Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
You say "If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God".
If that means Jesus comes to Earth and there was clear proof that he was, indeed the son of God, then of course atheists would not reject him.
Atheists are logical people who make their decisions based on evidence. They are open-minded and ready to change their views on any topic, if provided with enough convincing evidence. The only reason they don't believe in God is that there's a lack of convincing evidence. Provide the evidence and they'll change their minds at once.I mean reject Him as their saviour. There's a difference between rejecting Him as an unproven deity and rejecting Him because they don't want salvation.
Wanting concrete evidence immediately insinuates that atheists truly don't want to go through a process to realize He is the son of God. It really is a life-long thing to know the Holy Spirit. Do they want to go through that effort? I ask atheists to pray for a revelation and they just say they won't. It insinuates they aren't serious about Jesus so why accept Him as a physical manifestation?Why do you care about what other people believe? You are free to believe whatever nonsense you choose. And - it is nonsense.
If Jesus could come and convince me I needed salvation and he could provide it - I would of course accept him.
This is what you managed to miss from your nonsensical scenario of a mythical dead guy coming back by majik.
He would also have to convince me his god was the biggest and baddest. Perhaps a Cage fight to the death (un-death) with Thor?
He would also have to come up with some reasonable explanation for you guys. I mean - really - you are representative?
So - your Invisible, Unnecessary Un-Dead Guy would have a lot of 'splainin' to do I'm afraid.
Wanting concrete evidence means what again? No wonder your religion causes so many fights.God 'splainin' everything to you? lol
Cute.. sweety pie..
He still loves you very much.
Mark...Christians care what you believe because, in spite of their, shall we say, pugilistic presentations and combativeness based on needing to be "Right"...an answer to your question several scrolls down "Why do you feel the need?"...most of them really don't want to see you burning in the Hell that we believe in. They also get frustrated in your opposition because most of them were seriously opposed to Christianity as some point and "identify" with you and fear the worst for you.
That's just like JenChristopherson is trying to warn us that Jesus is coming back on July 24th. Her convictions are just as strong, which is why she chose to share. Doesn't make it true.
And why do you care about what others believe? What are you doing here? I genuinely want to know the thoughts of atheists. Geez.
I just gave you the thoughts of an atheist. I don't care one whit what you believe as long as you keep it in your head where it belongs.
I would be forced to keep it in my head if no one participated in the forums I started.
Gotcha. Not your fault. The only reason you started this thread was because people participated.
No one is trying to force you to do anything. Trying to get you to see reason? Yes.
Hmmm. Her mouth your property now?
That was cute. "Shut up" with a twist eh?That would mean all Jews are not going to heaven because they believe he was a messiah not the son of God.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 004AANtSzq
If you really want to know what an atheist believes then I have several hubs that do that. Especially the last one. That goes for everyone who says they "care" about what we believe. Yet I doubt most of you Christians would really take the time to read our hubs, you are more interested in preaching to us.... As of that would do any good.
Ok I am sure you have plenty to say and would like to know what you hub is so I can look at it I am not and athiest nor would I push religion on you but I would like to see what the athiest have to say.. I believe in what my life has brought me not what others can bring me but I do believe that there is a god of some sort.. I have not religion but I do believe in history and the bible is part of it..So if yo can send me a hub link to the thread..
I believe Jesus. Yes, the bible was written by man and I hear that a lot. But what book hasn't been written by man. Put Jesus' words to the test. Try it out for yourself and you will know that He is, FAITH FIRST THEN KNOWING. Remember, God allows you to choose. I know an atheist, very smart and set on her ways, I love her with all my heart. She raised me. I pray that she will find found. Cause I can't bear never seeing her again, but my son is in heaven and I have to see him again. This is not an option for me. Where he goes, I will follow.
I believe that too. I also believe he can feel your love now.
Some will think my belief is nothing but false hope. Let them think it. They are in the habit of allowing their thoughts to override a more subtle feedback system... their feelings.
You see,this is why atheists get annoyed with you. Your answer makes no sense logically whatsoever, so it's impossible to debate the question with you. Sorry.
No need to apologize. She isn't chaining you to the thread. lol
There are pleny of debaters around these parts, don't worry.
Three words and I can have at least a quarter of them in this thread debating without end.Then you must like illogical forums that annoy you. What is logical about the supernatural? Wanting everything to be logical means one is putting a barrier between themselves and God.
I am a logical person in other aspects of my life but I also know the supernatural world exists that is devoid of logic. I have that evidence and it would be illogical for me to discount that proof.I could easily debunk all your "supernatural illogical" evidence as something logical and natural and having nothing to do with god or ghosts or any sort of... Magic.
What you want and what you are serious about is irrelevant when it comes to proof.
What do you think the word atheist means? And why do you think an atheist would take such a request "for them to pray for something" seriously? If I ask you to pray to a different god for proof of it's existence or divinity, would you do that? Or maybe look for a pot of gold under a rainbow???? Seriously?
We do not and will not pray to your imaginary friend, not even for the sake of argument.They have to at least try and pray with a neutral stance may exist. Preconceived ideas cannot allow God to reveal Himself to a person. They have set up a barrier. Jesus preached faith. If I was interested in another god, and I could never be because I know the true God, praying would be an option for a revelation. Doing nothing will guarantee no revelation.
It's all about a person's will. Do they or do they not want to find Christ? There's no in between.Your delusion is not catching - sorry. It is a one way street. If you are so scared that you need the delusion - you will find it.
Sorry, then you aren't seeking God and so you will never find the evidence. I notice you make a lot of assumptions. What makes you think I have a faith based on fear? It's based on love.
Odd - you told us all about your night mares and night terrors which only went away when you started believing in the Jesus majik.
So - I am basing my assessment on your statements, not making an assumption.
God does not exist, therefore there is nothing to find outside your head. Odd that you even think this. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly - shall I try again?You make out that is was Jesus Himself terrorizing me. He delivered me from the Devil who was pushing me to the brink of suicidal thoughts because I was so terrified.
A God who coerces worship from a person by terrorizing him/her by threatening them with hell is not worthy of worship.No - I made out no such thing. But - at least you now admit your beliefs are fear based.
Listen, you just don't get what I am saying. You are not on my wavelength and me not on yours.
I get what you are saying just fine, thank you. I am completely on your wavelength and totally understand exactly what you say. Sadly you are in denial, and are not aware of what you're saying half the time.
That would only pertain to an agnostic and not an atheist. Why would someone give a chance to something they are 100% certain is fictional? Atheists, or at least people who claim to be, have no doubt to god being fictional. So again I ask. If I said something like, that wall is not real but you can only go through it if you run really really fast.... Would you do it? That is how we feel about god and prayer. There is no neutral.
And let me add that 90% or more of us atheists were raised Christian so as far as prayer goes, been there done that. Just like our imaginary friends, we out grew it.If you are not omniscient then how can you be 100% certain that no God exists? You could never claim to God one day that He never gave you any proof of His existence and that is why you didn't want Him in your life when you shut Him out.
Be honest, it is not possible to denounce the existence of God. What is the definition of God? It is a generic term. You could be a pantheist, New Ager, Muslim. There are many Gods you could go through.
It's kind of like telling people, who don't know about radiation, that radiation exists when they have no evidence of it. Any deformities they could blame on something else. There was a time when people didn't know about radiation but it doesn't mean it never existed until it was understood.You cannot claim the existence of somethingnorceven the possible existence of something without evidence that shows even the slightest or even remotest possibility that it can exist. I have yet to be shown anything that would suggest any deity of any definitions possible existence.
Why? Why does the existence of the universe, the eternality of it, the Big Bang not in any way suggest there might be something beyond?
Why does the fact that so many people believe, and so many claim the same kind of experiences, in a man who died 2000 years ago, not even hint there might be something to it?The “real” evidence of Deity
Often it is said, “where is the evidence?”
Look around, the evidence is everywhere. Evidence isn't the problem, it is what we choose to conclude from the evidence that needs examining. Each chooses what they believe makes the most sense (or want to believe makes the most sense), and then pursue that belief with all their conviction. That said, if you get it wrong, don't expect a positive conclusion to things.
Following are some of the “evidences” and the options we might conclude:
Evidence 1. The empirical universe is.
Option A. It came into existence from nothing.
Option B. It is an eternal entity that has always been.
Option C. It was created by an eternal entity who has always been.
Evidence 2. Empirical Intelligence (information) exists (E.g. DNA).
Option A. It came into existence from nothing.
Option B. Intelligence is part of the eternal entity of the universe.
Option C. Its existence is the design marker of an intelligent creator(s).
Evidence 3. There is incredibly vast and diverse positive symbioses in the universe (and especially on earth).
Option A. It has always been this way.
Option B. Chaotic evolutionary processes lucked upon it over vast periods.
Option C. Its existence is the design marker of an intelligent and purposeful creator.
Evidence 4. Mankind’s insatiable desire for that which transcends the physical existence.
Option A. It is a meaningless instinct
Option B. It is a survival mechanism of evolutionary natural selection
Option C. It is the design marker of a creator(s) who also transcends the physical
I have made my choice as to what makes the most sense, and I am pursuing Him with zeal. I anticipate a very positive conclusion. See you at the end... maybe.Theism.
Contesting the realistic experience since 6,000bc.Evidence is the sort of thing that one uses to count in favour of a theory. It is not "interpretation" or 'post-hoc' rationalization. Saying "look around, the evidence is everywhere" begs the question because we haven't established what the rules are that count as evidence and what counts as counter-evidence. Intelligent design theories, for example, are merely post-hoc rationalizations. They come in to explain why such beauty or complexity, etc. could exist in what appears to be a "chaotic" universe but they fall short of explaining why such entities exist or why the universe is the way it is and not some other way.
Only a mechanical universe full of robotic chatter and talking rocks, could explain your favored version of existence... Blah!
Unless by evidence is meant that which is evident, i.e.: obvious.
The fact the universe exists in all its complexity and order points most obviously to a creative mind. Objections will abound. Many will insist that the material universe is eternal. Which is ironic, rejecting the possibility of an eternal creative mind only to replace it with eternal matter; as if that explains things better. Many will insist that the supreme chaos of unguided chemical reactions can result in anything but shear mayhem. Yet it is evident (obvious) that the complex systems of this universe had to be designed.
Sometimes the most evident things can be dismissed in the search of evidence.Can this "creative mind" be inferred? Yes; you just made such an inference, as have many before you. Are all inferences correct? No.
The most "obvious" proofs -- AKA assumptions -- often demonstrate nothing more than confirmation bias.Many have inferred such, because it is logical to do so.
If mankind should one day discover the ruins of a complex stone city on a distant planet, they would logically infer that intelligent beings designed and built it. To speculate that the city resulted from eon's of planetary weathering and mineral deposits, would require illogical assumptions to be entertained. But that is what we find occurring. A complex, ordered, information-rich universe assumed to have either existed forever or spontaneously appearing and 'chaotically' improving. Such assumption goes against natural laws as we know them, as well as logic.
A creative being who is outside this universe, and therefore above those rules which govern our own reality, is an extremely logical (and sensible) conclusion to arrive at.
More important is the question, can we know him?If we discovered the ruins of a city, we would recognize it logically and irrefutably as an artifact. We would come to this conclusion with justification; after all, there are no non-artifactual cities. By definition, humans make artifacts.
If I discovered that a creative being outside of this universe existed, then it might be reasonable to wonder whether I was wrong about only humans making artifacts, that trees were perhaps superior artifacts of this advanced being. However, if I discovered that such an advanced being existed, I might then reasonably conjecture that entire civilizations of them existed, considering the scale of the suddenly-hypothetically-artifactual universe.
As for chaos theory and the rest, I'm going to quote myself:
Chaos theory is about predictable Patterns?
Yes. Predictable patters. Toothpicks fall into predictably unpredictable patterns.
No, that isn't a contradiction.
The pattern that is the eventual outcome of an accidental spillage of toothpicks is highly sensitive to initial conditions. This is popularly known as the butterfly effect. If Rain Main had dropped the box of toothpicks from a slightly greater elevation, or slightly lower, it he had gripped the box more tightly, or more loosely, if the percentage of water vapor in the air had varied slightly, the pattern would have been a different one. Of course, the initial conditions are always different, so the pattern is never the same.
The Big Bang -- Ultimate Toothpick Toss?
When the Big Band occurred -- if it occurred, and I'm not placing any bets -- it created the ultimate predictably unpredictable pattern.
We live in that pattern. Indeed, in a literal sense, we are part of that pattern.
Back at the beginning, if we knew everything possible about the angle of each accelerating atom, and the weight distribution of clusters of atoms, and so on, we could have theoretically predicted what the universe would look like at this exact instant.
But we weren't there, and, even if we had been, such prestigious feats of calculation would have likely been beyond us. After all, such prestigious feats of calculation are impossible for us even now.
Should We Be Surprised?
No, we shouldn't.
If we tossed a box of 250 toothpicks in the air and they landed once out of thousands of tosses into a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa, we should be surprised.
Truthfully, if this happened to me, I would stop being an atheist.
But no one was there for the creation of the primordial universe, so to be surprised that we live in this particular one is illogical.
This particular pattern -- if were were able to witness multiple Big Bangs -- might be ordinary.Probably the best explanation I've read. It even helped me to wrap my head around some things. Thanks, Chasuk.
Of course, when we speak of an “accidental spillage” of toothpicks, we mustn't forget it took a cause to accidentally spill them. We must not speak of the 'effect' in isolation.
The law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have a preceding cause that was before it and greater than it.
Only a God remains a feasible first cause, that is both before and bigger than the effect of our universe.Simply not true, there are several feasible first cause theories that do not require a god.
Only if you can believe something "accidentally" caused a god to come into existence. Why stop at a god? Why not keep going further back to each accidental cause? As far as I can tell, no boundaries have been shown to say what accidental--if you wish to refer to it as such--cause was first.
Before the universe was formed?? Who thunk it?
I would hope that we all did, unless you are counting all the rocks, too?
You might have been there, but then you'd be a god too. How many are there of you guys?
There are endless dividends from the numeric value of one...
If ya can't understand what unity is, where have ya been all of your life? In a box?
Thoughts, emotions, awareness along with all that other good invisible stuff that YOU can't see or label or prove... Oh, dear, why oh why do people live in a box without thoughts, yet even their very own subconscious battles them to death, when they close their little eyes... Yet, you wonder why you wonder... LOL!
No, I wonder what you are talking about. There can be no unity of thought if there is no one to think. And before the universe came into being you have nothing to show any entity had thought. But feel free to show me what creatures there were to have conscious thoughts before the universe was here. Much less, how there was unity among those creatures.
The unity comes from the endless dividends of one, if ya can't understand that, well, you must hang on to the outer limb of stellar dust, as we'll pull ya back in later; quit being so lame, mate... Oh, by the way, 2 + 2 = 4.
Give it up, you are traveling in circles giving nothing but silly answers which address nothing but your suppositions. Last time. How is there unity of thought with nothing to think it in the beginning? I expect more of the same nonsense, by the way.
And here's one for you. 0 + 0 = 0
You are getting ill... LOL!
Funny chaps, we are dealing with here...
Your equation of 0 + 0 = 0, is so fitting.
Well, dear dawdling darling (wink-wink), you seem to forget that your theory of nothing involves something, and your zero is actually a one; go figure; ha-ha-ha!
1 (one) divided by any number could equal anything and everything...
Well I don't think he thinks it was accidental at all, really.
No, I knew that too. God was a convenient stopping point for him and for most believers. They always harp on about it being impossible for something to come from nothing, then have the nerve to say god has always been.
In dealing with uncaused first causes, we have to conclude that it was either matter or mind that always existed and started this universe. If science has established anything, it is that matter cannot create itself and all observable matter had a beginning. Therefore we are left logically with a creative mind behind it all. As creator, such a being is not governed by those rules we apply to our material universe, and therefore does not require a cause; for the law of cause and effect applies only to the material universe we see.
Simply not true, on a quantum level matter and anti matter appear and disappear at random, we know that to be true that reaction can cause the balance break which in turn creates the big bang, the creation of the universe is scientifically explainable (in theory anyway).
But could the quantum level explanation truly account for the amount of matter necessary to create a universe?
Even if your "first cause - God" position is valid, if the primal creative force is not the God of Jesus Christ, your position would be flawed, because there is no proof beyond mere faith in A SINGLE RELIGION. That being said, Christianity is no more valid than the other 120 religions on this planet, not counting the countless spiritualities of individuals.
For instance, the Hopi creation myth has just as much validity, and has more going for it by being more plausible from several points of view.Not true. The fact is that all religions could be wrong, but they can't all be right.
The real proof of Christianity is in Christians.The real proof of Islam are the Muslims... Buddhism are the Buddhists... Shinto, the shintoists... Satanism, the Satanists, Judaism, the Jews, the list goes on and on, based on that logic. Even though you believe you're different, you aren't.
I'm not different from what?
According to my logic there, maybe. But if you've read other posts, then you know that what I'm saying is that you need to actually examine the evidence, including talking to lots of Christians about why they believe.
Same could be said for Muslims and Buddhists, I think that's fair.
I understand that they fall short of explaining why an intelligent designer exists, but that's not the theories job. It's job is to say that an intelligent designer is the most likely explanation of why the universe is the way it is and not some other way. Who the designer is or why they exist or why they do the things they do is beyond ID, that's the realm of actual religion.
This seems a bit odd of a question and I can see the ambiguity: a. People refuse salvation and b. people would doubt or deny (His) existence in the face of evidence.
The availability of proof for the existence of something does not dictate how one utilizes that proof (what one does with it). Proof, then may be a necessary condition for atheists to believe, but not sufficient for any particular action. Knowledge does not build prescription into it. We have a choice on how to act on beliefs.
What exactly is entailed in acting on one's beliefs anyway? If we have proof that every prime
Number is the sum of two squares are we forced to be Platonists? I doubt it. Would proof of a living God, be an end to all our questions and worries? Like if we discovered a complete unified theory of everything and knew how everything works and emerges, would we have no need for anything else? Would it be the end of the world as we know it? Quite possibly yes.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned ambiguity, I will submit that the question at hand - a conditional - does no more than bring about a hypothetical and so all we are doing here is a thought experiment because there is as yet no such proof, so we are free to imagine what things would be like. A more interesting question, I think, would be "ought we to look to history/the bible and what resulted upon apparent proof (of miracles, resurrection, etc)" or ought we look to our best understanding of psychology to prepare for how people will respond to the emergence of such a proof of the Son of God in today's day?
One final note: the mere fact that we can construct the conditional, primary question, does not mean we ought to prepare for the possibility that the antecedent is true. Thought experiments are pretty safe and don't bring the objects of the thought any closer to reality so no need to start playing Pascalian wagers. An interesting aside though would be if we do have proof of the Son of God, faith would probably be obsolete: but we're still not guaranteed that we would fully understand all the consequences, all the offerrings of, all the rules, all the benefits of His reality perhaps until the very end... Or would we?
Of course it doesn't dictate how one uses that proof but how many people would turn away from someone who is the epitome of holiness and died for our sins so that we won't have to go to hell if we truly repent? Then we'd prefer hell. When I took about evidence, I meant a divine revelation from God that makes us see the truth for what it is without any other interpretation needed. Perhaps I was ambiguous assuming people knew what I meant.
Some people have been convinced that Jesus is the son of God when textually criticizing the Bible and reading about the argument for the case of the resurrection. CS Lewis was one of them.
It doesn't take the study of psychology to know how non-believers would react to Jesus. They will be terrified or be fulled with love and adoration for Him and, most likely, pained that they never knew Him in this life-time or anguished that they treated Him with such disrespect on earth.
So the proof I am referring to will be what we get on Judgement Day. I will amend my forum topic.
Faith is not obsolete when having concrete evidence of His existence. Does a child doubt the existence of his father when he has faith in him? Having faith means trusting God implicitly even when there appears He is not responding to us.
The death, the conquering of sin and evil and the resurrection guarantees us of the "benefits" and that is eternal life. One thing that validates this to be true is how much Satan and evil hate Him. Why hate Him if He wasn't victorious?
So to someone who doesn't know Christ, this is all conjecture but Revelation 17:10 suggests that people, or whatever evil entity they are, will still reject God even though they know who He is. But they are of the Beast and thus will never repent.The question is not actually conditional. When Jesus does return, as posited in the Book of Revelation, everybody will know He is the Son of God. Sometimes Christians forget that not even all Christians, let alone all non-Christians, are familiar with that book. The conditions set forth for His return leave no doubt that everyone will know who He is.
And when it never happens?
No one will be any more aware if it doesn't.
True enough. I've met Atheists who know it better than Christians.
Thank you for the laughs.You're welcome!
Gee, and I wonder why I would have thought you were mocking me?
Revelation is so controversial I would not put a lot of stock into it at all. It's not even clear which "John" is supposed to have spun this tale, Chris. Some believe the person was suffering from hallucinations due to lack of eating for a period of time. A well known method of seeing "visions" by some primitive religious tribes and cults.
Yeah, I actually did know all that.
I know that there are groups that are still actively trying to get the book taken out of the Bible.
Most groups accept that it was John the Apostle based on early church testimonies, despite that there are (if you read the Greek) some differences in style between the Revelation and the Gospel and Epistles of John.
I've thought about it and struggled with it, but the early church didn't just accept things willy-nilly (if it did, the Gospel of Thomas would be in the Bible today.)
Wow, the QUESTION is a conditional regardless of what the answer to the question is. I also understand that God (if God exists) is omniscient so (He) would know the true answer to the conditional, but that doesn't mean (Y)ou are omniscient.
Blame-shifters will always have trouble understanding the unity at hand; blah!
No, I am not omniscient.
Neither are you.
The question is based on an understanding of the Second Coming as posited in the Book of Revelation. Unless I've missed something, all the posts I've read by Claire lead me to believe that she fully believes the Bible, including that book. So based on that knowledge, and unless I'm wrong, then no, the question is not conditional. Jesus will come back, and when He does it will be in a way that will leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to who He is.You are mistaken Chris. Claire believes in the NT strongly, but that the OT is very faulty and that the God represented in it in many places is not the true God that Jesus is a part of. She believes that they mostly got it wrong in the OT.
If that's true, then you're right. I did miss that.
It's certainly true. She says it often earlier in this thread and others.
They need another way to gather evidence... try ESP! God can be intuited directly! Through meditating with love upon him... Just in case any one would like to contact him and get the proof they need. It is so silly for me to be in this Forum. I guess I am just practicing my writing abilities too. It is actually an excellent way to learn spelling, grammar and punctuation. I am developing many great writing abilities. But I am so jealous that the spell checker is better than me at spelling.
How exactly would everyone "realize" he was the son of God? How would Jesus prove that he is all powerful? Would he heal the sick? Raise the dead? Because those are not all powerful things. Would he convey into the minds of every human being the knowledge that he is God? Because any persuasive tele-path could easily do the same thing, it does not require being a deity.
There is no way to prove that something is all powerful and no standard to test whether this character is actually Jesus, after all we have no original DNA of Jesus, no ancient evidence for his existence outside works of literature even exists.
Let's say though that he did have some form of evidence that laid to rest any doubts that he was in fact Jesus and was in fact a God of some sort. Does that mean he deserves to be worshiped? Merely for being more powerful than us and for threatening us with Hell? The depiction at the end of the Bible is of Jesus returning to smite his enemies and to demand that every human knee bow to his will, this of course is nothing more than tyranny, killing or damning all who oppose him and forcing all others to be his subjugated slaves and bow endlessly for eternity singing of his "mercies". So no, I wouldn't accept this God, I would defy such an evil and disgusting being with my last breath.Yea, but he has to first live before doing anything. No amount of your delusion is going to make him alive.
You sure you aren't automated? God's alive, because emf is a set structure of force that organizes things and is highly complex.
emf is also not expainable by 'evo' bologna, because it is more sophisitcated than anything technologically available on the earth created by us.
No amount of inccorect traits you attempt to apply to me make your stance correct.
God STILL loves you. And if He isn't alive, neither are you.God, (who also goes by the aliases Yahweh, Allah and Jehovah to evade debt collectors) is the supreme Holy Lord. He is perhaps best known for creating all of existence, with the exception of Himself, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, the Incan Empire, Big Foot, and Devil's food cake. He is burdened with the unfathomable responsibility of sustaining the vital equilibria that allow life to continue, such as answering prayers, committing genocide, commiting mass infanticide, starting wars, ending wars and making stars twinkle. Despite this responsibility, God Himself shoehorns these important tasks into the corner whenever an important sports game or horse race is on, as He is the universe's most notorious compulsive gambler.
This makes more sense than the garbage you wrote.I can only account for my world (it may be that it is all that exists) , but your final statement posses the point that maybe , hard factual evidence , suggests that I am actually dead, given that this evidence says God is not alive. A logical arguement would therefore suggest that this communication does not exist but of course it does, your reading it. I have a conclusion which is that if you happen to read this then you are alive in my world where God does not exist .In vector 7's world God exists it must do, its his world!!!
I just received this memo from Jesus: It states that Vector7 has no right whatsoever to speak on his or any other god's behalf. In the memo, Jesus states that Vector7 is, after all, simply another mortal and has no special knowledge of or relationahip with any god.
This telepathic method...couldn't Jesus have put the idea in the Pharisees's heads that He was the son of God. It is Satan on earth that puts doubts in other's mind. Some saw Jesus and recognized the truth. There will come a day when everyone will know
He deserves to be worshiped because of the penalty of sin He took upon Himself so we don't have to. You also have to know the context of Revelation. Those enemies aren't people. They are demons, half human and half robotic. Once people take the mark, they aren't them anymore. Their minds are controlled by evil entities. Wouldn't you smite those demons who have caused misery and turpitude over the aeons?
I don't know where it says Jesus will demand every knew shall bow. I have Romans 14:11:
It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
Says nothing about demanding or forcing anyone to bow. I think if He demanded that as a control freak, He would not have given us free will.
Philippians 2:10 is similar.Here is an article for people like you who claim that Jesus never existed.
http://christiandebunker.blogspot.in/p/ … isted.htmlThere isn't a shred of evidence for Jesus existence on the site.
It is telling you to do the research. To really know what you are saying when you say Jesus existed or didn't exist.
I pesonally believe in a higher power simply because all I have to do is look around and see that there had to some intellect behind the creation of the Earth and everything on it
There had to be intellect behind cancer, triatomine bugs, African eye worm, Rhinosporidiosis, hookworm, Screwworms, Filarial Worms? Look these up, Some are parasites that only attack humans. I personally don't see an intellect behind any of this, I see nature taking it's course.
And in the ocean every one is eating everyone.
Yes there had to be. Only it was not God.
Or, if you really want to know the truth. Do as science does.
1. Do a study of the history of Israel. Start from 2000 BC.
2. Do a study on the culture of Israel. Their festivals etc. You have to go to step 3 only after you complete step 1 and 2.
3. Search in the net for the sites that provide evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus. Study those evidences and do your research to verify them. But include in your search evidence for and evidence against. Look critically at the evidence. If one goes in with the assumption that Jesus existed and was God, one will only look at the evidence that supports his beliefs. Critical thinking will show you the truth.Oh definitely look at both sides of the argument. Otherwise you end up in sticky situations like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLsThat was a sticky situation for the interviewer. Not because he was wrong, but because he was out of his element. He just didn't have the words to argue with someone who had spent 30 years doing research. It's like arguing with a lawyer. I've tried to do that with a lawyer friend that told me the peanut allergy is a myth. I may have been right, but I sure looked like an idiot. A correct idiot, but an idiot.
I would then objectively believe that God existed and that the bible was more or less factual but it would not make me a christian, I do not believe the Christian God is worthy of worship nor morally sound judging from the bible and from what he allows to happen on earth.
What in the NT makes you think God is not worthy of worship? Why did Jesus worship and trust the Lord when He allowed Him to suffer such a horrific death and descend into hell? What about what we allow on earth? Every sin that is committed gives Satan strength. Even the tiniest one. We give Satan strength and then wonder why God doesn't do anything about the world? We need to empower Him to influence the world. It is up to us. If we choose with our free will to fight evil, the devil wouldn't stand a chance. But we won't. Should God force us to stop choosing evil? If He does, He is called a tyrant. So God is weak and unfeeling for allowing evil but tyrannical when He "forces" every knee to bow before Him.
You can't win with this type of reasoning.Odd - you wanted the thoughts of atheists - now you ignore them and are preaching at us again.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.Claire,
Are you saying that god is not omnipotent? If any god cannot do as it will then it is limited - and if an equally powerful second being exists, then there is no omnipotence to start.
I give people credit for being logical within their worldview - but your worldview doesn't seem consistent enough to allow me to do that. If god is omnipotent, it then follows that all men should wonder why god allows evil, that mankind cannot influence god's power or decisions in any fashion, and if it is up to us there is no need for this god to begin with.
To blame man for god's incompetence is silly - but you may be able to get a grant from Monty Python's Department of Silly Thoughts (and Walks).Can God send a meteorite to wipe out humanity? Yes, but that would entail killing His own. Could He force everyone to bow to Him? Yes, but that would make Him a dictator. True love is being given free will and what does mankind do with it? It gives Satan the power by committing evil. It's time people stopped having a crai about how inactive God is when they are the ones blocking His influence over the earth.
If is was all up to us without God no good could exist in the world because all goodness comes from Him. We would not be in the situation we are in today. We would be in a hell where no good exists. So even though we have free will God's presence or lack of presence affects everyone.
If you were a teacher who was brilliant and tried to teach a student who was not interested would you blame the teacher and say he was incompetent? Or would you say the problem lay with the student?
God imposes limits on Himself you could say. One needs to cooperate with God or else He can nothing for you. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. As for God not being able to being in the presence of evil, it is more like evil not being able to be in His. Through the Son, God brought Himself into the presence of hell. I would say God is omnipotent but does not force Himself on those who don't want Him.So - what you are saying is that you are right and we are just rejecting the obvious truths.
It is all our fault in essence?
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.It's not exactly an obvious truth. I didn't come to this conclusion overnight and was not taught it in church, that's for sure!
I think everyone would agree, or should, that we must take responsibility for ourselves. If you don't think that people doing wrong does not contribute to the evil world we are in, then you need to wake-up.
"No wonder your religion causes so many wars."
Out of interest sake, have you trade-marked this?Of course we take responsibility for ourselves. What does that have to do with rejecting religious drivel?
You should try it some time. Instead of blaming some invisible entities that you can see and we deny - even though they are real and it is us rejecting them - admit it is just you.No, it is not just me. If a person helps another to commit a crime does it make only the accomplice guilty? When we do evil we aid and abet the devil. We are both the evil doers. If there wasn't a Satan, of course, there would be no evil to commit. However, some like to use the latter as an excuse to say, "The devil made me do it!"
Satan can't make you or me do anything. It all boils down to us.
I'm sorry you can't understand this. There's nothing more I can explain.Satan does not exist. It is just you and me. Sorry you are not able to take responsibility for yourself.
Odd - you were just telling me this was what we needed to do.
This would be why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Claire,
Did you notice that what you wrote has nothing to do with god or satan? Evil is a concept invented by man, just as is good. Once we eliminate the ridiculous, i.e., the miraculous intervention, we can get down to the tasks of reality: solving our own problems by ourselves without appealing for help to superbeings that don't exist.
Just us - humans. Because that's all there is.You just assume supernatural beings don't exist. Just because you don't have proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have no evidence that radiation is in my environment but it is there.
You have much to learn of this world.My.. good.. ness..
Someone get me a glass o' ice wataa.. It's gettin' hot in heaa.. lol..
Looking a little enticing there Claire.Claire,
Let's try an experiment. We take a rat and put it in a maze with food at the end. Over time, the rat learns how to navigate the maze to reach the food.
Winston's conclusion: the rat brain is capable of memory.
Claire's conclusion: God guides all trapped rats to food.
Which of the two conclusions is more rational? What guided the rat to the food was hunger. What guides human action is no less ordinary.
If you are as fearful of the boogeyman as you say, I suggest you buy a dog and a nightlight.I'm going to fill the need here.
You sound like a child.
You're creating an "imaginary" scenario..
Applying your own "imaginary" thoughts in her stead for her.
And then attempting to demean and patronize her based on your "imagination."
Your attempt has hereby been concluded silly, irrational, and pathetic.
Congratulations.....
No smiley for you..
<-- for a sad excuse for an argument turned toward the debater.Why is it that everytime you show up something ridiculous gets written? Is that correlation or causation?
P.S. The audience and I are still waiting for you to define perfection.lol, good luck with that.
This isn't double jeopardy. Go on and write "can you not define it vector? etc etc etc"
The audience is indeed watching.....
Be careful. If you present Claire with too many things that she can't refute by copy-pasting, she will decide that your answers are "sick," and then ignore you.
Chas,
It is not simply Claire, I've noticed. When you pin down any believer and ask him to define his terms and truly think critically he either quotes verses or ignores your questions and repeats unwarranted claims. And all I am trying to do is get a reasonable and rational explanation so there is an initial premise from which to talk - but repeating "you have to believe what I do before we can talk" is not an effective method of dialogue.
I guess reasonableness is too much to ask - we have to accept by faith what they say. After all, that is how it works in the temple - priest say, student do. No question.Marginally wrong.
You may well think that God is unreasonable because he requires faith before proof is provided, but in fact for the purposes of the exercise:
To define who genuinely wishes to spend eternity with Him, it's the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.Aquasilver,
By your statement above, I conclude only two possibilities: one, that you are claiming to know the intricacies of omnipotence and its possibilities when no other human on earth now, before, or in the future has, has had, or will have this occult knowledge, or two, you are simply regurgitating an unwarranted claim made by some other human monkey who preceded you but whose word you believe to be true.
Notice, in neither case have you thought critically about the possibility and rationality of the claim - you pronounce it as certainty. So what is it that you are so certain about - your infallible occult knowledge of a superbeing who may or may not exist, or your uncanny ability to know which human apes never lie and only speak the truth - like Nixon?
So, which is it? Are you insanely arrogant or a naive sucker?Neither.
Luke 3:16-18
Amplified Bible (AMP)
John answered them all by saying, I baptize you with water; but He Who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of Whose sandals I am not fit to unfasten. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
His winnowing shovel (fork) is in His hand to thoroughly clear and cleanse His [threshing] floor and to gather the wheat and store it in His granary, but the chaff He will burn with fire that cannot be extinguished.
So with many other [various] appeals and admonitions he preached the good news (the Gospel) to the people.
Some will hear and listen, others refuse.
First, an omniscient God would already know which of us were wheat and which were chaff, and he would have known it 10 quadtrillion years ago. Second, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't punish his skeptical creations for behaving with exactly the same level of skepticism that he knew they would possess 10 quadtrillion years ago. Third, and especially, an omniscient God should reward intelligence, not punish it.
See, Aqua, this is how one thinks critically and rationally about the claim. I would take notes from Chas if I were you.
Agreed, but He chose to give humanity a chance to repent and change from chaff to wheat, that's rather decent of Him I would say, some accept His grace, others deny it.
See above.
Ahhh, and there lies the rub, for you think your DESERVE to be REWARDED for your rebellion and earthly knowledge you gather like a squirrel does his nuts for winter, when in fact it is your belligerent attitude that DEMANDS God should PROVE Himself to you that condemns you, and you continue wasting the time you have to confirm what God knew 10 quadtrillion years ago, but hoped you would still repent of.
Yes God knows the ending, but thank God He gave us the opportunity to change our endings.
Use it wisely.
Edit: You are assuming that your ending is already written badly.... whereas God may be chuckling as He sees the energy you waste trying to wriggle free from Him.
Your ending may not be what YOU expect it to be, but you can make it bad by your intransigent attitude, or better by your coming to true faith and understanding, in the end it is YOUR call as to how this life works out, God does not shape your life, just guide it IF you will let Him.Sorry, but God either knows what I _will_ do, not merely what I _might_ do, or he isn't omniscient. If he knows what I _will_ do, then he created me knowing in advance that he either will, or will not, punish me. If he created me knowing that punishment is my fate, then he is not omnibenevolent.
The idea that this God is omni-benevolent is unbiblical. He states that he created evil, according to OT scripture.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
That is a clear sign that he isn't omni-benevolent. He is a self-serving entity.
I think people, in order to keep believing, need to think him omni-benevolent, otherwise they can't justify the clear evils that He commits in scripture, and in modern day society. What can God be blamed for, if not everything? Only that which is good? That's not a good view of reality. If He created evil, then He created evil. There's no way to avoid that.How can one truly believe this is true? It's a paradox to make peace and create evil because chaos ensues from evil.
To know whether this is true or not we just have to see how Jesus behaved. And He had zero tolerance to evil.According to Christian theology, Jesus is only one person of the Godhead. God the Father is most likely the one who said that He "created" "evil."
Of course it's easy to believe for anyone who can look at Him within the context of we "know" to be immoral, malevolent behaviors.
-To prove a point, he kills all of a man's children, gives him sores on his body, just to prove he's a dedicated man of God? If I were Him, I would've told Satan to kick rocks, because I have nothing to prove to a lesser being as yourself. Then you might say, "it's for the greater good!" in that future Christians could find comfort in any situation. Yea, kill a mans children, whose lives were apparently expendable, to prove a point to future generations... Nah, not a good enough reason.
-Commanding people to sacrifice their children to HIm in order to terrify them. Sounds like something terrorist rebels would do.
Ezekiel 20:25-26 "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.” (Example of why He is self-serving bolded)
-Killing Egyptians 1st borns in order to get a Pharaoh (whose heart He himself hardened, by the way) to let the Hebrews go.
There are numerous examples of why God is not omni-benevolent. I know people who still worship God who accept that what He did regarding Lucifer was sketchy and that He's not omni-benevolent for various reasons, according to His actions in scripture. They were some of the most belligerent people I've had the displeasure of knowing for a wasted 6 years of my life.Has it ever crossed your mind that the OT scribes wrote false things about God, either deliberately or because of a lack of understanding, and that Jesus came to testify to the truth about God abolishing the old way of thinking of God? If God was understood by His true nature in the OT and sins could be forgiven by slaughtering a goat then what is the point of Jesus?
Your description of what Ezekiel said makes me sick to the stomach. If God truly was that way I'd tell Him to get knotted. I wouldn't have anything to do with Him.
Then they have totally missed the boat. They have no idea what they believe is wrong. Perhaps they are belligerent because they know they are on shaky ground and hate being challenged?58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
That would certainly be convenient, wouldn't it, if the OT people got it wrong? But then, Jesus never said that. If anything, he often quoted the old testament. He said that he didn't come to do away with the Law, right? Only to fulfill it. If he thought that the OT scribes were off on a few things, might he have mentioned it? He chastised the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like, but he never told them the OT got it wrong, he simply pointed out their own "flaws." Haha, but then again, we are talking about a short-sighted man that didn't know to prepare for all of the "truths" that would be questioned because of His inability to be specific. It's not enough to hide behind the idea that he didn't say certain things because the Jews knew the context. If the Gentiles were to be exposed to it, too, then He should've made some clear distinctions. And Jesus is just as self-serving. One example is that he kills a fig tree because it is useless, and is using that as a parable for people who are not "bearing" fruit in the kingdom as being useless/unproductive and will be cast into the fire. Psht. Capitalism started early.
"then what is the point of Jesus?"
Good question. I wonder that myself whenever Christians tell me they don't believe in Hell. He is then no more than boddhisatva type being. Which is most likely true. Come to guide people to a peaceful life. Well, until you read that he came to turn mother against daughter, and so on and so forth. Other than that, fairly peaceful.
Now you understand why we do not believe...Quoting the OT doesn't mean He agreed everything with it. He fulfilled the law by accomplishing what God sent Him to do on earth. For example:
“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matthew 1:22-23). The miracle of Mary’s virgin pregnancy and the resulting birth fulfilled—completed—this prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14. The prophecy demanded that this event occur, and when it occurred, the prophecy was fulfilled.
John 19:23-24
“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.”
Psalm 22:18 was fulfilled then.
Can we really say Jesus didn't come to do away with the law of animal sacrifices? Therefore those Jewish laws is not what Jesus meant when He said He did not come to abolish the laws.
As for not mentioning the OT scribes were off on a few things, He did...
Matthew 5:38-48
New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Pharisees were angry with Him for challenging the scriptures.
Everything Jesus said did not make it in the New Testament. That's impossible. There was a bit of a hoo ha about how the gospels should be written. Many of the early Christians were still apologetics to the Jewish faith. I believe anything that Jesus may have said that would be deemed too disrespectful to the OT may have been purposely omitted. That is my personal opinion.
How is this self-serving? A person dead in sin perishes and cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who bear fruit, like those who do good and serve Him, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How can someone who does no good be pleasing to God?
Here's a great commentary:
Jesus told the Parable of the Fig Tree—Luke 13:6-9—immediately after reminding His listeners of a tower over the pool of Siloam (John 9:7) which unexpectedly fell and killed eighteen people. The moral of that story is found in Luke 13:3: “Unless you repent, you will likewise perish.” To reiterate this moral, Jesus tells the story of the fig tree, the vineyard owner, and the gardener who took care of the vineyard.
The three entities in the story all have clear symbolic significance. The vineyard owner represents God, the one who rightly expects to see fruit on His tree and who justly decides to destroy it when He finds none. The gardener, or vineyard keeper who cares for the trees, watering and fertilizing them to bring them to their peak of fruitfulness, represents Jesus, who feeds His people and gives them living water. The tree itself has two symbolic meanings: the nation of Israel and the individual.
As the story unfolds, we see the vineyard owner expressing his disappointment at the fruitless tree. He has looked for fruit for three years from this tree, but has found none. The three-year period is significant because for three years John the Baptist and Jesus had been preaching the message of repentance throughout Israel. But the fruits of repentance were not forthcoming. John the Baptist warned the people about the Messiah coming and told them to bring forth fruits fit for repentance because the ax was already laid at the root of the tree (Luke 3:8-9). But the Jews were offended by the idea they needed to repent, and they rejected their Messiah because He demanded repentance from them. After all, they had the revelation of God, the prophets, the Scriptures, the covenants, and the adoption (Romans 9:4-5). They had it all, but they were already apostate. They had departed from the true faith and the true and living God and created a system of works-righteousness that was an abomination to God. He, as the vineyard owner, was perfectly justified in tearing down the tree that had no fruit. The Lord’s ax was already poised over the root of the tree, and it was ready to fall.
However, we see the gardener pleading here for a little more time. There were a few months before the crucifixion, and more miracles to come, especially the incredible miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which would astound many and perhaps cause the Jews to repent. As it turned out, Israel as a nation still did not believe, but individuals certainly did (John 12:10-11). The compassionate gardener intercedes for more time to water and fertilize the fruitless tree, and the gracious Lord of the vineyard responds in patience.
The lesson for the individual is that borrowed time is not permanent. God's patience has a limit. In the parable, the vineyard owner grants another year of life to the tree. In the same way, God in His mercy grants us another day, another hour, another breath. Christ stands at the door of each man’s heart knocking and seeking to gain entrance and requiring repentance from sin. But if there is no fruit, no repentance, His patience will come to an end, and the fruitless, unrepentant individual will be cut down. We all live on borrowed time; judgment is near. That is why the prophet Isaiah wrote, "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon" (Isaiah 55:6-7).
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html
God continuously gives us chances. We are on a path of learning and we learn by trial and error hopefully becoming a better person in the process. However, there will come a day when we have to make a choice when the chances run out. Do we wish to be alive in Christ or do we want to die in sin? This is the final choice on Judgement Day, I believe.
In my small way, I give people chances until they push me to the limit and I give them no more chances. When someone doesn't want to cooperate or be decent then what more can you do for them? Must I beg? Must God beg for our acceptance of Him?
It's pretty insulting to God that some Christians don't believe in Hell. As for mother being pitted against daughter, are you referring to Jesus when He said He came to bring a sword and the family would be divided? That means His truth will cause conflict in the household if some members accept it and others don't. Some will want to enter the new faith of Christianity and others may want to hold onto their Jewish religion.
The point I'm making is that God is not like that. Does Jesus not prove that?The thing is Claire, the scripture you base that off of, the Isaiah scripture, was purposefully mistranslated with an agenda.
"In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "'betulah'."
The use of betulah in the OT more often was followed with the idea that the young woman had "known" no man. Where as almah was just a generic term for a young woman, not putting her chastity(or lack there of) in to question at all.
Also, if the OT scribes were so wrong, why was there an approx. 450 year gap before the last prophet and when Jesus came? Why did it take so long for God to point out the flaws? What about the people living in that 450 year gap? What happened to them and those before them? Is the Bible to inspired Word of God or not? How do you know that the NT writers didn't get it wrong? They can't even agree on how half of the miracles actually occurred and what the specifics were. Surely a God with some foresight would make sure His holy scriptures weren't so ambiguous, in either case.
I'll comment on the rest later, I haven't much time at the moment.A young woman was known as a virgin in those days. The words almah and betulah are used interchangeabley For example, in the Hebrew texts, Genesis 24:16, Rebecca is referred to as both almah and betulah and she was a virgin.
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=7Bg8 … mp;f=false
The circumstances for Jesus had to be just right. The Roman Empire had to exist to suppress the Jews and for Jesus to be put to death so to resurrect bearing witness to hundreds that knew of His death. God is not going to punish anyone for being misled. It's hardly their fault they didn't live during the time of Jesus. It's like those in darkest Africa being punished for not hearing of Jesus. The New Testament is actually quite accurate. If all the gospels harmonized perfectly then I'd raise an eyebrow. It would mean that they were merely copying each other in its entirety. Ask several witnesses to describe what happened in a car accident and chances are they each would tell a different version to the other. Even if the Bible was accurate to the tiniest jot would that still convince atheists? No, it would not. So God could make it perfect all He likes but that still won't convince people who don't want to know.Like I said, betulah and almah are different. While they both mean young woman, betulah is more often associated with being "pure," untouched by a man, so on and so forth, the idea of a virgin. I can refer to a woman as a young woman or as a virgin, but that does not mean they are necessarily always interchangeable, it depends on the context.
You have to look at the full usage of the word in the OT scriptures, not just one. You'll notice that it says "almah used _here_ as a synonym"
And the girl [ha'na'arah] was very beautiful, a virgin [betulah],
and no man had relations with her. (v. 16a)
...the maiden [ha'almah] who comes out to draw (water) (v. 43a)
Firstly, you see where betulah is used, it is followed by "and no man had relations with her."
"There are semantic differences between the three words:
• girl (Heb. na'arah) — relates to gender
• virgin (Heb. betulah) — relates to sexual experience
• maiden (Heb. almah) — relates to marriage status
In describing _Rebekah_ they are conceptually identical: a na'arah is a betulah is an almah"
LoL, sure, if God was just, but He is not. Most of the people on this planet are "misled," but the Christian God claims they have no excuse, because of all that He has created, and that Him existing should be apparent. You even claim that the OT misrepresents God. OK. So what are people to believe about the Bible's supposed inerrancy? You have no idea that your statements about the NT put the Bible's accuracy into question, and whether it is actually something "inspired" by God. Who's to say which scripture is right and which is wrong? Only those that conveniently fit with your personal view of God's nature? I wonder if the gnostic gospels, or the apocrypha, if they'd been kept in the Bible, and been steady a part of "Christian" upbringing, what completely different views would there be today?
Who's to say that, as a Christian, you can't refute any teachings that line up with your view of God, and claim that the writer was "misled?"
LoL, isn't that why there are so many "sects" now? Why should we believe that a Ms. Claire Evans got it right?
It is indeed convenient.
But those witnesses don't claim to be inspired by God. Not the sane ones, anyway.
That I can agree with you about. Who would want to know about a God who has allowed scripture that misrepresents HIm, and still expect people to follow Him. Christians can't even come to agreement on His "nature," apparently.
A maiden who obviously was not married automatically was deemed a virgin. Obviously Genesis is referring to Rebecca being an unmarried virgin. In fact, the English word Maidenhood means virginity.
Let's look at the case of Rebekah again. For example, the servant realizes that Rebekah is unmarried, of course. He automatically, knowing her marital status, knew her to be a virgin and that is why betulah and almah are used interchangeably here.
Joel 1:8, the word betulah is used to describe a young married woman. Obviously women with husbands are no longer virgins. In fact, betulah on it's own is not good enough to insinuate a virgin. The narrative always said after betulah, "who had not known a man." It appears as if Isaiah used the word almah to avoid ambiguity.
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckAlmah.PDF
Finally, miracle and sign are the same in Hebrew, owt or pronounced oat. It is by no means a miracle for a non virgin to conceive.
Don't know where you got the part of there being no excuse for us being misled if we can look around at creation. That's silly. I have never claimed the Bible is infallible. Just because it is not perfect does not mean it is not God inspired. The only way to know the truth is by actually forming a relationship with God else confusion will set in. Why should we believe I got it right? You don't. It's up to you to find out for yourself.
You assume that the New Testament does not report on events as it was seen and just what people thought was divine.
Your choice.
Do you remember from your faith days the statement, it's not that God forgets, He just chooses not to remember?
Why would God create humanity with completely predefined endings for each one who ever lived?
God knows the ending, YES, because as He is outside of man made time, He can see what YOU did with your life that He gave you, but that is a whole different thing to believing that God determined your ending, that's a NO, because He chose to allow YOU and ME to write our stories and make our endings.
CHOSE
You are making it as we communicate.
EDIT: Once again you are trying to put restrictions on God, and that is plain silly, for He is God and we are not.Forgetting and choosing not to remember are effectually identical.
Sophistry won't get you out of this.
Try again.Not at all. I have forgotten many things in my life, but there are some that I choose not to remember, those ones are normally the painful moments or events that I 'choose not to remember'.
Our decline into rebellion is also painful to God, He knows where that leads and laments that we are so blinded by the pursuit of self knowledge that we follow the wide path that beckons.Based on the evidence, nothing is painful to God, unless, of course, God is a masochist who had had second thoughts.
Odd, you were originally so balanced, are we in areas that are uncomfortable?
Based on the evidence you deny I suppose?It is difficult to remain balanced with someone who recognizes that balance in word only, but never in reciprocation.
After hundreds -- thousands? -- of words of dialogue between us, I have come to the conclusion that our reasons for being here are incompatible. I am here to learn by argument. It's a powerful method. However, you seem to be here to protect and advance your position. There is nothing wrong with that purpose, but it is antithetical to mine.Chasuk, how can I give you quarter over a subject that I am 100% sure about?
I see little from anybody that would teach anything worth learning on these forums, for the most part it is all worthless and inane poking fun at believers or decrying God.
My reasoning to be here is different from yours, you are still searching for something, which I have found, but which you seem not to want enough.In an epistomological sense, we are at loggerheads. I don't believe that there is, necessarily, any "final" answer, nor do I seek it (understandably). Further, I believe that the most unreliable of ALL forms of evidence is subjective experience.
I learn something from almost any encounter, even if I can't put what I have learned into words, and even if I am initially unaware of it. Eventually, it proves useful.
You missed the point. He already knows what we will choose, therefore he created us with a predefined ending.
See how it doesn't make any difference whether the choice is ours or not? This is why your religion makes no sense, and your ISB is a psychotic despot.
Is it bad Daddy? I thought you said Ernest did not meet a bad end after he died.
Now you are saying he did?
Color me confused at your recalcitrance when it applies to one of our friends. Ernest despised your idea of your god - as do I. Will it be bad for me as well - or will there be some wishy washy nonsense like you say about Ernest now?
Can't have it both ways. It is either bad and you are warning us - or the wishy washy stuff.
Which is it? - as you speak for god.
My goodness, you have totally missed my point. You think I ask God to help me to remember how to drive every time I go behind the wheel?
God guides us in the things totally unknown. We have to trust to take care of us even when the odds are staked against us. Jesus had to do the same. When He was ministering, He was homeless and had to rely on God to tend to His needs through others.
In the story of the Garden of Eden God told man not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because he wanted all animals to live in peace and have free will. Without free will there is no love, so when Satan told man to eat of the tree he gave him the ability to love.
People find this funny because:
Satanists Think it's funny because people think God created love.
Atheists Think someone made a story up once, so that proves there is no God.
Luciferians Think it's funny that the Atheists are doing their job for them.
Christians Don't think it's funny, because they don't think.
Other benefits for Satans followers include Free Heating, being allowed to torture people and all you can eat BBQ meat for the rest of Eternity.
obviously anyone in their right mind would still reject him. look at all the horrible things that happen to babies in this world , so even if god and jesus were real, why the heck would anyone worship them?
Well personally, I would first ask him why he wasn't a levitical priest as was promised Jeremiah, then I would ask him why he never appeared to the Pharisees after he promised them that he would appear to them upon the resurrection. Though I'd probably still reject him as a saviour.
Out of interest sake, what verse is that in Jeremiah? Have you thought HE may have gotten it wrong? Who said He didn't appear to the Pharisees? He appeared to hundreds, did He not?
So if you knew that Jesus said you from hell, you'd still reject Him and that by rejecting Him you completely separate yourself from everything that is good. That's hell.Jeremiah 33:17-22, and no, he didn't appear to hundreds. It's not recorded that he appeared to anyone but the disciples in fact. Each of the 4 Gospels that deal with it agree that he only came to the disciples, but the manner in which he did so is all that's disputed, within the Gospels anyway.
As for why I wouldn't accept him as a Saviour, it's quite simple. In Ezekiel we are releaved from the the sins of the father. If I'm not bearing any sin from my father, and have not affronted God in anyway except choosing not to love him, then what do I need a Saviour for? What am I being saved from exactly?It's recorded in acts. Discredit by your personal opinion doesn't invalidate the account recorded by Paul. Paul travelled with Peter.
Ever lied?
Rhetorical.
Means you broke the law. Why does everyone think God is evil for holding people accountable for their actions?
Is the criminal correct to tell the judge he is evil for sentencing him to prison for stealing just because he doesn't understand why we have laws? No.
And even then He forgives through Christ those who repent, and now that He came, through Christ's name.
Telling God, "My lies weren't that bad, I shouldn't need your forgiveness." isn't going to change His mind anymore than a judge sentencing a thief.
Apparently God takes His Law seriously. Otherwise He wouldn't have taken such painstaking measures to save people, He would have "abolished" the Law, which Christ said Himself He came to fulfill.
My guess is that following the Law, or God's rule to be good, love others genuinely, and put God first, must be important to God.
Probably for a good number of significant reasons too. He is God, after all.Shame, Jeremiah has clearly got it wrong.
It is from Paul that the claim 500 people saw Jesus. Did the Gospel writers disagree with this, purposely omitted or lost? I don't know. What I do know is that Jesus stayed on earth for 40 days before He ascended to heaven after the resurrection. Jesus would have ventured out during those days and people would have recognized Him and the word would have gotten out. They probably wanted to see the proof for themselves. Surely the word would reach the Pharisees?
Can you show me the Ezekiel verse?He was in India and the USA. By Majik I think. You do know he stayed on earth 40 days. How do you know this? Did god tell you into your head?
I do know the claim He stayed for forty days, I meant. I'm sure that wasn't the correct number. Forty seems the number assigned to a lot of events in the Bible, like Moses fasting, the Flood, Jesus in the wilderness and His time on earth after the resurrection before the ascension.
Jeremiah doesn't have it wrong Claire. He misunderstands the text that doesn't claim what he said it does.
He does this often. He doesn't understand Jesus claiming to be the Son of man to the priests as being the Son of God, the Messiah wrote of by Daniel either.
Or to be technical, he denied the correct understanding of it in a previous thread, should I say.Yes, you are right. I never thought of that.
The Jews were predisposed in their thinking that Jesus being of lineage to royalty, would also be King of Israel. They assumed this meant that the people of Judah will live prosperously and in safety. It was an interpretation of prophecy they wanted because, of course, Jesus never did become King and Jerusalem was burnt to the ground forcing the Jews to flee.Well, I do know they were expecting Him to come with glory immediately, the first time. And yes, they wanted someone with a rod of iron that came to reward them.
Zacheriah 3 explains when Jesus became the High Priest. He's been crowned King since His departure to Heaven after His "eternal" sarcifice. [fulfilling Jeremiah 33:18]
Einder was claiming Jesus Christ wasn't of levitical lineage.
But he is nit-picking and looking for fault specifically which is why he is misunderstanding.
If you read the chapter and don't flitter around the text missing eveything, verses 14-17 clear the false assertion up pretty obviously.
Jeremiah 33:18 doesn't claim Christ will be from the tribe of Levi.
It said that the priests, which are Levites, will never want for a man to offer sacrifice to the Lord. 14-17 Would be a side-by-side contradiction if it did and I'm sure the Hebrew is even clearer on the subject.
It's a silly accusation. Just another finger pointed caused by pride in ignorance. It's why God resists the proud.
1 Peter 5:5
Claire,
One more time - there is no such thing as 100% proof because proof and evidence are subjective. A gallon of O.J.'s blood at the crime scene proved to many people that he was a murderer, but to the jury the same evidence only proved an L.A. Police conspiracy had occured.
That everyone "realizes" it does not make it so - this is a logical fallacy of appeal to common knowledge or common belief - at one time everyone also "realized" the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.
If there is an omnipotent god, then that being knows exactly what it would require to convince me of its reality, and if it were interested in me accepting it, the first item on the agenda would be to demonstrated to me that it was real. I can have no "free will" to chose between rational and ridiculous, so any argument that this creature has placed me into a situation where I have to believe based on blind faith in my fellow man telling me what I should do is ludicrous and non-sensical, as would be the being who created such a hideous scenario.
Omnipotent god knows how to win me over - that no god has done so is compelling reason to assume that he does not exist.I'm talking on a supernatural scale. Jesus said those who saw Him saw the truth. Hypothetically speaking, if you realized it was 100% true would you accept Him as your savior?
Really, hideous scenario? Funny how I have found great joy having my faith refined over the years amidst the hard-ship. Imagine if Jesus had suddenly God appearing to Him and reassured Him that whatever He did, He'd be okay. No faith needed. It took years for Jesus to refine His faith in God.
God never not answers prayer. Would you be prepared to spend the rest of your life on a journey knowing God instead of demanding proof right here and now? Isn't the latter lazy?
God can know but what point would that be because people like think He's ridiculous. You will be able to have a relationship with Him once you humble yourself and admit logic isn't everything.Clarie there no point asking the atheists to believe. See this link:
http://christiandebunker.blogspot.in/p/ … lieve.html
@AKA Winston ...
So happy to have "Free Will" ...
the Sumerian tablets may interest you;
http://andromida.hubpages.com/hub/annunaki
as well as an East Indian book called "Jesus Lived in India"
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-India … 1852305509
Earth's written history ... still in all written by "Man"Winston, a slight "tweek" for your logic... when you say, "Omnipotent god knows how to win me over - that no god has done so is compelling reason to assume that he does not exist." It only means He (if He exists) has not yet decided to do that... or secondly, that He even wants to do that in the first place.
You're right about the 100% proof in this life. Death will sort out the disagreements, however...just my view, based on a few years of logic under my belt...unless you're right, and then as oblivion takes over, we'll all be oblivious!Yes, but in these instances it is a god whom I have no interest in serving, anyway, so once again I am following his will by doing nothing.
Interesting irony...well, enjoy your weekend.
"Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?"
*Paradigmsearch peacefully ambles by...
Proof of anything, by definition, is proof. Thus, that which is proved is accepted.
*Paradigmsearch departs before getting in trouble.
I am not an aetheist, and I am not Jewish but the Jews didn't believe in Jesus, and they were there.
Why should anyone settle for Jesus, when no one has seen God?The Jews did believe in Jesus ... they believed he was a Prophet, just as do the Islam's they believe that Jesus was a Prophet and that Muhammad was the last Prophet ...
We each can only follow what is in our heart to believe ... as individuals ... if we would only tolerate each other and accept that individuality we would truly be a better raceI disagree that anyone should accept what is in other peoples hearts. Do you accept what was in the hearts of the 9/11 bombers? How about the abortion doctor murderer?
I think the world would be a better place without unfounded beliefs that cause people to bring suffering to others in the belief that they are doing good.As I said ... you can only believe what is in your heart to believe ...and I can believe what is in mine ...
You should never accept another's belief to also be yours if your heart persuades you in a different direction .....BUT if we all practice tolerance of one another ... and not try to force our own beliefs on to others this world could be a much nicer place.
Hopefully that clarifies what I said earlier, so that my opinion may be better understood.I understand where you are coming from but I believe that we need to prevent people from harbouring beliefs that will cause them to do harm to others and my belief requires intervention.
Then by all means intervene those who are causing themselves or others harm ... I cause no-one, not even myself harm. I do not believe in Religion ... funny, but Religion doesn't believe in me either ... kinda makes religion and I even ... LOL!!! So that being said, Why would I be a recipient of "intervention"?
I believe everyone should stop believing in the theory evolution, according to your logic. We don't want a fan of Darwin like Adolf Hitler exterminating millions to speed up the process of evolution.
"Do you accept what was in the hearts of the 9/11 bombers?"
No way you believe this?
Lol.
Jews believed He existed, they just don't believe He is the son of God. Or else they didn't want to. They had all sorts of excuses like He was a black magician, casting demons out with demons and being crazy.
And there were those who knew Jesus was the son of God because they could recognize the truth and there were those who just suppressed it because they didn't want to believe it.
Jesus said that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father. Jesus is not a far away figure in ancient history. He is alive and willing to reveal Himself to all those who want Him.So - it is true and those of us that do not believe are in denial then?
This is why your religion causes so many wars.
If I knew that Jesus was the son of God, would I reject him as my savior?
No.You wouldn't want to know why you needed saving in the first place?
Well of course, Mark. The first people in existence screwed it up for the billions of people to follow them.
Like I told Claire (which she ignored) Jesus would have some 'splainin' to do, because that is just bad management. One of the first things that caused me to reject their nonsensical religion.
Don't be silly. There is no such thing as god. I was just voicing my opinion if the big "what if" came to pass.
Sorry you did not understand again. This is one of the reasons your religion causes so much ill will.Yes, and in the case of said if...
You would, in your very own words, be dictating demands towards God..
I understood fine..Apparently not. I was simply explaining why your religion makes no sense and the boy would have some 'splainin' to do. You know - because it makes no sense. It is a joke.
That you think it is real. Yeah.. eliminating the what if scenario and dropping back to basics..
I'd pull that perspective behind the curtain if I was you too.Sorry you did not understand. Let me try and explain.
Your religion makes no sense.
Ifn Jesus dun come back, he would have some 'splainin' ter do because it makes no sense.
Did that help?- I see that you don't understand..
Jesus is God by Christian doctrine. Therefore "if" Christianity is true, you would be demanding God explain Himself to you.
And you state clearly why as well, because to you "...it makes no sense." which is your reasoning for demanding an explanation from God.
This is fun Mark.
He won't need to explain. In death you will just know.
Always gets to the threats - doesn't it?
Odd - I thought you wanted atheists opinions - guess you just wanted an argument.
Like Jesus said to do.Since when is this a threat? Did I say, "It's too late, you are going to hell!"?
It is true that you will know. It doesn't mean you are going to hell.Great. I am glad I am not going to hell. You already told me I am ultimate evil for rejecting Jesus, now that does not matter and I don't get judged.
Thank you.Stop lying, Mark. I get really pissed off when people twist my words around. I'd like for you to pull out the quote of mine accusing you of being the ultimate evil for rejecting Jesus.
What I did say is that it is the ultimate evil to reject Jesus KNOWING full well who He is and what He has done for us.
That truly is not the case with you. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's one thing to reject Jesus and another to reject Jesus based on a false perception.
And, no, it doesn't mean you don't get judged and don't get punished for evil but punishment doesn't necessarily mean hell. Hell is for someone will not repent for evil knowing the truth.
We don't know how it all will transpire but I can guarantee you that little bush people in the middle of Africa will not go to hell because they didn't know about Jesus or were told and weren't interested because they wanted to have their own culture.
So will there ever come a time in your life when you will be perfect? You will commit evil no longer? This is what salvation is about. We cannot save ourselves from our flawed nature. Only Jesus can.
Who wants perfection? I am human, that is good enough for me. You may be a sinner- if you want to indulge yourself with guilt then go ahead.
Na.. you're soo right. Perfection is over rated..
Fire ALL the models and find me some bumpy, lumpy, stumpys NOW!
We've gotta fix this "perfection" crap and get rid of it.
No one wants it anymore..... I'll go out of business.
Made a new level in the laughter categories just for you. The seven head laugh until your dead... lol
[ sry, you left the door swinging in the wind. asskkin for it man. ]Vector7,
What is perfection? Can you define perfection without circularity, i.e., without saying something absurd like, perfection is god and god is perfection? And please, don't appeal to the dictionary for help - you are the one who said "Perfection is over rated" - so we need to know exactly what it is you think is over rated.
Are you capable of crisp language, of precision in thought and word? Can you define unambiguously this key word?
Or is blathering more your style?Step back, breathe.. and try again to recognize the sarcasm in your quote from me.
By the way. The dictionary is a tool.
Apparently you have given us some insight on why rationality is slowly disappearing into thin air.
They don't use their dictionary, and don't know what anything means.
You should use it to look up "sarcasm" lolRun and hide behind the skirts of your mama - "god" - human common knowledge. We understand it hurts too much to actually think critically because it destroys fantasies. Mama can wipe your tears and make it all better to believe in fairies.
You don't define perfection because you cannot do so. You cannot do so because there is no such "critter" as "perfection", it is simply a human abstract conceptualization of an imaginary standard against which to judge.
And because it is not "real", it requires judgment to determine perfection - human judgment. Once again, your appeal boils down to belief in self, not god, as the highest order in nature. You enjoy being judge, as it makes you better than others - a necessity for the Christian ego, destroyed by the idiotic idea of original sin and unworthiness. Sad.
What Vec believes and what Vec judges are equal to what god believes and what god judges - so in essence, Vec is god.
Here's a clue - no one is going to bow to you so get over yourself.
All you do is call people names, Vec, even though you deny you do so. Your only argument is "I'm right, you're wrong, LoL". That is not an argument - that is bathroom wall graffiti.
By the way, sarcasm is a tool. The dictionary is a book. One is a concept. The other is an object. Thus ends lesson one. Come back tomorrow. Start early. Six o'clock. Wax on. Wax off. For slow learners.
But being capable of doing evil hurts others. Don't tell me you haven't hurt or negatively affected with the wrong reasons. Evil is perpetuated by man's flawed nature who gravitates to what is wrong.
People should feel guilty about wrong committed.
No. If "everyone realized" he was the son of God, that still wouldn't be proof. Everyone "realizes" it now, but that doesn't prove anything. Proving he was the son of God presupposes there is a god, and in that case, one could justify worshipping him.
But even if there was a god, I would still reject him, for this reason: God commanded Abraham to stick a knife into his son to prove his devotion to him. Even though Abe's hand was stayed, in any civilized society, Abraham would be locked up as a psychopath, but somehow we celebrate him now as one whose devotion to God was absolute. What sort of God would command a father to kill his son? It doesn't matter if Abe did it or not, the very fact that he was commanded to just sickens me. It sounds like something Saddam Hussein would have done. "Here, shoot your son to prove your devotion to me... or I'll kill you." But there are no bullets in the gun.
To me, God seems like a total dick.What I mean is that they know it is true regardless of what is presented to them or not. Everyone.
Well, you are describing "God" in the Old Testament, which mainly is based on pagan stories and the occult and mostly has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is custom in paganism to sacrifice the first born.
"The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as the one practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[2]
Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in Sardinia. Infants were offered to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Pelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950-720 BCE. In Carthage "[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith."[8] Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the Canaanites, Moabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.
Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in Sardinia. Infants were offered to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Pelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950-720 BCE. In Carthage "[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith."[8] Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the Canaanites, Moabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
So, yes, that "God" is a total dick. But it is not God. You'd be surprised that the literal translation of Genesis actually refer to gods who demanded human sacrifices from the population.
I am not an atheist but I am not a Christian either. For me Jesus first would have to come down from the heavens, announce himself, be accepted by Christians and then he'd have to prove to me he was Jesus by conjuring up some fish or changing water into wine or some other amazing thing in full view and to the scrutiny of magicians and scientists to make sure he wasn't just some elaborate hoax. I wouldn't be able to tell myself as I can't even figure out how magicians can make women levitate, which is fine, I don't need to. After this I'd ask him who is in Hell and if he tells me that most scientists, atheists, artists, and gay people are down there then I'd still renounce him... because at that point Hell is where all the interesting people would be.
All the interesting people indeed.
Murderers, thieves, liars, torturers, serial killers, rapists, child molestors..
Good company..
(long silence here)
Yep......Hell with interesting people. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I think I'll turn the question around. What would you accept as proof that Jesus doesn't actually exist... For instance if a far superior alien race were to visit earth and they say "wow you guys are really primitive... most of you believe in some omnipotent being that operates outside the laws our universe and He is really concerned with the meaningless lives on your insignificant planet." Would you still believe in Jesus? Or would you ask the being that just came through a wormhole if it is saved or if Jesus is its savior? I guess we'll all know for sure sooner or later...
I'd ask the aliens to prove their claim.
Those who don't know the truth will know one day.Why would you ask the aliens to prove their claim? You attack anyone who questions your outrageous claims.
Hypocrite much?Mark, what is your problem? Since when do I attack people because they don't believe my claims? Can you give me a quote where I said something along the lines of, "You damn atheists, believe what I say or you're going to hell!"?
Ignore him, he will go away, don't feed the.....!
Those tough questions getting to you huh? Odd how comfortable you are with the warnings, and then dance around after some one dies.
Why is that? Having second thoughts? Having trouble reconciling this loving god you claim with a god that punishes people for thinking?Thanks, it took me a while to learn that feeding him just gets him excited, best to let him rant around.
If you study his posts from the start they have gradually turned more abusive and intense as he has slipped further away from God.
Started reasonably discussing things with folk 4 years ago, now just lurks here spouting the same militant atheism liturgy at anyone who is active as a believer.
Think Christ said "Only prayer and fasting will deal with this type"Unfortunately, this happens too often. They did start off just discussing but now it's insults and aggression and unreasonableness. It's not the case with everyone. Some atheists do just discuss.
Unreasonableness? Like claiming majik as reality you mean?
When you first started this thread asking for atheists opinions - I gave you mine and you completely ignored it in favor of preaching the word.
And it is rude to talk about some one like this. Didn't your Mother teach you any manners at all?
Agua has an excuse - he is charged by God to be rude to anyone who rejects The Nonsense.Yep, however if you just keep to dealing with the ones that are still reasonable, it's OK, I just decided not to waste nay more time with those who are just trolling, unless of course that have something reasonable to say.
No point in wasting time with inanities and scorn.
Perhaps you could explain why you would ask these aliens to prove their claims, but feel you need to argue with anyone who asks you to do the same?
And yes - you told me that anyone who rejects Christ is totally evil. This is not an attack?I'm not expecting anything to believe my claims. People argue with me because they don't like it when I say it is true.
I'm not asking aliens to prove to everyone there claim is true. I want them to prove it to me.
I will stop being a "hypocrite" when you stop being a liar. If you knew as hundred truth that Jesus was the son of God and still rejected Him then you'd be evil. You don't. Don't make me explain this to you again. I'm still waiting for that quote proving I said those who who don't believe Jesus is the son of God because of a lack of "evidence" are evil as opposed to those who know as truth.Odd - you refuse to prove your claims to me. How is that any different? I am not a liar. Please stop lying about me.
but Claire ... of course Jesus is the son of "God", but then you also are the daughter of "God" as am I ... as we all are ...
you claim you are not trying to "change" anyone and yet you make statements that loudly and very clearly say otherwise ...it's okay ...you can't help yourself ... it's a part of your physical and mental make up ... it's your learned behavior ...
Just as a child who has known only abuse it's entire life, it still loves with all its heart the parent /person who abused it ... that is until it learns differently it learns that abuse is wrong or not normal ...that is if it ever gets the opportunity to learn differentlyWe are not God incarnate and that is what Jesus was. As daughters of God, me nor you can descend into hell and be raised from the dead bearing all sins. We have no divinity in us.
Why can't I make statements? If someone says they like apples does it mean feel they have to convince everyone it's the best fruit?
Thanks for your patronizing comment. Not.
Depends on how he came in. If it was some guy who did some "miracles" and told everyone to believe than of course not. Magic tricks are a normal phenomena in the modern world. However, if he was to come down riding a cloud or, even better, a Cherubim than maybe. But, I might also check myself into the nearest institution if I was to see a sight like that.
of course i would reject him as my savior. if it was proven he was the son of god, which i also don't believe in, how would that be any different when god is a myth?
If He proved He was the son of God then that automatically means God exists.
I wouldn't fight with this one. He'll dispute something even if you make it blatently obvious.
I do it, but not on things that are sincere. Only when it's for rhetoric fun.how? wouldn't he have to prove that god exists also. as for vector 7, shush . i already told you that since you won't admit you're wrong, i'm done playing with you.
Just say He did. Just by looking at Him you would know the truth.
going on the assumption that i realized there was a god and jesus was his son i still wouldn't call him my savior. if anything i would have a strong hatred for him. i look at the world and see more then some i guess and a lot of it isn't good. if there is a god and jesus, they sure aren't doing anything worth being worshipped.
So why do you hate the source of good but not the source of evil that is Satan?
tough to hate things that don't exist. "By looking at Him you would know the truth". How is this?
Jesus said those who have seen Him have seen the Father. In the Bible it is written that there were people who suddenly recognized Him as the son of God.
Of course you will think these are just words, and I cannot prove it, but we will one day know.Most people of science already know, hence why most people of science are atheists and why the atheist population is growing by itself without the need of preaching. Knowledge sets us free from ignorant god beliefs. God is increasingly of the gaps there is no need for god or the son.
where did you get that from. neither satan nor god exist so how can i hate them.to believe in such things is just an easy way to put blame on something other then our selves. when a person does something bad, it's their fault and when they do something good , it's them that did it not some god. btw, i doubt any real atheist ever asked for proof that jesus is the son of god since an atheist doesn't believe in god.
How can you be so sure neither God nor Satan don't exist? If I do something wrong I most certainly do not blame Satan. I have to take responsibility for myself. You stated that if Jesus as the son of God did exist you would hate Him. Why? You insinuate it is because of the suffering in the world. Who causes suffering? God? No, it's humanity. If they did not feed evil there wouldn't be any suffering. Evil cannot succeed without those who don't feed it or even challenge it. Knowing humanity could never save itself from evil, Jesus had to take on that responsibility. I don't think that would be something to justify hating Jesus.
What is the alternative to free will? God forcing us to bow to Him? Forcing us to not make decisions for ourselves? Is that not tyranny? On the one hand, God is accused of doing nothing to counter evil and on the other He is considered a tyrant should He feel that we should be forced to worship Him.so because some people do bad things, babies should pay for it and if your god is ok with that so are you? how do i know there is no god you ask, it's simple, because there isn't.the alternative to free will is free will but not saying some god gave it to us. that's the thing about believers, things that are common sense like we have free will are used to make people believe some god gave it to us. it's strange and i can't even begin to grasp how anyone believes it. how in all of your thinking do you get the idea that humanity caused the suffering of children, still believe in some god and then go on to worship this belief, i'm seriously blown away.
Who says God is okay with it? Evil strengthens the devil and thus babies are affected through thinks like AIDS, starvation, etc. God gave us the gift of children to have in our custody and many people abuse it.
How can the alternative to free will be free will? There would be no alternative because there is nothing to choose from. Answer me this: would you want to be forced to worship God and not be able to make decisions for yourself? If not, then why do hold it against God theoretically for giving us free will with the result humanity causes suffering? God is damned if He does and damned if He doesn't.
Anyway, even if you don't understand God does not negate His existence. Say if He was okay with suffering, does this negate His existence? No. And no one suffers more than God.
Under the described circumstances I would. To me, he is a wonderful character and hero who to me represents the struggle of defining the Self as a part of our being. If the end was here and I knew who he was then sure I would want to help him out in his plan.
I apologize in advance, because I don’t want to insult any individual about their beliefs, but I can’t even comprehend the question as being legitimate. Its like asking me “If the Tooth Fairy appeared to mankind would you start having your kids leave their teeth under their pillow?” The concept that such a being exists, seems completely childish to me. For the sake of argument, I will suspend any critical thinking I have in place about the potential existance of a Gods son, to allow such a circumstance to take place, and I can still say unequivocally No. His father is far too malicious, unethical, jealous and petty, to ask forgiveness from his son. I personally, have read everything this God has done and expects of people to do in his honor and I have too many morals to be associated with his lot. I have read books where mob bosses are far kinder than this Christian God. No thanks... I would never kowtow to his son, just to be included under his protection. I have too much self respect, than to live under that kind of rule.
You mean your perception of God that He is malicious, petty, etc, because of the Old Testament influenced by paganism and the occult in its majority. The nature of Jesus is the nature of God and that is not like He is depicted in the OT.
As much as you would like to think (and many good moral Christians do) the Old Testament is not part of today’s Christianity, I’m sorry to say that it can’t be avoided. As you should know, the books of what comprises the Biblical Canon were reviewed and approved in 325 AD at the council of Nicaea; along with the creation of the Nicene Creed and the official position on the divinity of Christ. Since that time, no such council of its type has ever convened to review the Canon again. I will speculate that it will never happen, since we no longer have emperors to force feuding Christian factions together to make such judgments. As a U.S. citizen living in the southern part of the county, Christianity is stronger here than anywhere else in the country and southern states to this day, still use the Old Testament for the basis of laws and state constitutional amendments. Christian Amusement parks and museums are built in this country that highlights the Old Testament stories. Legal battles take place across this country when it concerns teaching children about Creationism with equal importance as Evolution. That does not come from the New Testament…
Furthermore, let me just say that the New Testament is riddled with quotations which highlight the importance of the Old Testament. One example - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17).
Last, if you truly believe that the Bible is the divine word of God, you would think that he/she/it would have spoken through Jesus or any other prophet for that matter, to rid the world of that part of the Canon. No, I’m sorry. I understand from being a Christian for over 30 years, many do not want to claim the Old Testament, but it’s yours to keep, unless you revise your personal beliefs to exclude Christianity.I know it is part of Christianity but that doesn't automatically mean it's true! The Old Testament cannot be disregarded in its entirety but most of it is just not true. Read Jeremiah 8:8 chastising the scribes for lying.
Jesus was saying He was not there to negate the whole Old Testament by saying, "I didn't come to abolish the law". But what laws was He talking about? I strongly suspect there is a difference between God's law and Jewish laws. Were not animal sacrifices abolished by Jesus? God's law has never wavered and one of the reasons Jesus came was to clarify His law. The Pharisees manipulated and reinterpreted God's laws for their own purposes.
"Fulfilled" has more to do with prophecy:
Matt 2:15 “and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
Matt 8:17 “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.”
Matt 21:4-5 “All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’“
Matt 26:56 “But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
Jesus definitely did not negate these prophecies but fulfilled them.
However, "fulfilled" can also mean to teach or inculcate, which he most certainly did in His sermons.
"Last, if you truly believe that the Bible is the divine word of God, you would think that he/she/it would have spoken through Jesus or any other prophet for that matter, to rid the world of that part of the Canon."
And leave Satan out of the equation? The Vatican is the most Satanic institute on the planet. It serves their purpose to keep part of that cannon. After all, you know how much suffering the "promised land" lie has caused?I find it amazing that for so many years since Christ died the world has debated His existence, His diety, and His promise to return. There is no other reason for this except for fear of people that He is who He sais He is because then they are responsible for the decisions in their life and they don't want to face that, they enjoy living for themselves.The Bible is the most stolen book in the World for a reason, it saves lives. I also think that if Christians in the time of Jesus were going to make up a story about a Messiah then surely they would have made their messiah into a dashing hero carrying a sword and riding on a steed to conquor the world for Israel, and then sit him on a throne draped in Gold. The fact that most of them were put to death for telling the truth about Jesus's humility in His service for mankind and His refusal to deny who He was in front of Pilate who had power to execute Him should tell people that this story was not made up to serve a selfish purpose. If it was then they did a very poor job. There are just a million other self serving stories that could have been written but the truth is the truth and some people cannot or don't want to recognize it for what it is.
Christ's historical existence has been debated primarily in modern times, and then only by a minority. It is his divinity that people doubt, and that isn't particularly amazing. After all, acceptance of deity requires faith, which many people -- myself included -- are not willing to blindly give.
You do know of course, according to the Old Testament biblical prophets Jesus was supposed to be a great military leader instead of a peaceful man? Of course you do or you don't know very much about the bible.
This is why the Jews do not accept him as the Messiah. You must be a Baptist or at least from the Bible Belt if you didn't know this.
Can you give me that particular scripture of that prophecy, please?
Of course. The Jews had many different reasons not to accept Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, there were several false messiahs who didn't fulfill the prophecies either.
You need to check out the "original" Hebrew scripture, not that which has been contaminated as the KJV has been.
It's always funny to me how Christians don't take the word of the chosen people of Jesus and instead, listen to those who only have questionable translations of the original scripture.
Jesus did not complete the tasks or fulfill all of the prophecies. Otherwise, the Jews would have accepted him as the Messiah. Duh!
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
I suppose they couldn't exactly write His mission was to conquer Israel because that didn't happen. He'd be a failed Messiah. However, why would the Gospel writers write that He was crucified and hung on a cross when it was an execution reserved for the worst in society. That's hardly appealing to future converts. And, of course, the disciples who saw Jesus resurrected would have preferred it if it was written THEY found Jesus first instead of woman who tended to be deemed as liars and could not even testify in court. It just goes to show what was written was the truth.
I've read a few of the posts, and it only confirms the answer that I formulated when first reading the question, "Some would and some wouldn't."
Just like almost every other catch-all description, "atheist" doesn't simply describe one kind of person. What unites them is the belief that there is no God, but some are logical people who can't see the logic in God, and some hate religion in general and Christianity specifically, and would find any other explanation. It simply depends.You say "and everyone realised he is the son of God" like it is some sort of proven truth. There is no evidence Jesus existed and there is no evidence God exists. This statement makes about as much sense as saying "If Hitler came back to life and everyone realised that he was Mickey Mouse, would we still hate him?"
No it doesn't.
There are no prophecies of Hitler coming back. At all. Anywhere.
There are prophecies of Jesus coming back, and if they're true, then when He does come back (out of the sky, leading an army) then everyone will realize that something is going on. Not everyone will see right at that second that He is Lord, but most people would.Out of the sky? lol - What in a UFO or just flying like Superman. No prophesies? - Check out the nutters on youtube who prophesy that Hitler WILL return, because the Nazis were never beaten, they just dicovered UFO technology and are living on the dark side of the moon! - And surely everyone has heard that Elvis will one day return. These people belive these things will happen every bit as much as you belive the flying army thing - They too, have incredible faith - Doesn't make it true.
Neither. Read them yourself.
Okay, so there are nuts who think Hitler was never beaten. Not the same thing. I have never said it's the faith that proves the truth. So as for "They too, have incredible faith - Doesn't make it true." Boy, you got that right.So the "faith doesn't prove the truth", and any evidence that would stand up in court is non existent - So why in hell would anybody believe this stuff?
Don't say because it's written in the Bible, 'cos that only works if you believe in the stuff in the first place - it's a circular referrence.I've never said that's the only reason.
How do you know it wouldn't stand up in court?"So why in hell would anybody believe this stuff?"
My friend, nobody in hell believed this stuff, else they wouldn't be there (in hell, that is) in the first place.If there is a hell I am entirely sure there are a whole lot of Christians there.
Well, if you read the Bible you would find that that is entirely correct. Just because you call yourself a Christian doesn't mean you follow Christ.
If my aunt grew a beard I would definitely call her uncle.
And how can you prove Jesus' Dad is truly God?
And, are either of them worthy to be worshiped?
Both questions for me are some what irrelevant, because I find the Christian religion uninterested in enlightenment or spiritual empowerment - only for its worshipers to be subservient.
So, I pursue my own spiritual path.I'm hypothetically posing the question if everyone knew with being deceived He was the son of God. I can't prove it to you.
Well, Jesus dying for your sins and descended to hell so you won't have to if you truly repent means He is worthy of worship.
By spiritual enlightenment, do you mean a quest to Godhood?
Don't think when one is Christ committed they don't spiritually grow and don't learn new things.God sacrificed nothing. He simply brought Junior back when he pleased. In fact, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to sacrifice anything unless he doesn't have the power to recreate it or bring it back again. Oops, there goes the omnipotence!
Godhood is a worthy goal, but not my own.
I have no desire to be anyone's God, or to have followers worship me.
I simply like to know the truth from as many perspectives as possible.
I simply do not trust the theology or spirituality of Christ or Christianity. And I know there is a God. It is my preference to shape my spiritual to the spirituality within me - and it isn't Jesus, no matter how much you justify worshiping him.
To me, he is not God no matter how powerful he is or self-sacrificing he is, and the same goes for his Dad too. Neither threats nor bribery will change how I feel about my spirituality.What a burden that would be, being someone else's God. The responsibilities and expectations of the followers would be too much! You may as well go on the quest for the fountain of youth.hehe You would survive a lot longer even if you don't find the fountain of youth.
I like the Spirituality within.That is precisely the issue with theists... the belief that God needs (or rather demands) to be followed. Humanity becoming god is merely a practical metaphor for achieving the magic like attributes you credit God with. It is not a matter of becoming someone else's God but rather understanding and having power over nature and of creation. For it is when faced with ultimate power, that the reality of the human condition can be revealed. If we are worthy of wielding such power, we will become masters of our own reality, if we are not we will be undone by our own mistakes. It is as simple as that.
God will take on those burden for those who love Him. Love is selfless and a loving God won't put His own burden first.
You could say it is a burden to be a parent. Children expect a lot from their parents and many see their parents as failing them. But the parents love the children and the burden is worth it. I say this in the case of a parent who loves their child.And therein lies the problem with erroneous thinking. When one believes God will solve the ills of the world when they do not realize God is not outside of them. They will be waiting a very long time for these burdens to be released.
Burdens are man made. If we do not take responsibility for our own thinking and our own actions I understand why it will be easy to blame Satan or others who are reputedly satanic for everything that goes wrong in our lives. The more people who continue these thinking patterns are continually going to be highly disappointed with their reality...at least for the most part.
I do not know any one yet that view parenthood as a burden? When you love a child or anyone for that matter what is burdensome about that?Pennyofheaven, I misread you initially. My apologies. I communicate with so many people on the Internet, all believing (largely) mutually contradictory things, who all "know" that they are right, that, well... I lumped you with them. Again, my apologies.
No need to apologize it's all good. I am often lumped into places I have no idea I have been lumped. I am lump-able like that.
You are the one with erroneous thinking. You think you should be on a mission to ignite the divinity in you. God is a separate entity like a parent is to his child. You go on about this "God within you business" when the Bible doesn't mean it so in that context. Disappearinghead explained that to you. Now I'm sure you would like to feel special and think you know best because of your godhood, but that just isn't the case. The world is in such a mess because people believe they know best and thus don't listen to God. They think every thought they have, if they believe as you do, must be the "God within" coming out.
Of course we need to take responsibility for our own actions. We can't blame God or Satan saying they made us do things. They do not.
This is the point I'm trying to make. God as the Father does not feel burdened by His people. Think of Him as the Father and us as His children. This is the very reason why Jesus taught that faith in God is so important so that WE won't be burdened by the fears of the world. Also, Jesus gave all the credit to the Father and so should we.I understand how you would perceive my thinking as erroneous. So be it. Where did I say I was on a mission to do anything? Where did I say I feel special and know best because of my godhood (as you put it)? That is your perception that I can do little about. Read in to my words whatever you like. Remember though, you asked. If you don't like the answers you get you can always stop asking.
Perhaps in your view the world is a mess, I happen to think the world is a beautiful place.
I agree people believe they know best and don't listen to God. Many are too busy listening to themselves or others to hear God. If one cannot discern what is of God and what is of mind I understand why they would think they know best. Remember let thy will be done not mine. What does that tell you? Jesus understood listening to himself was not useful. Listening to the God within was more useful. In the silence of ones mind one will hear.
So what was your point when you said God will take on those burdens from those who love him? Since we create our own burdens because we think we know best are we then to believe because we love God they will magically disappear?
Your logic makes no sense. God in the form of faith takes away the fears of the world yet one is supposed to fear God.I'm going to ask a question first: Do you believe you are God, an extension of Him, for example, and that one is on a journey to be divine like Him?
We have no divinity in us and anyone who thinks so obviously has an opinion of themselves.
Yes, radiation around the world killing people, people being slain in Libya and Syria...extreme hunger, disease, evil. Yup, it's a beautiful place!
Is the God within your own divinity? In the silence of one's mind Satan can come along and deceive you just like everyone else. Have you ever once thought, "That thought came from Satan not God"?
Has Jesus already not taken on the burden of sin from us? Taking on the burden means God is going to take the worry out of a rough situation. It doesn't mean an easy ride. Far from it. For example, my family has had money problems for the past few years but have always gotten by. When we see the money run low and we feel tempted to ask, "How are we going to make ends meet?", we take that burden onto God. We don't worry about our money future anymore. It doesn't mean we aren't careful with it but we do not worry about things that are out of our hands.
And burdens most of the time aren't self-inflicted.
.
Perfect love casts out all fear. Having "fear" in God means having the utmost respect for Him. It does not mean you are so frightened of Him that you hide under your bed quivering. How can I be like the latter and know Jesus? If one is a Christian because they are terrified of God then they know not Jesus.This is the thing, it is not a belief as I keep telling you, it is an experience. I do not believe I am God, I am in and of God. Two entirely different things. Since God is in all things and eternal in nature but forever changing I am only a very tiny part of a much vaster event (if you like) then it is possible to comprehend with a carnal mind.
If you define divinity as superior in some way I would say no. No person or thing that exists is superior or inferior to any other person or thing. It is a dualistic view that will cling to such a paradigm. Revealing what is divine within would be more to the point. There is no journey to be like anyone or anything that I am aware of, unless you are subscribing to a dualistic mind. There is only revealing that which you are a part of.
Libya and Syria and the radiated parts of the world do not make up the whole world. It is easy to focus on the weeds. Like the saying goes. There is beauty everywhere we look just some don't see it. Meaning you will see what you focus on.
From what I gather you seem to believe Satan is within you and has the power to influence thought, yet God is not? I am not understanding your logic at all. I did say God is beyond thought.
Yet we all have burdens to a greater or lesser degree so Jesus did not take them away as you are claiming. Jesus merely showed how erroneous our thinking can be. Jesus demonstrated how to rise above this type of thinking. Worry of things beyond our control is self inflicted like most of our concerns. We have been conditioned to believe we need this or that or we need people to be this or that way to have a good life or to survive yet those are own delusions. If we have abundance in our life it's all good. If we don't it's all good. It is us that makes whatever either good or bad.
I am not sure how you arrived at the perception that fear equals respect nor do I think I will ever understand that perception.. That is how it is for you, ok.You are not in God. You are not part of His divinity. You keep ignoring the true context.
Libya and Syria and the radiated parts of the world do not make up the whole world. It is easy to focus on the weeds. Like the saying goes. There is beauty everywhere we look just some don't see it. Meaning you will see what you focus on.
From what I gather you seem to believe Satan is within you and has the power to influence thought, yet God is not? I am not understanding your logic at all. I did say God is beyond thought.
Jesus did not promise us an easy ride. We do experience hard times but we are not burdened with going through these hard times alone and that ultimately God will deliver us. For example, I am burdened by the pain of the world but Jesus promises me never to give me more than I can take and that is the burden lifted.
I hope I have made myself more clear.
Are you afraid of God?I do not ignore the context in which you understand it. I just don't agree with your understanding. I did not say I was God, I said I was in and of it. God is no one thing, or one person, it is in all things and people. The parts therefore do not make the sum total.
No one says one needs to ignore the suffering in order to see the beauty. What you focus on throws it out of proportion is my point. 13.1% thereabouts of the world population that is suffering due to poverty and hunger does not mean the world is not a beautiful place. The countries at war do not account for the whole world. For sure in 13.1% or the warring nations of the world there is much suffering, but to deem the whole world as being ruined indicates that one only focuses on the suffering rather than the beauty. The world is a beautiful place, with beautiful people who do beautiful things like helping those who are suffering however which way they can.
So Satan is no longer the Reptilian brain you referred to earlier ok. So in your view both Satan and God are outside of us and have the power to influence our thoughts. Whenever our thoughts are sin free this is God, when our thoughts are sinful this is Satans influence. We really then have no free will or ability to choose. Do you realize that when one attributes these thoughts to either or that we are ultimately denying any responsibility for the choices we make?
The pain of the world may have arisen because of how you alone have decided to evaluate our world based on what you want to focus on. This illustrates well what I was pointing to in my statement about burdens being self inflicted. The self inflicted burdens we heap upon ourselves and we expect something outside of ourselves to lift what we ourselves put there. So, instead of learning what we do to ourselves, (because we falsely believe this burden will be lifted) we continue the cyclic patterns of creating self inflicted burdens.
No I am not afraid of God.Satan is not the reptilian brain! He is a separate entity, most likely the creator of that part of the brain. If God puts a thought in your head, or Satan, don't you have free will to reject or accept it?
Thanks, Penny, it really is heart-warming to be accused of being the one responsible for all the suffering in the world. Did Jesus not focus on Satan? He spoke of Him as a real entity like the father of lies and being a murderer from the start. I choose to inflict myself with burden because I cannot ignore the suffering of the world and acknowledging it is painful. Ignore it and you have a better, happier life.There is no such thing as free will in Christian philosophy, how can there be? God is omniscient (all knowing) so he created us knowing whether we would be able to resist temptation or not, knowing that Satan would try, which means God created most of us to fail. How is that for a heartwarming thought?
God created us perfect. We genetically modified to do evil later. Anyway, since when is God constrained by time. The theory of relativity states that actually the past, present and future are happening at the same time. We just perceive it as linear.
Claire, you are so, so scientific, I am sure you have everything sorted out right.
Look, I'm not omniscient but it makes sense to me!
genetically modified to do evil? Why did god create us knowing that we would change genetically to become evil (again being omniscient he would know this) I never said god is constrained by time, indeed since he is omnipotent he can't be butt hat has no impact on my statement. God created us knowing we would become evil over time and many of us were created to fail at the temptations. Therefore since god created us knowing exactly what would happen over time after we were created we don't have free will.
You are not listening to me! There's no such thing as God created us "knowing ahead". If all these things happen at the same time then there is no prediction. Theory of Relativity!
What is happening now is a sort of "playback" like when you watch a tape recorded back 30 years ago. It's long ago happened but it feels like the present because you are watching it now. What we perceive as the future, likewise, has already happened. How else do you think prophecies work? Why is Revelation the final word if anything that could happen to change the course of the world's events?
Read this!
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists … nsion.html
Pretty much false. Heart-burning, uh I mean warming, but false.
Goodness Claire you are persistent. Okay as you wish.
You say Satan is separate. How do you know this? Is Satan a physical being? How do you know this thought is not your own? If God is separate from you, how do you know this is God's thought and not your own? Is God a physical being?
Do you not use your own mind to discern which is and which is not?
You need to read my posts carefully. Where did I accuse you of being responsible for all the suffering of the world? I said the pain of the world has arisen (meaning arisen in your mind) because of what you have chosen to focus on. I mentioned in a post a few pages earlier the percentages of what was painful about the world and you still choose to focus on the lesser of the percentages. So your view of the world is not a complete view but a partial view which you alone chose to focus on.
Tell me something, what can you do about the war in Syria? If you believe in God you might pray that peace prevails sooner rather than later. Other than that their is little you can do. Why focus on it when you have given it over to God? Do you not trust your God? Do you not think God is aware of the war? Or do you think you can do better than God and that you can you practically get up and stop them from fighting? Or do you just have an opinion about it? Unless you can physically do something about it what is the point on focusing on something you cannot do anything about?
What we choose is self inflicted.Go ask a theist Satanist. They don't worship a deity for nothing. As I said, Jesus knew Satan as a separate entity. God can inspire us to have good thoughts. For example, if I see a kitten in distress I'm going to help it. I thought it needed help and did something. Now that thought would have arisen out of me being influenced by God. People who do evil often have the thought that what they are doing wrong but go against it. We have always known that others can put an idea in another heads. Someone could say, "I really think it would be cool if we could rob that store to get iPods. The thought is put in your head but you have the freewill to either reject it or entertain it.
Temptation to do wrong is basically Satan putting an idea in your head.
Your post was ambiguous and you knew it else you would not have elaborated in brackets.
I can do absolutely nothing. I can not ask God to pray for it to go away because these things must happen. Satan has to come into power over the whole world in order for the final battle between good and evil to happen. What I can pray for is that no one suffers more than they can take. Praying about suffering is sharing in their pain. Ignoring it is not. It is not in my being to ignore suffering. I cannot ignore God's pain. Jesus took on the suffering of others. It pained him to see all these sick people who were crying to be healed. He could have ignored their pain and moved on.
Not all pain is self inflicted. I don't think someone getting murdered is self inflicted.Oh, sure! That will do the people who have been tortured to death a lot of good!
Claire, do you treat every day of the year like it's April Fools Day?
I have never seen such a load of old codswallop in all my life. In relation to your report of someone being charged for having planted vegetables in their back yard, I guess you are referring to a certain multinational company suing people for infringing copyright on the seeds which have been genetically modified.
You would do a lot more good if you led a demonstration about it and tried to get this stopped. Then we will be assured of something to eat when the world goes into calamity.It's the least I can do.
What the hell? How did those people get the genetically modified seeds from in the first place? The store? So why not sue the store? What I was referring to is someone getting charged for growing vegetables in their front yard.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural- … -yard.aspx
No I was asking you, not the theist Satanist, whoever they are. So you believe that God and Satan are responsible for your thoughts. Good thoughts is God and Bad thoughts is Satan . So you attribute good thoughts to God bad thoughts to Satan. None of these thoughts are you own. You are a puppet that is dictated by either or, depending on what is the strongest yes?
Ambiguous? It was bracketed to clarify. But see as you wish.
Exactly you can do nothing about the ills of the world. Yet you persist in pointing them out. For what reason? Satan or your concept of Satan has been here since the beginning of man. How do you share in another's suffering? Do you feel their pain or just imagine it? By imagining what it would be like, do you think you are sharing their pain? If you are sharing it that implies you are taking part of their pain from them. Ask anyone who has been in pain if it can be shared by any one else?
It is Man's pain, not God's.And I replied by saying Jesus acknowledged Satan as a separate entity. How do I know personally? That can't be described. Let me clarify about the thoughts business. I believe good thoughts (that of love, kindness, etc) are the result of the influence God has in our lives. It can spur us to do a kind act that we wouldn't think we would do normally. Sometimes evil people have thoughts from God in their heads. It's called our conscience. What I mean by Satan putting thoughts in our head is when that thought is out of character for a person. For example, you may be irritated with your cat, for example, and a truly horrible thought may come to beat the hell out of it and kill it. Now a good person will be shocked that they even thought of such a thing but that was a thought put in their head by Satan.
Is every thought from God and Satan? I think not. If you decide what to make for dinner tonight is a hardly divine intervention. What about where to go on holidays? Another way God communicates with us is to make us have an uneasy feeling if something may go wrong.
So I believe goods thoughts from God is because He wants us to be prompted to do something good which would benefit people and ourselves. Satan would put a thought in our head if it results in our harm. And I'd say the rest of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what thoughts we have in our minds, we still have the power to act on it or not. If God puts a thought in our mind, we don't have to act on it. If we were mere puppets we would obey the thoughts put in our mind either by God or Satan.
This is what you originally wrote.
"The pain of the world may have arisen because of how you alone have decided to evaluate our world based on what you want to focus on."
That is rather ambiguous but now I see you didn't mean it this way.
Exactly you can do nothing about the ills of the world. Yet you persist in pointing them out. For what reason? Satan or your concept of Satan has been here since the beginning of man. How do you share in another's suffering? Do you feel their pain or just imagine it? By imagining what it would be like, do you think you are sharing their pain? If you are sharing it that implies you are taking part of their pain from them. Ask anyone who has been in pain if it can be shared by any one else?
According to you, God is not a separate entity so your above statement doesn't make sense.Okay so the responsibility for Good or Evil is attributed to either God or Satan who are separate entities that have the power to influence your mind?
When you focus on the ills of the world is this God or is it Satan?
Instead of assuming then, one should ask.
God is not a separate entity. There is 'self' and there is God existing in the same temple. God does not inflict the pain. Self feels pain and inflicts it's own pain. As I said earlier.
Yes.
It depends. If you want to share in the pain of others because of your humanity then that is God's will because suffering refines us. Jesus certainly dwelt on the suffering of the world. He didn't push it out of His mind.
If you dwell on the ills of the world because it excites you, then it is from Satan. It all depends on intent.
God is a rather generic name. I have a separate God to yours. I would hardly believe Jesus would call God the Father if He was a separate deity to us. Are we the Father? Did Jesus pray to us and say lead us not into temptation?Attribute whatever to whomever you like, but it is only in your mind that this is a reality .
You might need to read the bible more without preconceived notions of what the verses are meant to mean. If your God is separate to mine it is only in your mind you are separating God. God cannot be separated no matter how hard your mind tries to separate God.
If you have trouble understanding what Jesus said, I cannot help that."I would hardly believe Jesus would call God the Father if He was a separate deity to us. Are we the Father? Did Jesus pray to us and say lead us not into temptation?"
Please explain what Jesus meant when He said the above things? Why did He call Satan a murderer and liar from the start if he isn't a separate being from us?You keep forgetting. I and my father are one. The kingdom of God is within you. Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you.
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
All passages that do not make God a separate entity. Your mind likes to separate. The last verse virtually says God is in all things. Above, through and in. Everywhere.
Is that hard to understand?
Really, and what attributes will you have as a god?
The role God has is to be the Father and to share His love and be a helper for those in need. If you love your creation, you will desire to be their God. And God does not want blind worship. He wants love.
What part of Christianity to you object to?
Well, a God is an omnipresent, omniscient and conquering entity. So what is your definition of God and who is threatening or bribing you?Personally, I'd prefer to have as much time to explore existence and it's meaning.
That is, I'm Gnostic, I have no desire to be God, (but I believe I've said that already). You see God with a Christian perspective, I do not, so why should I bother trying to worship as you do?
Jesus is not God.
But God simply "Is."
From my point of view, God is beyond the need to conquer. If such a being has that need to conquer then it probably is not God.
And it is that need to "conquer" that I dislike. People should be free to their own beliefs, or disbelief.In a very real sense, people are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish. And God did not conquer eternity, He created it!
However, what you believe or don't has real impact both on this life and the next.
And Jesus did claim to be God, so either He "just 'Is'" God or He "just 'Is'" insane. There's really no middle ground.OK, I am the creator of the universe, will you now worship me? It's not perfect, but it was my first one I ever created....
No, I'm afraid my claiming to be the creator of the universe does not earn me worship points. Yes, in a very real way each human being is creating our universe by our perceptions, yet I'm willing to bet none are worthy of worship.
And "conquer" isn't my word concerning God, that one belongs to Claire Evans.Since you didn't create the universe, you're right, you're no more worthy of worship than I am. And I am certainly not worthy to be worshipped.
I know that "conquer" was Claire's word. I was clarifying.
Humans do "create" their own universe by their perceptions and actions, but God created the actual universe! Big difference.The difference is in the perspective.
For the sake of argument, there is a god, and that god created the universe. This feat alone is not enough to make me want to worship 'god.'
I can be thankful, sure, not a problem.
But as long as I'm curious about existence and wanting to know the truth of existence, I will treat god as a benign next door neighbor.
Which makes the question if Jesus were god, or the son of god irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.If creation were the point, then you would be right. But it's so not the point! The point is that Jesus came and died for our sins, that we might be clean enough to enter Heaven and be eternally with God when we die. Otherwise, we will enter hell and be eternally separated from God when we die.
Are you saying we have to worship him to go to heaven? I was raised Catholic and I'm still not getting how some guy being put do death on a cross (which was standard practice 2000 years ago) has anything to do with morality. Seems to me like a sacrifice to the Gods in some barbaric ancient religion. How his dying a most painful death takes away sin is beyond my comprehension. And it's not like there was a big out cry at the time of his death either. Was his return seen by all? No, just a few apparently and we are supposed to take their word for it, wait not even their word. Nope not getting it. The God of the bible doesn't seem like a nice guy at all. Condoning rape, murder, slavery and allowing all this suffering, even the suffering of his son could have been prevented if he just revealed himself. AND then he demands worship and only worship as he will forgive all the sins or we burn in hell. Sorry. I'm not buying any of it.
You've pretty neatly summed up most of the historic objections to the Bible.
Yes.
If Jesus was just some guy, then you'd be absolutely right. Lots of "just some guys" were crucified by the Romans 2000 years ago, in fact it was considered the most disgusting and humiliating form of death imagineable and no Roman citizen was forced to endure it (which is why Paul was not crucified even though Peter was.) Nor did the Jews think any better of it, since the OT makes clear that anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse. So both from Jewish and Roman perspectives, Jesus would be seen as a loser if He were just some guy.
Let's be clear, though, that crucifixion was not a sacrifice to any god or "god." It was a civil punishment, divorced in Roman minds from religious overtones.
That was part of the point. He was supposed to be rejected. That was important.
Yes, their word is what we take. Remember that the Gospels and Epistles came out within the lifetimes of people who would have been in the area of the Galilee and Jerusalem and seen (or been able to refute) the events claimed. NOBODY ever said, "Jesus? What Jesus?" Not even the Jewish leaders, who would have been in the best position and had the most to gain by denying He ever existed.
You know how I feel and what I think about all this. But it is important to point out that it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to suffer and die on the cross. It was predicted. And it was the only way for God to wipe away the sins of mankind once and for all.
That's your right and your privilege. I didn't exactly reach the point I'm at now without some struggle, and it's not like I'm comfortable with everything that the Bible seems to teach (and no, it doesn't teach rape and slavery.) I think that Christian Universalism (if not Total Universalism) would be a much nicer way to look at things. But I don't make the rules (something else I've struggled a lot with and still do!) Nor do I enforce them. I don't say this stuff because I love being the butt of jokes. I honestly believe it. And I want everyone to go to Heaven.
So in order to worship God you would then need to worship all that exists including your fellow man....or no?
No. That would be pantheism, which is more like Hinduism. Christianity teaches a personal God, meaning that God is a person (not that we each have our own personal god!) God created everything, but He is not "in" everything. He is distinct and outside, just like you and I are distinct and outside of each other.
Worship God, don't worship things.The ism whatever ism you deem it to be is not the point. If you are to worship God in your understanding then you are to worship everything because according to Ephesians God is above all, through all, and in all. If God is outside this realm of existence for you then what part of God are you worshipping?
I needed to add: For sure worshipping things or people is not useful. In another breath respecting and accepting people as they are is more useful and usually requires we accept and respect our selves first.Then possibly I'm not understanding you. I hope that you are not taking one verse out of context and promoting a pantheistic view of God, because Paul of all people would certainly never endorse it!
I have no idea what a pantheistic view of God is?
That God is in all and all is in God. Eastern religions (some) teach that God is literally in everything and everything and everyone is part of God (meaning in effect that everyone is God.) So instead of worshipping the actual big g God, we are all gods ourselves.
That's what is usually meant when non-Christians talk of the "god within."Then I am a Pantheist, as well as being atheist.
I don't need to bow down to a theoretical "god" like you suggest. I don't bow down to my self, like you might imagine I do. When you are at one with the beauty and glory of this world, then there is no bowing down, just Love.
My choice thank you.And it's certainly your choice to make. Contrary to what some have believed and said about me, I do believe in free will and we all make our own choices, for which we are all responsible. Nor do I wish to rob anybody else of that.
Pantheism, though, is a belief in a "higher power." It doesn't necessarily mean that people worship furniture.
Nor does becoming a Christian rob you of anything.
Depends. Some do literally worship the furniture, but that's rare. In more usual terms, Hindus do think that all life is sacred because they think that someone can be reincarnated as any living thing. They don't worship just anybody, but they do believe that god is within everybody.
Ok thanks. I might fit into that, might not. I don't worship anything but I respect all living things. Does that count?
It must be very comforting to believe that the "next" life will be so awesome that we need not worry about this one. Forget about making things better, we just need to be all good and patient, and then the better life will simply come to us.
It a pretty lazy viewpoint don't you think..!?No lazier than the assumptions that allow people who don't believe to tell me what I do believe. And since they're so often wrong (and so often wrong despite what I tell them) then I am forced to conclude that they are simply too lazy to actually figure out what I believe.
Before you get too angry about that statement, keep in mind that I have read (in these forums, no less!) more than one person say that since they didn't understand why people like me believe in God, they have simply decided that we are too stupid to handle reality. The implication is that since they fail to intuitively understand it, it cannot be properly understood. Lazy. And arrogant.Wow, who says we don't care what's happening in the world? It is a Christian duty to help make things better in the world.
The gift of the Holy Spirit is that He gives us strength during the hard times. It also teaches us not to worship things of the world because they can come crashing down in a split second.The Bible also teaches that faith without works is dead. People do often think that people can be "so Heavenly minded that they're no earthly good," but that is not Christian.
You say that seeking godhood is a worthy goal. What attributes would one have to be considered a God.
I should have made myself more clear. God conquered evil so that we won't succumb to sin, and hell, if we truly repent. That is an act of love. To add, despite this conquering, He does not compel us to benefit from this victory. He gives us free will to do as we choose.As I said before, it is worthy goal to seek godhood, BUT NOT FOR ME.
The way I see it, I can accomplish gnosis without having to become a god.
Being god is more trouble than it is worth from my point of view.
Claire Evans: "He gives you that right to worship or not worship whom you choose! I mean, is God forcing you to worship Him now? It takes arrogance for a god to say, "Serve me or else!" An arrogant, tyrannical God with omnipotence is not going to allow their creation to reject Him. So why subscribe to the notion that God gives us free will on earth just to chuck us into hell because we didn't do things His way?"
Precisely.
The ultimate 'love' that God can give is free will - with no penalty attached.
Atheists are free to exist and be happy in this life or the next(?), and so on with any other belief, knowledge or path. Hence, it makes the idea of 'Hell' kind of silly.
I can not and will not say 'God' told me to say any of these things, I follow my own path.
This is the truth as I see it, no one else on this planet has to see it - its personal.That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why it is a worthy goal and what attributes would one have as a god?
Gnosis is divine knowledge. So how do you achieve divine knowledge? Through occult methods which is a Satanic practice. Gnosis revolves around the notion of becoming a God:
In the Gnostic tradition, Hermes is a symbol of the perfect man or that any man can self-exalt himself to be a god-like higher being, like Christ. It’s a central theme of the occult. Gnosticism originates from a combination of Paganism, Greek philosophy and the apocalyptic End Times tradition of the Zoroastrians. It is accretionary, that is accepting of many different religious traditions and paths to unity with the godhead.
http://stop-obama-now.net/obamas-occult-logo/
The symbol of Gnosticism is a sun cross and sun worship is Satanism.
Baal is a sun good.
Baal (Phoenician)
Son of El (god of thunder and lightning), Baal was the sun god of the Canaanites and Phoenicians, whose worship spread to the ancient Jews. In the Bible, Baal is also known as Beelzebub.
Sun represents enlightenment. In fact, it was Satanist Aleister Crowley who created Gnostic Mass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_XV,_The_Gnostic_Mass
So you are associating yourself with great evil.
I don't understand why you don't understand that rejecting God is rejecting all good and who devours those who embrace all evil? No one good would reject Jesus when they see Him one day.Claire Evans: "Gnosis is divine knowledge. So how do you achieve divine knowledge? Through occult methods which is a Satanic practice. Gnosis revolves around the notion of becoming a God:
"In the Gnostic tradition, Hermes is a symbol of the perfect man or that any man can self-exalt himself to be a god-like higher being, like Christ. It’s a central theme of the occult. Gnosticism originates from a combination of Paganism, Greek philosophy and the apocalyptic End Times tradition of the Zoroastrians. It is accretionary, that is accepting of many different religious traditions and paths to unity with the godhead."
This format is not that good when doing quotes, or it could be my human error....
How many Christian denominations are there and why do you have them?
As you can see, I myself am not a traditionalist, my gnosis is based on trying to find divine knowledge from within myself, from my dreams and meditation.
Even Prayers, and I pray to god.Obviously because not all are in agreement. Why do we have them? Corruption.
So you have divinity in you? Thus you must be a god?
What God? God is a very generic name.That is because "God" is generic.
No name or religion, Being.
That's all that is needed.
And fine, if you like to think that I think myself a god - fine.
Though a small tiny one, with an emphasis on dreams, Gnosis and sexuality.
And no, I do not have Spider Man powers!So how do you pray to God then? You can't pray to your being.
Claire Evans: "Well, a God is an omnipresent, omniscient and conquering entity. So what is your definition of God and who is threatening or bribing you?"
Bribe: The promise of Heaven and the salvation of the soul, if only you repent and worship Jesus Christ.
Threat: Eternal damnation in Hell if you do not repent.
The one thing I know about God is that God is not going to have you perjure your soul just so you can go to heaven. If it is not in my soul or heart to worship Jesus then he is not God, nor is his father God.
No matter what threat or bribe it is not going to change my inner truth.First of all, to be in heaven you have to be clean of sin and none of us can do that by ourselves. By taking on the sin of the world, Jesus could save us from hell because true repentance repels evil. Is it too much to ask for one to turn away from evil? Is it not an act of love to experience hell so that we won't have to?
And so that is where people those people should be. Should a paedophile who won't repent be in heaven with God?? And the absence of God is the definition of hell so God sends no one to hell. People do.
He gives you that right to worship or not worship whom you choose! I mean, is God forcing you to worship Him now? It takes arrogance for a god to say, "Serve me or else!" An arrogant, tyrannical God with omnipotence is not going to allow their creation to reject Him. So why subscribe to the notion that God gives us free will on earth just to chuck us into hell because we didn't do things His way?Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus was never sent to the cross to take on the world's sin. At least, I've never read it. It's almost as bad as people thinking that if you believe in him you go to heaven, which he didn't say at all.
If you have to believe in him to get to heaven, then he is holding you basically at gun point. He's telling you flat out that it's either worship him or be tortured forever. When weighing options, most people don't want an eternity of pain.2 Corinthians 5:21
New International Version (©1984)
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Timothy 1:15 "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners".
"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)
The Lamb was sacrificed.
Romans 6:23
New International Version (©1984)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Satan believes in Jesus! If you do not want to be with the source of all good then how can God force you? If you choose to stay with sin, Satan has access to you. It's not as if Satan respects anyone's free will. Can God say, "Hey, paedophile! I don't want you to go to hell so I'm just going to turn the other cheek and let you in!"
I hope you understand that.I love when other people validate my exact point for me. Jesus never once said he had come to take on the world's sin...or anyone's sin for that matter. Everyone is just assuming it!
Ahh I get it now, so what your saying is, that unless you accept Jesus as lord and saviour, and may have never committed a sin in your life, you are guilty of sin!
Your running in circles and not being clear in what your trying to say. Your basically saying here that if you believe in God, then God controls you and if not, then Satan controls you, and that's all there is to it. But where does the free will Christians like preaching about so much actually come into play in that? Before you say you only get one choice, that's not how free will works. Free will allows you to make any choice at any time in any given situation.Lol, assuming it. You think that everything Jesus said is in the Gospels? Did you not take into consideration what John the Baptist said to Jesus?
John 1:29
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’
Did Jesus deny this?
It's in the prophecies as well.
Isaiah 53:5
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Huh? Nobody has never committed a sin in their life so I don't know what you are talking about.
You think I am not clear because this concept is too hard for you to understand. I wouldn't really understand what I was saying if I didn't ask God for clarity.
This is the truth: There are many good people out there who aren't Christian but the truth is that not being Christ-committed is exactly what Satan wants. Now it doesn't mean their every move is controlled by Satan for anyone doing good cannot be under the control of Satan but they are far more susceptible to the influence of Satan. This is why Jesus said, "You are either for Me or against Me."
We do have free will. No entity is forcing our every action but as you know, free will does have consequences. No one can kill and expect not to be punished for it. I hear a lot of people saying if God was all loving, He'd allow us to do what we like without any consequences. That is a Satanic ideology and by that it doesn't mean that person sacrifices babies, but is rather putting themselves first over others. This is why Satanist Aleister Crowley says, "Do What Thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law."
"And so that is where people those people should be. Should a paedophile who won't repent be in heaven with God?? And the absence of God is the definition of hell so God sends no one to hell. People do."
Interesting.
So you're saying that there is the potential for paedophiles to have their own 'heaven?' Follow your own logic, (and I mean no offense), if you have paedophiles who are 'evil' to the core they are not going to be worried about being next to god. For them their sins are 'good' things, thus this arguement does not help your cause for Jesus.
And, you do know there are other religions and spiritual paths that are 'better' than Christianity when it comes to things like empowerment and enlightenment, right?I said nothing about paedophiles having their own heaven. There is no such place as heaven with God. I think paedophiles are going to have a hard time facing God one day. Being terrified of God because of His glory and true repentance are completely different things. What people don't realize is that facing God means they will have complete realization of what is wrong and what is right. People who are evil may think what they are doing is right but that's because they have never stood in the presence of God. They are deluded because they have never seen the truth which is God.
Oh, yes, Satan will make sure he whispers that into the ears of everyone. Yes, God does not promise you Christ consciousness but Satan will offer you omniscient enlightenment even though he knows he is lying. Yes, Satanists, New Agers, and Freemasons have fallen into that trap. Enlightenment is all about serving themselves whereby Jesus came to serve. Many people don't like the idea of humbling themselves to Jesus.So, everyone that does not follow Jesus Christ is a Satanist, with their knowledge or unknowingly....
You know it is a sad world we live in:
Because whether you know it or not what you are preaching is religious and spiritual bigotry, even hatred. This is the 'treat' I spoke of earlier in my previous post, that if an individual chooses to follow their heart and their own spirit away from 'your' Jesus!
It is ironic, because, I'm literally betting my soul that Jesus does not think this way, that he does not want people beaten by fear and doubt into worshiping him.
And if he does, then Jesus is the Satan you preach about.
It is, believe it or not, all about perspective.
People have free will, which is probably the best thing God could give.
Which means atheists are free to be themselves and believe in NOT BELIEVING IN God, but 'your' Jesus would deny them that freedom.
But the 'real' Jesus would honor that gift of free will just as God intended.
Being an atheist is not turning away from God, it is being unaware.
And they are free to be unaware!
And you want to talk about evil, you take a look in the mirror, evil is an invention by man, homo-sapiens, because of bad behavior and ignorance - myself included.Eugene, I pretty well agree with most of what you have written.
The thought I am left with is that the man called Jesus would be appalled at the fact people are worshiping him as a "god" 2000+ years later.@jonnycomelately
I think Jesus would be appalled too, and worse yet by the methods that worship is gained.
It pretty much throws freewill out the window.
Never said that or implied it. If I sin, it does not mean I'm a Satanist even though I've done his will. If you get deceived by his lies, it does not make you a Satanist automatically. We ALL have had Satan whisper lies into our ears.
I am just warning you of the truth. If you don't want to heed my warning then move along.
Jesus would warn you, too, of Satan's deception. In fact, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" He obviously wasn't saying Peter was Satan but that Satan was using Peter and Jesus recognized that.
Just think for a moment that I am warning you out of concern not just so I can beat you into submission into Christ. You can't scare people to know Christ.
Absolutely.
But the 'real' Jesus would honor that gift of free will just as God intended.
You have free will, right? Then Jesus is honouring that gift. If He didn't, why not slay them and cast them into hell now?
Yes.
If they are told about Jesus and are advised to pray to Jesus for a revelation of His love, then they are rejecting a chance at that relationship because they just don't want to have one. There's a difference between being unaware and choosing to be unaware.
Yes, Syrians, Libyans, etc, being slaughtered by thugs is not evil. It's just an invention.
Eugene Hardy - "And, you do know there are other religions and spiritual paths that are 'better' than Christianity when it comes to things like empowerment and enlightenment, right?"
Would you care to educate me on these 'better' paths?
This was in response to this:
So we will have unrepentant jaywalkers suffering eternal damnation while repentant pedophiles will spend eternity in heaven with God?
Let's pretend for a moment that I put up trespassing signs, and the warnings on these signs are especially stern. However, absolutely everyone trespasses anyway. Why do they trespass despite my warning? Well, because I on everything. Trespassing is literally unavoidable. I hold a press conference one day, and I let all of those trespassers know that I will pardon them if they ask me to; they only have to ask. Years pass. Some avail themselves of the opportunity, some don't. I eventually horribly punish those who failed to apologize, and pardon those who did. I manage to convince myself and some of trespassers that my actions were reasonable. After all, trespassing is a heinous crime, right? And all I wanted was for them to ask my forgiveness!Who's doing the threatening? You have free will right to the end! What kind of God allows evil to thrive in heaven? People choose to go to hell. What do you think happens when someone rejects all good? They embrace all evil? What do you think happens then?
People whine and say God holds people at gunpoint if they don't serve Him but when He saves paedophiles who truly repent, He is being soft.
This really is a bad comparison. How can God own everything and expect someone not to trespass if someone being on his property is against His will? The only way not to trespass is not to exist! It's not like people had a choice! God gives choices. God is reasonable.
The belief in Jesus requires a spiritual mind to percieve spiritual truths as compared to a carnel mind as it states in the Bible. I find that Christianity is entirely about enlightenment and spiritual empowerment. These are the fundamental elements of this faith and without spiritual enlightenment there is no belief in Jesus because He is spirit, He only came to us as flesh so that we could understand who we really are, a spirit like Him.
First you would have to prove the existence of God. Atheist don't discriminate against any religion. Jesus have very little to do with Atheism, but the concept of God has everything to do with religion. It's funny, but Christians can't every prove to other believers in God that Jesus was the son of God, so why even ask?
Absolutely not! I find the biblical God repulsive and don't see any difference between him and any other dictator that has existed and ruled people on this earth. The idea of worship is disgusting in that you have to acknowledge to yourself that the great and powerful Oz is greater than yourself. Regardless of the evil he has done.
I have never killed anyone buy according to the bible God has killed many, just because he "created" us does not give him the right to kill us. I have more morality in my pinky finger than the biblical deity could ever have in his whole nonexistent self!Indeed! "Acting Godly" is against the law these days in most places.
You apparently don't realize. You cannot use this particular argument.
If you created something, then do you not have ownership over it and complete authority over it? Which means, if you wanted to destroy your creation, then it should be up to your own choosing, shouldn't it?
If a G/god existed, it would think that it has the sole "right" to do as it pleases.I disagree Cagsil, that is all well and good if you bought a house and decided one day to burn it down just for the hell of it. But if you value human life and consciousness then you have no right to create it and treat it as property. Based on your argument we are no different than inorganic substance.
You might as well say you agree with slavery since it also worked on the master property system. The military actually still functions under this system. G.I. stands for government issue and that is exactly what a soldier is; property of the U. S. government. I know, I was in the military.You're missing the point.
It's more like, if you wrote a book, then decided to destroy it. Of course, with God there is no "just for the h*** of it." But that's the principal.
If you buy a house, then you bought what someone else has made and you do it with the clear understanding that you are abiding by rules set in place by others for that location before you ever got there. If you write the book/paint the picture/sculpt the clay(to borrow from the Bible) then it's totally yours free and clear (at least until you cede control over it by selling it or giving it away.) What you do with it is your business.
THAT is the argument. That God made the universe and everything in it, with no outside governing force. Which is why, if you believe that the God of the Bible exists, arguments about Him being "crule, selfish, maniacal, etc." are meaningless.
And if you don't believe He exists, then why waste your time?
You mean the Old Testament God. Do you see any similarity between him and Jesus?
Jesus is worse! And by the way it's supposed to be the same God directing events in both the O.T. and the N.T. the only thing that changes is the covenant he made with the Hebrews under the law and the later dispensation of salvation by grace as outlined in the N.T.
The reason I think that the "new covenant is worse" is that it includes a hell and eternal torment. Physical death is not enough for your sadistic and maniacal God. He needs to make you suffer for the crime of not believing in him even when he refuses to provide sufficient evidence for his existence.Wow, have you got it all wrong! Don't you know that the scriptures in the OT have been corrupted? Read Jeremiah 8:8? Did you also not know how heavily influenced the Jews were with paganism and the occult? The literal translation of Genesis, for example, talks about the gods directing the Jews and not God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … r_embedded
It's not to say that there is no trace of the Father of Jesus. The prophets knew Him as best they could. We know that Jesus quoted the Old Testament. However, the Pharisees and some other Jews were really angry with Him for undermining the scriptures. He was giving it a revamp, correcting the corruption in the Old Testament. He preached forgiveness whereby the OT talks about hate and revenge.
As for the hell bit...do you think that evil should not be held accountable? The ironic thing about this is that evil imposes hell upon themselves as hell is the separation from God. If you don't want to be with God, then where else can you go? Satan is going to snap up anyone who doesn't want to be with God because they love their evil.
The problem why people have a problem with this hell business is because they don't want to be held accountable for evil. They want to do as they wish and not have this threat of hell business over their heads.
It's just amusing to me how people chastise God for allowing evil to happen and then whine that hell is the penalty.
It is clear that God is not forcing us to do anything and it will be like that till the end. God does not punish people for ignorance and you have to know truthfully know God in order to reject Him."The reason I think that the "new covenant is worse" is that it includes a hell and eternal torment."
Do you realise that even the Old Testament, the old covenant makes reference to hell as a place of purnishment for the disobidient. The word is "Sheol" translated "the pit", or "the lowest hell"
Numbers 16:30, Deuteronomy 32:22, I Samuel 2:6.
Actually, he has found the Gospel offensive, and indeed it is!
Flame Bait!!! Well..., maybe not...
Of course, proof, by definition, is proof. I figure that since this thread is not going away, I might as well join. I hope you all will like me.No.
Unlike what (most) Christian sects believe, believing in God and being Christian are not mutually exclusive. If I learned Jesus was indeed the son of a higher being, no, I would not be Christian. Sorry. Christianity has been too tainted and flawed, and there is likely very little accuracey in it after so many years of transferring information. It's like photocopying something..over and over and over. Eventually, it's going to be too black and choppy to read.
Let people find their beliefs on their own terms!!!Every god throughout history purported to exist has had the opportunity to come to earth and show us all they do in fact exist, provide us all with their "word" and unite us all into one glorious spiritual group o believers. None have ever done so.
Sure, let Jesus or any other god show himself to us, we have been waiting patiently. The clock is ticking.Hey, ATM, long time no see. Welcome back.
"None have ever done so." Well, there is that one. You know the one. The one that correctly described the formation of the earth and all life on it. The one that explained how the human ego/free will was introduced into the world which resulted in the birth of the first civilizations (Sumer/Egypt) and forever changed the way humans lived. The one that the books of Moses, ancient texts whose origins are still unknown except that they originate in the cradle of civilization, describe protecting and preparing that one specific bloodline so that He could be born in the flesh. The same God who is the basis of the three largest religions and the savior whose short time on this earth incited the largest religious reaction ever seen. That same God that half the world's population still to this day believes in. There's a lot you have to ignore to be able to say 'None have ever done so". Most of human history from the first civilizations on are tied directly to this one God and His interactions with humans.Not much of anything you said is valid, just beliefs supporting beliefs.
I don't just spout invalid nonsense. I can back up everything I've said with the exception of Jesus being God in the flesh.
- I can illustrate the validity of the creation account.
- I can show how actual events in that region/timeframe match what's described in Genesis 2-11 down to the number of centuries in between each and the impact each event had. (Cain's city, the flood, the dispersion of the people at Babel)
- I can illustrate how archaeological evidence supports a fundamental change happening in human behavior that many beyond myself see as the emergence of the ego and how it's that same change that Genesis is describing as being introduced into the world through the creation of Adam. Changes that led to the first civilizations and that were first introduced through the arrival of people who 'came from the desert' in each dawning civilization from Sumer to Egypt to the Indus Valley to China.
The rest I'm sure you're already familiar with as far as the impact on humanity, the religions it spawned, and all of that.Sure, feel free to distort history as you see fit.
I'm not distorting anything. I'm just not using personal biases to dismiss an ancient document of unknown origin that has a lot to say.
I find myself sympathetic to the bicameral mind theory, which I think is what you are describing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
However, I do think that you are applying it to biblical mythology more because it pleases you to do so than for any evidence.Bicameralism is new to me, but definitely something worth looking into from what little I just read. What I'm referring to is covered in great detail in a book by Steve Taylor called The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era. I actually ran across that book while researching the 5.9 kiloyear event that transformed the Sahara into a desert and dispersed large populations of people in that region in all different directions. I was looking into the parallels of what happened there and the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis.
It describes the stark contrast between hunter/gatherer and early horticultural humans and that of 'civilized' humans. Early humans and many indigenous cultures in existence today shared a lot of similarities like sexual equality, a lack of class separation or the idea of one person being more important than the other, a lack of bashfulness over the human form and nudity, a lack of desire for possessions beyond what's needed or claiming ownership over land, and a lack of violence in general. That kind of thing.
The evidence is overwhelming. And I'm finding I'm not the only one that's beginning to see it. This started out as being for my own personal understanding, but as I began to realize that there's plenty of evidence to back this up I started to bounce this idea off of others to make sure I wasn't applying 'biblical mythology' out of my own need. I've since found that the evidence holds up to scrutiny.
True, my faith is what led me here initially. But to verify its validity I removed myself from the equation. In fact, I removed the human element where ever possible, whether it be my own beliefs or others. I just acknowledge the significant impact the books of Moses have had on humanity and the fact that it's still unknown where exactly they come from other than originating in the cradle of civilization. So, I took Genesis, laid it side by side against known history, and compared. The evidence I've found since that supports this hypothesis of mine is staggering. Not to mention all the others I've run across that are beginning to see the same thing I do.
Well, here is something you can try to explain away.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story … ssils.html
Incase you decide not to read it, it shows completely modern humans bartering with neighbouring groups (which is sharing their creativity, which is what makes us human) in southern Africa 44,000 years ago.
excerpt:
("They were fully modern genetically and cognitively," d'Errico said.
Their cognitive development is evident in their symbolic behaviour, the professor said. The ostrich egg beads were not only ornaments but played a major role in bartering with neighbouring groups, he said. That practice continues today.)Thank you for that link, Rad Man. I always find that kind of thing endlessly fascinating. And thank you as well for going such a long way towards making my point. You're right, trade has been common amongst humans for tens of thousands of years. And so has the ability to make tools, jewelry, fish hooks, that sort of thing. And you are also right that humans haven't changed physically for tens of thousands of years either.
That's what makes what I'm trying to point out so significant. Human interaction has been common place for thousands of generations, yet .....
"it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - Archaeologist WJ Perry
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began (until 4000 BCE), there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel
That all changed around 4000 BC. And even though there was all of this human interaction, all of this sharing of ideas and such, there was very little advancement for 40,000 years from the time the tools in that article were made to this ...
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
Something significant changed in humans in this region and in this timeframe. Something that still has no explanation, yet it's these changes that came just before the birth of civilizations in Sumer and Egypt, later in the Indus Valley, until it reached all the way to China. Each young civilization telling roughly the same story. These changes came just after the arrival of nomadic people coming from the Sahara desert area.
And human kind hasn't been the same since.Sorry for all the cutting and pasted, but I think it was necessary in this case. I'm sure you will tell me I've made your case again. You are looking for evidence to make the bible whole with bias rather than looking to disprove yourself as science does.
Archeologists have found human bones in cooking pots and hearths in China which were found to be around 500,000 years old.
Crucifixion was among the most gruesome and painful of ancient execution methods and was practiced from about the 6th century BC until the 4th century AD, mainly among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, Persians and Romans. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ne … EkCLou0.99
(Around 16,000 BCE, from the Red Sea hills to the northern Ethiopian Highlands, nuts, grasses and tubers were being collected for food. By 13,000 to 11,000 BCE, people began collecting wild grains. This spread to Western Asia, which domesticated its wild grains, wheat and barley. Between 10,000 and 8000 BCE, northeast Africa was cultivating wheat and barley and raising sheep and cattle from southwest Asia. A wet climatic phase in Africa turned the Ethiopian Highlands into a mountain forest. Omotic speakers domesticated enset around 6500-5500 BCE. Around 7000 BCE, the settlers of the Ethiopian highlands domesticated donkeys, and by 4000 BCE domesticated donkeys had spread to southwest Asia.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa
The development of first city-states, and then empires, allowed warfare to change dramatically. Beginning in Mesopotamia, states produced sufficient agricultural surplus so that full-time ruling elites and military commanders could emerge. While the bulk of military forces were still farmers, the society could support having them campaigning rather than working the land for a portion of each year. Thus, organized armies developed for the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare
The first archaeological record of what could be a prehistoric battle is at a Mesolithic site known as Cemetery 117. It was determined to be about 14,340 to 13,140 years old and located on the Nile near the Egypt-Sudan border. It contains a large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle. Some question this conclusion by arguing that the bodies may have accumulated over many decades, and may even be evidence of the murder of trespassers rather than actual battles. Nearly half of the bodies are female, and this fact also causes some to question the argument for large-scale warfare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare
The Neolithic was a period in the development of human technology that is traditionally considered to begin with the rise of farming and ending when metal tools became widespread. Although the Neolithic occurred at different times in different places around the globe, evidence exists that there was warfare during this time period. Compared to the subsequent Bronze and Iron Ages, the Neolithic is characterized by small towns, stone versus metal technology, and a lack of social hierarchy. Towns are generally unfortified and built in areas difficult to defend. Skeletal and burial remains do not generally indicate the presence of warfare.
Further evidence of Neolithic warfare is evident in the Talheim Death Pit in Talheim, Neckar (Germany) where archaeologists believe a massacre of a rival tribe was conducted approximately 7500 years ago. Approximately 34 people were bound and predominantly killed by a blow to the left temple. The Talheim site is one of the earliest indications of warfare in Neolithic Europe. http://old.enciclopedia.com.pt/en/artic … icle_id=66I understand how you can make that assumption about my looking for evidence. I promise you I just want to know the truth. My faith doesn't hinge on this. I'm just fascinated by life and want to know how it all works.
The answers I get from most believers don't work across the board, and neither do the answers I get from non-believers. But both make a lot of sense. I've found a common strand that ties it all together in a neat little package, and it literally applies across numerous topics. If what we're talking about here were the only evidence then you might be able to make a case. But this is just the tip of the ice burg.
I encourage you to look into this further. Don't just assume things progressed gradually. Many times in the evolution of life there were leaps forward (the Cambrian Explosion is a good example). Hunter-gather/horticultural human history is a long one, and there are just two clear instances of group violence during those tens of thousands of years. Evidence at a handful of sites around the Nile valley around 12000 BC and signs of inter-tribal fighting in south-east Australia dating 11000 and 7000 BC. Statistically negligible and on par with other examples that can be found in the animal kingdom. Two isolated instances making a fraction of a percent of all human history. The change that came around the early portion of the fourth millennium BC was significant, and it has stuck ever since.
I am not alone in this and those who support this view are not typically believers. They are the people who would know. The ones who do look to disprove themselves. Don't just assume I'm wrong. Look into it if you don't believe me. There is a notable increase in war and violence, a transition to patriarchy, social class separation, and a drastic change in attitude towards the body and sex around 4000 BC that some attribute to the 5.9 kiloyear event. This was the catalyst in the eyes of many that sparked civilization in Sumer and Egypt because many of these changes came on the heels of the arrival of nomadic travelers into these regions flushed from the Sahara region.
It began on a limited scale in the centuries leading up to 4000 BC where Semetic people from the Zagros mountains invaded Syria and Mesopotamia. But 4000 BC is when social violence, large-scale social oppression and male domination became almost common place, in stark contrast of what came before. In fact, invading nomadic Semetic tribes are a common theme throughout this time frame as these traits took hold.
These are traits described in Genesis as showing up in humanity just before the flood. Not long after, these people were dispersed at the tower of Babel in all different directions into an already populated world. This is the same way in which archaeological evidence shows this region changed so quickly. These people came with their own established language and their own way of doing things, and they forever altered human history.Thank you Headly..... real education here. Opening up my thinking to wider possibilities.
My how your tune changes. At first you tell me there were NO war or murder before 4000bc. You said NONE. I suggest wars happen as a result of agriculture and you dismiss that. I then do very little research and show you many instances of farming and then war well before recorded time. You then say they were just isolated instances. You have the nerve to tell ME to look further. I just did. I encourage you to look back at my post and look at all the farming and war that took place before the time when you think man was made by God. You told me it never happen and now you say it doesn't matter because the were ISOLATED INSTANCES.
I haven't changed my tune. Maybe I haven't been clear, and for that I apologize. And I feel I should maybe also make clear that I'm not here to 'win' a debate or to convert you or anyone else over to my way of thinking. I, like you I assume, am looking for the truth. What really happened.
What I'm trying to arrive at here is the emergence of the human ego. I assert that it's the human ego/free will that was introduced into the world by the creation of Adam. I estimate this to have happened somewhere around 6000 to 5500 BC. The flood, according to Genesis, happened 1656 years after Adam's creation. The Tower of Babel a century later. This is when I believe descendants of Adam, each having an individual will, were dispersed into the population by the desertification of the Sahara (5.9 kiloyear event), planting the seed of the human ego/individual will into an already populated planet.
The best way to determine when the human ego emerged is to look at human behavior. When the ego emerged, whenever that may have been, it would be marked by wide-scale permanent changes, not isolated instances that are statistically negligible. When you're dealing with a time frame as wide as the entirety of human history consisting of millions and millions of human lifetimes, focusing on a couple of instances causes one to miss the bigger picture and make inaccurate assumptions. And that gets us nowhere.
I would also like to point out that I'm usually pretty careful not to use absolutes like 'no' and 'none'. If you'll notice, I was quoting Anthropologist Richard Gabriel and Archaeologist WJ Perry. Guys who stake their reputation on what they say and who also don't use those terms lightly. Their statements are based on copious amounts of data.
I also apologize if you feel I dismissed your suggestion that "wars happen as a result of agriculture". I thought you were just cutting/pasting and didn't realize you yourself were making that assertion. I'll be happy to address it.
This is a common assumption, but the evidence simply doesn't support it.....
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gatherer era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era
Despite the differences in lifestyle, the simple horticulturalists appear to have had the same basic social characteristics as the hunter-gatherers....
"the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution... despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic" - Riane Eisler, Scholar/Writer/Social Activist
What I did try to stress in my previous post is the fact that these types of socially pathological behaviors first appeared, not in the settled people of agrarian cultures, but in the nomadic people who introduced these types of behaviors into those cultures.
Lol, God did use that opportunity to come to earth and showed us that He did exist through Jesus.
Yes, the clock is ticking. A timebomb is ticking very quickly.Sorry Claire, there is no evidence of that.
Sorry i dont want to hurt anyone but Prophet Eisa(Jesus) is not son of God.Jesus is prophet of God.God dont have any children.God is one.If Prophet Eisa(Jesus) come back to earth prophet will say that he is prophet of god not child and i can assure you Prophet Eisa(Jesus) will come back to earth at doomsday.
Sorry, I don't mean to hurt you but Allah is a pagan god.
If given proof of Mohammed would you convert to being Muslim?
*Hint* There is much more proof regarding the existence of the prophet Mohammed than Jesus.Interesting. You are correct in that there is more proof that Mohammed walked the earth, but no more proof that Mohammed was in anyway connect to God,
I don't dispute the existence of Mohammed but I don't believe him. He picked out Allah as the true god out of an array of moon gods. Allah is a pagan god. Now if I realized Allah was the true god, hypothetically, without any deception I wouldn't worship him. Why? Because he has done nothing for mankind. Jesus laid down His life for us.
I don't currently reject him as my savior, I reject the notion of a need for salvation, and I also reject his existence, however, if it was proven in a reasonable manner that the son of god was in front of me, and I was, in fact a despicable piece of filth, of course I'm going to accept him, and avoid hell, who wouldn't?
Which is precisely what is incorrect with the doctrine(s) and resulting in these kinds of emulations from the con. The thinking of it is off, thus every perspective regarding it is also off.
After years of ministering this doctrine, to upwards of 10k people weekly, it occurred to me how inaccurate the teaching was. There is no Hell, no Debble. No one is a piece of filth -metaphorically or literally. If fact, the message is quite clear: salvation {restoration access to complete immortality} has come, and available to any and all, regardless of location, position, ideas and such.
Yes, the emphasis is put on one man, who was the first to achieve this. But, as he himself said, he was just an example -a visual- if the term fits. Just because people see it or do not, does not change the reality of it; nor does it change the fact that each person has to do their part, from within them, to see that transformation happen. It also does not change the reality that doctrines are not required, nor a sit-on-hands attitude of he'll do it, we'll just wait. He'll prove it; he'll do the work. The evidence of this 'salvation' can only happen in each person, individually.
Above everything else, if the believing achieved this or even got close, not one atheist would exist. Going further, not one believer, religion, science would exist. They would experience that 'something', thus dismissing 'everything' else. Instead, excuses and fear are fed to the masses. It is perfectly logical the now anti-theist would reject it, until they see some sort of proof. Doctrine is a funny thing, yes? Based on much evidence by both sides of this equation, it is clearly obvious folk has missed it...
James.Further, if the believing did the things that Messiah did and greater things as he instructed them to do, there would be no atheists, religion, institutionalised Church, blah blah blah.
But man prefers to invent doctrines, creeds, smokescreens, diversions, special anointings, ceremony, sensation, to hide what is accessible to all. They are like those who accept a form of godliness but deny its power; the ones that stand at the gates of the KOH to prevent anyone entering; the ones that weigh people down with burdens of law and do not move a finger to help them. Hundreds of years of obscuring our inheritance has caused unbelief to rule in our minds so that nobody any longer believes what the Messiah said.You said it! They deny access to it, because they do not have access to those greater things.
Like the chap blocking your way from going into the grocer, because they feel it necessary to sell the idea of what's inside the store first. It is a distraction, a diversion. A shopping contract {terms & conditions} 10 kilometers long. Ultimately, a person completely loses interest and decides they're not hungry anymore or are better off eating from another rubbish bin. lol
James.Sowhat would that mean for us DH and why would such a wonderful messiah let it happen?
If people were doing the things Jesus did in large numbers then the last 2000 years would have been very different. Instead the Church took control, got more interested in infighting for power, and oppressed the masses. Jesus was in heaven, his job done, and left the Church to screw up.
Jesus job is not done! He works in this world through people. He doesn't just sit back and watch the world.
Jesus people? Who are his people. I have neither read nor heard him claim people to or for himself -or some cause {conflict} to fight the evils of this world. Actually, quite the opposite. To paraphrase: "Come outside of this world and have nothing to do with its ways. Leave behind your possessions, your husbands, wives, children and homes; forget politics, religion, everything you ever knew. Come, step into eternal living and let the dead bury their own."
And yes, emphatically, his job IS done. The work completed. Everything restored to before. Access granted. The sitting down. The Spirit reunified with human spirit.
Everything since has been mans doctrine.
James.Who are Jesus' people? Those who choose to serve the son of God who is now one with God as the Holy Spirit. God and Jesus as one is the Holy Spirit.
Here is Matthew 28:18-20
Matthew 28:18-20
New International Version (NIV)
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
So Jesus commanded us to spread the gospel.
As for fighting evil...
17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
The ways of the world is evil. When Jesus said stay of its way it means you must not be tempted and succumb to do evil. Any stumbling block, like a husband, wife, or possession, that will make you sin and keep you away from Jesus must be abandoned. Could you give me the exact verse, please?
If Jesus' job had already bee done there would be no more evil in the world.
Jesus still needs to return to earth:
Matthew 24:36-44
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Revelation says Jesus will lead Armaghedon.
Relevation 16: 12-15
12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
It's hard to discern what's true through the lense of human interpretation and influence (organized religion/peers/parents). So to remove that fallible and subjective element as best as possible, I look at it this way. If God is truly as described by the books of Moses, then He is the sole creator of existence. If He is the absolute truth that never changes, then His commandments, actions, and persona should be consistent with what can be observed in His creation. Through my fallible and subjective perspective, I see consistency.
I see a parallel between the commandments and the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion happened approximately 542 million years ago and marks the transition from the Proterozoic to the Phanerozoic Eon. Though there's currently no explanation as to how it happened, this is where multi-celled organisms appeared where before all life was single-celled organisms. The root of every living thing today first appeared in this age and it's what made life as we know it now possible. Somehow, cells that still behaved much like the single-celled organisms that came before individually, exhibiting functions like homeostasis/metabolism/growth/adaptation/response to stimuli/reproduction, functioned together in such perfect unity that they seamlessly formed increasingly complex creatures, all working towards a common goal of sustaining the life of this collective community.
This doesn't work if each cell doesn't behave just as it's meant to. The cell must adhere to what the DNA code dictates and perform the function it was made to perform. And it must act as one with the community by taking only what resources it needs, reproducing and dying when it receives the signal to do so. Individual wants cannot override the need of the community. The priority must be to respect the DNA code as the authority and to respect the needs of the community over the self. If these things are done, incredible things can be achieved.
In a lot of ways, what's put forth in Genesis mirrors this. The creation account shows that everything in existence did exactly as God commanded. He just spoke and it happened. Then He creates Adam who doesn't adhere to the one thing he's told not to do. Adam and Eve chose their individual wants over what the authority commanded; the fruit looked delicious and there was wisdom to be gained. That's when it all started. That's when God began interceding where necessary because it wasn't necessary before. God's first action was to restrict access to the tree of life, thus imposing a limited lifespan.
When a cell breaks protocol it becomes a cancer that endangers the organism. It no longer behaves as the authority (DNA) dictates, and it no longer reproduces or dies when it receives the signal to do so. It reproduces on its own, doesn't die, and the cells created from then on take on the same behavior. Before long it disrupts the functionality of other parts of the body, or robs other parts of the body of needed resources.
The commandments given to the Israelites closely resemble the protocol that cells adhere to. They have everything to do with respecting God as the sole authority and respecting one another. In fact, when asked directly, Jesus reaffirmed this by saying that specifically. But with us, behavior isn't inherited. It must be taught and adhering is a choice.
So, I say all of that to say this.... I don't see it as you or I or anyone else being a "despicable piece of filth". The capability to make our own choices of our own volition is an incredible gift. He wants us to have it. This gift is what makes humans what they are. Humans create incredible art and music and architectural structures and literature through this capability. But there's another side of that coin. That means we can also be just as destructive as creative. And humans have exhibited both creativity and destruction for thousands of years, and both of these traits can be traced back to the same time and place that early Genesis is set.
The Cambrian Explosion was a monumental shift in the capability of life and what it could accomplish. In a lot of ways it appears, at least to me and my fallible perspective, that what was set forth in Genesis all the way through to the arrival of the savior is a way to accomplish this. It's not so much our behavior. It's accepting the protocol. If we can show we will do this, that we believe and acknowledge that God is the sole authority above all others, then we can participate in whatever this next monumental shift is going to be.One can't accept Jesus without true repentance. Holding onto sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit. One can acknowledge His existence as Satan does but that isn't the same as accepting.
We do need salvation from sin. How many people live lift without doing anything wrong? Nada. We cannot save ourselves from evil.
Does anyone know how to format my comment so that the comment of the person I'm addressing doesn't disappear when they reply?
I make my own decisions in life.I am my own saviour or devil. My decisions might be wrong but hey lifes a bitch.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Jesus is the son of God. Period. However, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that the establishment has purposely obscured the truth about Jesus Christ in order to mislead us away from and to protect the truth. Religion has become purposely mythologized, just as the bible has and this has been done intentionally to obscure the real truth.
Jesus didn't die on the cross, back in those days crucifixions were not literal and anyone who had been "crucified" so to speak would be facing death on the fourth day, they had been prepared for death by decree. Resurrections could be performed by the high priest on the third day, not a literal resurrection but allowing the person to be crucified to be freed from the cross.
A bit of research also shows how the cross/crucifix doesn't originate from Christianity at all. The truth has intentionally been manipulated.I hear that a lot but I've yet to see any convincing proof.
What's your documentation on that?
No Christian thinks the cross originated from Christianity. That's like the archeologist who finds the cup dedicated to Yahweh and His Astoreth and thinking they had made some discovery, no knowing that the Bible talked about the very same thing. It's not news to anybody, at least not to Christians.The question is not if there is proof but what if there was proof.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Romans very much practiced crucifixion as in nails through the wrists and as a form of the worst punishment for criminals. HIstorians like Josephus wrote about crucifixions.
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-l … fixion.htm
It was Emperor Constantine who abolished crucifixion in the Roman Empire.
You need to provide sources about facing death on the forth days and high priests performing resurrections on the third day. I've never heard those claims.
The cross is not unique to Christianity. A cross without a figure could be construed as pagan. The crucifix is unique to Christianity, i.e, the figure of Jesus on the cross.
Why doesn't He reveal Himself if He knows this would convert everyone and end all wars? Is He hiding because He doesn't really exist?
You may be onto something Barbie laptop. X)
Or He's playing games and isn't actually as benevolent as His benefactors think He is.Truth is, not everyone will convert when they see Jesus as the son of God. Revelation testifies to that. Some will despise Him for being the son of God.
He will come again.to allow us to have the independence which we ourselves want.
It won't convert everyone! There are some on earth who know who He's the son of God and still reject Him. When Jesus was on earth most didn't convert.
But he helped to change the world, Claire! and made it a much better place than it was or than it would be had he not come!! Through the work of Christians who believed in what He taught... like Mother Theresa and other saints. (And even people all over the world today! )They had(and have) love for Jesus through what he told them.... because they were ( and are) receptive.
Maybe he'll come back when we're all clapping for the encore! (That is a brilliant analogy, if I do say so myself!) What time is it in South Africa? Is it hot there? It is still really hot here in California. It has been way too hot for way too long! Maybe Al Gore was right!?Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that not everyone believed He was the son of God even though they saw what He did, heard Him preach and looked into His eyes.
Jesus' mention was to save us and become reunited with God. His kingdom is not of this earth so the world isn't a better place. The lives of those who love Him are better.
It's 10:09am in SA. It's a lovely day. It's been terribly cold but for the past few days the weather has been warming up.Thanks for the report. What is cold? Its been in the 90's here! and it is 1:54AM. Who do you know that does not think Jesus is the Son of God? I have a problem with those who insist ( as catholics do) that he IS God and we must worship Jesus as God. Even though I know Jesus is one with God, I go to God first. I think that is O. K., but some Christians don't. But don't all Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
"They say that the Merciful has adopted a son. What an absurd thing that you have invented! It is well nigh that the heavens might crack and the earth split asunder and the mountains crumble down at this hideous thing that they should ascribe a son to the Merciful! It does not behoove the Merciful to adopt a son. All those who are in the heavens and the earth, are going to be presented before Him as servants, for He has encircled them and kept a strict account of them; everyone shall be presented before Him individually on the Day of Resurrection."
surah maryam (88-95)Thanks for letting us know.. thank you very much. Your sharing is very enriching to us. Thanks again. Maybe its the green birds, who're trying to deconvert Christians. ( Now I'm sorry to have doubted the Rad Man)
Aside from the fact that you can't hide if you don't exist...
It wouldn't convert everyone. People who have felt His power and known His voice turn away. I don't know why. Actually, I do, because I tried to do that myself once, but He wouldn't let me go.
I've often commented on the "burning bush syndrome." That's where people claim that if something undeniably miraculous were to happen (and a burning bush like the one Moses encountered is a frequently cited example) then of course they would believe! Well, that may be true for some but not for most. They would still search for another explanation. Most would deny it altogether.
In the Bible, many people witnessed Jesus' miracles, and accepted Him as a Messiah. But they couldn't take what He was actually saying, and didn't like that the Messiah they were expecting, a military leader who would kick the Romans out of Israel, wasn't who Jesus is. So they turned away. Not all that different, really, from people who either don't understand or don't like what the Bible actually says and turn agains God because He doesn't do what they think He should do.
Does Claire, in some way, make money out of starting such a long standing, on-going, thread? Could I start a controversial thread and just watch the money roll in?
No. She has a mission. It is beyond money. w a y b e y o n d
Lol, it doesn't work that way. Scroll through the comments and most of the comments are discussions between others that I didn't start.
Before I say this let me say that I am not athiest or of any organized religion, I do believe that there is a higher power however I do not believe that it is god or a god, as being a god implies that it is a sentient being and an individual being, In my beliefs there is a higher power but it is simply the connection between all things in the universe that keeps it from simply falling apart. So by that logic, if jesus came to earth and I wouldn't need proof that he was the 'son' of the universe as we all are in a way we all are individual parts of the whole. HOWEVER I would not find jesus as my savior, because while I believe he did exist and was more than likely a great man, he was just that a man, and maybe even the savior of alot of people, but no more than any other hero of old.
You say you believe Jesus existed and was more than likely a great man. But Jesus said the only way to the Father was through Him. So do you believe Jesus was also a lier?
It is possible, as I said he was a man, but I am more inclined to believe that he meant it metaphorically. Though it is also possible that he used that as a manipulation in order to save the people that he did. In this world it is IMPOSSIBLE to do as great things as Jesus is known for without getting your hands dirty. and before you go accusing me of tarnishing Jesus' good name, I believe that whatever he did, no matter how questionable was for the good of the people who looked up to/worshiped him. The world is not black and white, and it is in that grey area that most wise men live.
allow me to add to this however there is a big difference between a man who uses a well placed lie to quicken the process of saving thousands of people and a liar, while the one who saved people may have lied, he lied for them while the liar lies to advance his own power for his own benefit.
Through Him is not a literal meaning, as in going to him first, else he becomes Creator.
Through him means because of the work he did on their behalf, the Intervention.
And yes, he and the Father are one. Not meaning the same individual, but rather united.
If you read what he says, you understand you and the Father are one.
Therefore, as he and the Father are one, you are one in him as well.
Versus turning a man into a god, like some pagan worshiper.
Explains why for +2048 Hebrew calendar years, people are not getting the message, not manifesting that indwelling called the Kingdom of Heaven, and dieing one after another.
Has the Feast of Firstfruits been in vane? One wonders.
James.
We can be still and know that we are of God. We are a drop in the ocean of spirit. Through scientific meditation, we can comprehend God within Us. If thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light. Jesus' teachings were explained by an Indian Yogi named Paramahansa Yogananda who understood the Science of Religion. His guru Sri Yukteswar, wrote a book with that title. This is for those who are interested in truly finding reality and not just showing up to argue, which appears to be the newest sport. I am just stopping by for a second. Bye again.
Rather a misnomer question, as Christ told us already that no further proof will be offered, and that His next appearance would be definitive, and very final.
Anybody around when Christ returns will be too late to form opinions, and I think Titens response is pretty much what the average reply would be.
To get proof, you need belief, no belief, no proof given.
As some folk are incapable or unwilling to enter into belief without proof first, it's a closed loop, or as my excel sheet would say 'circular reference'.
When Christ does return, 'proof' will be a redundant aspect, as according to scripture His arrival will be seen by everyone on the planet at that time, and I have no doubt that proof as currently defined will be superfluous.Religion is the act of worshipping a creed or deity in which one has mistakenly attributed supernatural powers. 'True Believers' are also known as schizophrenic or having a neurological disorder in scientific, medical, or sane circles. It was invented by tribal leaders at least 2 million years ago in order to control and financially exploit the citizenry and in the Western proper World was still going strong until the separation of Church and State. In the 3rd or improper World it's business as usual. Typically god is portrayed as a giant bearded man in the sky that flies around granting wishes, but there are some variations.
Interesting, you managed to post a reply that neither addresses my post, or the topic, and shows nothing but your desperate minds desire to avoid reality.
Sure glad you are not my surgeon.Believing unproven garbage because you are scared is not reality. It may be your personal, internal reality, but your position that your god wants sheeple to believe nonsense with no evidence is rather silly.
Feel free to keep grovelling - why do you feel the need to keep attacking those of us that prefer to think? Iz that what your majik book tells you to do - or does it tell you to shake the dust from your feet?
LAWL
Will it be "too late" for me when I am dead?
Will it be "too late" when Jesus comes back?
Was it "too late" for Ernest?
What will the Big Bad Jesus do to me?
Do you get off on threatening in his name?
Will you dance around and say you are not allowed to judge again? Despite your pronouncements that it will be "too late."
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.Yes - I can see why the hard questions bother you. I don't blame you - blind faith and threats are sort of hard to reconcile with a loving god that wants you to think.
Must be hard for you to still love a god that is punishing Ernest as well.
I forgive you.Flipping the coin is deceitful Mark.
You stated God doesn't exist.
Now you say God is punishing Ernest.
Which is it now?
Logic processor slipping or?
Like to start 'splainin' what that's about?Sorry you don't understand. I can see why you wouldn't though. These concepts are hard to grasp even for well educated people.
I said "it must be hard for you to still love a god that is punishing Ernest."
Not a problem for you though is it? Shed a few crocodile tears and you are good to go."...love a god that is punishing Ernest."
You mean God exists then and is punishing Ernest?
I never heard the judgement on that soul. Did you?
But I agree God exists.Sorry you didn't understand. It is your belief. Remember? I don't believe any such nonsense. I do see why you are so aggressive though. Not to mention brave.
Aggressive with loveeee Marky..
I'm here to help. Like trying to remind you emf is beyond human comprehension and surpasses all our technology and, oh yeah.
God dunnit.
Perhaps if they had proof they would convert. That would not make them a Christian. One must believe in Jesus Christ and repent of sin to be born again into the Kingdom of God. Would the atheist convert to Christianity and repent of sin? I do not know. Many of them have hardened hearts.
If the atheist would check out the scientific evidence that Jesus Christ is, was and will always be then there would be allot fewer atheist, if this is what they are really wanting. Maybe they do not want to know because inside of everyone there is a longing to know. Pride I suppose. Men of science trying to prove the Bible wrong and found though science and evidence, besides their that God is real and HIS miracles, signs, wonders are all true as recorded in the Bible. Discovery channel has a couple of shows per year, lasting a couple of weeks at a time. If an athiest saw only one half of the shows and did not turn to Jesus they would be a big fool, doomed.
One day every tongue will confess and every knee will bow Romans 14:11 The problem is atheists don't believe in God, therefore they don't believe they will have to bow. All we can do is to continue to love them as Christ does, and pray that one day they will make the choice to come to Christ, before it is too late.
You say "as according to scripture His arrival will be seen by everyone on the planet at that time" - Which scripture? There are well over a hundred mainstream religions in the world. They all have their scriptures. They all offer the same (lack of) proof that their religion is the true one, their god the only one etc. Without self referencing (i.e. "because my god/holy book says"...) what makes your particular scriptures the truth and the others not?
Uh huh.
Since we're talking about Jesus, it's pretty safe to assume that the Scriptures referenced would be the Bible, as opposed to Mithras, Zoroaster, Islam, Buddhims, Hinduism or Raliens.The question was "what makes your particular scriptures the truth and the others not?"
The question was, "Which scripture?" That was the one you asked and the one I answered.
What makes "my" particular Scripture truth is that it was given by God. The proof is the number of prophecies that were fulfilled.When you write, "The proof is the number of prophecies that were fulfilled," presumably you are writing about non-trivial, non-self-fulfilling prophecies that exist in sufficient number to be persuasive.
A few examples, please.Which of the Bible's prophecies were self-fulfilling?
Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple.That is one example, both trivial and arguably self-fulfilling.
I'm looking for an example like this one:
"Ten years from now, a blind albino nun, born in Miami but raised in Kraków, will become President of the United States in a landslide election."
Such a prophecy would meet meets the test of specificity, meaning that it isn't just a general "it will rain" or "there shall be famines, and pestilences."
It meets the test of completeness, meaning that it describes things that if they were all true together would be unlikely coincidence.
It meets the test of remarkableness, meaning that it describes an event that, if it occurred, would be incontestably remarkable.
It isn't self-fulfilling. Predicting this isn't going to make it true. No amount of foresight or collusion could make this happen.I'll get back to you on the rest, but please argue the self-fulfillment of Jesus' prophesying the destruction of the Temple.
I've written an entire hub on self-fulfilling prophecy, but I won't link it here as I don't won't to perceived as promoting myself.
I'll quote Wikipedia instead:
"[A self-fulfilling prophecy is a] . . . strongly held belief, or a delusion, declared as truth when it is actually false [which] may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false belief."
Anyway, note that I said "arguably" self-fulfilling. I included that qualification not because I necessarily think that the prophecy was self-fulfilling, but only because it could be reasonably argued that it was. However, self-fulfilling or not, the prophecy is still inadequate as proof of anything.Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
I've been on HubPages for over two years, and I've never been censored.
Deleted
I've been denied access to the forums for a few days. I have no idea why. I would think they would let us know so we wouldn't make the same mistake twice. But so what?
Maybe it's not done by humans but a bot? I would not have thought any of your posts were against the rules? But then I don't know the rules.
You got booted for being unable to behave in a civil manner.
Deleted
I don't know; how uncivil were you, and how frequently?
Deleted
Deleted
His opinion is that you should say who you were.
Deleted
You posted personal insults and implied we should do as you say because you are a rich celebrity.
That is why you were banned. It's kind of the opposite of free speech to say your speech is more important than poor normal people.You'd need to go back a few personas. He was originally mischieviousme.
Deleted
Yeah, it was.
And you don't get to tell people how to run their website.
Free speech only works in theory. Free speech and turn into hate speech. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
I've never known anyone who was booted, at least not that I noticed.
Remember the guy who posted scripture in a multitude of colour? He was sent packing. I didn't miss all that scrolling.
How do you find out who's been banned? The ones I know about I only get second-hand information, and I've seen some things in the forums that seem like they should be banned but aren't.
For a while it seemed like there was some kind of "ban war" going on, where people were constantly looking for reasons to report each other.It kind of reminds me of people in Germany during the Nazi regime when they were encouraged to rat out on people who didn't support the regime. People went a step further and reported on a neighbour if they offended them for the littlest of things.
The prophecy stands as an example of fortelling the future in the Bible that didn't require Jesus to fulfill it. In fact it's a whole lot more complicated than that, but it's not one that was put forth in the Old Testament and then fulfilled in Jesus' life. I picked it because I remembered it easily (the statue prophecies in Daniel could have served as well.)
I still struggle with how the destruction of the Temple is a self-fulfilling prophecy (I can't make it fit the definition you gave) but that's really neither here nor there at this point.
There are some very weak arguments in the theological debate, none of which have any merrit. The weakest one yet; "I know it's true because I can feel it in my heart".
LOL -
As opposed to what you all say?
Just curious.
If you have proof, you don't need belief.
If you need to believe, you have no proof.
So Claire's question is totally irrelevant. God cannot be proven. The exact life and times and activities of that man called Jesus cannot be proven. So in each case you have belief or you don't have belief. It stops there.
"I AM." Alive now. Breathing now. Typing on a computer now. Smiling now - why? because of all the heated debate that will arise out of these few lines I have written.
Have a good day NOW, christians.The proof I'm talking about is God appearing to us through Jesus and us having a realization because of Him.
I have to agree that God can not be proven, and that if God can not be proven then people of their free will should choose their own path spiritually.
I made the choice to seek God out, but found that God is not in Christianity or Jesus - I find both to be suspect and I refuse to trust my soul to such institutions.
Spirituality is individual.God can be proven to the individual not to others. That is their choice whether to seek or not. How did you find out that God is not in Christianity?
No offense, but as I have mentioned before I did not find room for enlightenment or as you would say 'divine knowledge'. I did not find in my heart the desire to worship Christ, nor did I feel comfortable pretending to be Christian just to fit in. The short time I tried out Christianity I've found that I had become a liar not only to Christians, but to myself and God, (but I do not believe you can hide from God, so what's the point!) I decided if I'm to truly find God I must do it truthfully and find it from within myself.
I think it is time for me to move along now, I will no longer grace this forum.
Have a blessed life.
Eugene HardyEugene, what is it about Christ that doesn't appeal to you?
How did you feel that you felt compelled to lie as a Christian? Who is your God? Please answer these questions which you repeatedly evade: Why does one achieve godhood and what attributes would he/she have?
Spirituality may be individual but God is very real. How did you find that God is "not in Christianity or Jesus?"
It's been obvious for a very long time, Claire, that you are locked into the "Jesus Trait." You cannot expand your mind beyond that narrow construct of your own religion.
Eugene and others have tried to let you see infinite potential in your relationship with "god." I have also pointed to the "god within," which I do understand was the real message of that human being called Jesus.
When you direct the whole of your thinking into your own personal vision of that "Jesus," and place you hopes and aspirations onto "his" shoulders, or anyone outside of your "self," then you are not facing your own inner knowledge and strength. More than this, to claim such a relationship with your "Personal Saviour" is a very selfish motivation. It attempts to put yourself into a "better than others" position. "I am saved by Jesus, you are not."
In your person resides the center of your universe. In some ways like the center of a wheel, the point of the wheel which does not move, you can go into your self, your center, to find peace, awareness, still-ness, one-ness with everything and every person around you. When you then know how you relate to the world, you will love it. You will love being one with it, not separated.
"One can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." If and when you desire to look along the lines which I have expressed here, then you will do so. Until then, you will continue to wear blinkers. (These are the leather attachments you put on a horse's bridle, so it can't see more than what is directly in front of it.)- Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh. I do not know how many times I have to explain the context of "god within". Why would I gloat about being saved and other's not? It takes humility to realize one is nothing by themselves and recognizes the need for a saviour. Someone with an ego is someone who thinks there is a god within.
Why do you think I don't have peace? I do not put my faith in this world because Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world", so you can keep your oneness in the world, thank you.How pathetic that you should imagine a "god" that has no ears, because that "god" has no physical body, can "hear" your prayers.
Your responses to me and others who simply ask you to think outside of your current understandings are totally unintelligent and lack that "humility" which you speak of in that you refuse to entertain any other possible way of thinking.
Huh?
Why should I entertain other outlooks when I have the right one and when I can see just who wants me to believe it? Satan uses unsuspecting people to try and coax me out of my Christianity and into New Age. I'm not saying you are evil, Peter was used as a tool, too, but I know where your comment came from.
I don't know that there is a definition of proof, Puella. Maybe, thinking aloud, the answer lies in that word definition..... defining.
We can only define if something has the attributes which can be defined. In term of our physical, finite (same base again) lives on Planet Earth, I can be aware of something and my relationshipt to that something when I can see it; hear it; feel it; smelll it; taste it.
Some will speak of a "knowing" without the benefit of our physical senses. This might be a "sixth" sense, but I suspect it is simply an enhancement of sound or touch or smell.
One can use mathematics to "prove" something, i.e., the mathematical workings can be repeated ad infinitum by anyone else and the result turns out the same. That is regarded as truth.
The ability to convince one or a number of people of a particular point of view is considered by some to be proof. But is it? The problem with this is that if you change your point of view, then what one perceives changes.
- jomineposted 12 years ago
0The theist
The theist is a man, woman or, in rare cases, mole person, who have discovered the secret to life, the universe and everything.
They use this knowledge to get promotions at work, heal themselves, and generally be dicks to everyone else.
It is a known truth that the spirits of theists will enter paradise when they die. There are many different kinds of theists who all hate each other, so presumably paradise has some form of segregation system enforced by Ghost Busters.
Powers
The theists have a host of special powers which allow them to rise above the status of mere mortal. Some of these include:
Ear flaps
Little is known about the anatomical features of the theist. However, it has been scientifically proven that all true theists have tiny ear flaps that cover the ear drum and protect them from the negative comments of others.
Sometimes these flaps develop later in life, often at times of crisis or depression, but most theist are born with them.
When activated, the theists become instantly impervious to logic, rebounding even the most persuasive rational argument with ease.
Guiding voices
When confronted with problems, theists often hear the voice of an omnipotent being/s telling them what to do and "showing them the way".
In other circles these people are called shamans, mediums or BAT-SHIT CRAZY, but not theists. This is based on the principle that millions of people doing the same thing cannot possibly be wrong.
Surprisingly, this is also the reason the AIDS virus has become so popular in certain countries.
Miracles
Possibly the most powerful ability of all, miracles allow theists to get anything, anywhere, any time they want.
Examples of miracles:
The virgin mary statue crying real tears was witnessed by millions from around the world. The statue is now being put to good use supplying third world countries with desperately needed water.
A non-believer spontaneously combusting after mocking a priest
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Theist - jomineposted 12 years ago0
The surest way to tell that Allah is imaginary is that his followers say that he has not "begotten". In other words he doesn't have children. This is preposterous. How could Allah be the real God if Jesus is not his son? How could he deserve worship if he did not sacrifice his son for our sins? The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the Son of God. Ergo, if this Allah character doesn't have children, then he isn't God. It's pure logic, really.
By the way, did Jesus pass on his DNA ?
Yeah, we do.
The Bible is reliable, but even if it were "just a bunch of books by some guys," the royal house of Jesus would not have failed to rear its head and try to claim the throne. That's simply the way history and humans work. And if Dan Brown did magically work out for the early church to slaughter anybody who might have been the son of Jesus, others would have claimed it anyway.How could the bible possible be reliable? You have four different version of the same events. Somebodies at one time decided which text to include. Who gave them the right to decide for us which text to read. The bible is only reliable because you want it to be, look at it critically and you will see it for what it is.
Actually, the "four different versions" works in favor of the reliability argument. I've said before that having multiple witnesses actually adds credibility, differences mean that actual people actually saw things. There are no serious differences between the Gospels.
You deserve a better explanation, but I don't have the time right now. Remind me later.You know as well as I that the writers of the gospels were not direct witnesses.
I know that Luke was not a direct witness.
The other three, I know no such thing.The Authors of the Gospels is unknown...But based on when they were written...chances are, they were not eyewitnesses...or if they were, they were working from 40-50 years ago memories...
There are very few biblical scholars who believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or were even necessarily contemporary. In fact, many believe that some of Paul's writings were actually written first.
Pauls writings were written first, based on everything we can prove on the dating of the texts.
And I agree with your comments..
