have a specific answer they cannot prove it), so using any human defined concept of what precepts shall be followed by all Christians is unreasonable.
So, interesting points of view.
One thing I get from all of the above: I have absolutely no desire to be "saved lfor eternity."
For a start, in my life I have not been an absolutely good boy. (Can you name one ?) But my naughtiness is just that, i.e., something one or some of my fellow humans would look down upon and dislike. But to call a bit of naughtiness a "sin," to be judged by an imaginary being that lives outside of our normal physicality and to suggest I could be subjected to eternal punishment by that supposedly loving being is, for me, the height of non-sense.
Since such belief is at the heart of christianity, no way can I ever again consider myself "a Christian."
This does not mean I present as an evil, selfish, anti-social person. Just not one who measures up to religious demands and/or bows to conformity.
None of us measure up Jonny. Our righteousness is in Jesus Christ who paid for our sins on the cross. Time passes quickly. I remember when I was a child. I remember being young, popular and pretty. Beauty faded. I would rather be wrong in hoping for eternal life with Christ rather than be wrong about there being no God.
You imagine the Christian life being no fun. You think you have to be perfect.. You don't have to be perfect. Certainly I am not perfect but daily I ask the Lord to forgive me for the things that are against His will for my life. Because He has forgiven me so much, I am able to forgive other people.
That's why I will converse with anyone who is being civil. When the convo gets contentious, I back out. There is nothing people should not be able to talk about without getting angry and disparaging each other.
God bless guys!
"One thing I get from all of the above: I have absolutely no desire to be "saved lfor eternity."
To me, it's evil. You celibate the murder of an innocent so you can get out of jail free. It's like me paying someone to go to jail for me. We don't allow that in society.
And what really bothers me is that a god can't forgive us, if it wants to, without having his son murdered as a prerequisite. It barbaric and bizarre.
We have to murder our god so our god will forgive us sins against him.. God father, anyone?
No, I don't accept that someone had to die for me so god could forgve me. I'd have told him not to do it.
Of course, you know I don't believe any of it. But if it were true, I'll pay for my crimes myself. And if that's not good enough, god can just kill me and let me be. I probably wouldn't want everlasting life anyway.
And if I get tossed in hell, he can kiss my ass. I'd never worship an animal that could do that anyway, and certainly not just to save myself.
Isn't imagining fun?
If any person finds that "stuff" fulfills something personal in their life, that is freedom.
If "stuff" appears to be nonsense, we are also applying our freedom.
Personal choice and it hurts no one else.
But let's at least agree on this.
:-) We all make our own choices and that should be respected.
Thank you Diane. Respects to you and Slarty.
Absolutely. But again, sharing opinions doesn't restrict anyone's freedom. It just gives them something to think about. If they disagree, great. But at least they've heard an alternative interpretation.
Personally that's how I learn; by putting my interpretation out there and hearing others opinions of it. It doesn't restrict my freedom, the more information we have, the more freedom we have.
I am begging you for an example of the contradiction. Wilderness gave me something to work with. He said, th word Christian was not in the Bible and I showed him that it is.
We are being told that last year 4000 terrorist/suspected terrorist were caught coming across the southern border. That was proved to be a lie. How? No pics, no names, no dates, no coverage on Fox, no one in jail.
I love a good challenge. I don't argue but I certainly like discussing facts. To say you disagree with the Bible is fine. To say it contradicts itself should really be supported.
I'd be glad to.You said you didn't read long posts I'll give you a few to start. I already showed you the contradiction between Paul's view saying faith alone and James and Jesus saying faith and works, which include following all the original laws given by god. So that's one there can be no real debate about. It's an obvious contradiction.
But there are many. Some mundane and unimportant, but contradictory never the less. I have a large list. Here's a few to get you started.
.Is god good to everyone?
Yes: PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
No: JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
God like war or peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who was Joseph’s father? Jacob or Heli?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
How many stalls of horses did Soloman have?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it good to be wise? I like proverbs on this. Lol…
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Are the sins of the father visited on his children?
Yes: ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
No: DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Birds created when god created sea creatures or land creatures?
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
Even contradiction in the same book. Is Moses a meek guy, or not?
NUM 12:3: “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth.”
NUM 31:14, 17, 18: “And Moses was wroth…And Moses said unto them, “Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, … But all the women children … keep alive for yourselves.”
Sound meek to you?
How did Judas die?
ACT 1:18: “Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
MAT 27:5-7: “And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests…bought with them the potter’s field.”
Which is it?
What were Jesus last words?
MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
Is god all love, or cruel, or both?
“I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.” (JER 13:14) “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
“The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (JAS 5:11)
“For his mercy endureth forever.” (1CH 16:34)
S said: I'd be glad to.You said you didn't read long posts I'll give you a few to start. I already showed you the contradiction between Paul's view saying faith alone and James and Jesus saying faith and works, which include following all the original laws given by god. So that's one there can be no real debate about. It's an obvious contradiction.
Response: No there is no contradiction. The James passage is saying our works are a testament to our faith. You must read all of that James passage. It is a discussion with a parable, an example and rhetoric.
passage: 20" Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;"
works are the result of obedience. Abraham was going to sacrifice his son because God told him to. It was a test of faith. He didn't want Abraham to kill His son.
Abraham is called the "Father of ffaith" because of his obedience.
https://activechristianity.org/abraham- … -situation
Christianity is active. It is a lifestyle of obedience to God. John 14:15
"If you love me, keep my commands.
You can't read Page 56 and paragraph 2 on Page 80 and take a test on a book with 800 pages.
The problem is you pick age old arguments (none of this is new information) and pass it along.
S said: Yes: PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
No: JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
The violence of the Old Testament signals a real-time foretaste of an end times reality for everyone: those who reject the King will receive his wrath. The Old Testament enemies of God received the military judgment of God in conquest. All those who are outside of Christ will receive the spiritual judgment of God in hell.
4. The violence of the Old Testament patterns the atonement of Christ. In the cross and resurrection, we see the convergence of the Old Testament’s holy war pattern. Jesus is the conquering messiah who God fights for in victory because of his faithful obedience. But Jesus is also the substitutionary wrath-bearer who God fights against in judgment because he takes on our sinful rebellion.
At salvation, we are united to Christ so that he grants us the victory we don’t deserve and bears the penalty we owe. Covered by the righteousness of his shed blood, God sees Christians as his faithful people who he enables to find lasting victory in spiritual warfare by the power of the Spirit.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/fbi-co … ifications
S wrote: Who was Joseph’s father? Jacob or Heli?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Response: Bible verses about Joseph, the Son of Heli
(From Forerunner Commentary)
How do we know that the Luke 3 lineage is Mary's? We do not know it for certain, but that conclusion is the most reasonable. One factor is, again, the purpose of this particular gospel. Luke wrote primarily to Gentiles, and he stresses Jesus' humanity throughout his book. The evangelist thus gives our Savior's natural, biological family tree to show He shares humanness with the common man. He is not just the Jews' Messiah, but He is also the Gentiles' Messiah! So Luke's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, rather than stopping at Abraham as Matthew's does.
Another factor is that Luke had to deal with a virgin birth. What a unique situation for a genealogist! Luke had to determine, therefore, what points would matter to a Gentile. Would he be concerned with Jesus' Davidic ancestry? Not initially. Would he care that Jesus is a Jew and an Israelite? Maybe. Would he desire to know if Jesus was a man like he was? Certainly! Thus, Luke would record a line of descent that showed His universality to every man, and this would go through Mary, Jesus' link to humanity.
Some raise objections to this on the basis of verse 23, particularly because it says, "Joseph, the son of Heli." Notice, though, that Luke does not use the word "begot" as Matthew does. In fact, he uses no word at all, just a marker to denote possession. So the phrase literally says, "Joseph, of Heli."
Some say, then, that this connotes a levirate marriage because Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob. Levirate marriage, however, was fairly rare, so this is an unlikely stretch. Others argue that this is Jesus' "priestly" lineage, but this is even less probable, since it shows Judah, not Levi, as an ancestor (see Hebrews 7:14).
Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, gives a more likely explanation: "Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt. 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli's daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law." At that time, Jewish law traced inheritance and descent through the male, not the female line. Thus, Luke 3:23 would be clearer if translated as, "Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli," or "Joseph, the legal son of Heli."
No matter which we choose, it traces Heli's line from that point on back to Nathan, the son of David. There is no stigma or disqualification in Solomon's name being absent from the list. In messianic terms, David's name is the vital one.
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu … n-Heli.htm
S wrote: Are the sins of the father visited on his children?
Yes: ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
No: DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Response: Consequence is not responsibility
Sometimes, innocent people suffer for the sins of others, but they are not held morally responsible for them. For instance, the house of Abimelech suffered for the sins of their leader because of his sin, though they were not personally responsible. Deuteronomy 23:2, Deuteronomy 28:18, II Samuel 12:14, and II Kings 5:27 are examples.
So in summary, there is no contradiction. Each person is morally responsible for his sin only. Sometimes innocent people suffer for the sin of others (but are not morally responsible), and often children follow in the sins of their father and cannot use the excuse of a bad upbringing to clear them before God.
Some verses indicate that each man is responsible for his own sin, not that of others: Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6, Jeremiah 31:29-30, and Ezekiel 18:20.
However, other verses indicate that some were punished for the sins of others: Genesis 9:21-25, Genesis 20:18, Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 23:2, Deuteronomy 28:18, I Samuel 3:12-13, II Samuel 12:14, II Samuel 21:6-9, I Kings 2:33, I Kings 11:11-12, I Kings 21:29, II Kings 5:27, Isaiah 14:21, Jeremiah 16:10-11, Jeremiah 29:32, Jeremiah 32:18, and Zephaniah 1:8, for example.
These verses can be handled in two categories:
Children following in the sins of their fathers
Consequence is not responsibility
Children following in the sins of their fathers
Oftentimes, children continue in the sins of their fathers but then blame their fathers for their bad example. While the fathers are responsible for their sin, the children are still responsible for their own sins as well. Thus, using the excuse of a bad upbringing will not excuse one’s sin before God.
For instance, Canaan must have followed in his father’s evil footsteps (Genesis 9:21-25). Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, II Samuel 21:6-9, I Kings 2:33, I Kings 11:11-12, I Kings 21:29, Isaiah 14:21, Jeremiah 16:10-11, Jeremiah 29:32, Jeremiah 32:18, and Zephaniah 1:8 are examples of this. In I Samuel 3:12-13 Eli’s sons were definitely evil and deserved to die. Jeremiah 16:10-12 states it well:
And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me …
http://www.christcreated.com/con/bible/ … ns-others/
If I get time, I will answer another. The contradictions cease to be contradictions through study and putting verses in context. The BIble is not a smorgasbord. To learn and know, study Genesis through Revelations.
Lol... sorry, you haven't shown that any of what I posted are not contradictions. You're using rationalizations not logic.
That's where opinion comes in!
Not exactly. Obviously different authors are saying different things. In any other form of literature we'd recognize that those differences are contradicting each other. But when it comes to the bible Christians refuse to see it that way and try to rationalize away obvious contradictions. Like you said to me, nothing you've said is new to me. It's old christian apologetics that for the most part aren't logical.
Again, Paul said ONLY faith saves. Forget works. James and Jesus say no, you need works AND faith. If Jesus had had his way you'd be Christian Jews and follow all the OT laws, but Rome took over and Paul won and you don't follow those laws.
My point about these contradictions is, you can use the bible to justify anything either way.
There are 90 plus passages in the bible that deal with slaves Only a couple of those are against slavery. My point is, you can use either one or the other to make your case either way., even though mainly the bible and god are pro-slavery.
Galatians 5:1 1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Yet Jesus doesn’t say that. He says:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. Luke 12:47
Paul says: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2
So you can say either we should have slaves because god doesn’t see anything wrong with it in the OT and makes rules for them, and Jesus seems to think its normal and right,
Or you can say Galatians tells us Jesus set us free so we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be slaves. Or you can ignore the bible and realize its obviously immoral to take people as slaves.
My last comment on this: until you have read the Bible - not pick and choose passages to take out of context - we are unable to communicate on this. You told me what you know. and I've told you what I stake my eternity on.
1 Cor 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
I'm sorry. I can read the words on the page and have good reading comprehension. Unfortunately Christians can't afford to.
As to the ruse that you quoted about not accepting things that come from spirit, it's an obvious lie meant to keep you trapped in believing in a non-existent god. Of course priests are going to say that. It's like the Emperors new clothes. Sorry, he's naked, and all the attempts to make people feel stupid for seeing the facts is useless and yes Trumpian.
I know I know next to nothing. I also know no one else does either. That doesn't stop me from being able to read and comprehend what I'm reading.
I hope you get your wish and go to heaven, which is why you have to accept lies as fact. If your god is real, I want no part of the evil egomaniac.
Now we are getting back into that area of harrassment. You remember your complaint is Christians trying to convert you. I'm not!
Almost the entire thrust of christian evangelism is directed at creating fear of hell and retribution as punishment for sin.
Without sin and being saved from the consequences of sin, there is no lasting christian message.
Any argument, when it approaches the obvious flaw of utter illogicality, can always be swept aside by calling on the invisible, the unreal, the spiritual; concepts which can never be proven or disproven.
Any tussle between believer and non-believer will never allow the latter to win.
In the 3-4 years we have communicated, have I put a guilt trip on you about hell? Unfortunately, those who do that (and I have witnessed some) are vocal and obnoxious.
I have 3 sisters. All went astray from what we were taught and one of those has mental illness with attributed to her failure. I'm not responsible for what they do. I was the only one that graduated from college, got an MBA, passed CPA exam, worked more than 50 years and do what I can to help my family. Yet, we are all sisters.
No, Diane, you have never put the "guilt trip" on me. That is why you continue to have my respect. Also, you are an intelligent person with a laudible background of study.
By my observations, "belief" in the esoteric seems to transcend any notion of intelligence; who knows what mental processes are involved?
However, that tendency in some individuals to evangelise and draw others into their particular belief network, is probably more akin to the desire for dominance than anything else. Do we see this trait in Mr. T ?
My own reaction is one of self defence: I will fight to remain free from such controlling dominance.
TY Jonny! I understand. Mr.. T's problem is narcissism, arrogance, self-aggrandizement, corruption, Eurocentrism combined with effects of aging.
For some reason, I thought you were a school teacher. Did you ever teach school? Just curious.
I had 2 careers. I worked in Corporate Finance for Hughes Aircraft/GM-Hughes for 20 years as an accountant and an auditor.. In the 90s, after the riot surrounding Rodney King incident, I wanted to help kids. During most of that 20 years i wa minister of music at my church.
I was already taking vocal/audio electronic music so eventually started teaching music. I did that for 24 years. In high school and college I worked for a college work-study program.
Boy, I'm tired talking about it!
Diane, is this not exactly what you have done here?
In 40 years I have read (not all) most of the Bible. I have had more than a thousand hours of classes on specific topics and taken notes on more than 30,000 sermons. Like a mechanic knows what to do to your car, I have the training and background. The mechanic does not tell you how the car was made. He gets to the point of what needs to be done for your car to work.
I picked passages that dealt specifically with the points we were discussing. Otherwise, one could just read the BIble if he/she really wants to know about it.
If you reject the Bible, that is your privilege.
Does not John 11:26 pretty much define it? True, it does not use the term "Christian" but doesn't the verse say what I did: if you believe in Jesus you are a Christian (and will be saved for eternity)?
D response - there are other Scriptures that go along with it ... that's why the are in a book!
Romans 10:9-10 New King James Version (NKJV)
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
We are not to pick and choose like at a smorgasbord. We are to accept all of it.
Of course, if you are one that believes non-believers will also be saved it doesn't mean that at all.
to name a few
Whereas 1 Corinthians 13:12 also says what I did: that not a single person on earth can have all the answers. No one actually knows what God wants in all matters (and even if they did get lucky and do have a specific answer they cannot prove it), so using any human defined concept of what precepts shall be followed by all Christians is unreasonable.
Romans 10:9-10 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
W wrote: Whereas 1 Corinthians 13:12 also says what I did: that not a single person on earth can have all the answers. No one actually knows what God wants in all matters (and even if they did get lucky and do have a specific answer they cannot prove it), so using any human defined concept of what precepts shall be followed by all Christians is unreasonable.
D response: Chapter 13 is the love chapter of the Bible. Apostle Paul is saying that above all else, we should love. It is in a very specific context that this is spoken. But absolutely, none of us know everything and we all sin. That is why Jesus died on the cross for us - because it is impossible to live a sinless life. We are to confess our sins and He forgives us. 1 John 1:8-9 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
Eve's downfall was that Satan tricked her into eating from the tree of knowledge. Adam loved her so he ate also. When they heard God walking in the garden, the hid! Because they knew they were necked. They had been romping around necked all the time before that.
We should not lift one scripture to make a point. Everything must be taken in contest.
To me, anyone who claims to be christian, is. Every Christian I've ever talked to has a different religion. Because the bible is so contradictory you all pick and choose what you believe. Some believe in hell, some don't. Going strictly by the bible is no help at all.
Catholics are Christians too, but many won't call themselves that because its a protestant term not used before the reformation. But they too believe Jesus is their Savior and all your other criteria. And they cetainly don't see the pope as an idol, unless you consider thinking of a rock star as an idol is a sin. We're talking two different kinds of idol. One is considered a god, the other is just considered great.
And just as aside, your claim that satan tempted Eve is historically inaccurate and Christian construct. Jews don't believe it, why do Christians? The bible says it was a snake, and god dished out punishment for a snake, not a satan.
Not that I believe the story, but if you read a book you don't change the characters. Why don't we claim moby dick was a demon mouse? Because its not in the book.
You saw my example of how Christians have deliberately changed Isaiah to make it look like Jesus was prophesied by him. He wasn't.
So if you want the authentic original you need to read the original, not the altered version. Right? Not that I believe its true, of course. But neither is moby dick, and I wouldn't read an altered version of that either.
And thank you for allowing me to stick around. ..
What is the original version? What are the contradictions?
The Jewish OT. A version translated by Jews. As for contradictions, pick a topic. There are hundreds.
I figured you could easily select one. I have been studying the Bible for 40 years and have not found any contradictions. So I'm surely not to readily identify one now.
When we make a point, let's show evidence from the text. You show me a specific point from the Jewish OT that you are speaking of. I show you a specific point from the Christian Bible (which includes the Jewish OT and the Christian New Testament). Otherwise, we are talking past each other.
I take time to point to things I'm speaking of. I looked up Jewish OT. It looks like the Torah (Pentateuch) is what you are speaking of. The Old Testament is the Torah, the books of the Prophets and the books of the Writings. Within Judaism this trio is known simply as the Bible, or the Tanakh, an acronym derived from תורה/ Torah (Teaching), נביאים / Nevi’im (Prophets), and כתובים/ Ketuvim (Writings). When the term Old Testament is used, it is often in order to distinguish it from the New Testament, a collection of Christian books and letters that are not part of the Jewish faith. torah scroll
I'm waiting for an example.
Right, the Jewish Torah "meaning the law" is the first 5 books of what Christians call the OT. You also include some of the prophets and other writings.
The Catholic version includes all the OT writing of 200 bce, where as Protestants took much of the 90 ce version which is current Jewish cannon.
My point is, some Christian versions are obviously altered. Best to get an English translation from the source. I prefer the mechanical translation, as there's no interpretation, just word for word translation.
But any Jewish version is pretty good. Again, not all Christian translations are bad, but I always like to compare what people quote me with Jewish versions to get a good consensus. And you can see what a difference it makes sometimes.
Diane, in response to your desire to post a thread on the forums specifically for Christians to respond, I suggest stating in the opening post that "this post is for Christians only". Just about everyone on HP will respect that and stay off the thread if they're not believers.
I have hesitated to do that because I don't want to offended anyone. Actually I don't mind comments of none Christians. However, when I select a category and topic, I thought people would want to discuss withing the framework of the topic..
There are some weird categories and topics on HP. When I see one on witches and poltergeists, etc.., I don't read any farther. It is just ironic to me that someone so offended by Christianity and who feels they are being put upon by the discussion would want to enter the discussion. It makes them the onces who are trying to force their beliefs on Christians.
Such big questions you put at the beginning, Diane. Even now I wonder why they were asked in that way. You say they were directed at Christians, but viewing a political person, with apparently psychological instability (depending on which media outlets we read and believe), and expecting only Christian individuals to respond, is somewhat obscure, IMHO.
What do you think would be the response of Jesus if he were here in the flesh?
I'm sure He would use a parable. I know He would be compassionate knowing there is a reason people who do not believe in Him were drawn to Him. Possibly the parable of the sower of seeds. The seeds are planted in different places: a) road with no soil, b) on rocky soil, c) among thistles and d) on fertile ground. The ones that grow are the ones planted on fertile ground. Why? The soil is rich for planting. The seed takes root. The plant grows.
It's that way with God's Word. Many hear it/read it and reject it for various reasons. However, some thirst for His Word. It takes root and the Christian develops.
The questions about Trump having done more for Christians is, in my opinion, a show of his arrogance. It does appear that he is unhinged. He has been supported by "evangelicals" because the "evangelicals" got a promise from him that he would appoint conservative judges. There is a major divide in the Christian community about the "evangelicals" undying loyalty to Trump no matter what he does or says...many of those things diametrically opposed to Christian values.
Jesus was tempted by Satan when He went to the desert to pray. Satan tried to tempt Him with food and promised to give Him all things if Jesus would bow down and worship Him. Satan had no power over Him and could give Him nothing.
If someone is curious and wants to give a point of view, I have no problem with that. It gives me opportunity to witness because the door is open when one asks a question. It is up to me to give a testimony of the hope that lies within me.
It's just strange to hear people complain about Christian principles in a place designated for such a discussion. I can understand it wouldn't be welcomed on a porno site or excessively on a political site.
The real question I suppose is: Are professing Christians a) devoting their lives to doing God's will or b) ambitious people who find a captive audience among religious people.
We've reached an impasse. We will never agree.. I believe the Bible is God's inerrant Word. You do not believe the Bible. So no points either of us makes will satisfy the other.
You may continue with LoL!
The impasse might be a lack of progress if such progress is only measured by agreement as being essential. It does not have to be.
What ultimately is the worst case scenario, if belief cannot square it with scientific study?
Surely it comes down to allowing new information to enter our mind, to reveal new insights which might, just might give a truth that makes a belief obselete.
Is that the fear? "A belief that I've always had, that has made me feel so comfortable and secure. Why would I want to give that up, just because someone comes along with another story?"
It would be nice if we could be reasonable. Diane's stance has absolutely nothing to do with fearing new information or scientific discovery. She could easily counter with the fact that every single time an archeological discovery is made which proves a particular charge against the biblical historical record to be wrong, the bar is quickly changed.
Fear of being proven wrong runs rampant within some minds on both sides of the debate.
You have sort the adversarial rôle once again.
I am trying to help both sides see that we do not need to be so adamant.
The scientific mind needs logic, honesty, factual understanding, as-certain-as-possible, but always with a "but...."
The believing mind needs wonder, awe, imagination, certainty, regardless of logic, but no "buts....."
Each of us has a left brain and a right brain. We have a varing degree of artistic and intellectual faculty.
We are not all the same and we do not need to be ... in thought, word, deed, aspiration. Each of us is a vital piece in the infinitely intangible jigsaw puzzle.
A tapestry of one dreary colour would be dull indeed.
You are correct that everyone is not the same and it would be dull if we were. However, you consistently approach believers with this type of comment. Thus, the adversarial impression. If you were in the habit of pointing the same out to those on the other side of the argument, perhaps I'd view your input in the light you claim it is offered.
Your comment about believers needing wonder, etc. goes against your other stated belief that life would be boring if all were alike. There is enough wonder within the universe to sate a desire for it. No God needed.
To the nonbeliever who feels the need to assume such, of course meaningful dialogue is fruitless. You have already decided to start with assumptions which may, or may not, be true of the individual.
Live to Learn, what is your problem? Is it a desire to always be on top? Is it a deep-seated bias? What do I represent for you? Someone in your life whom you resent for some reason?
It seams that no matter what I say, you want to twist my words for your own benefit and to denigrate me.
You do the same with Slarty. Is it because we are both men?
Umm. Wow. I'm not a psychologist so, I'm not qualified to respond to that.
I realize your problems are yours to overcome but, I have to say, after thinking about that bizarre tidbit I have to ask.
Do you have any idea how sexist that post was? I haven't heard crap like that in a very long time. You must have been alive when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth.
I wrote a rather long reply as a sort of rebuff, but that sort of to-and-fro will get us no where. So that post has been deleted.
Sorry if my words offended you in any way, that was not the intention....merely expressing my own annoyance the same as you have expressed yours.
So, let's move back to good, respectful discussion.
I'm afraid our dialogue is over, on religion. Anyone who harbors such backward ideas about women kind of creeps me out.
Well you, sorry I must say this, have read into it something I did not say and you know that full well. With all my attempts to be honest, to retract, you treat me with such disdain. So I will say this in front of all the others here, I don't find you a fair conversant.
So yes, no more discussion with you. Sorry everyone.
Laugh out loud. Your implication the fact I vocalize my disagreement with two posters you identify as male somehow makes me a man hater is not misread.
Believe it or not, I always assumed you were a woman. I haven't looked at your profile, or Slarty's. Primarily because there is no way to verify truth. I go by comments made, not preconceptions.
That to the side. Your comment indicates women should know their place and not openly disagree with men. It's Neanderthal thinking we effectively abolished in the States 40 years ago. Sure, we have a few throw backs, but for the most part intelligent and enlightened men understand how ignorant they will make themselves sound if they openly make such sexist comments.
If you don't like my stated positions then rebut them intelligently without lashing out with an outlandish desire to 'put me in my place'.
"Your comment indicates women should know their place and not openly disagree with men. It's Neanderthal thinking"
Actually, its Christian thinking.
Says what must be another former dinosaur hunter.
Evolution of thinking. That is what Christianity represents.
You should thank your lucky stars for Christians. They built the West.
It evolves whether it likes it or not. But that means you are no longer following your bible.
And though I'm not sure the western world wouldn't have existed without Christians, Don't get the idea I hate them, I certainly don't. I just can't believe what they do.
I am, however grateful to them for separating church and state so that people who do not all believe the same things can live together in peace.
What I object to are fundamentalists that want to force their beliefs on everyone, including moderate Christians. All of us, atheist and theist have to stand together against that..
But Pauline Christianity says that women should obey their husbands. The word "obey" was used in Christian marriage vows up until the Women's Liberation movement of the 1960s.
Paul told women to be silent in church:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Corinthians 14:34-35
Timothy echoed Paul:
In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 we read "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
The Jewish Essenes had women priestesses, so they didn't tell women to shut up and know their place.
Today we can look forward to the balance of the Divine Feminine. I offer as proof The MeToo Movement and the midterm election of numbers of women.
Votes have been counted. 102 women have been elected to the U.S. House, 14 women to the U.S. Senate and 9 women will serve as governor."
And most certainly not my a-theist thinking, Slarty.
And how long is it since my nth cousin Tyrannosaurus rex died out?
Was it pre-Columbus or after?
Take note from the dinosaur. Couldn't adapt and died out. Learn to adapt, because women are part of society and will express their views (especially when opposing views are sharing false information), without apology.
Get used to it.
And even if it goes against their bible. Good for you.
Those ddinos are still alive and well. They're called fundamentalists. And they have to keep their dino ideas. It is written in their bible. No matter how many Christians allow their religion to evolve, what's written won't go away. As long as its believed there will always be dinos.
i never doubted you, Johnny.
Jonny, all of the wonder, awe, imagination, certainty, etc.., are found in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Revelations describes the new heaven an earth. We read it and try to imagine how glorious it is. There was a song written about it, "I Can Only Imagine.." A book was written and then a movie produced..
Certainty - Our certain Hope is that Jesus, the infinite God, came to earth in the form of a baby, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead an is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
Awe - We are in awe of his character and qualitiies: He's everywhere at once; know the past, present and the future; and has unimaginabe strength and power..
It's only dreary to you because you think of it as being imprisoned to a life that isn't fun. He who has the son is set free. You don't find many Christians who are sad/mad. There are some but that's another discussion.
Anyway, you are giving your perception as a resister.
Thank you Diane, I know how you feel, I have been there done that, it feels great, doesn't is? All that lovely certainty, gives you such confidence in telling others how to shape their lives.
But no thanks .... I have moved way beyond that.
Your choice is your choice, once again respected but not accepted.
The Battle of Nineveh, 612 BCE, saw an allied army composed of Medes and the Babylonian, rebelling against the Assyrians, together with Scythians and Cimmerians they besieged and sacked Assyria. Babylon became the most most powerful state again after almost 1000 years. By 615 Assyria was dead.
Isaiah is said to have written in the 600s BCE. Since Assyria had not yet been sacked we have to assume he was writing at that time period.
Look what he says in chapter 8:
1 And the Lord said to me, "Take for yourself a large scroll, and write on it in common script, to hasten loot, speed the spoils.
2 And I will call to testify for Myself trustworthy witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah."
3 And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
4 For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
Notice, this is the boy he's still talking about in chapter 9. For him, this is happening in his time, not 600 years later.
I assume you are saying Isaiah's child is the Messiah. I disagree that that is the implication.
Isaiah 9:6. 6 For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; And the government Is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
And of course to make the prophecy true, that's the names you, not the Jews who it was written for, call him. But he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Did he take control of the government? No.
His Kingdom is in heaven. That is the point. We are only here for a short time. Phil 3:20-21 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
I don't know what version you use, but from the Jewish Torah the quote is:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
See the difference? And this was six hundred years before Jesus so he would hardly write that a son IS given to us if he meant he was coming six hundred years later.
I know nothing of the Jewish Torah. The Jews rejected Him. They wanted Him killed. They thought He was going to become their king on earth. Our existence here is terminal. Jesus sits in heaven and will come to rule on earth at a time when no one knows. After 1000 years, believers will live forever on the new heaven and earth.
We'll see. My point is, what ever your translation is, its obviously been altered for Christian eyes. Read the original
Luke 1:29-37 The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
With respect, Diane, biblical quotations are all very well for those who "believe in the Bible," and I can't object to that.
But there is no cut-and-dried acceptance outside of the Christian camp, about their historical certainty, as far as I know.
So do those texts help here?
I understand Jonny. I was responded to Slarty who said the Bible did not say that Jesus, specifically, was the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah 9:6. So I'm just showing that the Bible supports Jesus being Wonderful God, Mighty Counselor, Prince of Peace, Kinsman Redeemer.
Notice Luke 1;31 says "Though shall call His Name Jesus..."
Jonny, when each person "interprets" we come up with the serious division that we have in the church now. There are those who think people should obey the law of the land and not come to the US other than through a legal process. On the other hand, there are those who have compassion and want to assist people when they come. The Bible tells us to obey law. The exception is when it is in conflict with God's commands. So there is an issue of balancing the two. Some things are clear cut like blaspheme. We are warmed to not "add to" or "take away" from the Bible.
And you're right on the money. No matter how many times I say it, people go on assuming I'm doing more than giving opinions. Educated ones based on fact I hope, but not undeniable fact in and of themselves to be sure.
For those who don't know, and I know Alan does, it's how models work. Good Models are built on facts, but don't necessarily reflect reality. They live and die on new evidence or new facts.
No one has the last word on anything like this.
Let me get this straight. You observe, you experience, you read. Just like everyone else. You formulate opinions, based on your deductions from all of that. Those opinions, while deviating greatly from the facts (because ample evidence exists to contradict much of what you are presenting), are just you building a 'good' model. You present this personal construct in such a way as if you want to be perceived as educating people on facts. (And that is what you do, if you are being honest). And you aren't presenting belief in the same manner as any believer pushing the Bible as ultimate truth.
Gotta say, doesn't really fly. I see it as you having bought your blinders from the store across the street, who uses the exact same supplier to stock their blinders.