Category: Let's talk
USUALLY, I'd kick topics off with personal accounts of either MY involvement, or ANYONE ELSE'S, but INSTEAD, I'M gonna let YOU start, by answering these VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS that I'm gonna ask you: IF, AT ALL, how do YOU "ETHICALLY FUNCTION" in WHATEVER ENVIRONMENT? DEPENDING on whatever the ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, and ANY GIVEN SITUATION, would you ALWAYS follow EVERY RULE IN THE BOOK at ALL TIMES, EVERY TIME, with ABSOLUTELY NO COMPROMISE, WHATSOEVER, or would you CAREFULLY and SKILLFULLY find GUARANTEED-SUCCESSFUL WAYS to "GET OVER" and STILL MAINTAIN your "TOTALLY UNBLEMISHED RECORD?"
Improper question, lack context and is made baseless and pointless by lack of definition. Gain intelligence and try again.
WELL, WELL, WELL! The "IGNORE" button CERTAINLY couldn't keep YOU away! Prooves EXACTLY MY POINT from MY LAST TOPIC! WHAT UP, CHUMP! HOW'S your SELF-OVER-INFLATED IQ managing you THIS time? How many contributions will you add before claiming your SWORN "NON-INVOLVEMENT" with this topic?
JUST FOR THE RECORD: I meant the "IGNORE" button on YOUR end.
Ehem ehem, I think that I have a brilliant idea, that can only make the most absolutely completeness of sense, so if you will excuse me and step aside from the podium just for the next um-thousand words that will be consisely put I would like to give you the best answer's that is not of voter's choice, but it is of my choice so who cares anyway. OOPS SORRY, I FORGOT TO CAPITALIZE THAT FIRST SENTENCE, I SERIOUSLY MEAN THAT I AM SORRY. BUT ANYWAY, I THINK, BY THE NATURE OF THAT EINSTEIN LEVEL QUESTION, THAT THERE IS NOT, IN FACT, BY ANY MEANS, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, ONE SOUND ANSWER THAT WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT AN ANSWER THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER. THERE ARE SO MANY OPEN-ENDED POSSIBILITIES THAT BRANCH OFF IN VARIOUS, SINGLE, PARALLEL AND PERPINDICULAR DIRECTIONS LIKE A TREE ON STEROIDS THAT CAN'T MAKE UP ITS MIND WHERE IT WANTS THE BRANCHES TO "GROW". MY FRIEND, VAGUE QUESTIONS IN NATURE DESERVE VAGUE ANSWERS IN NATURE, AND SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, THAT IS THE END-ALL, BE-ALL CONCLUSION THAT WILL NOT DO WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO, WHICH IS PUT THIS TOPIC TO BEDDY BY, BUT IN A SENSE IT ACTUALLY WILL DO WHAT I EXPECT IT TO DO AND THAT IS FOR YOU TO COMPILE ANOTHER RIDICULOUS STATEMENT THAT WE MUST DISSECT, BUT BRING ITON MAN, BRING IT ON!
What the fuck, that's all I got to say. Well have lots more but you don't want to hear it lol!
Oh my fucking god! Lmfao Ryan! I"ve got nothing to add.. Well, thank you for the laugh ryan. I don't understand the question, so I can't answer, sorry.
If I may be so esoterically effervescently molecular as to state my opinion, I would say that ethics is categorically tabulated by autocratic cross-parallel relationalisms.
Ok--JUST for the sake of SIMPLICITY, I'll ask the question in THIS form: as far as ETHICS, in whatever environmental setting, do you follow ALL RULES by the BOOK, or do you CONVENIENTLY "GET OVER," TOTALLY UNSCATHED?
Now, if that AIN'T SIMPLE ENOUGH ...
Okay, you all made me laugh, but I actually understand what is being asked.
If the rules were laws, I'd have no choice but to follow them provided it wasn't something I could get away with not following.
Now if the rules were just rules set by society, I make cecisions all the time, so cater my actions to environmental conditions all the time.
I have personal ethics, and only law can make me sway from them.
Wayne, you are giving this guy WAY too much credit by taking seriously his insane multi-syllabic drivel that would make sense if he chose to speak concisely instead of in overly-fluffy and pathetic sentences that last for an eternity.
Confidential to Ryan and Wayne:
Please DO NOT feed the Troll.
Thank you very much!
I'll just say, I laughed so hard I couldn't type for 5 minutes. Smile.
WELL, ONE ETHICS-CHALLENGING EXAMPLE is that I ALWAYS CONTINUE to RELENTLESSLY "TROLL ON and ON, DESPITE WHOEVER/WHATEVER/WHENEVER/WHEREVER, TOTALLY AGAINST any/all IN-HOUSE RULES (so to speak), while ONLY FAITHFULLY ABIDING, to the VERY LETTER, by ALL of the "ZONE-BBS" SYSTEM RULES, ONLY, COMPLETELY UNSCATHED, and I ALWAYS get away with THAT, of course!
Why is the guy with out a molecule of ethics asking us all about ethics? Maybe he's finally learned he's too bat shit crazy to function in society, but wants to leave his mental institution anyway.for that reason, he needs all our help to learn how to fake being a normal person.
i say lets keep him locked up.
Lol just omg.
lol this thread
hahahaha lol! OMFG! "D this gets funnier!
RESPONSE to POST 15: ACTUALLY, I DO function IN, without functioning AS society, which ONLY makes me EQUAL WITH you, but NEVER the SAME AS you. THAT'S what'll ALWAYS intimmidate you, which that's only YOUR problem to live with, NOT MINE.
I have to say the funniest part of this entire crockery is that he thinks he is getting us angry, that he is totally unable to be stopped from trolling us poor helpless victims that don't have a ray of hope of escaping from the wrath of assinization. I don't know if that's a word, but heh I guess we can use it for all intents and purposes since that is a common trend anyway.
And he wonders why he can't get a woman to date him let alone so-called "lovenap" him (?! *barf*) or be his Sugar Mama.
Who'd want to be with a self proclaimed sponge who is dictionally challenged and can't string together a coherent sentence to save his so-called life?
YOU IDIOTS THRIVE on the VERY "FANTASY," "DILLUSION," or WHATEVER form of MANIA, that YOUR REACTION, IN GENERAL, is what I would STOOP SO LOW ENOUGH to DEPEND ON being my ONLY SOURCE of "TROLLING ENERGY," if there was ever any such, when the WHOLE REALITY is: YOU are the ones that are the "DEPENDENTS," and of COURSE it wouldn't be my "TROLLING" that you depend on; if you NEVER AGAIN RESPOND to ANY of my board-topics, are you THAT STUPID to BELIEVE THAT'S supposed to end my TROLLING, or that I'll just keep posting to a board that ABSOLUTELY NOONE ELSE is posting to? The VERY FACT that I will ALWAYS have an ACTIVE ACCOUNT here, FOR LIFE, is what's the CORE of my "TROLLING," whether I create a board-topic or NOT! YOUR dilemma is that YOU'RE so INFESTED with YOURSELVES that it's NO WONDER that you're THAT IDIOTICLY CLEVER ENOUGH to ACTUALLY have the capability to IMPROVIZE THAT YARN-SPIN (LOL)!
*sighs* if only we cared whether or not you were here.
I think we just post, because 1. you're an idiot. 2. you usually post topics that devolve in to train wrecks, and 3. We say horrible but true things about you, and you just can't help but to respond. You're like a lab rat. We want to see what bullshit you'll come up with next. Considering you're not capable of doing anything meaningful with your account on here.
No no no, he's not a lab rat. He is homo trollus. No disrespect to biologists for my bastardization of Latin and pseudo-scientific classification. But homo trollus fits him, just as much as homo stpasticus fits many teenagers.
It makes me very happy that the blind are calling out his ludicrous use of ALL CAPS MODE and it's not just me as the token sightie. The additional bullshit just helps the cause.
Ah no. Anyone with Braille will see it. That and you know, Westcoastcdngrl is also sighted, as are a few others on here. You all need to band together now, and create a sighted lobby on this site.
Lol good point. I'm not super familiar with braille, but doesn't it have a capital character? I'm 99% certain that would get incredibly annoying incredibly fast.
Also, we should, but we're not motivated enough. Too busy looking at nefarious objects. *stares intently at videos of nefarious objects being manipulated nefariously* You guys I would assume are a little harder to distract in that respect. Did I mention I like nefarious objects?
There is a dot 6 in front of a capital Braille letter. If everything came up capitalized, for those who use braille displays there are two dot 6's in a rwo in front of every capitalized word. For those of us who use screen readers, or at least Jaws we wouldn't notice it unless we read the post letter by letter. The capital letters are read or said with a higher pitch. I didn't know he capitalized a lot of his posts until someone pointed it out. It has been fun and a great challenge figuring that writing style out, but I won't put any crap like that on a job resumme. Lol
MY RESUME
by ILOVEjesus99xOneMillionSAVIOR
Skills:
I am EXTREMELY TALENTED at using the CAPS LOCK KEY at ALMOST ALL TIMES because IT MAKES ME INCREDIBLY PROFOUND AND helps me ELABORATE sentences even THOUGH IT IS INCREDIBLY unnecessary
I am ALSO INCREDIBLY TALENTED at being a JERKASS so THERE IS THAT
Work HISTORY:
I WORKED REALLY GOOD at WRITING randomly IN ALL CAPS AT SOME POINT but IT WAS INEXPLICIBLY confusing since I WOULD elaborate WORDS THAT seemed fairly OUT OF PLACE; NEEDLESS TO SAY COUPLED with long RUNON SENTENCES, and SEEMINGLY RANDOM GRAMMAR, I failed TO SUSTAIN THE JOB FOR more than 20 weeks HOWEVER IT WAS BECAUSE my BOSS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME.
Hobbies:
WRITING IN ALL CAPS
I'd like to know your awards, and I need three references! Lol I love it! :)
MY awards were CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOLNESS, and I also like my RUN ON SENTENCES AWARD AS well because THEY ARE AMAZING
And the ONLY THREE REFERENCES i need are THE FATHER, THE SON AND the HOLY GHOST because I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS LOVES YOU, unless YOU'RE not STRAIGHT then JESUS hates you. Because the BIBLE TOLD ME SO.
Gay, rather.
with voiceover, its clear when someone is abusing the caps key. words get read so differently.
SO, as I'M SUPPOSED to be this IDIOT/LAB-RAT/WHATEVER, YOU INTENTIONALLY REQUEST this CONSTANT WAKE-UP CALL, which I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with "BITCH-KICKIN'" your "INTELLIGENTLY STUPID" ASSES with:
INSTANT FLASHBACK: "As I've ALWAYS VARIFIED in MOST, if not ALL of my BOARD-TOPICS--ONE THING that NEVER FAILS (nor EVER WILL) is the VERY FACT that the VERY SAME PEOPLE of ABSOLUTELY NO QUALITY of ANY WORTH, WHATSOEVER, are ALWAYS the VERY ONES that NEVER RUN OUT of ANY of THEIR TIME that they just LOVE to CLAIM that THEY'RE WASTING, because RATHER than clicking the "IGNORE" link, which they're ABSOLUTELY PETRIFIED of DOING, they would rather CONTINUE to come to where I am, MAINLY, if not SOLELY, to put up with (ENJOYINGLY, don't forget) MY ABUSE, and as I've ALSO always said that it's ALWAYS the "SUPER-INTELLECTS" that are ALWAYS the VERY ONES that are HIT the HARDEST, COMPLAIN the LOUDEST, and without EVER MISSING a BEAT, are ALWAYS FIRST IN LINE within HOURS or LESS of ANY TIME-WINDOW of ANY of my topics that are NEWLY POSTED, WHICH REMINDS ME: one such idiot DEFINITELY hit the VERY NAIL-HEAD with THIS post: "Why do you guys think I've ben (PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION) ""ignoring" the OP since the beginning of this thread? He says nothing, thinks nothing, types nothing, does nothing and is nothing important or worth reading, or even worth pissing on. Why are you guys responding to him when its impossible to tell what he's saying because he's never saying anything?" I MULTI-MEGA-SUPERSIZE-DARE ANY OF YOU to ACTUALLY COUNT within THIS ENTIRE THREAD, ALONE, and I SOLIDLY GUARANTEE that you'll see SilverLightning's name ONLY ONCE, and ONLY IF you can ACTUALLY PROOVE that I'm ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, MY SOLID OATH to ALL OF YOU is MY IMMEDIATE, VOLUNTARY REMOVAL from THIS SITE, from "FACEBOOK," from ANY/ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL SOCIAL COMMUNITIES, PHONE/SIBERWORLDWIDE, NEVER to be HEARD FROM AGAIN--and THIS TASK MUST BE PERFORMED by NO LATER than MIDNIGHT (US EASTERN TIME) TONIGHT, with ALL UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE of YOUR HAVING SCANNED ALL FOUR-PLUS PAGES of ANY SUCH FINDING POSTED RIGHT HERE." I just wanna touch on ONE SPECIFIC AREA of that quoted "POST-BLAST": I'm CERTAINLY not EVER REQUESTING for you to click the "IGNORE" button, JUST BECAUSE I would MENTION the OBVIOUS FACT that you CAN, EXPLAINING, of course, the REAL TRUTH, REGARDLESS of YOUR LAME-ASS EXCUSES as to why you DON'T, and to HILARIOUSLY MAKE MATTERS HORRENDOUSLY WORSE for YOURSELVES, I'M supposed to be, according to YOUR ALWAYS-EVER-ON-TIME-DILLUSION, the VERY UNFORTUNATE, upon whom you've THOROUGHLY CONVINCED YOURSELVES of ALWAYS HAVING CAPITALIZED, and to bring it ALL to a COMPLETE HEAD, the VERY FACT that I ACTUALLY AID and ABET your DILLUSIONED ASSES, VERY MUCH--in FACT, TOTALLY to MY ADVANTAGE, ALL the WAY, so's to help promote your "NEVER-OVER-RATED-ENOUGH" INTELLIGENCE, COMPLETELY DEFINES JUST HOW "INTELLIGENTLY INVENSIBLE" YOU ACTUALLY CLAIM that you ARE. TRY AS I CERTAINLY KNOW that you ALWAYS WILL, you'll NEVER STOP INFLATING your OVER-MAXED EGOS, as I'll ALWAYS CONTINUE to CONTRIBUTE to them, as WELL, ONLY BECAUSE I want you to ALWAYS BELIEVE that there'll NEVER come that VERY FATEFUL DAY that that BALLOON will FINALLY EXPLODE, with YOU, right along with it, that ONLY ALWAYS HAPPENS to THOSE, SUPPOSEDLY BENEATH you, who are of LESSER, or even NO INTELLIGENCE, AT ALL.
All I got from that drivel was lame ass. Yes, indeed, my ass is lame. That is why my legs do the walkin' instead, you see.
People of no quality of any worth? What the fuck? Really? hahahahaha lmfao! I"m sorry but it's funny how you think that, but you must truly know what quality is, and you manifest it with your well structured posts. I'm not petrified of hitting the ignore button, but it's my choice to continue responding, as I find some humor, very little in your useless ramblings. So it's not only about your enjoyment to troll, it's entertaining for me, at least. Thank you! and honestly if you do leave the ciber world today, tomorrow or never it wouldn't be such a big loss. Cheep, ahem, I mean, quality entertainment doesn't last forever. So gotta enjoy it while I've got it. Sincerely, The idiotic Dolce of low quality :)
Why would we hit the ignore button on something that is a free form of entertainment? You are trying oh so really really hard to whittle your way around everything that has been said, even turning in the non-sense making direction that it is pathetic, yet at the same time highly amusing. It's awefully similar to a worm who tries to burrow himself deeper in the bottom of a bucket that is filled with dirt, yet he can't help but dig because that is what he knows how to do best. I guess you know best how to be a complete moronic psychopath, hmmm? Normally I don't judge in a negative way, but some people seriously do deserve to get bitch slapped. This is the closest that one can get to being smacked around. Regardless of whether you like it or not I could care less. So keep on posting your retarded topics, posts, etc. Ps: you shouldn't steal other people's lines, SUPER MEGA-PROFESSIONAL is my line, my friend. You could have asked me first
Abusing the caps lock button doesn't make your point more valid, just much more painful to read, regardless of whether or not we're using squishy things called "eyes".
I can't explain why everyone watches or contributes to your topics, but I think I can explain why a majority do.
Consider this.
Have you ever driven down the highway, only to look out the window, and see a huge pileup/accident? like 10, 20 cars crushed like tin cans in the opposite lanes? Were you curious? Did you want to watch the drama unfold? get a look at the wreckage, watch the police and EMS try to save the day, all in those few seconds or minutes you had to look on, before you've got to keep on driving/riding along while someone else drives? I'm sure you have. Or, you've watched some other seriously bad event take place, with your own eyes, or thanks to description.
Its in human nature to do these things.
As relates to the zone, and the boards you start. you're the bad driver that has a habit of causing the 20 car pileups. You get your license to return here again, and most of the time you post, people know you'll produce cheep, if logically flawed distraction. Watching you post delusional rubbish is a lot like watching reality tv about a man that lives in a mental asylum. Apart from the fact that I'm not paying for this on cable, and I honestly don't know how sane/insane you are, or why you live in some kind of facility.
I'm honestly curious about both questions, if only from a scientific perspective. Many of us are.
We're like the armchair detectives watching true crime TV from the comfort of our homes wondering what happened to this guy, what went wrong, what motivates him to act this way?
So, in short, you're an accident waiting to happen, and watching things like that unfold is human nature. As is wondering about them.
WHAT-EVER! REGARDLESS of your CONSTANT "DRIBBLE," as YOU call it, I'm gonna clear up something: it's NEVER, AT ALL, INTELLIGENCE that's one's downfall; INTELLIGENCE is a GIFT from GOD, and HE, ALONE--NOT from any UNIVERSITY, or ANY OTHER FORM of SCHOOLING, WHATSOEVER--and YES, it's VERY USEFUL in WHATEVER CAPACITY, but this VERY SAME GIFT can ALSO be ABUSED, just as ANY of the OTHER GOD-GIVEN GIFTS, and the VERY RUIN that CAUSES such DOESN'T come from GOD, but OURSELVES--PRIDE. Now, if I had MORE TIME, which LATER ON, I will, I'll give FULL EXPLANATION, not that YOU'RE (no-qualities, who usually post) EVER EXPECTED to BENEFIT from it, but of course, you JUST MIGHT, in addition to those who DON'T post, EVER, that ONLY READ this topic, who ARE of ANY QUALITY, that AUTOMATICLY WILL benefit.
Stormwing that was literally the most accurate description of this thread ever, and I love you for it. I needed a chuckle.
JUST ONE QUICK THING, and MORE LATER: PRIDE is the VERY POISON that tastes SO GOOD!
Have you built up an immunity to the poison?
hahahahahaha James and Kate!
This idea that all forms of pride are wrong, is one reason I can't really accept the tenants of at least fundamentalist Christianity. Arrogance is certainly wrong, yes. But is it wrong to be proud of your accomplishments? Is it wrong to be proud of winning at something? Is it wrong to be proud of family members?
This has always sounded like communist drivel to me: from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs, nobody gets acknowledged and nobody gets to take credit for anything.
Heavy load alert: it's a terrible way to live. And usually instead of witch hunts, people go on pride hunts to see who is being the most prideful, e.g. whose actually happy about something they did, and hasn't said all the required right words before expressing that happiness.
If you want to know how well something like that actually works in the long run, just look at the Soviet Union. Sure they were not Christian, but they deployed this very concept: all in the interest of the State, just exchange state for deity, same heavy load, same witch hunts, and same problems.
I know someone who got out of Cuba who said people over there are constantly looking to see if someone is trying to take too much credit for stuff or trying to take too much stuff. He asked if I understood, I said look around at the Fundamentalist churches in this country, only they replace state with deity / deity's representatives.
Again, heavy load alert.
OP has just violated Matthew 7:12
Oh, and he also runs afoul of Matthew 7:1-3
Clearly, he needs to turn off the caps lock, step away from the Internet and get himself a cat.
If he does, it will probably come from the Pets Or Food company.
lets take god out of this, because you can't conclusively prove he exists, and I can't conclusively prove he doesn't, although I can make several rational arguments.
Now that we remove god from the equation, you can't really justify your actions, can you?
WELL, to ACTUALLY THINK that GOD can be "REMOVED" from ANY equation, is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of SELF-PRIDE; ALL of such IS ARROGANCE, at its ABSOLUTE "BEST WORST," and being that I'm AGAIN pressed for time, I'll have to reserve FURTHER DETAIL for LATER, but BEFORE I LOG OFF, ALL SELF-PRIDE which IS the "POISONOUS PLEASURE," DOES MANIFEST ITSELF in the very DOWNFALL of the ENTIRE WORLD SYSTEM.
Been drinking WAAAAAY too much Kool-Aid, dude...
I wonder what Matthew's stance on CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOLNESS is.
Perhaps Terrance's need for CAPS LOCK abuse is to enable him to get a grip on reality.... pity it's not worked thus far.
Honestly, you display more pride than I ever have. You're so self serving and self aggrandizing, that their is no comparison between you and I.
You write about the word of god, in such a way you make it clear that not only are you judging, which is not your place according to the word, but that you're using gods word to make yourself appear superior. Again, not OK.
Actually, C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape Letters, said once that God would rather a man think himself a good poet, and be done with it, than to have a man constantly worrying about how bad he is, or wanting other people to know he didn't think he was very good.
I'm not quoting it right. Anyway this is different from the pride hunts so common to current Christian fundamentalists.
OK--tell me something: WHAT'S PRIDEFUL/SELF-SERVING about the VERY REMINDER that I've given COUNTLESS TIMES BEFORE of: "SELF-INFLATED INTELLIGENCE?" To HOPEFULLY break ALL OF THIS down, I wanna make PERFECTLY CLEAR that it's NEVER INTELLIGENCE that's the problem, because THAT, as do ANY/ALL OTHER GIFTS, come from the ONE and ONLY CREATOR of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, HIMSELF. What IS the problem is when SUCH GIFT is ABUSED; INTELLIGENCE is CERTAINLY NO STRANGER to THAT. How is it abused? When the GIFT replaces the GIVER of the GIFT, by allowing SELF to "reign on the throne." ANY TIME that ANY of us, which CERTAINLY DOES INCLUDE MYSELF, who's NO MORE ABOVE SUCH FAULT than YOU, YOURSELF, are, ACTUALLY DARES to THINK that WE'RE the ones that DESERVE RECOGNITION--FULL RECOGNITION, that is, BECAUSE we're SO INTELLIGENT, with the (so-called) HIGHEST IQ SCORE, ONLY BECAUSE of whatever SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY, JOB-POSITION, ETC., with which, GOD, HIMSELF, supposedly had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to DO, WHATSOEVER, with ANY of the above, we've OFFICIALLY ACHIEVED the PERFECT ACCOMPLISHMENT of being SUCCESSFULLY DECEIVED, and DELIBERATE FAILURE to even recognize THAT, further establishes us as EDUCATED FOOLS.--TO BE CONTINUED
I will not even attempt to appeal to the sensibilities of the OP, but will pull a Cody and aim at the fence sitters on this one:
There is no such thing as self-inflated intelligence. Intelligence simply exists. Knowledge is simply attainable. And, I have no idea of my own IQ score, though I'm most probably about average. I know a few people with very high scores and they are several cuts above yours truly in some pretty significant ways.
But being rationally objective is neither delusional, as the OP would say, nor is it selfish or conceited. Instead of going on peevish pride hunts, internally or externally, why not do what one can to increase his or her own noble character in all things practical?
Isn't it better to accomplish something for humankind, and as a consequence have a little pride in your efforts, than to mealy-mouth it around claiming you had no part in what you did, and basically accomplish nothing of significance?
To my thinking, personal honor and, yes, some of you would call it personal pride, is to your character, as economic reward is to productivity in a capitalist society. People like the OP and other Christians who stamp on pride are like the Bolsheviks who stamped on capital reward.
In other words, no matter how much Christians claim they are exclusive capitalists, they are bald-faced scarlet-capped commies in the honor / character department.
Why does god have to get all the credit for our intelligence? I don't buy it, sorry. Just saying! ... anyhow, I like your last post Leo, makes a lot of sense. You are not humble when you claim to be humble or to not partake in anything you've accomplished or done. Lol!
I'm only speaking as a Western-raised male here.
But I find something elevating in the idea of a noble stance and true honor. The bowed head, cowed attitude and subservient disposition that comes from the monotheistic religions of the East, notably Christianity, was always reminiscent of being the outcast / abused kid in my case. I'm more interested in the manly disposition with the head high and attentive to one's own personal honor, that comes from Western heritage.
I am not even remotely alpha, and I'm not talking about stepping over others. But this weak-kneed obsession with always enunciating how fallible and terrible we are, the constant need of cleansing, the constant connection with some past transgression of someone I don't even know? I know both the Christians and the white-guilters do this, and I want no part of either attitude.
In fact, I believe it makes my own personal apologies / admissions of wrongs more authentic. I mean, I never attribute a wrong I committed to some nature or flesh or something, I simply take responsibility for it and have done with it.
I have ben a jerk at times. But that doesn't mean all men are jerks, or that all people have the potential to be jerks and so are equally guilty.
The idea that all wrongs you commit are your responsibility, but any right you commit is to the credit of someone else, is wholly and entirely intellectually dishonest.
The way I accepted Christianity before was I was basically a nihilist, though we called ourselves realists, "people basically suck", which is technically Christian compatible.
But in giving up all nihilism I inadvertently parted ways with Christianity. I'm not a humanist either, humanist being nihilism in reverse (people are basically good).
We used to call humanists realists who had taken pep pills.
I guess I am a rational objectivist in whole. No enforced thought control, as one finds in many religions and some strains of feminism and most strains of communism. Individual responsibility for individual deeds, not individual responsibility for collective deeds.
Just a bit of where i'm coming from, I guess.
CONTINUING from my PREVIOUS POST, as well as RESPONDING, in PARTICULAR, to DOLCE'S question: What Does the Bible Say About Narcissistic Behavior?
PEOPLE WILL BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES
Narcissism is addressed in the Bible in Paul’s second pastoral epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:1-7) in the fall of A.D.67. Paul seems to be concerned about the character and behavior of leaders within the church, so he warns Timothy to beware of those who act out of a “self love attitude”. He says, “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away.” Here Paul names many of the attributes associated (in psychology) to-day with the narcissistic personality we are all becoming so familiar with.
The Science of Psychology and Narcissism as a scholarly study is relatively young, barely more than a century old in fact. However, the term “Narcissism” is not confined to psychology alone, it is also seen through the lens of other disciplines, such as sociology (i.e. Narcissistic Culture); Political Science (i.e. Citizenship and Moral Narcissism); Criminology (i.e The Narcissist and Threatened Egotism); Theological Anthropology (i.e. Theism and Narcissism); Theology (i.e Hedonism and Narcissism).
In Psychology, the term “Narcissism” was first introduced by Alfred Binet (Sexologist) in 1887, however, its usage today has grown more from the notions of Freud’s work in 1914. Mankind has been interested in all aspects of mental processes and behaviour over many millennium, as far back as two thousand years ago the Ancient Greeks explored the meaning of the mind through the myth of Narcissus.
Contrasting the Bible with Psychology:
Let us take a few moments to contrast and compare what St.Paul says to Timothy two thousand years ago with today’s psychological understanding of what narcissism is:-
St. Paul says: “For men will be lovers of themselves”
Psychology says: The narcissist form of self love is not a healthy one, as they are really full of self-hatred and self-loathing, which they must disown. Unable to love their True Self, they fall in love with a reflection of themselves (False Self). It is through this projected image that a narcissist is able to generate the much needed Narcissistic Supply that they crave for their very survival. When I speak of “Narcissistic supply” I am referring to whatever feeds the appetites of the narcissistic defenses, whether that currency is Primary or Secondary Supply.
St. Paul says: “Lovers of money”
Psychology says: The narcissist needs money to maintain the false image and keep them on the pedestal they put their selves on. Money is the enabler that allows them to surround themselves with symbols of wealth; the flashy car, the big house, the clothes etc. Wealth to the narcissist portrays both psychological and financial power, putting them on a pedestal of “greatness” where they can be worshiped by everybody, including themselves. They are addicted to adoration and attention, money buys that for them. Because the narcissist grew up feeling deprived of love, they are always seeking love substitutes, and money represents that love that they constantly seek. Money, and their attitudes to it, affects all of the narcissist’s relationships. For example, it is a useful commodity for cajoling and seducing people as a source of future narcissistic supply.
The narcissist use their open display of money in order to get social approval, this often adds to their sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement often leads them to feel that they are also entitled to other people’s money, they will use any means for extracting what money they can from others. Their grandiose fantasy leads them to believe that they have more money then they really have, and this often lends them to spend recklessly. Money is also useful when their frail ego takes a blow, when this happens they are likely to go on compulsive shopping sprees to comfort and calm themselves. Overstretched and in dept, they are always looking for ways of making more money, so they will hound people, or even commit financial crimes in order to get it.
St. Paul says: “Boasters”
Psychology says: Boasting is a key trait of narcissism. The narcissist boasts about everything, exaggerating their achievements, success, wealth, education, occupation, conquests, power etc, anything in fact that helps them to build a grandiose image. The narcissist suffers from jealousy and envy, anything another person has they want, so they set out to get it. They use their grandiose image as part of their art of seduction in order to attract others to them for their exploitation. However, once they extract what they want from this person they loose respect for them, they are then soon discarded in a terrible fashion, often ruining their reputation in the process. The truth is that narcissists have little or no self-esteem or self-worth of their own (no such ego functions), in fact their boasting implicitly implies a serious lack of self-worth. Boasting has many advantages for the narcissist; to start with, it acts as a defense mechanism against feeling inferior. In order to mask their underlying feelings of inferiority, not just to the world, but to their own self, the narcissist has to maintain their image of superiority, and boasting helps them do that. When you are in their favour, then you will have to be prepared to endure a pretty much one sided relationship, where they are the constant topic of conversation, with their “I”, “me”, “my” and “mine”. If you do manage to talk about yourself, you will soon see them become bored and impatient with the conversation, and somehow the conversation switches back to them, and once again they are in the limelight.
St. Paul says: “Proud”
Psychology says: The narcissists inflated pride convinces them that they are superior to everybody else. In such a place of pridefulness, the narcissist is overly sensitive to any form of actual or perceived criticism that could threaten their self-image and cause them shame. They will react harshly and haughtily to anybody who dares to threaten their false self and magical thinking; therefore threats will not be tolerated for an instant. As the narcissist is always right in their own mind, they will judge anybody in opposition to them immediately as being inferior to them, and therefore deserving of their rage and retribution for daring to attack or humiliation them.
Paul says: Blasphemers
Psychology says: Narcissists cannot handle being upstaged in any way; you must not be seen to be more powerful, more successful, more beautiful, more intelligent, in fact “more” anything. To do so renders you to becoming the narcissists arch enemy, an instant rival to be spoken of in an irreverent or impious manner. Narcissists are masters at using character assassination as a subtle railing tactic to undermine anybody who poses as a threat to their fragile self. Preoccupied with living in their fantasy of power and brilliance, their fragile ego is easily offended, and can often find offense where none is intended. Whether the threat is real or imagined, the aggressive, attacking and abusive narcissist will retaliate by setting out to expose and destroy any person who poses as a threat, and he will do it in any way possible; defame the person with lies and gossip without conscience, then happily by proxy, where they use others to become unwitting character assassins for them. Many narcissists operate through a “God Complex” that is so arrogant that they consider themselves as living Gods, and more than that, they are a god that
CONTINUING from my PREVIOUS POST, as well as RESPONDING, in PARTICULAR, to DOLCE'S question: What Does the Bible Say About Narcissistic Behavior?
PEOPLE WILL BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES
Narcissism is addressed in the Bible in Paul’s second pastoral epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:1-7) in the fall of A.D.67. Paul seems to be concerned about the character and behavior of leaders within the church, so he warns Timothy to beware of those who act out of a “self love attitude”. He says, “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away.” Here Paul names many of the attributes associated (in psychology) to-day with the narcissistic personality we are all becoming so familiar with.
The Science of Psychology and Narcissism as a scholarly study is relatively young, barely more than a century old in fact. However, the term “Narcissism” is not confined to psychology alone, it is also seen through the lens of other disciplines, such as sociology (i.e. Narcissistic Culture); Political Science (i.e. Citizenship and Moral Narcissism); Criminology (i.e The Narcissist and Threatened Egotism); Theological Anthropology (i.e. Theism and Narcissism); Theology (i.e Hedonism and Narcissism).
In Psychology, the term “Narcissism” was first introduced by Alfred Binet (Sexologist) in 1887, however, its usage today has grown more from the notions of Freud’s work in 1914. Mankind has been interested in all aspects of mental processes and behaviour over many millennium, as far back as two thousand years ago the Ancient Greeks explored the meaning of the mind through the myth of Narcissus.
Contrasting the Bible with Psychology:
Let us take a few moments to contrast and compare what St.Paul says to Timothy two thousand years ago with today’s psychological understanding of what narcissism is:-
St. Paul says: “For men will be lovers of themselves”
Psychology says: The narcissist form of self love is not a healthy one, as they are really full of self-hatred and self-loathing, which they must disown. Unable to love their True Self, they fall in love with a reflection of themselves (False Self). It is through this projected image that a narcissist is able to generate the much needed Narcissistic Supply that they crave for their very survival. When I speak of “Narcissistic supply” I am referring to whatever feeds the appetites of the narcissistic defenses, whether that currency is Primary or Secondary Supply.
St. Paul says: “Lovers of money”
Psychology says: The narcissist needs money to maintain the false image and keep them on the pedestal they put their selves on. Money is the enabler that allows them to surround themselves with symbols of wealth; the flashy car, the big house, the clothes etc. Wealth to the narcissist portrays both psychological and financial power, putting them on a pedestal of “greatness” where they can be worshiped by everybody, including themselves. They are addicted to adoration and attention, money buys that for them. Because the narcissist grew up feeling deprived of love, they are always seeking love substitutes, and money represents that love that they constantly seek. Money, and their attitudes to it, affects all of the narcissist’s relationships. For example, it is a useful commodity for cajoling and seducing people as a source of future narcissistic supply.
The narcissist use their open display of money in order to get social approval, this often adds to their sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement often leads them to feel that they are also entitled to other people’s money, they will use any means for extracting what money they can from others. Their grandiose fantasy leads them to believe that they have more money then they really have, and this often lends them to spend recklessly. Money is also useful when their frail ego takes a blow, when this happens they are likely to go on compulsive shopping sprees to comfort and calm themselves. Overstretched and in dept, they are always looking for ways of making more money, so they will hound people, or even commit financial crimes in order to get it.
St. Paul says: “Boasters”
Psychology says: Boasting is a key trait of narcissism. The narcissist boasts about everything, exaggerating their achievements, success, wealth, education, occupation, conquests, power etc, anything in fact that helps them to build a grandiose image. The narcissist suffers from jealousy and envy, anything another person has they want, so they set out to get it. They use their grandiose image as part of their art of seduction in order to attract others to them for their exploitation. However, once they extract what they want from this person they loose respect for them, they are then soon discarded in a terrible fashion, often ruining their reputation in the process. The truth is that narcissists have little or no self-esteem or self-worth of their own (no such ego functions), in fact their boasting implicitly implies a serious lack of self-worth. Boasting has many advantages for the narcissist; to start with, it acts as a defense mechanism against feeling inferior. In order to mask their underlying feelings of inferiority, not just to the world, but to their own self, the narcissist has to maintain their image of superiority, and boasting helps them do that. When you are in their favour, then you will have to be prepared to endure a pretty much one sided relationship, where they are the constant topic of conversation, with their “I”, “me”, “my” and “mine”. If you do manage to talk about yourself, you will soon see them become bored and impatient with the conversation, and somehow the conversation switches back to them, and once again they are in the limelight.
St. Paul says: “Proud”
Psychology says: The narcissists inflated pride convinces them that they are superior to everybody else. In such a place of pridefulness, the narcissist is overly sensitive to any form of actual or perceived criticism that could threaten their self-image and cause them shame. They will react harshly and haughtily to anybody who dares to threaten their false self and magical thinking; therefore threats will not be tolerated for an instant. As the narcissist is always right in their own mind, they will judge anybody in opposition to them immediately as being inferior to them, and therefore deserving of their rage and retribution for daring to attack or humiliation them.
Paul says: Blasphemers
Psychology says: Narcissists cannot handle being upstaged in any way; you must not be seen to be more powerful, more successful, more beautiful, more intelligent, in fact “more” anything. To do so renders you to becoming the narcissists arch enemy, an instant rival to be spoken of in an irreverent or impious manner. Narcissists are masters at using character assassination as a subtle railing tactic to undermine anybody who poses as a threat to their fragile self. Preoccupied with living in their fantasy of power and brilliance, their fragile ego is easily offended, and can often find offense where none is intended. Whether the threat is real or imagined, the aggressive, attacking and abusive narcissist will retaliate by setting out to expose and destroy any person who poses as a threat, and he will do it in any way possible; defame the person with lies and gossip without conscience, then happily by proxy, where they use others to become unwitting character assassins for them. Many narcissists operate through a “God Complex” that is so arrogant that they consider themselves as living Gods, and more than that, they are a god that
CONTINUING from my PREVIOUS POST, as well as RESPONDING, in PARTICULAR, to DOLCE'S question: What Does the Bible Say About Narcissistic Behavior?
PEOPLE WILL BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES
Narcissism is addressed in the Bible in Paul’s second pastoral epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:1-7) in the fall of A.D.67. Paul seems to be concerned about the character and behavior of leaders within the church, so he warns Timothy to beware of those who act out of a “self love attitude”. He says, “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away.” Here Paul names many of the attributes associated (in psychology) to-day with the narcissistic personality we are all becoming so familiar with.
The Science of Psychology and Narcissism as a scholarly study is relatively young, barely more than a century old in fact. However, the term “Narcissism” is not confined to psychology alone, it is also seen through the lens of other disciplines, such as sociology (i.e. Narcissistic Culture); Political Science (i.e. Citizenship and Moral Narcissism); Criminology (i.e The Narcissist and Threatened Egotism); Theological Anthropology (i.e. Theism and Narcissism); Theology (i.e Hedonism and Narcissism).
In Psychology, the term “Narcissism” was first introduced by Alfred Binet (Sexologist) in 1887, however, its usage today has grown more from the notions of Freud’s work in 1914. Mankind has been interested in all aspects of mental processes and behaviour over many millennium, as far back as two thousand years ago the Ancient Greeks explored the meaning of the mind through the myth of Narcissus.
Contrasting the Bible with Psychology:
Let us take a few moments to contrast and compare what St.Paul says to Timothy two thousand years ago with today’s psychological understanding of what narcissism is:-
St. Paul says: “For men will be lovers of themselves”
Psychology says: The narcissist form of self love is not a healthy one, as they are really full of self-hatred and self-loathing, which they must disown. Unable to love their True Self, they fall in love with a reflection of themselves (False Self). It is through this projected image that a narcissist is able to generate the much needed Narcissistic Supply that they crave for their very survival. When I speak of “Narcissistic supply” I am referring to whatever feeds the appetites of the narcissistic defenses, whether that currency is Primary or Secondary Supply.
St. Paul says: “Lovers of money”
Psychology says: The narcissist needs money to maintain the false image and keep them on the pedestal they put their selves on. Money is the enabler that allows them to surround themselves with symbols of wealth; the flashy car, the big house, the clothes etc. Wealth to the narcissist portrays both psychological and financial power, putting them on a pedestal of “greatness” where they can be worshiped by everybody, including themselves. They are addicted to adoration and attention, money buys that for them. Because the narcissist grew up feeling deprived of love, they are always seeking love substitutes, and money represents that love that they constantly seek. Money, and their attitudes to it, affects all of the narcissist’s relationships. For example, it is a useful commodity for cajoling and seducing people as a source of future narcissistic supply.
The narcissist use their open display of money in order to get social approval, this often adds to their sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement often leads them to feel that they are also entitled to other people’s money, they will use any means for extracting what money they can from others. Their grandiose fantasy leads them to believe that they have more money then they really have, and this often lends them to spend recklessly. Money is also useful when their frail ego takes a blow, when this happens they are likely to go on compulsive shopping sprees to comfort and calm themselves. Overstretched and in dept, they are always looking for ways of making more money, so they will hound people, or even commit financial crimes in order to get it.
St. Paul says: “Boasters”
Psychology says: Boasting is a key trait of narcissism. The narcissist boasts about everything, exaggerating their achievements, success, wealth, education, occupation, conquests, power etc, anything in fact that helps them to build a grandiose image. The narcissist suffers from jealousy and envy, anything another person has they want, so they set out to get it. They use their grandiose image as part of their art of seduction in order to attract others to them for their exploitation. However, once they extract what they want from this person they loose respect for them, they are then soon discarded in a terrible fashion, often ruining their reputation in the process. The truth is that narcissists have little or no self-esteem or self-worth of their own (no such ego functions), in fact their boasting implicitly implies a serious lack of self-worth. Boasting has many advantages for the narcissist; to start with, it acts as a defense mechanism against feeling inferior. In order to mask their underlying feelings of inferiority, not just to the world, but to their own self, the narcissist has to maintain their image of superiority, and boasting helps them do that. When you are in their favour, then you will have to be prepared to endure a pretty much one sided relationship, where they are the constant topic of conversation, with their “I”, “me”, “my” and “mine”. If you do manage to talk about yourself, you will soon see them become bored and impatient with the conversation, and somehow the conversation switches back to them, and once again they are in the limelight.
St. Paul says: “Proud”
Psychology says: The narcissists inflated pride convinces them that they are superior to everybody else. In such a place of pridefulness, the narcissist is overly sensitive to any form of actual or perceived criticism that could threaten their self-image and cause them shame. They will react harshly and haughtily to anybody who dares to threaten their false self and magical thinking; therefore threats will not be tolerated for an instant. As the narcissist is always right in their own mind, they will judge anybody in opposition to them immediately as being inferior to them, and therefore deserving of their rage and retribution for daring to attack or humiliation them.
Paul says: Blasphemers
Psychology says: Narcissists cannot handle being upstaged in any way; you must not be seen to be more powerful, more successful, more beautiful, more intelligent, in fact “more” anything. To do so renders you to becoming the narcissists arch enemy, an instant rival to be spoken of in an irreverent or impious manner. Narcissists are masters at using character assassination as a subtle railing tactic to undermine anybody who poses as a threat to their fragile self. Preoccupied with living in their fantasy of power and brilliance, their fragile ego is easily offended, and can often find offense where none is intended. Whether the threat is real or imagined, the aggressive, attacking and abusive narcissist will retaliate by setting out to expose and destroy any person who poses as a threat, and he will do it in any way possible; defame the person with lies and gossip without conscience, then happily by proxy, where they use others to become unwitting character assassins for them. Many narcissists operate through a “God Complex” that is so arrogant that they consider themselves as living Gods, and more than that, they are a god that
CS Lewis was a moron.
does not bow to any authority; they see life in terms of self-entitlement in the pursuit of serving their own needs. For that reason, their inner drive is not driven by community values, actually they sneer at them. They do not respect an authority which endeavors to constrain them and make them accountable for their actions; on the contrary, they prefer to live by their own flexible laws and rules of engagement where they are the “authority”. They dedicate their waking time to the constant pursuit of acquiring their own personal authority, and this can be achieved by any means available to them: through their immediate family, the workplace, friends, collogues, peers etc. Indeed any type of relationship that guarantees their flow of Narcissistic Supply will suffice, and in the procurement of their much needed supply, the narcissist will gladly misuse their authority in order to reach their goal. Furthermore, the narcissist sees theirself as a guru, and therefore is inclined to encourage a personality cult following from all their relationships. Then like all cult leaders, they demand total obedience and control over their dominion.
St. Paul says: Unthankful:
Psychology says: Because of their immense sense and expectation of superior entitlement, narcissists are ungrateful and unthankful for whatever they have been given in life. Because they regard themselves as “special”, they seriously believe that they are entitled to have whatever they are given. Generally, with such an exaggerated sense of self importance, their actual levels of achievements are not in accord with their fantasy. Because the narcissist is addicted to excessive amounts of admiration, they come to expect preferential treatment when dealing with others. In short, they live in a world of fantasy, a world in which they are brilliant, powerful and successful in every way imaginable. They expect people to dance around then, so why should they be thankful for anything; actually, it is others who should be thankful to be in the service of such resplendence. If one is silly enough to tell them that they are “ungrateful”, they will defend their right to their entitlement to the very end. They will be outraged by your criticism, and they will insist on a full repayment from you before they will ever consider forgiving you, and if they don’t get it, they will hold a grudge on principle, their need for revenge will be high, and you are likely to be alienated.
St. Paul says: Unholy
Psychology says: The purpose of all human life is to become “Holy”, holy means to become “whole”. When we are whole we are grounded in a sense of our True Self, and the interconnectedness with all that is sacred. That interconnectedness is directed by the natural laws of love, wisdom, reverence and compassion, where we can be other centered. Narcissists, on the other hand, are solitary beings who are grounded in a False Self that renders them addicted to their own self-centeredness. Focused only on their own needs and wants, they become “unholy” predators cut off from all life (secular and sacred). They are at the centre of their universe, with little or no moral code they become intent on violating everything in their sights in order to get their needs meet. In doing so they have no consideration for any damage they cause to others. It is such evil intent that becomes the dualistic opposite of good, rendering the narcissist unholy.
St. Paul says: Unloving
Psychology says: Ego Psychology uses the term “Narcissism” to describe someone who is self-centered, and in love with their own image (as in the myth of Narcissus). Narcissists, by and large, grow up feeling unloved and abandoned. Without experiencing the mirroring of love from another, they lack the ability to love others, or even themselves. Freud spoke of “primary narcissism” as a necessary stage of infant development. He theorized that before a child could love others, it must first learn to love itself. A child devoid of love experiences intolerable painful feelings. In order to survive, they cut-off from these painful feelings and develop an idealized false-self mask that camouflages their suppressed inner feelings of being defective and unlovable. Suspicious and fearful of their own disowned feelings, they then become suspicious of any displays of affection toward them. They interpret these displays of feelings by others as a sign of weakness. This weakness in others then becomes a tool for the narcissist to exploit and manipulate for self gain. While cut off from their true feelings, they fail to develop true empathy for others. As a result, any so called love relationship the narcissist develops lacks true warmth of affection for the other person; rather it is a relationship that is totally focused on the narcissist’s self gain and self worship.
St. Paul says: Unforgiving
Psychology says: Due to their magical thinking, the narcissist False Self utterly believes that they are unique, omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), in short, perfect in every way. Because they strive for perfection, they cannot face their own shortcomings without it triggering personal shame, and shame causes them to experience narcissistic injury (a threat to self-esteem and self-worth). Their response to narcissistic injury is to invariably fly into a narcissistic rage (Kohut), their rage is a direct reaction to a perceived slight, insult, criticism, or disagreement. So anybody who dares to humiliate or reject them in any way (whether it be real or imagined) will not be forgiven, and the narcissist will develop an obsessive need for revenge against that person. You may think that you are offering them constructive criticism in a manner that may be helpful to them, but this will not be decoded as being helpful to the narcissist, but rather as a threatening act against them. When they feel threatened they feel like a caged animal, and this is sure to illicit an emotional volatile response from them. In their effort to build their damaged ego and escape from their intolerable narcissistic injury, the narcissist takes flight into an escape plan that involves powerful destructiveness. For such a transgression their escape plan involves punishing you, bringing you down and devaluing you without any mercy…….metaphorically “killing you off”, as it were.
St.Paul says: Slanderers
Psychology says: Narcissists build an inner shrine to themselves where they self-aggrandize to an extraordinary degree so that they can feel intrinsically superior to all others. Of course, their highly inflated view of themselves is an illusory false-self (a pathological ego) that becomes the basis for all future misinterpretations of their reality. Their feelings of being superior in everyway to everybody, becomes the source of much pain and envy for them when ever they feel outshined by anybody.
Pathological envy and jealousy is an integral part of narcissism (envy is a desire for what another person has, while jealousy is the fear that what something can be taken away). Narcissists are envious of anything in others that they lack in themselves (i.e. beauty, possessions, knowledge, personal qualities, power, skills, achievements, qualifications, relationships, money etc. Their envy consumes them, and the list of their covetousness (“I want, I want”) is endless. Envy is a normal human feeling which can range from mild to severe, from healthy to unhealthy, from positive to negative. For example, “healthy envy” has positive qualities. Healthy envy acts as a valuable guide for your heart, leading you in the direction of what your soul requires, so in effect, the thing you desire acts as a mirror for personal growth. For example, if you envy the knowledge of your tutor in college, perhaps there is a part of your soul that yearns to become a teacher, or to be in a position where you can impart knowledge. Healthy envy is empowering because
it brings you nearer to your life’s goal. Whereas, unhealthy envy is disempowering because it keeps you bound to a fantasy, making you blind to your own true nature. Because the narcissist acts out of a False Self, they suffer from a twisted heart, leaving them at the mercy of their “unhealthy envy”, and envy that can trigger their feelings of vulnerability, shame and self-loathing at any moment. Any of these feeling can result in narcissistic injury, to which the narcissist invariably react to with rage. In order to rid themselves of such emotional turmoil and recover their equilibrium, the narcissist projects those intolerable feelings outward onto the person of their envy. Once you become the object of the narcissists envy you are in serious trouble. In order to improve their own self image they are likely to do a character assassination on you. This is not innocent gossip, rather it is an intentional and premeditated smear campaigne of “projection and smearing” that is aimed at maligning you in order to tarnish your reputation and make them feel better about themselves. Be warned, they are cold, ruthless, and self-serving, and by the way, they take no prisoners.
St. Paul says: Without self-control
Psychology says: When we speak of the narcissist in relation to “control”, we find we are dealing with a paradox that is somewhat ironic. In truth, most people would consider narcissists to be “control freaks”, when the fact is they are constantly under the threat of loosing self-control. Due to some circumstance in their childhood, the narcissist would have experienced a loss of control that would have a devastating effect to their sense of self. With a poor sense of self they are left feeling very unsafe in all areas of life. The consequences of feeling so out of control, is that they as adults seek to dominate each and every interaction they have, whether it be with an individual or within a group, whether it be in the home, the workplace, or in social settings. This need to control makes them feel powerful. However, their power is not “power with”, but rather “power over”, and this becomes their springboard to verbal and emotional abuse in all their relationships. For the narcissist, power and control go hand in hand. Strangely enough, they see themselves as masters of power and control, however nothing is further from the truth. In reality the narcissist uses acts of control as a major defense against ALL that appears hostile in their eyes. Control is just one of their obsessive multi-addictions in an organized energy-system that they use to insulate their fragile ego from narcissistic injury, to counterbalance their mental peculiarity in their interpersonal connection with others, and to shield them from their constant feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness.
At first glance the narcissist appears to the unsuspecting onlooker as being full of self-control; they come across as charismatic, educated, confidant, charming, and sociable. However whenever the narcissist shows an interest in someone, it is not as innocent as it first appears. Because of their obsessive need for attention, the narcissist is on the constant lookout for the narcissistic supply that they crave. They are really good at making themselves appear attractive to others, they are willing to invest a great deal of energy in the beginning of any relationship so that the person feels safe and secure with them. What the unsuspecting victim does not realize is that they are being enticed to becoming a source of supply that the narcissist can control and manipulate. When this is achieved, the narcissist feels empowered and in control of everything within their sphere of influence (i.e. the where, the when, the why etc).
St. Paul says: Despisers of good
Psychology says: Most of mankind is motivated by self-interest, however most can exercise impulse control due to their personal core values. Narcissists on the other hand appear to be disconnected from their personal feelings, therefore lacking a personal value system. This lacking of a value system leads also to a lack of integrity, empathy and a social conscience. Operating from a primary impulse drive of self interest, they rationalize that morally wrong actions are justifiable where self glorification is the end goal. Bankrupt of moral obligation, their grandiose sense of entitlement is free to conclude that the world owes them everything, and that rules that apply to everybody else do not apply to them. They are lovers of good, but only when that good applies to them, because they are really true lovers of self. They resent “do gooders” as they trigger their shame. Of course they will deny this, even to themselves, as they boast that they are moral, and lovers of the common good. Their evil behaviour is a direct result of their “lack of the good”, and they will have no moral conscious about lying about their so called compassionate, righteous and generous nature, all of which is a deceptive camouflage.
St. Paul says: Traitors
Psychology says: A traitor is one who betrays another’s trust. So in what way does a narcissist betray trust? Narcissists are not interested in authentic relationships, that is why they betray people constantly. However, they do need people to boost their fragile ego, that is why they are always on the look out for their narcissistic supply. Once a narcissist identifies a person as their potential supply, they will be stalked as prey by their predator. Once the hunt commences, then every trick at seduction will be engaged until the person is truly hooked. Once a victim is hooked they are seen as fair game for total exploitation. Phase one is called the initial “Idealization Stage”, the narcissist puts on their “best face” in order to mould their victim into a symbiotic relationship with them as their narcissistic supply. If their potential prey is part of a group, they will target them in such a way until they manage to separate them from all protective friends. For a while the narcissist will shower them with attention in their bid to glean all knowledge about them, their value system, their vulnerability, their interests, their needs and wants. They will then feign those same common interests in such a way that the unsuspecting victim believes that they have found their soul-mate, someone who understands them fully. The victim mistakes what is happening in the relationship as friendship, rather than being a victim who is being used to provide the narcissist with something that they lack. When the narcissist has what they want, they will move into The Devaluation Stage: Almost overnight the narcissist becomes decisively cold and uncaring. The victim’s falls from grace is a hard one, they cannot seem to do anything right anymore; the narcissists loving words turn to criticism, everything the victim tries ends in a negative effect, and they find themselves devalued at every turn. Totally confused, the victim has no idea what is happening, and they become increasingly stressed, unhappy and depressed with the situation. The narcissist “gaslighting behaviour” has reached its peak, and they despise who their supply person has become (weak and worthlessly inferior). Having been devoured, the victim’s utility is exhausted, and the game enters into The Discarding Phase: Once this happens, the narcissist ardor for the game has dampened, in their eyes they have already won the contest, and the fun is over and they go in for the kill without any remorse. By this time, the narcissist is totally indifferent to any needs or wishes that the victim may have, in effect they no longer exist in their mind. Not so for the victim, they are left confused and raw with emotion, and are eager to find solutions in order to “fix” the dying relationship. It is this behaviour of setting out to find a victim to use, abuse, then annihilate that makes the narcissist such a traitor.
Posts 60-62 and 65, 66 and basically ALL of Terrance's posts = tl;dr
St. Paul says: Headstrong
Psychology says: A person who is headstrong is one that is determined to have their own way, and often this is achieved through willfulness and obstinacy. Headstrong types are not easily restrained; they are ungovernable, obstinate and stubborn. Narcissists are driven by this type of impulsiveness, even though they do their best to hide behind a facade that helps them to look like they have a self that is controlled and micro managed. Truth is that their headstrong nature is neither controlled nor well managed. The narcissist lives in their heads, and their headstrong attribute can be detected in their magnetic eyes, which can be seductive one minute (when they want to get their way), or a raging monster the next (when they feel thwarted in reaching their goal). All narcissists have an inordinate fascination with themselves, and they expect this also of their narcissistic supply. So any act of opposition against them, whether it is real or imagined, is likely to make them become violent, obstinate, ungovernable, untractable, stubborn, unruly, and vengeful.
St.Paul says: haughty
Psychology says: To be haughty means to act with blatant arrogance or disdainful pride. The narcissist displays all of these characteristics in that they consider themselves to be better, more superior than those around them. The haughty narcissist basically has an overall attitude that causes them to scorn others, to see them as inferior, by so doing they set themselves above everybody else. This puts them at the centre of the Universe, with everything revolving around them. They have little or no concern for anybody else, preferring to live by their own rules. It is such pride that often brings them down with the law. Without humility of heart the narcissist has no proper perspective beyond himself. Their haughtiness gives way to grandiosity, an overwhelming need for admiration and entitlement, impaired ability to have empathy towards others, and a lack of commitment to others.
Now, I WON'T SAY that what's written of the above was TOTALLY BIBLICALLY-COMPARING with PSYCHOLOGY, because I HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW; if I happen to have MORE time than what I do NOW, and if THIS THREAD should happen to STILL be active, or I MIGHT start ANOTHER in which to post whatever finding/findings that would be of this topic nature, my DEEPEST DESIRE is to post something that COMPLETELY BLASTS the VERY FLAW of "INTELLIGENCE-SELF-INFLATION (YES, from a TOTALLY BIBLICAL DEFINITION), and in response to YOUR question, DOLCE, the VERY REASON that WE, who are FORGIVEN, but NEVER PERFECT, PROUDLY OWE ALL CREDIT, GLORY, ADMIRATION, EXHAULTATION, PRAISES, ETC., ETC., to our One-and-only RISEN KING is VERY SIMPLE: HE EXCHANGED with US what WE DESERVE for what HE DESERVES. In OTHER WORDS, HIS DEATH on the CROSS CERTAINLY WASN'T any ASSASSINATION, like when LINCOLN, KENNEDY, MARTIN LUTHER KING (for example)'S were; in FACT, HIS DEATH WASN'T an ASSASSINATION, at ALL. The word "ASSASSINATION" is MAINLY, if not SOLELY APPLIED to one of "GREATNESS," according to the WORLD'S SYSTEM STATUS; OBVIOUSLY, when JESUS, HIMSELF, chose to take on HUMAN FORM, HE was JUST AS %100 HUMAN as HE was %100 DIVINE, thus, making HIS DEATH COMPLETELY SACRIFICIAL. No, he was NOT a "MARTYR," because although HE was SENT by the FATHER, since HE'S the SON, to be the ULTIMATE SIN-SACRIFICE, WHILE in ALL HUMANITY, PERFECT/WITHOUT SIN, HE was the VERY ABSOLUTE TOTAL PICTURE of TOTAL HUMILITY, from HIS BIRTH to HIS DEATH, so of COURSE, being that such was the CASE, HE COULDN'T'VE been ASSASSINATED, because even though LINCOLN, along with ALL the OTHERS that I mentioned above, WERE, in their OWN RIGHT, COMMENDABLE in WHICHEVER DEEDS that made them stand out as "COMMONLY GOOD" PEOPLE, ABSOLUTELY NONE of THEM were GREAT; THEY, TOO, needed the VERY FORGIVENESS for THEIR SINS that ONLY JESUS'S SACRIFICIAL DEATH on the VERY CROSS that EVEN THEY could've died on, as WELL, provided. SO, to bring ALL to the VERY HEAD, there WILL come the VERY DAY that JESUS will ONCE AGAIN RETURN, but THIS TIME, instead of in ALL-PERFECT HUMILITY as in HUMAN FLESH like BEFORE, but in the VERY ABSOLUTE DIVINE NATURE of ALL TRUE GREATNESS, who CAN'T be ASSASSINATED, EVER.
@Kate, what is TLDR?
And, those of us not mealy mouthing it around are not necessarily into self-love. Self-love I have never fully understood though of course you always hear it, even see the Christians say it now. love is something I give to the Chick, to the Daughter, to family and friends. That doesn't mean I hate myself. But self love, I will admit, I have never understood. It's one of those phrases, like find yourself, that makes no real sense, at least to me.
Those who misquote Shakespeare saying "know thyself" don't know its context. This was Polonius's speech to Hamlet, and by Know Thyself, he meant, in context, be honest about your faults and your strengths. In other words, in terms us working class people might say, don't read your own press clippings too much, and don't just accept criticism without a filter.
This idea that you are either weak-kneed / deferential all the time, or some kind of narcissist, is silly. Binary is an artificial construct: there are countless mathematical possibilities between 0 and 1.
Just because some of us doubt the viability or existence of self-love doesn't make us either religious or suicidal. What the OP has for us is rather poorly constructed rhetoric. And by saying so, I am giving the art of rhetoric a bad name.
Tl;dr = too long; didn't read
Terrance's ramblings are too long and incoherent for me to be bothered to read them all.
At the above poster, you are not the only one. Just so you guys know it isn't a good idea to try and read this stuff when you have a hangover. It is seriously dangerous to your health. But regardless of the headache I am going to prove a point that religious preference doesn't make a person more intelligent. If I had a temper I would flare up about that retarded claim but I have better ways of handling this. You see, in a day like today you have to want to learn and be intelligent, and there is one way that you can acquire knowledge about anything you want. This isn't the only one but it is probably the most common. The first is the Internet. You can find anything about anything you want to learn on the Internet. Sorry, but you can't do that with the Bible. You can't do that with any religious book alone. You can have all the faith in the world in the Bible and God, but the frank truth is is you won't get all the answers about life from it. It is misleading. Trust me, from a person who used to be a Christian this is what I believed, and I learned the hard way that you have to be the one to find answers. You can't wait for God to answer them for you, because quite frankly you won't get an answer. If you have been answered by God well so be it, but I haven't. And if that makes me arrogant I will wear that badge of honor with my head held high.
Oh my god! I must admit I did read it all, and all I see are ramblings of bible verses, is this your masters thesis/ lol! I'll come back with something to respond to this dribble of narcissism! hahahahahahaha this cracks me the fuck up! I need a drink or two! :)
DISTANCE, in TOTAL RESPONSE to YOUR CLAIM as "NO LONGER a CHRISTIAN is a DEFINITE, RESOUNDING: "NO! Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neithr death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing,shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.1 John 2:19
Philippians 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you, will complete it untill the day of Jesus Christ.
Christians are sealed with The Holy Spirit and nothing can separate them from the love of God. There is no such thing as an x Christian.
The truth is they never had the Spirit of God inside them. How could you have once experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and just turn from it. Impossible!! It is particularly amusing to me when an atheist claims to be an X Christian. O.K. Seriously. You once were indwelled by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit and now you don't believe there is a God. Huh? It doesn't stack up. I could maybe get mad at God and call myself a God hater, but atheist. How could I? I'm going to ACTUALLY CLAIM AMNESIA, and SUDDENLY/GRADUALLY NO LONGER CONTINUE to believe in God? It can't happen. They went out from us BECAUSE they were not of us and it is being manifest. So absolutely not." Adding to THIS is ANOTHER ETERNAL TRUTH that OFFICIALIZES the UTTER DIFFERENCE between BELIEVING GOD EXISTS, which SUCH BELIEF, ALONE, ACTUALLY EQUALS ANY of us with SATAN and his DEMONS, who are IRREVOLKABLY DOOMED for ALL ETERNITY, and having a "SAVING-FAITH BELIEF," which means that WE FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE the VERY ETERNAL FACT that it's WE, ALONE, that are DOOMED SINNERS, who's in TOTALLY DESPERATE NEED of the VERY ONE who UNCONDITIONALLY LOVES US, and HE didn't just TELL US SO, ONLY to make HIMSELF SOUND SWEET and whatever, with NOTHING to BACK UP ANY/ALL of ANY of HIS WORDS that COULD'VE SOUNDED FLOWERY/EAR-TICKLING, the VERY EXACT/SAME SATANIC WAY this WORLD SYSTEM SOUNDS, AT TIMES, with ALL of ITS FALSE PROMISES, but HE DID what ABSOLUTELY NO MAN, INCLUDING ALL OF US could NEVER DO--HE ACTUALLY DIED in OUR PLACE--for MY SINS, YOUR SINS, the ENTIRE WORLD of EVERYBODY'S SINS, then HE VICTORIOUSLY ROSE on the THIRD DAY, and AFTER HIS ASCENTION BACK to HEAVEN, and IMPARTATION of the HOLY SPIRIT as OUR GUIDE to IMPART to US, HIS WAY of CHRISTIAN-LIFE-LIVING through US, the VERY MOMENT that WE, OURSELVES, make the ABSOLUTE, GENUINE DECISION to allow JESUS, HIMSELF, to enter FREELY into OUR HEART, to TAKE TOTAL CONTROL of OUR LIVES from THAT VERY MOMENT ON, into ETERNITY. If SUCH is the VERY CHRISTIANITY that YOU "ONCE WERE A PART OF," the VERY REALITY is that you were NEVER, AT ALL, A PART OF, but while you're STILL ALIVE, and have ALL of YOUR FACULTIES, it's NEVER TOO LATE to ALLOW JESUS to CHANGE THAT STATUS for you, ONLY IF you want HIM to, because HE'LL NEVER FORCE HIMSELF on ANYBODY that DOESN'T want to be in a relationship with HIM--if YOU TELL HIM "NO," the NO, it is. Are you Ok with the ETERNAL result of such a decision, if this is what you're willing to make?
People seriously read this shit? I read like two sentences of it and wanted to shoot myself.
Then I remembered there were things to live for.
Also, please stop Jesus humping. I know you're gay for Jesus (you love him after all) but it's just plain obnoxious.
lol at the last poster. I love it: Jesus humping. Thanks -- you made my morning. hahahaha
LOL and *high five* for Rachel!
There is such thing my friend. I am one and I know several others that are as well. Don't kid yourself.
I think they say that if you are an ex Christian, you never were truly one to start with.
Also, here is a conundrum: Christianity is supposed to be conversion by choice. But if one is raised in it, marinated in it by society and home life, how could one really choose it?
I do not really choose my western values that I hold dear. Sure, I espouse them wholeheartedly. But we are raised in this culture. So the only authentic Christians would be those who, raised outside of it culturally, chose to become one.
All of us in western and middle eastern societies familiar with monotheistic deities are familiar with hell, Dante's inferno, judgment, and an escape hatch that "few will find". People don't fear death, they fear the hell we have heard so much about everywhere.
What's interesting, if you trace this carefully, the religions or sects that focus most heavily on hell have the most severe ascetic conditions they impose on the masses and create the most hell on earth. I've read the likes of that Manifest Destiny's Child, Jonathan Edwards. And others. It's not just a modern fundamentalist phenomenon. But Socrates was correct, 400 years before Christ, when he said the fear of the dark underworld is the best way to control the ignorant masses.
The claims you see now is that there is not enough emphasis on it. Hell is a power grab, by entities who lack the innovative capacity to gain influence by honorable effort.
Where is that Socrates quote from? I'm interested in reading it in context.
All of this doesn't deter from the fact that Terrance rambles on for far longer than he needs to, thus turning people off of even considering his views on things.
He still needs to turn off the caps lock, step away from the Interwebs and get himself a cat... he might be a little happier with feline companionship, seeing as he can't find any long term female friends.
It's not a web, it's a series of tubes! And, why would you wish such cruelty on a cat. Lol.
Seriously, mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally don't forget "judge not lest you be judged."
I really did read all your posts in this topic: after all this is Sunday and I didn't go to church so I guess I needed a good sermon(s). Well, I got one or two or three... .
You really need to learn to summarize and quit rambling.
Organizational skills (definitely lacking in your posts) would enhance your writing style.
I think you have something to say, but you sure don't knoww how to say it. Much of your posts were mere repetitions of other posts. And your one word quotes of Paul left me baffled.
By the way, Alfred Binet was an educational psychologist not a sexologist.
Oh yeah, shouldn't this topic be labeled "narcicism"? What does it have to do with ethics.
I offer these suggestions in hopes that some day I can glean some wisdom from your posts. I think the potential is there.
Bob (the narcicist)
I will look up your answer, Imp. It's been years since I read it.
But why do we care what the imaginary christian god says? Even were he real, anyone reading the bible from an objective point of view would come to the logical and rational conclusion, that' he's an evil, jealous, prideful, hateful, bigoted fuck. I'm sorry,but considering god breaks many of his own laws, I don't care about his philosophy. he's one of those parents that says Do as I say, not as I do. I can't respect that.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I just love how this post has nothing to do with it's title, really it's funny as hell! From ethics to narcism to god's word and teachings, wow thank you! You guys crack me up! To the Jesus humping poster, you made my night, I needed that lol! And well, OP, it's hard to cover your post on narcism as it lacks structure... but I do think that you bring up some points, but not well enough... and I meant narcissism... I apologize lol! :D
JUST FOR the RECORD: I ONLY SHARE the TRUTH; PREACHING SERMONS is CERTAINLY NOT MY CALLING, and ALTHOUGH NOT ALL of MY POSTS were DIRECTLY CENTERED on "ETHICS," in whatever OTHER FORM, the MAIN SUBJECT MATTER is STILL ADDRESSED, PRIMARILY BECAUSE there ARE ETHICS, although not ALL, of course, that ARE, INDEED, BIBLICAL. Now, being that I'm pressed AGAIN for time this morning, with STILL a WHOLE LOT of GROUND YET to COVER, as far as any RESPONSE to my LAST PRIOR POSTS, I'll check "yall" out LATER.--TO BE CONTINUED
None of your posts have anything to do with Ethics. Sorry. Try again.
Also, a literal reading of the Bible is probably one of the worst sources of truth ever. Blatant inconsistencies around. However, I think like aesop's tales the Bible isn't meant to be read literally which makes all your ABUSE OF THE CAPS LOCK all for naught.
Sorry. Try harder next time.
James, many of us bring this stuff up because we're talking about the followers thereof. Not even the followers, but the infrastructure they support.
This anti-pride, take-no-credit-for-what-you-do stance is actually a leftover of hydraulic despotism from the ancient world. People growing the Pharaoh's food, building the Pharaoh's tombs and so forth were to give all credit to the Pharaoh, none of it to themselves.
Imprecator, here's a blog post describing Plato's dialogs with Socrates on hell. For the full context you probably need to look at Plato's works on Project Gutenberg or something.
Quite by accident, in researching that, I found there are Christians now who claim hell, while permanent destruction, is not the dishonorably created eternal torture chamber. Even they, apparently, will attribute this to Socrates and Greek thoughts on immortality.
Apparently this came about at the end of the Greek republic, and was designed to keep the masses nonviolently in line.
The dialog you need to look up is entitled "Gorgias".
If I can find a pastable version of it online, I will paste the relevant section of it here.
Since when are dilusions considered the truth? Since when has making up stories and scenarios considered to be honest work? The contradictions continue to surface from the bottom of the well. Keep them going though. I am enjoying this.
But other religions had their versions of hell long before the time of plato.
true. I honesty find nothing charming about scripture. I don't care what paul, or peter, or John said thousands of years ago through god, he could've done it himself, sorry.
Which ones, Imp?
None had the idea of the soul as immortal to suffer immortal torment before Socrates.
Hinduism, some others I can't remember the names of at the moment. Maybe Norse religions? Although their hell was a giant freezer, of course.
Nordic and Celtic underworlds are not that well described. The difference also is that you are in some form of darkness outside the realm of the gods, not in a designed construction of the gods for purpose of punishment.
The leaves and branches may differ, but the trunk is the same.
Not really. There is quite a difference between the character of one who simply boots out or destroys indigents, and the lack of character of the other who designs a torture chamber, explicitly designed to keep the infidels and indigents alive and conscious and being tormented.
I suppose.
Actually, as I understand it, hell was not created until the new testament, prior to that there was a place where the dead went called shehol, I think that's what it's called. Everyone went, good and bad, and they just kind of existed there.
So, what does this have to do with ethics or narcicism? Damned if I know.
Bob
Sheol
The idea of punishment long predates Socrates Leo. Look up the stories of tantalus and others who were eternally punished. However, they were an individual idea, not a place. The Greek underworld had a place of torment for the wicked, and a place of glory for the good. However, they were in the same place, and you simply walked down one path for good and another path for evil. Read the Odysey, it describes them better than I could ever do. The norse also had their version of hell, and the Egyptians sort of had one also.
The idea that you will be eternally punished for about eight or nine decades of wrong doing is almost universal throughout religion. Its nothing new, and it long predates any written word, let alone Socrates or plato. The idea of the spirit is what Socrates and plato came up with. Before them, it was the actual person which was punished, not the spirit or soul of the person. Its a subtle difference.
Still has nothing to do with ethics though, as ethics has nothing to do with religion.
I haven't read every one of these posts, only making it up to 31, but I wonder, re post 22. How does one become infested with oneself? The only way I can think of is to clone myself and have gay monkey-sex with my clone, in which case wouldn't that be fucking myself? Hmm. And I'm pretty clean; no SDTs that I know of, so I'm afraid it wouldn't work. Damn, no infestation, or infectivization either. Hey, someone else is making up words, why not me? Maybe infecticization? Oh, the possibilities!
Thanks Imprecator
I'll see you in sheol.
"as ethics has nothing to do with religion."
Haha, it is when " mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally" decides to post.
Actually, the conversations that have sprouted on the side are actually quite fascinating. I kind of want it to take its course. As a non-religious individual I don't really have much to contribute, outside of the fact that I think that punishment was developed as a behavioural control mechanism for a society.
The reason ethics has to do with hell or sheol or punishment or whatever, is the American Christians typically cite their way as the most ethical, their particular deity as the most ethical and honorable.
So hell has everything to do with it: what can possibly be ethical or honorable about such a way to deal with unwanteds? Anyone could understand termination, but not sadism.
It is precisely because they claim a corner on the ethics market, and they claim their deity to be just and ethical, that their deity's supposed actions should in fact get challenged.
Because you know how kiddies are: If daddy does it, I can too. We don't want any burnings and other nefarious activities of yesteryear brought about by some reconstructionists.
What is atheism?
Atheism is a belief or worldview that denies the existence of any supernatural deity. The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following description: "To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause, Measure, or Rule of things, but Chance . . . is to be a perfect atheist."
Broken down, a- ("no") with theism ("god") means simply "no god." Although the word itself has a straightforward meaning, atheism as a philosophy raises a wide range of complications and issues to be addressed and clarifications to be made.
The first and foremost problem that arises from atheism is the type of truth claim it makes. Dr. Mortimer Adler describes the difficulty in this manner: "An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition – one that denies the existence of some thing – cannot be proved." That is, proving existence is possible, but proving non-existence is not. Just ask all the zoologists who believed the coelacanth was extinct—before a living specimen was fished out of the sea in 1938.
When a negative existential truth claim is put forward, the one making the claim has shot himself not in the foot, but in the head. Unless the person can be in all places of the entire universe at the same time, he has no way of confirming that whatever he claims does not exist does not, in fact, exist. Just because I see no evidence of God here doesn't mean there's no evidence of God there. This is conundrum the atheist faces.
Recognizing their predicament, atheists like Richard Dawkins counter by saying that, while they cannot prove a flying spaghetti monster does not exist, it is highly improbable such a thing actually exists, so the wiser intellectual position is one that says such a thing does not exist.
However, this argument commits two errors. First, comparing God with a flying spaghetti monster commits the logical error of faulty analogy. Second, just because something is improbable does not rule out its existence. For example, all scientists admit that humanity's existence is inordinately improbable. They acknowledge that it is against all mathematical odds that all the cosmic constants and biological mechanisms necessary for life would ever come to be. And yet, here we are. Improbable or not, humanity exists.
The question is not whether the existence of God is improbable but, rather, is there logical, reasonable evidence that moves one toward a conclusion that God exists?
Atheists answer that question negatively, usually by way of saying that God "probably" does not exist. A recent example of this has been the ad campaign in various countries using bus signs stating, "God probably does not exist."
This claim, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it is not the way human beings approach any other important area of life. Few people would eat a meal labeled "probably not poison," and less would board a plane marked "probably safe to fly."
Second, it ignores the fact that the seriousness of a truth claim dictates the amount of evidence necessary to support it. If it is wrong, the atheist's truth claim will have enormous, irreparable and eternal consequences. That being the case, it is intellectually and morally incumbent upon the atheist to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his/her position. What evidence is there to substantiate the limp assertion that God "probably" does not exist? None is forthcoming.
Using a supposed argument from silence, the atheist slides into death with his fingers crossed, hoping he does not have to face any unpleasant realities. Eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong.
Some atheists recognize the gravity of this situation and, when pressed for evidence, take the stance that "science has disproven God." There are several reasons why this claim is a brittle one. But first, to understand the rationale behind the position, a little history is necessary.
After the events of 9/11, a branch of atheism – militant atheism (sometimes referred to as "hatetheism") – rose up and demanded that society rid itself of all religion. Rather than focusing on extremists who use religion to justify their murderous actions, the militant atheists lumped all peoples of faith together and labeled all religion "dangerous."
The question facing the militant atheists was, "How will we get rid of religion?" The apparent answer was to use science as a tool to replace the need for religion. This tactic is nothing new; it was the same strategy promoted by Thomas Huxley in the 1800s when he sought to install scientists as the new priests for humankind. This "faith" in science is not science at all, but scientism, which says that science and science alone is the way to discover truth.
While science has indeed provided many gifts to humankind, the hope atheism has for scientism replacing other religions is ill founded. For one thing, scientism is self-refuting. The statement "we should only believe what can be scientifically proven" itself cannot be scientifically proven (because it is a philosophical statement). So, based on its own criteria, scientism should be rejected.
Also, scientism ignores other much-respected and used methods for obtaining knowledge. For example, the legal/forensic/historical method of discovering truth is used every day and is very well respected. The legal method does not discount facts because they are not empirically reproducible or testable. By a process of elimination and corroboration, the legal method allows history to be established and testimony to speak for itself until a verdict is reached. In the end, all reasonable doubt has been satisfied, and the balance of probability is achieved. The legal method is not "scientific," yet it can arrive at the truth.
Further, scientism has proved disastrous from a moral perspective. Militant atheism asserts that if religion were banished, then humankind would have peace and harmony. But even a cursory look at history since the Enlightenment says otherwise. Instead of initiating peace, the Enlightenment ushered in one bloody revolution after another, climaxing in the twentieth century with its long list of atrocities, butchery, and carnage. Ironically, one of atheism's chief heralds, Nie[t z s]che, predicted that, because he and others had supposedly killed God in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest ever. In that, Nie[t z s]che was right.
Rather than pointing away from a transcendent Creator, advances in science have – more than ever – confirmed the existence of God. The death of the steady state theory, the apparent fine tuning of the universe for human life, and the confirmation of specified complexity all act as pointers to an intelligent source behind it all.
In truth, atheism's position on science commits the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. Atheism demands that a person choose between science and God, but, in fact, no such choice need occur. Making such a demand can be likened to forcing a person to choose between a belief in (1) the laws of internal combustion and (2) Henry Ford, to explain the existence of cars. The fact is the two choices are not contradictory, but complementary. The atheist misses the important difference between agency (Henry Ford) and mechanism (internal combustion). God is the intelligent agency and efficient cause behind everything; His natural laws and mechanisms carry out His intentions to produce His desired end result.
In the end, the atheist cannot rely on science to disprove the existence of a transcendent Creator and is forced to admit that atheism itself is a belief system that relies on faith. The real clash is not between science and religion but between the atheistic/naturalistic and theistic worldviews.
This being the case, the atheistic worldview must address two mistakes it makes regarding the concept of faith: (1) that faith is only a re-
ligious concept; and (2) that faith means believing in something where there is no evidence. Neither assumption is true.
Concerning the first point, some atheists will admit that atheism is a worldview based on faith. One example is atheistic scientist George Klein, who writes, "I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith. . . . The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy." Faith, then, is not at all religious for Klein. It is the basis of his atheism.
As to faith being defined as a belief that lacks evidence, nothing could be further from the truth. Science has faith in logic, mathematics, natural laws, and the intelligibility of the universe. Science believes all such laws are firm and will never change.
People act on "faith" every day; they trust restaurants to serve them good food, doctors to give them the right medicine, and spouses to keep their wedding vows. Such faith is not "blind" but is based on certain evidence. The same is true for the faith spoken of in the Bible.
In the Bible's New Testament, the word pistis is translated "faith." It is a noun that comes from the verb peitho, which means "to be persuaded." The best lexicons (e.g., BDAG) show the meaning of pistis to be "a state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted"; "that which evokes trust"; and "reliability, fidelity pertaining to being worthy of belief or trust." In other words, the idea that faith means "blind belief in the face of opposing evidence" is not found in Scripture.
Both atheism and theism make statements on faith that concern ultimate reality. Both must refer to something eternal because each recognizes that everything that exists owes its existence ultimately to something other than itself.
To the atheist, that ultimate reality is an eternal universe where only physical matter exists. Atheism's challenge is to explain how the universe is eternal (all scientific discovery shows it had a beginning) and how (since an effect always resembles its cause in essence) an impersonal, non-conscious, meaningless, purposeless, and amoral universe accidentally created personal, conscious, moral beings (who are obsessed with meaning and purpose).
The theist has no such problem because theism holds that a personal, conscious, purposeful, intelligent, moral, and eternal God created beings in His likeness and established the universe and its laws to govern their existence.
One of atheism's chief spokesmen, Jean Paul Sartre, described life as "a long, hard, cruel business." In contrast, the Bible says God created a meaningful and rewarding existence where "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Psalm 19:1-2).
In conclusion, Dr. John Lennox clarifies the choice between atheism and theism: "There are not many options – essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second."
Still waaaay too long, so I didn't read any of it.
That said, thank you, Terrance, for getting a grasp on reality for oh so brief a moment and writing your posts like any sane person would do.
You might try actually understanding what you're talking about before you try to talk about atheism. Cuz when you talk about atheism, you're gonna get me involved, and you really really don't want to do that. I can beat you six ways to sunday without even having to use google. You're nowhere near good enough to tangle with me, so you might just want to stick to capslock and rambling sentences that we all laugh at you for. Trust me, you don't have enough experience to go up against me here.
SOUNDING THE ALARM: POSTS 107 and 108 are just TWO out of OTHER COUNTLESS DEAD-ON TARGET-POINTS of the VERY EXAMPLE of what THIS TOPIC is ACTUALLY DISPLAYING, whether ANYTHING'S DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY, or NOT-AT-ALL-DISCUSSED of it--JUST SO YOU'D KNOW: as I CONTINUE to CONSTANTLY REMIND you: it's DEFINITELY NOT ME that you're rejecting, should you choose to not read ANY of my posts, EVER, JUST AS it's DEFINITELY NOT ME, EVER, that you'd be "SPARRING" with, concerning "ATHEISM," since it's DEFINITELY NOT ME, EVER, that YOU would ULTIMATELY have to ANSWER to, ANYWAY, who BY the WAY, happens to be THAT VERY SAME (ONLY) ONE that EVEN I, MYSELF, would ULTIMATELY have to ANSWER to, TOO, so PLEASE do YOURSELVES the VERY FAVOR of ENDLESSLY FLATTERING YOURSELVES with the TOTAL DILLUSION of OFFENDING, or ANY OTHER FORM of FAILED ATTEMPT of ANY CHALLENGING of ME, by doing the VERY ULTIMATELY UNDOABLE for YOU: GET OVER YOURSELVES!
Considering the fact that your god hasn't done anything to prove himself for the past few thousand years, you'll forgive me if I don't find him particularly threatening. Besides, even if he does exist, I'm glad I don't worship him. I'll gladly go to hell rather than worship that tyrannical dictator. At least I'll have my dignity, what will you have?
But, just for fun, let me pose a general question. If your soul is what is sent to hell, but your soul has no nerve endings, because the nerve endings are part of the body, how do you feel the pain of Hell fire?
He also copied the above material without sourcing it. I have seen similar writings from Christian apologists on the Internet. By theism, they really mean Christianity. And only their form of Christianity which contains the threat of eternal punishment. I have also seen on the Internet that these people are just like the rest of us: they can sue for copyright infringement just like any of the rest of us.
He also copied the above material without sourcing it. I have seen similar writings from Christian apologists on the Internet. By theism, they really mean Christianity. And only their form of Christianity which contains the threat of eternal punishment. I have also seen on the Internet that these people are just like the rest of us: they can sue for copyright infringement just like any of the rest of us.
He also copied the above material without sourcing it. I have seen similar writings from Christian apologists on the Internet. By theism, they really mean Christianity. And only their form of Christianity which contains the threat of eternal punishment. I have also seen on the Internet that these people are just like the rest of us: they can sue for copyright infringement just like any of the rest of us.
I'm sorry guys I don't know how that last sequence of repetitive posts just happened.
It all most looked like one of those things that was written backwards, if that makes any sense. I'll try to explain. Say you want to try and get someone to believe in something, so rather than trying to write the benefits of believing, they resort to writing with the opposite intent. That is writing about the cons of not believing. I am sure there is a term for it -- something along the lines of reversed psychology but that is it in a nutshell for those of you who didn't read it, yet who had an inkling of curiosity. For the majority of it I would just respond by saying tell me something I don't all ready know. Who says we aren't allowed to believe in science? That only makes you more misleading. It only supports exactly what Cody said about believing in a dictator, because a dictator is one who labels himself to be right, and anyone be damned if they don't support him and his beliefs. Is that not how God works?
I'd rather stick to my atheism, thank you.
Get over myself?
That's rich, especially coming from someone who, and I quote directly from your FaceBook page, someone who is
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED for sending friend-requests to females, whether I knew them or NOT (ESPECIALLY to ones I DON'T)
If you think that your so hot-stuff, then why can't you get and keep a female friend, let alone a girlfriend without them having to have your FaceBook privileges suspended?
I think your "Jane Doe" friend is correct when she suggested that you get yourself a cat... you'll probably be a lot happier with a cat because it can't and won't tell you what an utter fool you are and will patiently listen to your senseless ramblings.
Besides, if it truly is for a WOMAN, you LIVE, and FOR A WOMAN, you DIE, and THERE WILL BE THAT VERY WOMAN that will SHOW US UP... we're still waiting for her to show up.
Nobody believes in science. Science has no disciples. This is where religious people always get it wrong.
Science describes principles in the natural world. Science is not an entity or a cognizant being, it doesn't feel bad if you don't believe what it has thus far found. Science has often been wrong, and has the integrity to correct itself. There is no faith in science, because science is exploration and examination, among other things. But it is not ideology.
Scientists have a whole host of varying ideologies about things, be they size of government, military spending, and so on. There is no scientism, and scientists are not priests.
This is hard to imagine for people who need an authority figure to tell them what to believe and why everyone else is wrong.
Unlike religion, science of the 19th century is not science of the 21st. The findings have changed, methods have improved, all based on real data that have been gathered.
Fun little fact, that thing he did, the "If you believe you won't suffer but if you don't believe and you're wrong you'll suffer" that has a name. Its called Paskal's wager. Named after a French theological philosopher.
Want to have fun with Paskal's wager, try this. Take the wager, which goes like this, "You risk nothing by believing in God, and if you are wrong you lose nothing. You risk everything by not believing in God, and if you're wrong you lose everything". Then, replace the word God (capital G) with a god (lower case G). So, "you risk nothing by believing in thor, ra, zeus, oden, allah, and if you're wrong you lose nothing... and so on". Then, find someone who buys into the wager, like captain caps lock up there, and ask how many of those gods they believe in. Then give them this little fact. There are, by most estimations, between eight and twelve thousand gods in the world today scattered amongst the different religions. There are also just over fourty thousand sects of Christianity. They believe in one of them. How good do they think there odds of being right are?
Faith vs. science. Is there a contradiction between faith in God and science?
Faith in God and belief in science will never contradict if God, in fact, exists and is the Creator of the universe. If God is the Creator of the universe, and there is ample evidence that He is, then science is just knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths about His creation. If God doesn't exist, then faith and science will contradict since science is the search for facts about the cosmos. For those with faith, however, science can be one of our greatest forms of worship.
Science is mankind's attempt to understand how the world works. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools to accomplish this. It starts with a question about the world. Then background research, a hypothesis or educated guess about the research, an experiment, analysis to determine if the hypothesis was correct, and the report of the results. If the hypothesis was correct, the cycle is finished. If not, another hypothesis is put forth, and testing begins again. The scientific method infers that a provable fact will be repeatable and verifiable—that other scientists will come up with the same answer if their experiment is performed in the same way.
There is nothing unbiblical about the scientific method as such. God made light, matter, water, plants, animals, and humans. We honor Him when we endeavor to understand His amazing creation. We also learn more about Him, about His wisdom and power and elegance. And we appreciate His grace more fully when we understand the implications of the miracles He performs. Being thankful for healing is much richer when we see the cancerous tumor disappear from one MRI to the next.
There are two areas in which science and faith are at odds with each other. The first is not the fault of science, per se, but the presumption of the scientists themselves. Science is about observation and proof. That which cannot be proven is not fact; it is either theory or historical report. Much practical good has been accomplished on the basis of theory alone. Humans went into space with only a theory about the effects of zero-gravity on bodies and equipment. Drugs and medical treatments are developed every year based on theories. But, again, theory is not fact. Because of this, we cannot know for certain what has happened in the past based on science alone. Even if we could develop life in a lab, it would not tell us in all certainty how life first developed in the history of the world. It is not observable. Similarly, anything too small or too far away to observe cannot be known with certainty. We know that if we drop something, it will fall. And we can infer that the large mass of a planet causes a star to wobble. But the mechanism of gravity is still only a theory. And until we can observe the planet, we cannot assert its existence affirmatively.
The area in which science and faith more fully collide is in the realm of ethics. Science has no ethic. The scientific method doesn't care about the environment or unborn children. Science is about fact alone. Faith, however, is the basis for ethics. Faith tells us that humans have value far above fact. Faith explains that there is something greater than knowledge, and the search for knowledge should not have free rein and be allowed to damage the very thing it is studying. Science agrees that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) but it doesn't have an opinion on the preservation of people. Faith tells us that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and have great value far above what could be learned from organs and cells and atoms. Science tells how we work; faith tells us we have worth.
Faith and science should be partners, each giving more depth to the other. Science, when properly used, validates faith in a Creator and exhibits the awesomeness of His work. Faith guides science to noble causes and gives science context. The best scientist is one who understands there is a Creator and enthusiastically learns what he can about that creation.
Can the existence of God be proven?
In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?
The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.
There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.
Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.
Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.
So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist,
But you're not offering any proof god exists. All your posts you've copied and pasted take a lot of intellectual leaps of faith as it were.
Correlation isn't causation, Your entire copy and pasted, apologist trash is predicated on that logical falasy
. Saying god exists because we can't prove he doesn't by the definitions stated above makes no sense. this is a self defeating argument.
and honestly, if it turns out god exists, and he's the christian god of the bible, he's got a lot of shit to answer to/for. He's a Tyrant, and an abusive package wrapped up in to one.
OP, all you've done is proven you can copy paste. Not that you can actually make a valid argument yourself. Try using more of your mind, and less of the copy paste.
and lets stop with the trash that's full of logical fallacies.
And honestly, if someone believes in god/worships because of PASCAL's Wager, they're a fucking coward, and I'm not going to live my life like that.
we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.
In opposition to atheism is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and declares judgment on those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). It is the fool who says in his heart "there is no God" (Psalm 14:1). Denying the existence of God is foolish—philosophically, scientifically, and most importantly, eternally!
How does the moral argument support the existence of God?
How do you know if something is morally right or wrong? How can you ground a belief that says acts such as torturing an innocent child, rape, murder, racism, and other such things are objectively immoral? By "objectively," we mean that such acts are immoral in a way that goes beyond personal opinion or feelings; they are immoral whether anyone thinks they are or not. It may surprise you to know that, without God, it is impossible to have objective moral values. Instead, unless God exists, all that is left is mere emotive opinions.
Those who do not believe in God object to such an assertion and say that a person does not need to acknowledge any kind of deity to understand moral right and wrong. And, they are right. Human beings do not need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. But, that has never been the argument of those who believe in God. Instead, the Christian argument is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values.
This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nie[t z s]che said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins, a leading voice of atheism, says, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
Why do intellectually honest atheists admit that, without God, objective moral values cannot exist? Because it is the logical result of taking atheistic philosophy to its natural conclusion. If there's such a thing as evil, you must assume there's such a thing as good. If you assume there's such a thing as good, you assume there's such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there's such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God – the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there's not a moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. Which is just what Richard Dawkins admits to.
At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to nothing being absolute, that everything is random, and that everything is changing. In such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.
Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn't become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, "I don't like rape." C. S. Lewis put is simply when he said: "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." For those without God, that unchanging straight line does not exist.
However, the rub comes from the fact that every human being recognizes moral absolutes. They may not practice them, but they understand and acknowledge them. There is a difference in what a culture and its people are doing and what they ought to do; a difference between something that is descriptive and that which is prescriptive. And one thing that history has shown is that humanity recognizes universal right and wrong. Acknowledging this, atheist philosopher Louise Antony has stated: "Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves." Antony is correct. No one can name a land where cowardice is applauded and bravery looked down upon; no place where lying is praised and honesty belittled.
Where does this universal understanding of moral right and wrong come from – an understanding that transcends human opinion? Why does a small child immediately know when they've been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator. This fact produces what is called the moral argument for the existence of God, which can be stated in the following way:
• Laws imply a Law Giver
• There is an objective Moral Law
• Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
True object moral good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without a cause. Without God – the cause of everything – all that is left is time + matter + chance. And such a combination only produces chaos; not an absolute moral framework.
Poet Steve Turner spells out this awful conclusion – what morals really equate to in a world without God – in his poem entitled Creed, which ends with these words:
"If chance be the Father of all flesh,
Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
And when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker."
What does moral absolutism say about ethics and morality?
Moral absolutism is the belief that there exists an absolute, unbreakable, universal foundation for moral behavior. The theory does not state what that foundation is, and it does not infer that every law and rule is absolute and universal. It is a major category of the deontology school of ethics , which emphasizes adherence to rules as the basis for morality. Other schools include consequentialism, which states an act is moral if it has a good result; virtue ethics, which teaches good actions come from good character; and ethical relativism, which insists people and societies choose their own morality.
Moral absolutism is the only philosophy of secular ethics that teaches that some actions have moral value in and of themselves, completely independent of circumstances, intent, and consequences. It is humanity's responsibility to discover the universal truths involved and develop laws that encourage people to act morally. But philosophers do not agree as to how we are to unearth these truths. In general, there are three possibilities.
NATURAL LAW/NATURAL ETHICS
The theory of natural law states that humanity, whether by creation or evolution, inherently possesses a system of standards that reveals and fulfills the purpose of all mankind. These standards are not dependent on era, culture, or geography. They can be discovered by the careful application of human reason on human nature (nature common to all people). Natural law presumes the telos, or purpose, of mankind and then tells us how to accomplish that purpose. Telos has many possible variations, but it generally includes the preservation of life, the propagation of the species, and often some kind of personal fulfillment.
Natural law has been debated extensively over the centuries. It has justified what most consider societal good as well as has been abused. The value of life usually leads to a taboo on murder. The propagation of the species inspires female monogamy to ensure children are
raised by their fathers. The belief in personal fulfillment has led to colleges, arts, and civil rights movements across the globe. At the same time, evolutionists hi-jacked natural law and said that the evolution of mankind proves that some human ethnicities are not as evolved as others. Evolutionary psychologists say our purpose is not given by a higher power—it is not even our purpose; it is the drive of our genes to propagate, and that drive has determined human evolution and social development.
CONTRACTARIANISM
Contractarianism is much more straightforward. An act is moral if it abides by a contract which individuals or groups entered into freely. The contract could be a verbal promise, a hundred-page legal document, or the inferred agreement a citizen makes to abide by civil laws in return for enjoying the peace and prosperity of that society. It is an act of human will that makes an absolute. Once an agreement is struck, morality is defined.
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
The divine command theory takes authority outside of the hands of human choice or human nature. Instead, an act is moral if it follows a guideline given by God. Divine command theorists insist that if all humanity is bound to an absolute standard, that standard must not have a human origin. We are too limited in our thinking to be objective about the responsibilities and abilities of every person in all creation. Only God has such knowledge.
Contractarianism doesn't come up very often in philosophical circles, but it is supported by the Bible. Numbers 2:30 exhorts us to fulfill our vows, and Romans 13:1-7 says to obey civil authorities. But Jesus suggests that oaths are unnecessary. We should have such a sterling character that people will trust us without a contract (Matthew 5:33-37).
On the other hand, there is a great debate as to the merits of natural law verses the divine command theory. If the divine command theory is right, then the Word of God determines and creates morality. But that means that anything and everything God says is morally absolute. So, if He one day said to torture innocents, then torturing innocents would be good, because He is divine and He said to do it. As one might imagine, natural law adherents disagree with this. If the shallowest examination of human nature would agree that torturing innocents is bad, then it must be bad. There must be an absolute standard of good outside the whim of a deity. But if that is the case, then God, Himself, is subject to this standard of good. So, if He speaks, then what He says is good because He is bound to good. Divine command theorists then cry, "Foul!" because this is placing God under the authority of "good," and God is subject to nothing.
The Bible agrees with both, to a point, and shows how they fit together. God's character is good, and, therefore, what He says is good. At the same time, His character is logos—logic and sense. It is not logical to create a world and then subject it to harm and destruction. Therefore, God's Word is absolute because He is all-powerful; His Word is good because He is good; and His Word benefits us because, as Creator, that is the only logical course.
Part of that goodness and logic and benefit comes into play with natural law. If God gave us the good telos to value life (Exodus 20:13) and propagate our species (Genesis 1:28), it makes sense that He designed us to value those things. Of course, we promptly rejected that God-given nature, choosing instead to sin, so that while our nature as created might have informed us as to God's absolute standards, our fallen nature as inspected by our fallen intellect must rely on God's Word (Psalm 119:11).
Moral absolutism has some biblical elements, but it is a human attempt to narrow down the workings of God—and that never works. Deontology, the school under which moral absolutism falls, says that an act is moral if it follows a rule. Rules lead to obedience which leads to good. But it was the rule-loving Pharisees that frustrated Jesus the most. As He said in Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." Morality is absolute, as it is based on the unchanging Creator. But there is more to morality than rules (Micah 6:8).
What does moral relativism say about ethics and morality?
Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places. Instead of an objective moral law, moral relativism espouses a qualified, subjective view of morality, especially concerning individual moral practice where personal and situational encounters supposedly dictate the correct moral position.
Summing up this philosophy, Friedrich Nie[t z s]che wrote, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."
In modern times, the acceptance of moral relativism has been closely linked to the theory of evolution. The argument is that, just as humanity has evolved from lesser to greater biological organisms, humanity's morals and ethics are also evolving. Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality.
This argument, followed to its logical conclusion, causes consternation among many, even those who espouse moral relativism. Paul Kurtz, in the book The Humanist Alternative, sums up the end result this way: "If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man's option is to live for himself."
An example of this philosophy in action can be seen in the 2007-2008 meltdown of the American financial and banking industries. Those who had been taught relative morality in their philosophy and business ethics courses proceeded to live out those teachings on Wall Street and in other corporate venues. The outcome was devastating for those who were on the receiving end of their relative morality.
Oddly enough, many who believed in relative morality at that time were outraged and absolutely sure that those who engaged in deceptive business practices ought to be punished for their unethical moral behavior. This type of reaction speaks to an important truth: moral relativists have a rather dim view of moral relativism when it negatively impacts them.
Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or discover that his spouse has been relatively faithful to him, and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person's reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral law.
The problem for the moral relativists (who are usually secular humanists who reject God) is they have no good answer to the two-part question, Is there anything wrong with anything, and why? A proper answer to the question necessitates that an individual have (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority that has the right to impose moral obligation. Absent these two things, morals/ethics simply becomes emotive. Rape, for example, could never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that could be made about rape is "I don't like it."
If rape is wrong, by what standard is it deemed wrong? What authority has the right to impose a moral obligation on the would-be rapist? The only options available to the secular humanist are (1) the natural universe; (2) the culture; and (3) the individual.
The natural universe isn't a real option, as amoral matter cannot produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior. Neither can culture be appealed to, as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture
is "correct." Culture merely displays what "is" with respect to morality; that is, a culture reflects society's standard but is not the standard itself. Even the famous skeptic and antagonist of religion David Hume stated that humanity cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" where morals are concerned.
Finally, if each individual is the standard/authority for his own morals, then we have real confusion. The problem of using culture as a moral compass is suddenly compounded exponentially.
Seeing this dilemma, some moral relativists say that science can be used to dictate ethics. However, even secular scientists admit that science is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one. In addition, empirical methods are incapable of answering such moral questions as whether or not the Nazis were evil. Einstein sums up the correct position in this matter: "You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality."
So, is there anything wrong with anything? And why? In the end, the moral relativist has no satisfying answer. He has no standard to turn to and no authority to recognize and respect.
In contrast to the moral relativist's worldview, the Christian's worldview provides a solid standard and authority that can be confidently referenced and followed. The Creator God, who has revealed Himself in His Word, is both the standard and authority for morals. From God's nature comes pure good that serves as the straight line by which all crooked lines can be evaluated.
God's image has been impressed upon humanity (Genesis 1:26-27) so that human beings instinctively know God's moral law and what is right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15). People don't have to believe in God to know His moral law, but, in denying Him, they lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something that transcends the physical universe. Without that transcendent God, Dostoevsky famously observed, everything is permissible.
The tragic truth for the moral relativist is this: when you hold God's funeral and bury His moral law along with Him, something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own moral framework on everyone else. The world has already seen such things in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot.
The far better course of action is to thankfully acknowledge God as the true source of all that is good. His objective moral law flows from His eternal character and provides for the well being of His creation.
Ok, I warned you, but you just couldn't shut up. I told you that you aren't smart, talented, logical or intelligent enough to even have a hope of facing me, but you just couldn't shut up. So, lets begin. You won't follow me on this, cuz you're a fucking moronic ass-hat, but maybe someone else will and they'll translate it into small words for you. Maybe they'll even capslock the entire thing just for you while they're changing your diaper.
Claim one, atheism is a claim. Wrong. There is no claim of atheism. Atheism is not a belief that god does not exist, that would be antitheism. Atheism is the dismissal of all claims for a god for lack of evidence. It is saying that god is not guilty of existing. It doesn't mean he doesn't exist, it means you haven't proved he does exist. saying that that is a claim about him not existing illustrates how much of an idiot you are. That'll be a theme.
Claim two, without God you can't have objective morals. Well lets just see here, an all powerful deity who creates the moral code you cleave to. Or rather, the one you claim to cleave to, since you couldn't follow the bible even if you wanted to. Hell, I'd be surprised if you've read the thing, but I digress.
So, we have an all powerful god who orders what the morals are going to be. If he says raping a woman is right, which he does, then its right. If he claims eating shellfish is wrong, which he does, then its wrong. If he claims that murder is right if the victim is of a different nationality than you, slavery as long as they aren't from your homeland, fraud, infanticide, mass rape, mutilation and virgin sacrifice are all ok, which he does, then those things are all ok. So, logically, that would mean that he could come down tomorrow and write a new bible, bible the second lets call it. In bible the second, he presents a whole new set of morals. No longer is slavery ok, now its wrong to wear green, the Sabbath is now on a Thursday, anal sex is all well and good, and any man who doesn't masterbate at least once a day should be put to death. Those are the new laws. So, since God said them, they are suddenly moral. The old laws are gone because God said so.
Now this seems rather silly the way I said it, but that's because I called it bible the second rather than its actual name which is the new testament. New testament, according to Christians, presents a new moral code which creates new moral standards. No longer is sacrifice of animals ok. Now he wants sacrifice of Jesus and so on and so forth.
So, we can see by example that God's morality is not objective, it is entirely subjective. It is subject to the whims of this sky daddy you inexplicably believe in. So again, you're wrong, and you're a moronic ass-hat. See, its a pattern. Its like I can predict the future.
Claim number three, because a prominent atheist said it, atheists must believe it.Not a direct quote, but it was implied. Let me clue you in on something you may not have picked up on yet, ok pumpkin? There is no doctrine for Atheists. WE don't have a book we have to follow, or leaders we have to follow. We don't have leaders. We have speakers, but those speakers don't speak for me any more than I speak for Donald trump simply because we're both males. I'm perfectly free to say that Richard Dawkins is wrong, and I have. Watch, I'll do it again, ready? Richard Dawkins is wrong. Se, I said it.
I disagree with several of the people that are supposedly atheistic leaders. I disagree with Richard dawkins all the time. I disagree with sam harris all the time. I used to disagree with Christopher hitchens too, but he's dead so that puts a damper on things. I disagree with all of them, because there is no doctrine to be followed. Its all opinion, and that's it. So again, you're awrong, and you're a brainless twit.
Now, that's thre that you were wrong about just in the last thre posts alone, which was really one long post. Go on, keep trying. Lets se just how far you want to dig down this rabbit hole of asshatory. Cuz believe me, you can't even hope to win against me. I've debated much smarter people than you, much more often than you have, about much more difficult subjects than this, on a much more time constrained arena. You suck , and you couldn't even make a coherent thought if you had someone's hand up your ass moving your mouth for you. Which, hell, with your reputation, you might just have that.
I love your post, Cody!!! I wonder where the OP is getting his posts from. Hmmm... they're not his jriting style, that's for sure
What does it mean to blaspheme? What is blasphemy?
Blasphemy is derisive language or any other insult against God, His character, and His system of proper worship. It is reflected in Old Testament law through the third commandment (do not take the Lord's name in vain), in the pre-Mosaic law against murdering those made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6), and in the straightforward command to not blaspheme God's name (Leviticus 24:16). David considered it a grave offence to disrespect God by harming His anointed ruler (1 Samuel 24:6), even if that anointed one was trying to kill him. Ananias and Sapphira committed a type of blasphemy when they discounted God's omniscience and holiness and pretended to donate more to the church than they actually had (Acts 5:1-10). And Jesus was executed because the priests and Pharisees believed He blasphemed by claiming to be God (Matthew 26:65).
"Disrespectful speech or representation of God" is a broad definition, and it's very easy to fall into. God is Creator of the universe, absolute Sovereign, and our fallen minds don't have the capacity to fully comprehend Him—how can we accurately represent Him? Is inaccuracy tantamount to disrespect? This very concern is what drove the Israelite scholars to condense God's name to the unpronounceable "YHWH." Still, God-followers do blaspheme. Paul not only denied Jesus' deity, he tried to force Christians to do the same (Acts 26:9-18). David's sin incited others to blaspheme God's name (2 Samuel 12:14). And Jesus' family refused to acknowledge His deity (Mark 3:21).
Civil laws designed to prevent blasphemy have had mixed results. Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo were charged with blasphemy for daring to posit that the earth was not the center of the universe. The Spanish Inquisition sought out blasphemers to punish. John Calvin and Martin Luther have both been accused of blasphemy and of supporting the death penalty for blasphemers. In many European countries, where religious and political leadership intermingled , blasphemy against God was equated with treason against the State.
From the perspective of Judaism and Christianity, true blasphemy can only be committed against the true God; however, other religions also raise charges of blasphemy. When Nebuchadnezzar threw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego into the furnace, he was essentially charging them with blasphemy—in this case, the act of denying Nebuchadnezzar's deity (Daniel 3). Years later, when King Darius consigned Daniel to the lion's den, it was for the same reason (Daniel 6). Countless Christians lost their lives in the early days of the church because of their refusal to worship the Roman emperor.
State-sponsored protection of the name and character of the Christian-Judeo God is all but gone. Great Britain abolished laws on blasphemy in 2007; the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution effectively nullifies blasphemy laws, although states had such laws up until 1952. Currently, some the most active anti-blasphemy campaigns are carried out in the name of Islam. Some charges, such as derogatory writing and pictures meant to inflame emotion, might legitimately be considered blasphemous from a Muslim's point of view, but most charges are contrived. Accusations of blasphemy more likely have a personal motivation—from the desire to get a job to an argument about property. Since "blasphemy" has such a broad definition, it's easy to accuse someone.
Christians today need to walk a fine line when encountering blasphemy in the socio-political arena. In a perfect world, everyone would acknowledge the sovereignty and holiness of God. Everyone would revere His name and appropriately represent His character. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Trying to legislate blasphemy out of existence would be foolish. In multi-ethnic countries, a law against defamation of one religion may very well lead to protection for all religions. But since the most basic tenets of a religion can be considered blasphemous to a believer of a different faith, we may find ourselves legally unable to express even our basic beliefs.
How should a Christian see the issue of blasphemy? Of course, we should start by worshiping our God as holy and doing our best to represent His true character to others. Blasphemy has two sides, however. When dealing with a person whose "god" is not a god, we must understand that, although it's impossible to blaspheme someone who doesn't exist, we must avoid being deliberately cruel to another person. In the vast majority of cases, it is unnecessary to make intentionally derogatory comments about another's belief. Ephesians 4:15 says to speak the truth in love. "Truth" requires we explain the falsehoods in the opposing belief and the truth of our own. But "love" means we're not insulting about it.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - What is it?
Let's be clear: the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not taking the Lord's name in vain. It is not getting mad at God and telling Him you wish things were different. It is not pledging allegiance to Satan or having an ungodly thought flicker across your mind.
Mark 3:20-30 and Matthew 12:22-32 tell us about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus had cast a demon out of a blind and mute man. Not understanding that their Messiah stood before their very eyes, the Pharisees declared that the power Jesus used to cast out the demon must have come from Satan. Jesus explained that any sin or blasphemy, even against He, Himself, could be forgiven. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, however, can't be forgiven. The Pharisees had attributed the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. They claimed that Jesus was demon-possessed, not Spirit-filled. They intentionally rejected the prophecies of the Old Testament and attributed the Spirit's work to Satan.
This aspect of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot happen today. Jesus is in heaven so we cannot watch Him perform a miracle and claim it was done in Satan's power. What we can do is continually refuse to believe the Holy Spirit when He testifies in our hearts the truth about Jesus Christ. Jesus is God (John 10:30). He died, was buried, and rose again for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). And Jesus is the only way for us to reconcile with God (John 14:6). To refuse to believe this is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit today, and God cannot forgive someone who dies in this sin. If we die, having continued to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit's promptings by rejecting these truths, we cannot be forgiven. This is the unpardonable sin—the only sin that will keep us from receiving forgiveness from God and going to heaven.
Is there an unpardonable sin? What is it?
In Matthew 12:22-32 (and Mark 3:22-30), Jesus explains the unpardonable sin—the one sin that God will not forgive:
"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:31-32).
This passage has caused many people a great amount of confusion. Some brazenly speak against the Holy Spirit as an act of rebellion against God, believing this will keep them out of heaven forever. Others are fearful that, in a moment of weakness or ignorance, they ruined all chances of reconciliation with God. This isn't what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means.
We who live after the time of Christ cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus' contemporaries could. Jesus was referring to people who directly saw the miracles He performed and then asserted His power and mission were from Satan. They attributed the works and will of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' ministry to Satan—in a circumstance that made it absolutely clear that it was the Holy Spirit at work. This is unpar-
donable. The people (in this case, the Pharisees) who verbally expressed their belief that Jesus was working for Satan were publicly rejecting the Holy Spirit.
We cannot commit the unpardonable sin, although we can die in an unpardonable state. The unpardonable state is to die having not accepted Jesus' gift of salvation. Since Jesus is the only way to be saved (Romans 6:23), and there is no offer of salvation after death (Hebrews 9:27), the state in which we die is the state which we will inhabit forever—it cannot change or be pardoned.
While we are living, there is no sin we can commit, no action we can perform, and no phrase we can utter that is unpardonable. Attributing the works of Christ to Satan is not unpardonable for us because we were not there in Jesus' presence, faced with incontrovertible proof. Suicide is not unpardonable—our salvation is based on the Holy Spirit in us, not the method of our death. It is not even unpardonable to live a life of violence, rejecting Christ at every step. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). There is nothing God will not forgive if we ask Him to.
There is a danger in not understanding the unpardonable sin. Not just for the fools who think they can utter a phrase and thwart the power of God, but for the seeking who fear they have lost their chance of salvation. In both cases, it's important to remember that God is bigger than any sin we can commit. We cannot commit the unpardonable sin.
Creation vs. evolution - What does the Bible say?
A thorough comparison of the scientific and technical debate between creationists and evolutionists is beyond the scope of this website. For a comprehensive examination, we recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to examine the argument behind the arguments. Why is creation vs. evolution an issue? How did the argument come to be in the first place? And what are the eternal ramifications?
One of the great ironies about the creation vs. evolution debate is that, at the core, the adherents use the same methodology, but one side won't admit it. Evolutionists claim to use the scientific method. The scientific method involves background research, constructing a hypothesis (an educated guess), testing, and analyzing results to determine if the hypothesis was true. It is obvious to anyone willing to step back and review the situation that the scientific method is not applicable to circumstances that are neither observable nor testable. This certainly includes the development of the world and the life on it. Radiological testing has been shown to be inaccurate, fossils can only indicate where a creature died, and the only testimony of the ancient past is in cultural and religious stories. The physical evidence is spectacularly inconclusive. In order to make sense of it, a presupposition must be in place. In the case of the creation vs. evolution debate, that presupposition is: was there a Creator, or not?
If this is the case—if both sides use the same methodology but different presuppositions to argue their cases—why is the creation vs. evolution debate so vitriolic? It has to do with the culture surrounding the development of the evolution belief. For thousands of years, the world's understanding was that in some form or another, an outside, non-human deity created the world and brought life to its surface. Different cultures had different ideas about how involved that deity remained in human affairs, but all agreed the creator had a hand in setting expectations on mankind's behavior and beliefs. Of course, the Judeo-Christian tenet was that God created in the world and rightly expected to be worshiped as Creator.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, however, a worldview developed that inflated the worth of mankind. Humanism influenced the culture positively in that it valued each individual, but it also caused horrible damage when it sought to replace reliance on God's Word with human intellect and logic. This was not a new phenomenon. Paul said of all the godless and wicked people, "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:25). What was peculiarly unique was the ability of this new rise of humanism to set the stage for a worldview completely without God. Not that He could be ignored, but that He didn't exist.
It was into this culture, primed for atheism, that Darwin's evolution developed. And save for a handful of deistic evolutionists, there it has remained. Humanism taught that mankind is responsible for building a just society and an ethical culture. In evolution, it climaxed in the belief that, unwittingly, mankind developed its own existence. If mankind does not need a creator to develop morality and truth, then there is no need for a deity in present human affairs. Humans are free to live as they may. But mankind is only completely free from God and religion if there truly is no God at all. Evolution provides a means of completely ignoring our dependence on God by allowing for the possibility that He does not exist at all.
The idea that the world does not have a creator is so foundational to the origin of evolution that proponents don't realize they are taking an ideology as fact. They don't realize they have a presupposition at all. And they cannot see that their presupposition is identical in effect to the creationists' presupposition that there is a creator. The argument for evolution begins with the refusal to admit bias, and continues with inconclusive evidence carefully interpreted in accordance with that bias. "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie…" and are so blind to it that they cannot see the faults in their own arguments. God gave ample evidence for His work in creation (Romans 1:20), but "the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). A fool is not someone who is not intelligent. He is someone who cannot apply the facts correctly. Evolutionists may have extensive knowledge of the data, but they cannot make the leap to wisdom because "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7). There is no wisdom without God. There is no way to correctly interpret the origin of life without God.
The argument about creation vs. evolution has turned into a mud-slinging brawl of scientific fallacies and political expediencies. But, at its core, it was always about the question: "Do we need God?" Ironic that the first sortie in the creation vs. evolution war took place in Genesis 3. The argument starts with a decision—God, or no?—and every subsequent movement is determined by that presupposition. The decision is not a trivial one. If there is a Creator, all mankind is responsible to Him and valued by Him. We are dependent on Him for life, and we are beholden to His decisions regarding the consequences of our choices. If there is no Creator, then our lives are random chance and our only worth is that which we determine. And we are all fools.
Faith vs. science. Is there a contradiction between faith in God and science?
Faith in God and belief in science will never contradict if God, in fact, exists and is the Creator of the universe. If God is the Creator of the universe, and there is ample evidence that He is, then science is just knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths about His creation. If God doesn't exist, then faith and science will contradict since science is the search for facts about the cosmos. For those with faith, however, science can be one of our greatest forms of worship.
Science is mankind's attempt to understand how the world works. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools to accomplish this. It starts with a question about the world. Then background
research, a hypothesis or educated guess about the research, an experiment, analysis to determine if the hypothesis was correct, and the report of the results. If the hypothesis was correct, the cycle is finished. If not, another hypothesis is put forth, and testing begins again. The scientific method infers that a provable fact will be repeatable and verifiable—that other scientists will come up with the same answer if their experiment is performed in the same way.
There is nothing unbiblical about the scientific method as such. God made light, matter, water, plants, animals, and humans. We honor Him when we endeavor to understand His amazing creation. We also learn more about Him, about His wisdom and power and elegance. And we appreciate His grace more fully when we understand the implications of the miracles He performs. Being thankful for healing is much richer when we see the cancerous tumor disappear from one MRI to the next.
There are two areas in which science and faith are at odds with each other. The first is not the fault of science, per se, but the presumption of the scientists themselves. Science is about observation and proof. That which cannot be proven is not fact; it is either theory or historical report. Much practical good has been accomplished on the basis of theory alone. Humans went into space with only a theory about the effects of zero-gravity on bodies and equipment. Drugs and medical treatments are developed every year based on theories. But, again, theory is not fact. Because of this, we cannot know for certain what has happened in the past based on science alone. Even if we could develop life in a lab, it would not tell us in all certainty how life first developed in the history of the world. It is not observable. Similarly, anything too small or too far away to observe cannot be known with certainty. We know that if we drop something, it will fall. And we can infer that the large mass of a planet causes a star to wobble. But the mechanism of gravity is still only a theory. And until we can observe the planet, we cannot assert its existence affirmatively.
The area in which science and faith more fully collide is in the realm of ethics. Science has no ethic. The scientific method doesn't care about the environment or unborn children. Science is about fact alone. Faith, however, is the basis for ethics. Faith tells us that humans have value far above fact. Faith explains that there is something greater than knowledge, and the search for knowledge should not have free rein and be allowed to damage the very thing it is studying. Science agrees that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) but it doesn't have an opinion on the preservation of people. Faith tells us that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and have great value far above what could be learned from organs and cells and atoms. Science tells how we work; faith tells us we have worth.
Faith and science should be partners, each giving more depth to the other. Science, when properly used, validates faith in a Creator and exhibits the awesomeness of His work. Faith guides science to noble causes and gives science context. The best scientist is one who understands there is a Creator and enthusiastically learns what he can about that creation.
Blah blah blah... still too long, so I haven't bothered to read.
By the way, what is the source of your ramblings? Any intelligent person would be able to back up their argument with sources for their information and ideas.... if you were in any serious academic situation and you didn't cite your sources, you'd fail and you'd be accused of plagiarism.
Again, small ones, you cannot believe in science. You can't believe in science any more than you can believe in grammar, geography, or history.
And grammar, geography, and history have all changed within my own lifetime.
The Soviet Union was a single nation state. There was no eastern block nations as we now refer to them: they were all under Soviet control.
There was no Czech republic, there was Czecho-Slovakia.
Pronounced Check-O-Slovakia, for those using voice synthesizers.
Many of the imports and exports we learned about in the 70s and 80s in school have wholly been revitalized.
So nobody can believe in geography or science or grammar.
I used geography because that is an easier example, for most people, to get their heads around. The fact that things people view as timeless, because human memory is so fleeting, are actually pretty flexible.
Also, for those who say "Science has been wrong so often,"
look at The Relativity Of Wrong, an essay by the famous writer Isaac Asimov.
But I admit it really irks me when people of any persuasion talk about 'faith in science.' There is no faith in science, grammar, mathematics, geography, history, and so on. Even history changes, as climatology sheds light on formerly-held assersions.
As the immortal bard Tim Minchin so notably said. I wonder if the nature of knowledge is of so muteable a form when deciding to leave your apartment through the front door, or the window on your second floor. Try having faith that gravity doesn't exist. Believe it with all your might. Then climb out the highest window in your house. It'll make the world a better place.
OK--here's the link: www.compellingtruth.org, so if you wanna report me to whoever the site owner is for PLAGARISM, go for it--I DEFINITELY TRUST that they'll CERTAINLY CONSIDER the VERY SOURCE from "whince" such report derives and "file-13" it. MEANWHILE:
Why don't scientists believe in God?
In 1997, the science journal Nature reported that 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. believed in a personal God—the same amount as had believed eighty years prior. However, when those results were filtered to include only members of the National Academy of Sciences, the number dropped to 10 percent. A Pew survey taken in 2009 records that 33 percent of scientists believe in God and another 18 percent in a higher power, compared to 94 percent of the general public. On the list of long-ago scientists who believed in God are Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and Newton; more modern names have been added, such as Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, and Francis Collins.
So, to say that scientists don't believe in God is a gross generalization. However, it is true that there are fewer believers in God among professionals in the scientific community than among the general public. Why?
For some scientists, atheism is a matter of faith, not of evidence. Hungarian biologist George Klein wrote to a Christian colleague, "I am indeed an atheist. My attitude is not based on science but rather on faith, just as you have your faith. The absence of a creator, the nonexistence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy."
Other scientists deny God's existence because of a commitment to materialism. Francis Crick, a molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, was a materialist to the core. Materialism teaches that there is nothing in the cosmos besides matter and energy. The supernatural does not exist, and there is no such thing as thought, consciousness, or the soul. Crick even went so far as to predict that science would one day find that the act of prayer changes a neurotransmitter in the brain and induces a positive effect on the person praying.
Some scientists reject faith because of personal experiences. Marie Curie, the only scientist to win two Nobel Prizes in two different science categories, became an atheist or agnostic after the deaths of her mother and sister. It's possible that this loss influenced her theological beliefs. Alan Turing, a mathematician and groundbreaking computer scientist, lost faith in God after the death of his first love. Refusing to believe a loving God would allow her death, Turing embraced materialism.
Some scientists simply see no use for God. Paul Dirac was a forefather of quantum mechanics. He believed science was well on its way to describing the universe in detail, and he saw religion as a political tool. String-theorist Brian Greene says, "Most scientists like to operate in the context of economy. If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it."
Some atheistic scientists come from a religious background and purposefully reject it. Richard Leakey, a paleontologist and conservationist from Kenya, is the grandson of missionaries but was disillusioned with any kind of faith in God.
Some scientists see faith and science as mutually exclusive. James Watson, who with Francis Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, thought belief in God would preclude his love of science. He loved science more than God.
There are scientists who simply don't bother thinking about God. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize laureate for his work in particle physics, said, "The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant. Most scientists I know simply don't think about it very much. They don't think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists."
Some scientists are religious but deny any reality beyond tradition and ritual. Oliver Sacks, the neurologist portrayed by Robin Williams in the movie Awakenings, loves religion and feels comfortable in both Orthodox Jewish and Catholic settings. He explains that "nature itself seems so wonderful that I don't feel a hunger for any concept beyond it."
In short, scientists reject faith in God for the same reasons anyone else does. Their atheism is built on some foundational choices:
1) They choose to worship "created things rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25 NIV).
2) They choose to embrace "opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20 NIV).
3) They choose to retain their sin instead of repenting (John 3:19).
4) They choose to limit their definition of truth to what can be empirically discovered. Unfortunately, the truth of God cannot be discovered via the scientific method. "The world through its wisdom did not know him" (1 Corinthians 1:21 NIV).
5) They choose pride over humility (James 4:6).
One other reason for their rejection of God has to do with the enemy of their souls. "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 4:4). We must never forget that we are involved in a spiritual battle. The human intellect, no matter how lofty, must be redeemed by Christ.
God gives grace to the humble. "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards … But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:26-27).
Of course, not all scientists reject God. Dr. Francis S. Collins is the former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a young man, Collins was well on his way to atheism when a woman dying of heart disease confronted him about his beliefs. He realized that none of his scientific work answered the bigger questions in life. Later, a minister gave him C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. Something about the irrefutability of natural moral law resonated with him, and he became a Christian. The moment Dr. Collins was saved, there was "rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God" (Luke 15:10 NIV).
This doesn't prove why scientists don't believe in God. It proves that they were able to find a few lines in a few letters and speeches that point to a reason they think the scientists don't believe in God. Trust me, I'm an atheist, and I can tell you that the reasons we don't believe are far too complicated for a moron like you to understand.
LOL @ Cody... too funny.
That said, it isn't nice to pick on the intellectually challenged like that, even if he is setting himself up for it...
I'm not nice. I leave it to other people to be nice. I don't really have time to sort through all the rules of niceties. Its much easier just to be honest.
CURIOUS: how is it possible for me to be either "INTELLECTUALLY-CHALLENGED" or "CHALLENGING," when "INTELLECT" is in NO WAY, WHATSOEVER, ANY PART of this picture? How long can you ACTUALLY CONTINUE to be "the dog that's running in circles after its OWN TAIL, KNOWING that he'll/she'll NEVER catch it?"
You spat on the one who was trying in some measure to stick up for you. You poor fool.
@Leo... I shan't dignify Terrance's ignorant, misguided and unkind remarks with a witty retort. I am better than that.
Frankly mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, (lordy would you please get an easier screen name?)
I'm impressed. You've done quite well in this debate. Or, I'm just a naíve fool.
However, you've centered your arguments against atheists, and I believe it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a "believer".
Me, I'm an agnostic, and don't care whether or not there is a God or Allah, or Zeus, or any other figment of your imagination you choose.
If a creator does exist he is an evil vengeful jealous asshole and I want nothing to do with him. Perhaps that's all I can do with the little freedom he gave me, but that's what I'll do: despise him.
If you want examples of his greatness look at the holocaust, or millions of people who go to bed (if they have one) hungry not knowing where their next meal will come from. Examples abound unfortunately.
Bob
I am an atheist. I don't have faith. God didn't give me freedom, as he's been created by men. If he did exist, I don't care one bit to worship him, for he is unworthy of it. Talking about narcissism, I feel that some of you religious people, I said some, think you're better than us atheists because you think you have the protection of god and that this earth was created for you and that your sins could be forgiven, and that God decided to send his son to be tortured to redeem you from the sins you didn't commit, you could be saved, god loves you, and you and you and you. Sorry, but my point is that I hate how you try and talk about being humble, when that's clearly not the case. It seems to me as this humble/self-sacrifise is a mask for your narcissism. I don't need to worship an authoritative figure, yes I said authoritative figure who supposedly sent his son to be killed, I meant to save us, because if he did that to his son, what can I expect him to do to me? He's all powerful, well ahem, so this is not comforting at all. There's much more beyond what I've put forth, mind you. But this is how I view it
Bob, we're all agnostics, or we all should be. Agnosticism is knowledge based. Such as, I can't know for certain whether or not my porch will collapse under me when I step out my front door tomorrow morning. That's agnosticism. You can judge the probability of it, but you can't know it. So you're saying we can't know if there is or is not a God, but that isn't a stance. Its a default. Of course we can't know that. It has nothing to do with what you believe.
But you're also mistaken on your idea that it requires the same amount of faith to be an atheist as a theist. That simply isn't true. As I said earlier, atheism doesn't posit anything. There is no claim of atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. That's antitheism, not atheism. Atheism says, "You haven't proven there is a God, so I'm not going to assume there is one". Nothing more, nothing les.
To illustrate even farther how it requires no faith to be an atheist, babies are atheist. They've never heard of God, but it requires no faith. It requires no faith for you not to believe in unicorns or mermaids. Your disbelief in Athena requires no faith. You simply dismiss the claim as faulse for lack of evidence.
So, while you can be agnostic, and you should be agnostic, saying it is irrelevant in a conversation about belief. They aren't opposites. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. They are related, but not mutually exclusive. The default setting just happens to be agnostic atheism.
Imagine building a fort that is supposed to block soldiers from dozens of oncoming tanks out of bowling pins. Now, take a glance at post 134. Most of the lines start with some scientists... some scientists... most scientists... some atheistic scientists... some some some some some, but not all scientists! I think you are better off trying to build a fort out of bowling pins, but tis a very tough decision I must say.
SilverLightning, will these definitions work?
Theist: Belief in a God or Gods.
Atheist: Lack of a belief in God or Gods.
Agnostic: Belief that it is impossible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.
Gnostic: Belief that it is possible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.
Anti-theist: Against a belief in God or Gods i.e. you think that believing in God is not good thing.
Anti-religious: Against the organised belief in God i.e. you think that churches and their followers negatively impact on society etc.
I believe babies are born agnostic not atheist. They have no idea whether or not god exist until an atheist or religious fanatic get into their heads.
Despite everything, you still can't say for certain that god does not exist (well you can say it, but it isn't true). After all, despite the odds, someone wins the lottery.
Bob
In post 141, as examples, I forgot to mention Job. That poor smuck took it on the chin and kept coming back asking for more. Finally God, in his great wisdom, gave him what he already had before, and he was grateful. What a dunce!
Oh yeah, what about that bunch of kids who were eaten by a bear 'cause they pulled a prophet's beard. Talk about tough love; bet they won't do that again.
The above was taken from Mark Twain's "letters from the Earth".
Bob
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Chris in Olathe, KS on KCCV: I’m calling about my 80 year old mother-in-law visiting from Germany. She has a lot of false theology, but one of the things she’s stuck on is she thinks that even after death everyone in the world, Hindus, Muslims, Hitler, Stalin, doesn’t matter, that God will give them in eternity chances to come to Him. She can’t imagine that God, being love, could ever turn anyone away ever.
Hank: Let’s take someone like Gandhi. Gandhi is a great example of someone who did some very memorable things in a positive direction. But yet when you look at his teachings and practices, what becomes evident right away is that he looked at the resurrection of Jesus Christ and he dispensed with it. He said “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Jesus Christ is divine. I think He was a good teacher, but I don’t think He was divine.” So he denied that Jesus Christ could be the resurrected Savior of humanity, and he’s just as content with a view that reincarnation becomes a plausible way by which we are reconciled to God.
The question becomes how do you know whether or not this is so? Well, you test all things by some kind of an authority that can be validated. In a biblical worldview that is the Word of God. The reason we believe the Bible to be a reliable authority is it corresponds to evidence. Which is to say, you can look at the manuscript evidence, the archaeological evidence, the predictive prophecy in the Word of God, and know that the Bible is divine as opposed to merely human in origin.
So what does the Bible say about all this? It says, whether you’re Gandhi or anyone else, it is appointed for you once to die and afterwards to face judgment. That is what the Book of Hebrews very clearly communicates in Hebrews 9:27. So according to the Word of God we have an opportunity to have a relationship with God in time and He ratifies that in eternity. By the same token He has given us an opportunity to reject Him in time and He ratifies that for eternity. We must not suppose that people suddenly change their mind. Those who don’t want a relationship with Jesus Christ which is available to them in time will not want a relationship with Jesus Christ in eternity. Their hearts will evermore be hardened against the glory and grace of God.
That’s why, ultimately, hell becomes a ratification of true human freedom and genuine human dignity. If there was no hell, there could be no heaven. In fact, the righteous would be incarcerated in a counterfeit heaven and the unrighteous would be incarcerated in heaven against their will, which would be a torment worse than hell. The impenitent don’t want a relationship with God, and God continues in the afterlife to sustain them in existence, albeit apart from His goodness, his glory and his grace, because that is what they want.
Chris: She just can’t imagine that because God is love – I’ve told her that God is also a Judge, but she doesn’t want to hear that – that He has infinite love that we can’t fathom and that He could never give up on one of His children. She even thinks the devil may eventually turn around.
Hank: I think you’re communicating in a very wise fashion. What you said was the best of all things to say. Whether it’s accepted or not is not your responsibility, but to say it clearly is your responsibility, and that’s what you’ve done. You can’t change anybody’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But you can communicate truth in love, with gentleness and with respect.
What you are communicating with respect to the nature of God is of paramount importance. It is true that a lot of people say “My God is a God of love,” but that God is a god which is merely a figment of someone’s imagination. The biblically God, as you have correctly said, is a God of love, but He is also a God of justice, and you don’t have a full-orbed concept of who God is unless you recognize that biblical picture of God, a God of infinite love and a God of infinite justice. That is correctly said. And again, you can communicate the Gospel, but only the Holy Spirit changes the heart. So you don’t want to take a burden or responsibility that isn’t yours.
And it’s not as though God is going to keep her out on a technicality. If she wants a relationship with God, God will reveal Himself to her. The God of the Bible is revealed not only in the Bible, he’s revealed in the universe that He has created and He has put a knowledge of Himself on the tablet of her heart. You can suppress that knowledge, but you do that in unrighteousness. That’s what Jesus said to Nicodemus. “Light came into darkness, but men loved darkness.” So they persist in their worldview, not because there’s not enough light, not because they can’t believe, but because they won’t believe.
Chris: That’s exactly what we said to her today. If anyone out there would like to pray for her, her name’s Gerty and she’s 80 years old and she has lived through a rough life.
Hank: I can identify with that. My mother is now 87. She loves the Lord, but I can identify with her, almost picture her in the sense that my mother, also – we’re from Holland – and my mother endured the Second World War as a nurse and I’m very familiar with that war generation. But let me [pray] for Gerty right now.
Father, thank you so much for bringing Gerty to our attention. Oh, Lord Jesus we ask You that You will open her heart. We recognize that prayer is firing the winning shot and even now on bended knee we ask you Lord through Your precious Holy Spirit to give her a glimpse of her Savior. Oh, Lord, may she come to say “Lord Jesus, I want You to be my Savior and my Lord. Oh, Lord Jesus, Your will be done in my life.” Lord, may she realize that she is a sinner but that as she repents of her sin she can receive You in all Your fullness. Not just when she dies, but even now she might have life that is life indeed. Oh, Lord Jesus, we bring her in unity before your throne of grace. Lord, may the scales fall off her eyes as the scales fell off the eyes of Saul, who became the great apostle Paul. Lord, we pray this again, not by might nor by power, but by Your Spirit, and Lord, will you please use, in the process, her precious family, and Lord, would you also bring other circumstances and people into her life while there’s yet time. This is the appointed day of salvation and Lord, may you bring it about not by our human effort, but by Your glorious Spirit. We ask in Jesus’ Name, amen.
Give her my regards, as well.
Chris: Thank you so much. Danke.
Hank: You are entirely welcome. God bless you.
Dec 18, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Celebration, Christmas, Conscience, Holidays, Pagan, Sabbath, Worship
Q & A: Is Christmas a Pagan Holiday?
Second Coming
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Lou in St. Louis, MO on KSIV: Hi, Hank. This is his wife. He had to go to work. My name is Ginger. The Bible talks about under one name you shall enter the gates of heaven. What is that name? We’ve read that God has been identified as Yahweh.
Hank: What’s really important is that you have the God who is revealed in Scripture. That one God, Yahweh in the Old Testament, is revealed as one God by nature, three in Person. Which is to say that the God of the Bible is a God who is one. We are fiercely monotheistic as believers, both Old Testament and New Testament believers. But if you read through the Bible, what you apprehend is that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Now, when we’re talking about Father, Son and Holy Spirit we’re talking about personal identification formed and completed on the basis of relationships within the Godhead.
So you might say, from a biblical perspective, that there’s one “What” and three “Who”s. If I were to say there was one God and three Gods I’d be obviously contradicting myself. But
You got me. I can't make any counter-claims that there are studies and supposed evidence based on the archaeological and biblical studies that there are, however I can still speak from personal experience and say that the Holy Spirit has never communicated with me in any way. I am confident that Cody or someone else who has probably done more extensive studies of this stuff can make a great counter-claim, but I don't have a lot to go off of because these sorts of things don't interest me. And because everyone who is Christian is so strongly positive that the Holy Spirit has touched them and changed their lives, I still don't have to agree. I can still not make sense to you because I gave God a chance and was let down. I don't have to make sense to you, and I will do nothing but speak the truth that I believe as you will do the same to me.
that’s not what the Bible says. It’s one God revealed in three Persons. And by the way, those three Persons are eternally distinct. So the Father never becomes the Son and the Son never becomes the Holy Spirit.
So it is in the name of Yahweh revealed in the Old Testament and manifested through Christ in the New – and remember Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. It is through the name of the one true God revealed in Scripture that we have entrance into a relationship with our Creator for both time and for eternity.
Ginger: Thank you so much for that. With regard to pagan holidays, some religions don’t celebrate Christmas or July 4th or anything. As Christians, are these considered pagan holidays?
Hank: I think this is a matter of conscience. I think that wonderful Christians have chosen not to celebrate those holidays for particular reasons, but I don’t think you want to do it for the wrong reasons. Sometimes you have the wrong reasons given, something that ends up being historical revisionism. As Christians we ought to be those committed to truth.
The issue here from a historical standpoint is simply this: that the holidays were never meant as a means of Christianizing something that’s pagan, but rather as a means of setting up a rival celebration. So, for example, Christmas is not the Christianizing of something that’s pagan, but it is a rival celebration intended to communicate that the real joy of the world is Christ Who, in the incarnation, comes and brings meaning, purpose and fulfillment to our lives and through Him we might have redemption, which is a reestablished relationship with God in full in the new time/space continuum, the new heavens and the new earth, and in part even now. So Christ came to give us life and to give us life more abundantly, even in the present.
So, again, the idea here is that we want to set up a rival celebration to say that this is something that we overtly celebrate to bring glory to the name of the One who came in a manger and lived a perfect life which we could never live, offers us His perfection as an absolutely free gift.
Ginger: Thank you very much. My last question is regarding the Sabbath day and what starts the first day. With regard to the Bible, is the first day of the week Saturday?
Hank: No, the first day of the week is Sunday. The last day of the week is Saturday. But the idea behind this, remember, is we were always given a pattern of recognition. Which is to say in Genesis we are to remember God’s creative prowess, and so we work six days and we rest on the seventh in honor of the One who created everything.
In Exodus it is the celebration of God’s liberation from oppression. But in the New Testament it becomes a celebration that we have through Christ in whom we have out Sabbath rest. That Sabbath rest ultimately comes as a result of the resurrection, and, therefore, the most dangerous snare that anyone could imagine in the early Christian church was a failure to recognize that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled the type and the shadow. So because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because of the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday, the early Christian church changed a theological tradition that had given them their national identity because Christ had risen from the dead and through Christ we have our Sabbath rest and therefore no longer slavishly bound to the Old Testament Laws with respect to the Sabbath such that if we did any work on the Sabbath we’d have to be stoned to death.
Those civil and ceremonial laws have ultimately been abrogated, and not only abrogated, but heightened ultimately in the resurrected Christ who fulfills the substance that once was shadow. We’ll be right back in just a moment with your questions.
Oct 23, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Antichrist, Christ, Eschatology, Interpretation, Prophecy, Revelation, Second Coming
Q & A: How Will We Recognize Christ
Second Coming
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Grace in Salt Lake City, UT on KUTR: Hi Hank. I sure appreciate you helping us muddle through these Scriptures. My question is about the Second Coming. Just as the Jews didn’t recognize Jesus as their messiah, I am questioning how we are going to know that Jesus Christ is our messiah. Does the antichrist come during the sixth trumpet and then Jesus Christ comes at the seventh trumpet? The way we might know it’s Him is if we’re still in our physical bodies it’s the antichrist, but if it’s Jesus Christ we will be changed to our spiritual bodies, changed in the twinkling. Am I totally off?
Hank: I don’t think you want to read the Book of Revelation in that fashion, first and foremost. Remember that when you look at what is going on when the seals are opened in Revelation, chapter six, this has to do with something that is going on in that epic of time.
So when John says “I watched as he opened the sixth seal there was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place,” this is apocalyptic language that we should be familiar with, because this apocalyptic language is used throughout the Scripture. Indeed, Jesus used this very language in the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24. Joel uses this language, Isaiah uses this language.
The language in every case is used with respect to judgment of nations. So, for example, if you look at the context of Isaiah, the judgment is on Babylon. The Medes and Persians are going to turn out the light of the glories of the Babylonian empire. In Joel you see the language being used with respect to judgment on God’s people. The same thing is true when you read Revelation 6. Once again you see judgment on those who were called to be a light to the nations, but, instead, prostituted themselves with the nations.
So Jesus takes the language of the Old Testament prophets and applies it to what is going to happen when Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. Remember Jesus said in the context of using this very language in the Olivet Discourse that all of it would happen within a generation. And so His prophecy was fulfilled precisely in that way. Within a generation the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in fulfillment of Messiah’s prophecy. So this takes place in a 1st century epic. By the way, John, in Revelation, has an expanded Olivet Discourse. And so he’s talking about something that’s happening in a 1st century epic.
Now, to extend this a little further, Revelation is not written to you – it’s not written to me. It is written for you and it is written for me. Which is to say that Revelation is written to seven churches in the epicenter of the Caesar cult, and Jesus, through John and through the vision, is encouraging His people, true Israel, to be faithful and fruitful. They’re going to suffer persecution for a short time. Everything is going to be upended, but in the end they will receive an eternal vindication, and so He is encouraging them. And as we read through Revelation we are, ourselves, are encouraged because we too have the same hope that John holds out for the faithful, and that is they’ll see a New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, prepared as a bride beautifully adorned for her husband. As Paul also points out in Galatians 4, it’s not the Jerusalem below, it’s the Jerusalem above that is free and she is our mother. If we’re attached to the Jerusalem that’s below, then Paul points out we are still in bondage, but we are not in bondage as true Israel because we’re looking forward to the New Jerusalem that shines with the glory of God, and its brilliance is like a very precious jewel, like a jasper,
clear as crystal.
So that’s really what’s going on here in the Book of Revelation. Furthermore, let me say one other thing in response to your call, and that is antichrist. Antichrist is never used in the Book of Revelation, but it is used in John’s Epistles, and it has to do with anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. So whether an individual or an institution, and it doesn’t matter whether you live in this century or the 1st century or the 20th century or even now in the 21st century, if you deny Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, then you are, by virtue of that, antichrist or against Christ. So it’s any individual, any institution that denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He has come in the flesh.
Grace: Okay, so when we hear about the wound and His mouth and all of that, I guess I’m confused. Is it an actual person?
Hank: Remember, what you have to understand when you read a book like Revelation is you will immediately be confused by what John is saying unless you are firmly tethered to the rest of Scripture. Let me back up a little bit.
Remember when the Bible was being translated into the English language, at that particular epic of time it was considered a road to what was called a floodgate to iniquity, which is to say if you put the Bible into the hands of laypeople it will lead to iniquity because they don’t know how to interpret the Scripture. This was the thought of the Catholic humanists at the time. But Reformers said no, we want to put the Bible into the hands of the laity and then teach them how to read Scripture in light of Scripture. And this is particularly what we have to do with respect to Revelation. Revelation is 404 verses. 278 of them are contextualized by other portions of Scripture – particularly the Old Testament. Beyond that, oftentimes John is using metaphors that we wouldn’t get unless he explained what they meant. So, he talks, for example, about the flaming torches of fire before the throne of God. And then he explains to us what they are – the seven spirits of God, and even that takes explaining. Otherwise you’ll think there’s nine in the Godhead.
But he also does the same thing with golden bowls full of incense, and he says these are the prayers of the saints. So apocalyptic language is not just apocalyptic in the sense of an unveiling, but in the sense of a linguistic matrix that comes directly from the rest of Scripture. So the short answer is, things will be confusing unless you are firmly tethered to Scripture and you read Scripture in light of Scripture.
And do remember, metaphors so often – people often say “Well, now you’re not interpreting the Bible literally” – Well, John himself is not asking us to interpret the Bible in a wooden, literalistic fashion, but in the sense in which it’s intended. We have to recognize that the metaphors of Scripture have sharp teeth. They’re not there to obscure knowledge, but rather they are there to illumine knowledge that we might otherwise miss. So when Jesus Christ is described as having a tongue that looks like a sword, this is not what Jesus Christ looks like. It is what Jesus is like. Or when the Holy City is described as being 12,000 stadia in length and as wide and high as it is long, we’re not to suppose that we’re going to inherit some great big cube in the sky, as some modern writers write in sensationalistic books about heaven, but rather we are to recognize that John is drawing from the imagery of the Old Testament. The cube-shaped holy of holies in which Jehovah dwelt is an analogy when the new heavens and the new earth in which we will experience God and see Him, as it were, face to face, where we will physically commune with the resurrected Christ.
So, again, all of Scripture has to be contextualized or read in light of Scripture, and when we fail to do that we mistake the meaning of Scripture. I’ve written about the antichrist and the beast in Revelation and, of course the Lamb. Jesus is described as a Lion and a Lamb, not to get us confused, but when He is, He’s described in that way because elsewhere in Scripture He is described as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He’s also the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. So when we read Scripture in light of Scripture we find out that the description of a lion and a lamb is to teach us something about Jesus Christ that we might ordinarily miss.
I’ve written about this in various places. The Apocalypse Code, The Complete Bible Answer Book, Collector’s Edition and much more.
Oct 18, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Blessing, Christian Living, Empowering, Holy Spirit, Sanctification, Sinless Perfection
Q & A: A Second Blessing?
Holy Spirit Descending
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Mitch in Chapman, KS: Really appreciate the show. Love listening to you. A few weeks ago I met a couple visiting my church. They said they were members of the Church of God Holiness. I looked up information on them and it said they believed in something called a second work of grace, which is Christian perfection in this life. What are your thoughts on this and what Scriptural evidence do they use?
Hank: There is no Scriptural evidence for it whatsoever. It is a pretext that is part of a theological construct. It doesn’t necessarily rule this out as being outside the pale of orthodoxy, but I think it’s one of those issues that we can debate vigorously about on the basis of the Word of God, which lets us know that if you are a believer and you are indwelt by the power of the Holy Spirit, but as an indwelt believer you can continuously be infilled by the power of the Holy Spirit. Which is to say you can be continuously empowered for service, and that’s why I often repeat on this show “Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.” So there is not only a second blessing, but there is a third and there is a one millionth, and if you live long enough, perhaps a one billionth. The reality is that every time we are infilled or we are empowered for service, we are receiving another blessing.
This is the very thing that Jesus communicated to the disciples when He was about to leave the earth. He said “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” So witnessing is another blessing that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill.
So the notion that there is a second blessing that leads us to entire sanctification, I think is misguided. We are continuously being infilled or empowered for service because, indeed, we are leaky vessels and we need to be empowered daily so that we can be of service to the Master.
Mitch: Amen. That’s what I was thinking as well. I appreciate the time, Hank.
Hank: You got it.We will never be entirely sanctified until that day that Jesus comes to put all things to right. Then we will be in practice only what we are only now in position. In position we are covered by a foreign righteousness, a righteousness not of our own that comes by the Law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.
Oct 11, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Bible, Children, Coming Out, Gay, Homosexuality, Parenting
Q & A: Approaching Gay Children with Biblical Truth
Mom and Son
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Kelly in Kansas City, KS on BOTT radio: Hi, Hank. You articulate all your answers so easily for all us non-theologians to understand.
My struggle is with my son, whom I raised in the Southern Baptist church and he’s been baptized and saved and around the age of seventeen he told me that he was a homosexual. I continue to struggle with that be-
clear as crystal.
So that’s really what’s going on here in the Book of Revelation. Furthermore, let me say one other thing in response to your call, and that is antichrist. Antichrist is never used in the Book of Revelation, but it is used in John’s Epistles, and it has to do with anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. So whether an individual or an institution, and it doesn’t matter whether you live in this century or the 1st century or the 20th century or even now in the 21st century, if you deny Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, then you are, by virtue of that, antichrist or against Christ. So it’s any individual, any institution that denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He has come in the flesh.
Grace: Okay, so when we hear about the wound and His mouth and all of that, I guess I’m confused. Is it an actual person?
Hank: Remember, what you have to understand when you read a book like Revelation is you will immediately be confused by what John is saying unless you are firmly tethered to the rest of Scripture. Let me back up a little bit.
Remember when the Bible was being translated into the English language, at that particular epic of time it was considered a road to what was called a floodgate to iniquity, which is to say if you put the Bible into the hands of laypeople it will lead to iniquity because they don’t know how to interpret the Scripture. This was the thought of the Catholic humanists at the time. But Reformers said no, we want to put the Bible into the hands of the laity and then teach them how to read Scripture in light of Scripture. And this is particularly what we have to do with respect to Revelation. Revelation is 404 verses. 278 of them are contextualized by other portions of Scripture – particularly the Old Testament. Beyond that, oftentimes John is using metaphors that we wouldn’t get unless he explained what they meant. So, he talks, for example, about the flaming torches of fire before the throne of God. And then he explains to us what they are – the seven spirits of God, and even that takes explaining. Otherwise you’ll think there’s nine in the Godhead.
But he also does the same thing with golden bowls full of incense, and he says these are the prayers of the saints. So apocalyptic language is not just apocalyptic in the sense of an unveiling, but in the sense of a linguistic matrix that comes directly from the rest of Scripture. So the short answer is, things will be confusing unless you are firmly tethered to Scripture and you read Scripture in light of Scripture.
And do remember, metaphors so often – people often say “Well, now you’re not interpreting the Bible literally” – Well, John himself is not asking us to interpret the Bible in a wooden, literalistic fashion, but in the sense in which it’s intended. We have to recognize that the metaphors of Scripture have sharp teeth. They’re not there to obscure knowledge, but rather they are there to illumine knowledge that we might otherwise miss. So when Jesus Christ is described as having a tongue that looks like a sword, this is not what Jesus Christ looks like. It is what Jesus is like. Or when the Holy City is described as being 12,000 stadia in length and as wide and high as it is long, we’re not to suppose that we’re going to inherit some great big cube in the sky, as some modern writers write in sensationalistic books about heaven, but rather we are to recognize that John is drawing from the imagery of the Old Testament. The cube-shaped holy of holies in which Jehovah dwelt is an analogy when the new heavens and the new earth in which we will experience God and see Him, as it were, face to face, where we will physically commune with the resurrected Christ.
So, again, all of Scripture has to be contextualized or read in light of Scripture, and when we fail to do that we mistake the meaning of Scripture. I’ve written about the antichrist and the beast in Revelation and, of course the Lamb. Jesus is described as a Lion and a Lamb, not to get us confused, but when He is, He’s described in that way because elsewhere in Scripture He is described as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He’s also the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. So when we read Scripture in light of Scripture we find out that the description of a lion and a lamb is to teach us something about Jesus Christ that we might ordinarily miss.
I’ve written about this in various places. The Apocalypse Code, The Complete Bible Answer Book, Collector’s Edition and much more.
Oct 18, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Blessing, Christian Living, Empowering, Holy Spirit, Sanctification, Sinless Perfection
Q & A: A Second Blessing?
Holy Spirit Descending
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Mitch in Chapman, KS: Really appreciate the show. Love listening to you. A few weeks ago I met a couple visiting my church. They said they were members of the Church of God Holiness. I looked up information on them and it said they believed in something called a second work of grace, which is Christian perfection in this life. What are your thoughts on this and what Scriptural evidence do they use?
Hank: There is no Scriptural evidence for it whatsoever. It is a pretext that is part of a theological construct. It doesn’t necessarily rule this out as being outside the pale of orthodoxy, but I think it’s one of those issues that we can debate vigorously about on the basis of the Word of God, which lets us know that if you are a believer and you are indwelt by the power of the Holy Spirit, but as an indwelt believer you can continuously be infilled by the power of the Holy Spirit. Which is to say you can be continuously empowered for service, and that’s why I often repeat on this show “Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.” So there is not only a second blessing, but there is a third and there is a one millionth, and if you live long enough, perhaps a one billionth. The reality is that every time we are infilled or we are empowered for service, we are receiving another blessing.
This is the very thing that Jesus communicated to the disciples when He was about to leave the earth. He said “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” So witnessing is another blessing that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill.
So the notion that there is a second blessing that leads us to entire sanctification, I think is misguided. We are continuously being infilled or empowered for service because, indeed, we are leaky vessels and we need to be empowered daily so that we can be of service to the Master.
Mitch: Amen. That’s what I was thinking as well. I appreciate the time, Hank.
Hank: You got it.We will never be entirely sanctified until that day that Jesus comes to put all things to right. Then we will be in practice only what we are only now in position. In position we are covered by a foreign righteousness, a righteousness not of our own that comes by the Law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.
Oct 11, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Bible, Children, Coming Out, Gay, Homosexuality, Parenting
Q & A: Approaching Gay Children with Biblical Truth
Mom and Son
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Kelly in Kansas City, KS on BOTT radio: Hi, Hank. You articulate all your answers so easily for all us non-theologians to understand.
My struggle is with my son, whom I raised in the Southern Baptist church and he’s been baptized and saved and around the age of seventeen he told me that he was a homosexual. I continue to struggle with that be-
cause I’m just not astute enough, I don’t think, or strong enough to talk to him biblically about that other than I told him about Sodom and Gomorrah. He was raised in the same church that I was. He’s got to know the truth. I’d welcome any advice you can give in regards to the situation.
Hank: Well, Kelly, we love our children. We love our children unconditionally and the reality is that there are children that have a said faith – in other words, they say they believe – and there are children who really believe. In either case, we love them, and we demonstrate through our life and through our love the reality of our faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
But in a practical way there are many things that you can say to him. When someone comes to you, whether a child or a friend or an acquaintance or someone you just cross paths with, and they say “I am a homosexual,” I think it’s important that you recognize the reality that they have stated something that is not true. Someone is not a homosexual in the sense of an identity, and that’s typically that’s what they mean when they say “I’m a homosexual.” They say “This is my identity,” and homosexuality is not an identity. Homosexuality is a behavior. His identity is a male just as your identity is a female. So he’s talking about a behavior and sometimes with gentleness and respect, to demonstrate that he’s talking about a behavior is something that opens someone’s eyes. And now the question becomes, if you’re a genuine follower of Jesus Christ then you will heed His words. Jesus ratified the entirety of the Law of the prophets and therefore He has set parameters around our lives because He loves us and He wants our joy to be fulfilled and complete in every way. He’s not a cosmic killjoy for your son or for anybody else. What He is is one who set parameters around our lives because if we violate those parameters there’s going to be damage that’s done to us physically and metaphysically. Sin has its consequences. So if I’m involved in sin it has its consequences just as when he’s involved in sin it has its consequences.
So the question now becomes are we going to set our sights, our standards for the course of our life by shooting stars or by the North Star? If we set the course for our lives by shooting stars, then we follow popular opinion and whatever is politically correct at a given period of time. If you look at Obama, for example. He has completely reversed his stand on same-sex sexuality in many ways, including his views on marriage in this regard. Well, he’s setting his course by shooting stars. He’s looking at whatever is politically correct, he’s looking at trends, and now truth is determined by those trends.
If you’re a Christian, however, what you say is “Look, I am going to set my standard by the Word of God because God knows what’s best for me and therefore the owner’s manual becomes meaningful to me and I’m going to set the course of my life based on Scripture. So I’m going to fail, I’m going to sin,” and in his propensity, his homosexuality, he may sin in that way, but that simply means that he’s going to repent of that sin, and even if he falls again he’s going to repent again of that sin, recognizing that God is just and faithful and righteous and will forgive him of his sin and cleanse him from all unrighteousness.
So whether you’re a homosexual sinner or a heterosexual sinner, the real issue is not whether you sin – we all sin – the real issue is do we want to do it God’s way, which is repentance, a change of the heart, a change of mind. It’s a change of the will. It’s moving in a different direction, saying let’s do it God’s way. So if he’s involved in homosexual behavior and repents of that, even if he falls again, God will forgive him. But if he says “I don’t really care what God says. I’m going to do it my own way,” then it’s a demonstration that he hasn’t really repented to begin with.
Kelly: Right and I understand that. It’s just that there’s all these churches now that are cropping up that are twisting God’s Word and using every phrase, including the Sodom and Gomorrah example, and trying to disprove the origin of what happened there was and convincing people that it is okay and making it more of an identity rather than a behavior publicly to promote the homosexual agenda.
Hank: It’s not only that, but they want to be politically correct. This is why James says “Let not many of you be teachers because with teaching there is a stricter judgment.” Ideas have consequences and people that go with political correctness are not helping anyone.
If it all became politically correct by saying that cancer is not harmful to the human body and the whole of the medical profession went in the direction of saying “Don’t worry about cancer, it’s not going to hurt you,” it doesn’t mean cancer is not going to hurt you. The reality is that it will hurt you. And the same thing is true not only with the physical body, but it’s true with the metaphysical aspects of our humanity. You can’t contradict your own biology and get away with it. There is a consequence to that, and to save someone from that consequence means that you tell them the truth. To not tell them the truth is to be homophobic. This is precisely what pastors in the pulpit are doing today. Why? Because they don’t want to risk being controversial. They’re not protecting the sheep. They’re letting the wolves into the sheep pen. Why? Because they care about their careers more than they care about the canon of Scripture or about truth.
So while I can’t judge anybody’s heart, I can say in general terms that’s typically what’s happening. So we’re capitulating to the culture as opposed to being change agents in the culture. And I can tell you this: the very same arguments that are today being used with regard to same-sex sexuality can oftentimes be applied to group sex, to bestiality to incest to all kinds of other things that are not helpful to the human condition. We can see this over and over again in myriad ways. If you look at all the statistical categories with respect to sociology when it comes to same-sex sexuality you find that uniformly they point in one direction – that a father/mother coupling is better than a father/father, mother/mother coupling for the good of the child, for the good of the family, for the good of society. All the indicators point in that direction. So when people point in a different direction it’s because it’s politically correct, not because it is best for the family or best for the child. So the indicators point in a different direction. They point in the direction of God’s infallible Word, not in the direction of what has become politically correct and popular.
And again, as Christians, instead of being microcosms of the culture we need to be cultural initiators, not cultural imitators, and that, unfortunately has become what the church has become at large. It’s imitating the culture. So we’re baptized secular humanists. We’re baptized, but we’re still doing it the world’s ways.
Kelly: I like that. I appreciate your time. It’s always a pleasure to hear you articulate so well. Thank you again.
Hank: God bless you, Kelly.
Sep 11, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Adultery, Bathsheba, King David, Murder, Nathan, Sin, Uriah Q & A: A Man After God’s Own Heart
DAVID and Bathsheba
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Kay in St. Louis, MO: Hi. Thank you for taking my call, Mr. Hanegraaff. I am wanting you to plot a discourse, perhaps, on David on the phrase that he was a man after God’s own heart. It’s my understanding that that was stated early in his life, and yet later in his life with Uriah, Bathsheba incident, for example, he sins as dispassionately as he prays. Tell me your perspective on it. At the end of his life was he still a man after God’s own heart, do you think?
Hank: I don’t think there’s any question about it. He’s Israel’s quintessential king, he’s a man after God’s own heart. That is not because he doesn’t sin. It is because he desires fellowship with his heavenly father and therefore confesses his sin, most notably in Psalm 51 where he says “Have mercy on me, O God. According to your unfailing love, blot out my transgressions, cleanse me from my sins.” And he asks God to restore to him, grant to him a willing spirit and the joy of his salvation. “Create in me,” he says, “a pure heart, O God. Renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of my salvation. Grant a willing spirit to sustain me.” And then he says “Then I will teach transgressors your ways and sinners will turn back to you. Save me from blood-guilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.”
He was well aware that he not only had an affair with Bathsheba, but as a result of that affair he had to have Uriah killed on the battlefront. So he had blood on his hands and this was pointed out to him in no uncertain terms when Samuel pointed a boney finger at him and said “You are the man, the man who has taken someone else’s wife.” And Samuel used an illustration to get through to David, who was living in denial with respect to his own sin. And this was not even the greatest of his sins. I mean, it was a great sin, but there were many other great sins in David’s life, including the census that he took, demonstrating that he was leaning on the arm of flesh rather than on the arm of God.
And David is not just anyone. He is the leader of God’s people and therefore his responsibilities and his judgment is a stricter judgment, very much like what James says about teachers. “But not many of you should be teachers because in teaching there is a stricter judgment.” So David sinned horribly, but he had a heart that panted after God as a deer pants after water brooks.”
Kay: So you believe that his repentance after the fact is reason for that statement to continue to be true throughout his life.
Hank: Yeah, because he cared about God’s Law and he recognized that that Law was significant in that it ultimately was the schoolmaster that pointed him towards the coming King Who would forever sit upon the throne of David – David, of course, being Israel’s quintessential king – that promise fulfilled in Jesus Christ. So he’s looking forward to the promise. And so David, like Abraham, like the patriarchs, was not fulfilled through the Law but fulfilled through faith. The Law, the types and the shadows, temple priests, sacrifice, all of that was merely pointing forward to the coming of Jesus Christ, and that was why he actually says later on in this same psalm, “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. No, the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” Then he says “May it please you to make Zion prosper, to build up the walls of Jerusalem. Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar.” So he’s looking past temple priests and sacrifices to what temple priests and sacrifice signified, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb who would take upon Himself the sins of the world.
Kay: Could it be said of modern man, women, that someone who has, in fact, lived a life and then they fail. We have those Godly men and women who unfortunately make a false step in one direction that is not a godly step, but their heart still is following heart after God?
Hank: We cannot be cavalier about sin, and this is what contextualized it. I’m really glad that you pressed me on this, because this needs to be said as well, and I probably would have neglected to say this, but it’s really tying a ribbon around the package, if you will: If you look at David’s life, the one thing you see is that a sword never leaves his family. In other words, the consequences of his sin followed inexorably like night follows day. While he was forgiven, there were consequences to his sin, and I say the same thing follows today. There are consequences to our sin and those consequences follow just like night follows day or day follows night. So we can’t simply sin in a cavalier fashion.
If we then confess our sins, we know that He’s faithful and just. He will forgive us of our sins, cleanse us from all unrighteousness, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences go away. There are consequences to sin. Those consequences can be great, indeed. If someone with a platform falls there is a big blemish on the name of Christ and that is no small thing when Christ’s name is dragged through the mud. But that does not eclipse their salvation. They are still saved, not by what they have done, but rather saved by what Jesus Christ, the Lord of the universe, has done on their behalf.
Kay: What would you say about the call on their life?
Hank: God uses broken vessels, is what I would say. I think that there is such a thing as restoration that takes place, even in ministry. But that restoration has to be sincere. Through that restoration God continues to use David to this day. He repented, though the sword never left his home, and we can see the consequences of his sin in graphic detail in the Scriptures today. I’m still edified when I read Psalm 51 or Psalm 139 in the Bible. It’s extraordinarily edifying to me as I see God’s grace in the midst of my sin.
The reality is, we can look at graphic examples like David and we can say, pounding our own chest, “Look at me, I have not done such a thing as David has done.” But I wouldn’t want my life flashed up on a screen on Sunday morning in a church. If it were, I would duck under the pew and I would hide because I am imperfect in thought, word and deed, and if all my impure thoughts, and words and deeds were flashed onto a screen Sunday morning, I would be embarrassed. This is simply a recognition that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. That’s why Paul can call himself the worst of sinners, because he has come closest to the brilliance of God’s holiness and seen in the light of God’s holiness the full extent of his own sins.
Kay: Do you think we’re too judgmental on these leaders who fall?
Hank: I think many times we are, but to say that a leader falls is not a small thing, nor should we be cavalier about it, but we should be willing, not to run away from them, but to run towards them and help them in the process of restoration, recognizing that we, too, are sinners in need, when we fall, someone picking us up, dusting us off again and recognizing that God is our ultimate judge.
Sep 5, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Video
Filed Under: Video
AfterLife
Hank Hanegraaff gives a poignant overview of what happens in the hereafter as presented in his book, AfterLife: What You Need to Know about Heaven, the Hereafter & Near-Death Experiences.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/yLMsdPt0R8o
Sep 4, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Grace, Judgment, Justification, Resurrection, Salvation, Sanctification, Works
Q & A: Salvation and the Judgment of Works
In the beginning
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Gregory in Salt Lake City, UT, on KUTR: I was a Mormon, a very devout Mormon, nine kids, the whole ball of wax, for 46 years. Recently a Christian. I’ve got two questions. I’ll ask the second question first so you’ll know where my first question is going to lead to.
The Bible clearly says that we’re all going to be judged according to our deeds. So that’s the second question. Let me set that up with the first question. You know when you deal with a Seventh-day Adventist, a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, one of the most difficult things
is the Pharisaical or the Judaiser type attitude of it’s works, it’s works, it’s works. The Mormons’ third article of faith even says mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws – which we know is impossible according to Romans – and ordinances. So here is my question: Would the apostle Paul be upset with me if I used this example with a Mormon friend? You have a brain tumor and it’s going to kill you. A physician walks up to you and says “I’ve got the skills, I’ve got the expertise. I can fix that brain tumor. I can make it like it never happened.” So you accept this person’s gift and you say okay. So he puts you on the table and he fixes you. Now, what reason would you have to boast knowing that you really had nothing to do with this? Is that kind of the message that Paul is trying to communicate? A physician is healing you and you, the patient, had nothing to do with it other than to accept what the physician was going to do for you? How do you tie that notion of we’re all judged according to our works?
Hank: First of all, great illustration and well-articulated question. I appreciate the way you’ve put this together. This is one of the things we so often miss in evangelical Christianity. We talk about one side of the equation and not the other side of the equation. It is true that we are saved by God’s grace through faith on account of Jesus Christ alone, not of works lest anyone boast. Paul’s very clear about that in Ephesians 2:8-9, explicitly stating that but also many other places as well. In fact, the panoply of Scripture communicates that very thing.
However, the other side of the equation that you allude to is that while you cannot work for your salvation, you can work from your salvation and what you will do in the end will be judged. Which is to say there are degrees of reward in heaven and degrees of punishment in hell. This is precisely what Paul is driving at when he points out that no one can lay another foundation other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But on that foundation we can build either using wood, hay and straw or gold, silver and costly stones. The Day of the Lord is going to reveal what kind of material we use to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. If it is discovered that we are using inferior materials, then they will be consumed by the breath of the Lord’s mouth, but we ourselves will escape as one escaping, Paul says, out of a burning building.
So the image there is that there some who will have little to show for the time they spent on earth. So if you look at the grand picture, so to speak, when the Lord appears a second time, there is that separation of sheep and goats. Jesus said “Do not be amazed at this. A time has come when all who are in their graves will come out, some will rise to live” – the sheep – “and some will rise to be eternally condemned” – the goats. But then we’re going to be judged according to what we have done. And that’s why Jesus says over and over again “Do not store for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal, but store for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not corrupt and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, your heart will be also.
So it’s important to recognize that we are saved by God’s grace through faith on account of Jesus Christ alone, but we are saved unto good works.
Gregory: So judgment and salvation are different. So you can have salvation but God is still going to judge you after He’s promised you salvation.
Hank: There’s no question about that.
Gregory: He’s going to say yes, you are saved, however, He’s going to consider the deeds that you’ve done. Can you elaborate more?
Hank: It’s what Jesus essentially said. You can follow this thread through the entirety of the Bible, but you start at the beginning and you pull the thread right back from Revelation to Genesis, the idea is “Behold, I’m coming soon. My reward is with me. I’ll give to everyone according to what He has done.” Again, this is an indication that what we do now counts for all eternity. My dad used to describe this as people in heaven looking like pails that are full of water although they are different sized pails. In other words, some are going to have enlarged responsibilities and capabilities in heaven, but the beautiful thing in heaven is, here, when someone has a greater platform than someone else we can be jealous. We can be envious. But there we will look at another station in life eternal without even a modicum of jealousy or envy. We will absolutely be thrilled with the station that God gives to someone else.
Remember we’re not all going to be clones in heaven. We are going to have our own identities. The DNA that makes you you, Gregory, and the DNA that makes me me, will be our DNA for all eternity, although that DNA will be renewed or resurrected in a restored universe and will flower to what it was intended to be if sin had never entered the world. But you’re going to have your own pattern. You’re not going to be a clone of me and I’m not going to be a clone of you. We are going to be those who have their own DNA flourished to complete perfection, and you’re going to have a station in life that’s different from my station in eternal life. We will have different responsibilities and opportunities.
Gregory: I’m glad that you’ve explained that because it confuses me when some of my fellow Christians say you’re saved and that’s it and then I hear talk about being judged by deeds and rewards and I’m glad that you’ve explained that because it has confused me somewhat.
Hank: A lot of Christians are confused at that level and I think that’s because while this theme was a constant theme in the ministry of Jesus Christ, it is not much of a theme in contemporary sermons. Because of that I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in both my books Resurrection as well as in my book Afterlife.
Gregory: So true Christians all get salvation but the reward is not the same.
Hank: That’s precisely right, yes. We work from our salvation, we don’t work for our salvation. The illustration that I pointed to and I outline in my book Resurrection is really quite significant. I’m thrilled with this notion of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 3. He says “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” He says “If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is because the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it’s burned up he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”
So he’s illustrating the sober reality that some Christians are going to be resurrected with precious little to show for the time they spent on earth. They are going to be saved, but only – again, as Paul says – as one escaping through the flames. And this is going to be the lot of even the most visible Christian leader whose motive in ministry was selfish rather than selfless.
So again, in this chapter – and I’ve got a whole chapter on it – I point out that we must all, as Paul says, appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. That’s 2 Cor. 5. And that is not speaking of the reward of salvation, but rather the rewards of service. So the more we live lives that deserve reward, the more we end up bringing glory to our heavenly Father.
Again, I’ve written about this in two different places, Resurrection and my book Afterlife. Great question, Gregory. Welcome to the forever family of God and may we continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Aug 14, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Biblical Morality, Civil Unions, Culture, Gay Marriage, Proposition 8
Proposition 8 and the Church
In the beginning
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Q: In light of what the Supreme Court said concerning Proposition 8 and gay marriage, what should the church do?
A: At the end of the day, I think it’s so critical that we are able to demonstrate that the Bible is divine as opposed to merely human in origin. Because if you don’t have a North Star by which to set your sail, anything will go—you’ll start setting your standards by the size and scope of the latest lobby group.
God has set the parameters around human sexuality so that our joy might be complete. When we disrupt that, we end up doing so not only to our own hurt but also to the hurt of society in general. And I think therefore it’s incumbent upon Christians always to be ready to give an answer, a reason for the hope that lies within them, with gentleness and with respect—to be able to demonstrate that the ultimate authority is the Word of God. Because the basic sentiment today is that the Bible is outdated; it’s outmoded; it’s no longer relevant. And we can demonstrate of course as Christians that it is relevant; it is not outdated; it has the answers to every situation that we encounter, and most certainly the answers with respect to human sexuality.
Q: If the Bible is outdated, then God is outdated—all Scripture is given by inspiration of God—God can’t be outdated. Maybe a Model T can be outdated, but not God. A God that can be outdated is a limited God. Wouldn’t you say that’s true?
A: He is the One who spoke, and the universe leapt into existence. The One who knit us together in our mother’s womb. He’s the One who has created us for eternity and therefore He knows precisely what we are designed for. And this is ultimately what happens in repentance: we have a u-turn on the road of life—a change of heart, a change of mind, a change of the will—and we start doing it God’s way. But when we look at what’s happening in the culture, we have to look back at the church. When the church ceases to be a cultural initiator and becomes a cultural imitator, what happens is the culture devolves. And that’s why it’s critically important that we have reformation in the church in order to have, ultimately, revival in the culture. If reformation doesn’t take place in the church, then the culture will continue to devolve, and it most certainly is not only in a slide, it is now in an actual freefall.
Q: Oh, absolutely Hank. One more question real quick. When someone says, “It’s all about love…”
A: You have to define what “love” is. And I think part and parcel of the church’s response with respect to love is to have a commitment to others, to tell them the truth, no matter what the cost. If I am a cancer specialist and you have cancer, and I tell you I love you but do nothing whatsoever to help you, when it is in my power to do so, I am demonstrating that I don’t love you at all. And I think the same thing is true of a church that fails to tell the culture that what is happening is detrimental to people. I mean, you look at the matter of the social sciences—cross-cultural studies simply don’t lie—and they are virtually unanimous in demonstrating that a child is better served by a mother and a father than a father-father or a mother-mother coupling. Not only so, but the moment that you start to use the reasoning prowess of the Supreme Court or the Obama administration, when it comes to same-sex marriage, you start to set a precedent. And that precedent can equally apply to many other couplings. It can apply to aberrations ranging from polygamy to incest. And again, we have to be able to give an answer with gentleness and with respect. And if we don’t give an answer, it is a demonstration that we simply do not care as we should.
—Hank Hanegraaff
Jul 30, 2013
by Hank Hanegraaff
Type: Standard
Filed Under: Q & ATags: Big Bang, Creation, Creationism, Discovery, Naturalism, Particle Physics, Science
Does the discovery of the Higgs boson or “God particle” disprove the creation account?
In the beginning
Question and answer from the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Q: I’ve been having some debate with some friends of mine who are atheists, and they have asked me some questions and pointed out things that I just don’t have the answer to, or a response for. For example, the recent discovery of the Higgs boson, the “God particle.” They say that disproves the theory of God’ creation and that it enhances their theory of the Big Bang.
A: Well these are people speaking out of the abundance of their own ignorance. By the way, good for you for bringing it up. We happen to have run recently an article in the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL on this very matter. It’s titled, “The God Particle.” It’s written by William Lane Craig . You can also find a podcast of my interview with him on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, or we can put that into your hands. But this is simply about a sub-atomic particle in the standard model of particle physics. It was the final particle in the standard model to be empirically confirmed. But, it itself, is a contingent particle. So it still needs to be created. And the philosophical naturalist has to start with this notion: that nothing creates everything; life comes from non-life; and the life that comes from non-life produced morals. What’s really exciting by the way about this discovery is that it accords with the theistic world view, not with the world view of the philosophical naturalist. Because a theoretical physicist predicted decades ago that it would exist based on mathematical theory. So a naturalistic picture of the world would have no explanation why the physical world contains that kind of remarkable mathematical structure. But theism actually explains this, in that God created the world according to a certain blueprint that He had in mind. Therefore we are able to comprehend creation; we are able to think God’s thoughts after Him. Science could not have arisen apart from a biblical world view. In the age of the Greeks, they had logic. In fact the Greeks codified the laws of logic. But, they didn’t have revelation. And reason without revelation always ends up in the blind ditch of ignorance. The Christian world view presupposes that God has placed His imprimatur on the world and that we can figure things out. It’s not a world that is ministered by moody gods, but a God who is logical, who can create such things as the majesty or the tapestry of mathematics. So, in short, as you’ll read in this article, the “God Particle” so called, and by the way, that’s a moniker that was given to it, that has become a misnomer, as though the particle replaces God. No, the particle doesn’t replace God. In fact the particle points to God. I did an interview with William Lane Craig on this subject which is probably really worthwhile listening to. William Lane Craig just did a phenomenal job of talking about the subject.
—Hank Hanegraaff
123Next »
Hank Hanegraaff serves as president and chairman of the board of the North Carolina-based Christian Research Institute International. He also hosts the Bible Answer Man radio program, which is broadcast daily across the United States and Canada—as well as around the world through the internet at www.equip.org.
Drop dead.
I think I've tried to have a civil discussion about religion, and ethics with you and others.
But all you do is spout nonsense, quoted from some religious program.
If that's the best you can do, then fuck it.
Most of the supposed word of god was written fifty to a hundred years after christ died and were meant to promote a certain aspect of the christian sects. In fact, the lord's prayer wasn't added until the fourth century a.d.
So please, if you are going to continue to post to this topic quit quoting misinformed rich preachers. State your own thoughts, if you have any.
Bob
Seriously. No one is taking you seriously when you copy and paste words that some desperate fanatical apologist already posted, somewhere else. You ignorantly fell for it, but that doesn't mean the rest of us will.
Either communicate with your own thoughts, or just give up. No one gives a fuck what these people are writing here, if you want to be ignorant, fine... But your ignorance isn't argument enough for us.
In ALL HONESTY, I HOPE I NEVER "STATE" ANY of my OWN thoughts, NOR do I EVER wanna HIGHLIGHT ANYONE ELSE'S, as making any of US the VERY VOICE of the VERY MESSAGE, so DO EXACTLY WHATEVER YOU FEEL that YOU MUST, IF you EVER choose to DO/SAY/BE ANYTHING, at ALL--THAT'S between YOU and HIM, whether YOU CHOOSE to BELIEVE HE EXISTS or NOT, because as I EARLIER-POSTED, what ETERNAL DECISION that YOU choose to make, will NEVER DETERMINE ANYONE ELSE'S ETERNAL DESTINATION, but YOURS, and YOURS, ONLY--in FACT, EVEN GOD, HIMSELF, in ALL of HIS INFINITE POWER, CAN'T DECIDE YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY, ANY MORE than HE can DETERMINE MINE, because for HIM to do THAT, would TOTALLY DEFANE HIS OWN CHARACTER. BELOW FURTHER EXPLAINS.
Is God sovereign or do we have free will?
God is sovereign, and we have free will. This is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. God's will is ultimately accomplished (1 Chronicles 29:11; 2 Chronicles 20:6; Psalm 115:3; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; Revelation 15:4). He is in control over all things (Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 45:7; Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16). Yet we are also free to make choices that actually influence our worlds (Acts 2:37-38; 2 Peter 3:9). We do not merely have the illusion of a choice; we have an actual choice.
Even so, our free will is constrained. We are slaves to our sinful natures (see Romans 6). So while we do have free will, we also have a tendency toward sin. In that sense, we are not free. Apart from God, we are incapable of choosing to live rightly. We are "dead in our transgressions" (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). But, because of the sacrifice of Christ, we have now been made alive (Ephesians 2:1-10). We have been set free (Galatians 5:1). Paul explains it this way: "… count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus … You have been set free from sin and become slaves to righteousness … But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life" (Romans 6:11, 18, 22 NIV). We are no longer bound to sin and are therefore free to live in the way God intended.
God is sovereign and in that sovereignty has chosen to grant us free will. This means that our relationship with God is based on truth. We are not forced to relate with Him; we are freed to do so.
The above explains free will and God's sovereignty for those who are believers in Christ. On the matter of how God's sovereignty and our free will interact in regard to salvation, however, things become a bit more complex. We know that God knows all who will come to Him (Ephesians 1:4-14). We also know that human volition is involved in coming to Christ (we accept Him). How this interacts remains a mystery of the faith. As believers we should respond to God with gratitude and urgently seek to spread His Gospel to those around us.
Does humanity truly have free will?
This answer depends on the definition of the word "free." Human beings unquestionably have a will, as we make decisions all the time. When the word "free" is added, however, it carries the idea of making a decision / taking an action with no outside influence or control. The Bible presents God as absolutely sovereign, in complete control of everything. Nothing can happen if God does not allow it. So, no, the human will is not technically free.
Even outside the sovereignty of God, there are other factors that restrict the will of humanity. The Bible teaches that we are all infected with sin, we all possess a sinful nature (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Sin prevents us from making truly free decisions. Sin plagues us to the very depth of our beings. Further, our wills are restricted by our own limitations. There are simply many things we are not capable of doing. We cannot choose to flap our arms and fly, for example. So, there are clearly multiple factors which prevent our wills from being completely free.
However, the lack of a truly free will does not lessen our responsibility for our own actions. We have the responsibility to choose rightly and wisely. In regards to our relationship with God and the salvation He offers, the Bible calls us to believe and change our minds (Matthew 3:2; Acts 3:19; 1 John 3:23). Every invitation to believe is a call to choose. An invitation to believe assumes the ability to choose to believe. We are without excuse (Romans 1:20-21) if we choose not to believe. We face consequences if we choose to take wrong actions (Galatians 6:7).
Do human beings have a will? Yes. Are human beings truly and fully responsible for their actions? Yes. Do human beings have the ability to make to make decisions completely free from all outside influences? No. How can we be fully responsible but not truly free? That is the mystery of existing in a universe with an absolutely sovereign God.
The human nature is that assortment of characteristics that constitute and define humanity. Human nature makes us inherently human and distinct from all other creatures. Human nature includes the capacity to create, reason, love, and experience a wide range of emotions. Such a capacity is found in no other form of life.
The Bible provides much information on human nature. First, humans were created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). Human nature is a unique creation that in some ways reflects the Creator.
Soon after creation, human nature experienced a fall. A primary result of sin is that human nature has been corrupted. Every part of man—his mind, will, emotions, and body—is affected (Romans 3:9-18). Our nature is now bent toward sin, so that man's unregenerate heart is "deceitful … and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). Sinful human nature is referred to as "the flesh" in some translations of the Bible (Romans 8:3, KJV; 2 Peter 2:18, ESV).
In The African Queen, Charlie, a drunken boat captain, attributes his penchant for gin to human nature. "A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature," he says. Rose, an Anglican missionary, responds, "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above." Charlie knows, experientially, that "human nature" is inherently weak. The unbending Rose refuses to accept natural weakness as an excuse for sin.
The problem is that, by ourselves, we cannot overcome sin or "rise above" human nature. Without Christ, we are victims of the weakness of the flesh. The apostle Paul described his natural state as "unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin" (Romans 7:14 NIV).
We desperately need a Savior, and that's why God sent His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" and through His death and resurrection "condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). Those who trust in Christ become a new creation: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). The "new creation" includes a brand-new nature "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:24).
Even after we are born again, the human struggle with sin continues (Romans 7). All of us, including Christians, share the same basic nature (James 5:17). The difference is that the believer in Christ is no longer controlled by sin. Believers do not need to be "conformed to this world"; rather, they can be "transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Romans 12:2). Living a holy life before the Lord is an ongoing, deliberate process (Philippians 2:12).
Human nature will ultimately be changed at the end of time when God makes all things new (Revelation 21:5). In eternity with God, believers will be set free from the curse. There will be no more pain or sorrow, and all will be made perfect. It is God's purpose that His children "share in his glory" (Romans 8:17 NIV).
ULTIMATELY, I give ALL THANKS, HONOR and GLORY to GOD for www.compellingtruth.org, because without HIS sanctioning, ALL of ITS INTEGRITY of DISPLAYING ABSOLUTELY
Um, Dude (or should that be DuD), you just contradicted yourself yet again...
You say that you don't ever want to quote anyone else's thoughts, yet almost 100% of the drivel you post IS, in fact, stating someone else's thoughts... they write about THEIR interpretation of the so-called 'word of God" which, by definition, would construe it to be their own thoughts, the very thing that you claim you weren't going to/hoped you'd never do.
Give up Dude... you're handicapped by your own lack of coherent and rational thought, so that in turn negates any possible argument you might have of the topic at hand.
NON-COMPROMISED BIBLICAL TRUTH would be ONLY AS GOOD as NULL AND VOID. THIS FURTHER EXPLAINS why I'VE chosen NOT to express ANY THOUGHTS that come from either ME or ANYONE ELSE, but ONLY GOD'S THOUGHTS, through WHOEVER/WHATEVER HE chooses to EXPRESS THEM THROUGH, STRICTLY HIS WAY, ONLY--in YOUR eyes, AS WELL AS EVEN in my OWN, I AM NOBODY, so THEREFORE, I'm SUPER-GLAD that you DON'T listen to me, and the VERY MOMENT that you EVER DO, and GOD, HIMSELF, isn't using me HIS WAY, and THAT, ONLY, may ALL that I SAY, REGARDLESS of WHO I QUOTE, IF ANYONE, EVER, be NULL AND VOID, too.
I find it interesting that the only way the OP can possibly write coherently is through the use of other people’s words. Yet for all of that, he hasn’t convinced me, at least, that the words he’s pasted from another website are anything but klaptrap. Allow me to do some cutting and pasting of my own: “When someone comes to you, whether a child or a friend or an acquaintance or someone you just cross paths with, and they say “I am a homosexual,” I think it’s important that you recognize the reality that they have stated something that is not true. Someone is not a homosexual in the sense of an identity, and that’s typically that’s what they mean when they say “I’m a homosexual.” They say “This is my identity,” and homosexuality is not an identity. Homosexuality is a behavior.” With due respect, that’s bullshit! Because how is homosexuality more of a behavior than heterosexuality? All the bible-quoting in the world is not gunna explain away the fact that when I reached puberty, I preferred dick over pussy. That’s not a behavior. Getting married to an opposite-sex partner and engaging in sex with her when I wanted dick is a behavior. And it was a stupid, hurtful thing to do. A lot of people got caught in the cross-fire, and I’m still paying for that. A lot of gay teenagers are still paying in their own ways for the stupidity you just posted; a few commit suicide. If your screwed-up interpretation of Christianity, or should I say, the screwed-up interpretation of someone else’s Christianity that you cut and pasted from some dumb-ass website held any water, then answer me this: If your god can do anything, and if homosexuality is so sinful and unrighteous, why allow it to exist in the first place? Why, for that matter, create a species that engages in any kind of evil act at all? Why not create a species that is as perfect as yourself if you’re supposed to be all-knowing and all-wise? Wy create this giant pageant, or stage set or whatever it is, in which there’s this titanic struggle at the end of time between good and evil when you can create a species that is just plain good, doesn’t sin and does absolutely everything you tell it to do? Can you use your own words to explain how any of this makes sense other than ‘cuz the Bible tells me so? Or are you gunna continue to post someone else’s drivel from someone else’s website because you don’t have an original thought in your head? To everyone else, I apologize because I don’t think this is my normal style, but quite honestly I’m really, realy pissed off!
Again, it is not a decision between me and God. It is my decision and my decision alone due to the fact that there has not been strong enough evidence out there to prove that there is a God. This has made the most sense to me even when I kidded myself, refusing to believe what I truly thought.
johndy, think about THIS: if YOUR MAJOR COMPLAINT is that you're PISSED OFF, aren't YOU the fortunate one; you COULD'VE been PISSED ON (I JUST COULDN'T RESIST)! ANYWAY, to ANSWER your "WHY" questions:
From www.compellingtruth.org: Why does God allow evil?
The problem of evil has long been a stumbling block. We know that God is good and that He is all-powerful. Yet we also know that evil exists. A good and loving God would not want evil to exist. An all-powerful God would be able to eradicate evil. So we sense that we are left with a contradiction; God must not be all-good, or He must not be all-powerful. What we fail to realize is that we are also part of the equation.
We may be able to envision a world without evil, but we would not be in it. Humans are sinful. We have a fallen and depraved nature (Job 15:14; Isaiah 64:6; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 5:12-13; 3:10-11, 23; Titus 3:3; 1 John 1:8). This is why there is evil in the world. Why did God not simply make us so that we could not be sinful? This is the question of free will. Without free will, we would be God's puppets. We could not truly love God. Because He desired to have a real relationship with us – one that involves choice – He had to allow for evil to exist.
We may say that God could still give us free will while at the same time preventing the consequences of evil. This becomes a question of degrees. We may want God to intervene in the case of murder or rape. But do we want God to intervene in the case of our own idolatry? Sin is not graded on a sliding scale. All sin is an offense to God, and it all separates us from Him equally. An unsaved person whose worst sin is that of gossip is just as unsaved as a nonbeliever who is a serial killer. If God were to intervene and prevent evil, He would have to remove us. Plus, if God were to prevent all the negative consequences of our actions, would we really have free will?
In essence, God allows evil because He desires relationship with us. We are sinful. With sinful people come evil things. But praise God He has redeemed us! We need not live in slavery to our sinful inclinations (Romans 6:16-18), though we still battle against our sinful desires (Romans 7:14-25). Yes, we live in a sinful world over which Satan has been given dominion (1 John 5:19). Believers are not immune to the consequences of evil. But Jesus has overcome (John 16:33)! God is faithful to redeem the evil that happens in our lives.
The story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers and then turning into a prominent player in the Egyptian government who later saved the nation is one of great redemption. Joseph told his brothers, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20). Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
God allows evil, yes. But He also restrains it. Because God is good, He does not allow there to be excess evil. Only that which can be redeemed and which can lead to good is allowed. Often this is more than we think we can bear. But we know God's character. He is a God of justice and of love. Evil will not go unpunished. Nor will God's people who suffer at the hands of others go without help. In fact, much of the biblical mandates are commands against evil. Not only are we told to refrain from sin and live in righteousness, we are told to help the needy. We are called to be advocates for victims of evil. Micah 6:8 says, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Too, we must remember that one day God will eradicate evil. Now He is patiently waiting so that more will turn to Him and be saved (2 Peter 3:9). But one day, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation 20:10). One day this will be our reality: "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.' And he who was seated on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making all things new'" (Revelation 21:3-5a).
COMMERCIAL BREAK: what's the point in WASTEFULLY INSISTING that I display my OWN thoughts, rather than ANYONE ELSE'S from ANYWHERE ELSE, when NO MATTER, WHATSOEVER, it's ALL "DRIBBLE" to you, REGARDLESS?
ALSO, just as HOMOSEXUALITY and HETEROSEXUALITY aren't IDENTITIES, JUST BECAUSE one CHOOSES to ENGAGE in SEXUAL ACTS of EITHER BEHAVIOR, neither are ALL OTHER BEHAVIOR-CHOICES, TOTALLY REGARDLESS of THEIR NATURE, IDENTITIES. YOUR REACTION to THIS ABSOLUTE as having been OFFENDED, as though I was JUDGING you, which you DO have ALL FREEDOM to REACT as such, neither makes ME judge, nor the ABOVE-STATED ABSOLUTE a JUDGEMENT. ALL BEHAVIOR-CHOICES are the VERY RESULT/RESULTS of our GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL, so the VERY LIE that one FEELS that they're HOMOSEXUAL, HETEROSEXUAL, or TRANSGENDER, OFFICIALLY MAKES them SO, since FEELINGS, THEMSELVES, are ALWAYS SUBJECT to CHANGE, is JUST THAT--the VERY ABSOLUTE, INCURABLE, HELL-BIRTHED LIE, and what's SO SAD is how WE tend to "BUY" the lie, at no matter WHAT price. If you STILL INSIST OTHERWISE, try THIS experiment: if you BARK like a dog, EXACTLY, ONLY BECAUSE you "FEEL" as though you ARE one, and you can EVIDENTIALLY PROOVE that you've SUDDENLY CHANGED into one, JUST AS LONG as the BARK WAS RIGHT, and SUCH EVIDENCE can ONLY be DNA-PROOVEN, and you ACTUALLY SUCCEED, BIGTIME, in COMPLETELY FAILING to produce this PROOF-REQUIREMENT, what, then?
Want to know why your secondhand conclusion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are behaviors rather than identities is bunk? Because unfortunately for all those Christofascists out there, when we reach the age of puberty, the cold hard truth is we start to develop lustful feelings. We reach a stage known as adolescence in which we begin to notice our bodies changing. Boys’ penises begin to grow (usually), and we drop our nuts. Girls develop breasts and start their mensies. Both genders start thinking about fucking constantly anyone we can get our hands on. Remember learning about this in health class? Usually most humans want the opposite gender, but many of us want either our own gender or both genders. If we want our own gender, we have ho-mo-sex-u-al desires. We do not engage in ho-mo-sex-u-al behavior unless we have a partner willing to engage in it with us. We engage in ho-mo-sex-u-al behavior because we have ho-mo-sex-u-al desires. If your primary orientation is toward your own gender, you are a ho-mo-sex-u-al even if you never engage in ho-mo-sex-u-al behavior. If your primary focus is on the opposite gender as yourself, you are het-er-o-sex-u-al. If you like both equaly, you are bi-sex-u-al. If you didn't have any of these kinds of feelings, you would be a-sex-u-al. So your dog experiment? Not gunna waste my time on it because it's comparing apples and oranges. Get the picture?
Basically god's a dick. is what the above comes down to
I’m not so sure that’s true. If there’s a god, I don’t think he/she/it is as big a dick as the people who purport to understand him/her/it and speak for him/her/it. I’ll probably wrestle with the whole is-there-a-god issue till it’s time for me to permanently go to bed, but I find as time goes by that I’ve got less of a problem with that issue than I do with the bigots who supposedly know all there is to know about the eternal force and what it may or may not have in mind for us in terms of how we should behave or not behave. Do we really believe, though, that an all-knowing, supposedly all-loving god would take the time out to get his/her/its panties in a knot over whether two men or two women fall in love with each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, much less whether someone eats pork or shellfish? Just sayin’. ?
YES, although it IS TRUE that ALL OF US DO have LUSTFUL FEELINGS, we DO FACE the ULTIMATE INESCAPABLE INEVITABLE--DECISION-MAKING, which DOES GO EITHER WAY, but NO MATTER WHICH WAY, ALL WAYS are ABSOLUTELY BEHAVIORAL, ONLY, so AGAIN, YOUR ARGUMENT FALLS FLAT, because if you've EVER had a MURDEROUS THOUGHT, for example, that was NEVER ACTED UPON, by either ACTUALLY COMMITTING the VERY ACT, ITSELF, or even THREATENING to do so, or have ANYONE ELSE commit it on YOUR BEHALF, OFFICIALLY MAKES you a MURDERER, and you HAVEN'T, nor will you EVER, as long as it ONLY REMAINS as a THOUGHT/FEELING/WHATEVER, been ARRESTED and CHARGED for it, how can FEELINGS, ALONE, IDENTIFY WHO WE ARE, ESPECIALLY since FEELINGS are COMPLETELY NON-STATIONARY? EVEN IF you WERE to have acted upon such feeling/feelings STILL DOESN'T IDENTIFY YOU/ME as a MURDERER, although we're FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for SUCH BEHAVIOR, and SHOULD be FORCED to ANSWER to the FULLEST EXTENT of the LAW for it, of course, EVEN THOUGH you/I would be CRIMINALLY CHARGED as a MURDERER, but as far as OUR HAVING been CREATED in the IMAGE and LIKENESS of GOD, HIMSELF, OUR ONE and ONLY CREATOR, there's NO SUCH THING as being "BORN" as a MURDERER, ANY MORE than there'd be ANY SUCH THING as being born a "HETERO/HOMO/BI-SEXUAL," or ANY OTHER CHOICE to BEHAVE that ONLY WE would have to make, to determine WHATEVER CONSEQUENTIAL OUTCOME, POINT BLANK.
I was born blind, some on here were born black, some were born girls.
So, is god a blind black girl?
Bob
I'm sorry to burst your ignorant bubble. But in many cases, being born attracted to the same sex is genetic. Its not a choice. Its quite literally the god made people, according to some religious people.
In scientific terms, a lot of it has to do with genetics, and how much estrogen and testosterone one is exposed to prior to birth.
Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
That's EXACTLY the VERY GENETIC FARCE (or is it "FARSE?") that as INTELLIGENT as NOT only YOU, but EVEN the SUPER-GENIUS SCIENTISTS MIGHT SAY that you ARE, EVEN YOU are JUST THAT VULNERABLE to buy into it. UNDERSTANDABLY, as there ARE situations where one is born with TWO--male and female GENETALIA--until I've done research to HOPEFULLY FIND the COMPLETE AUTHENTIC-BIBLICALLY-SCIENTIFIC (and THAT, ONLY) EXPLANATION for this biological issue, I have NO COMMENT on, at THIS time--it STILL holds ABSOLUTELY NO WATER, WHATSOEVER, to the VERY INDISPUTABLE FACT that neither FEELING LIKE nor BEHAVING the GAY/LESBEIAN/HETERO/BI/TRANSGENDER LIFE-STYLE, TOTALLY REGARDLESS of ANY NON-AUTHENTIC-BIBLICALLY-SCIENTIFIC-EXPLAINED PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY, EVER IDENTIFIES US as such. I DO COMMEND ANYONE for TOTAL-WASTEFULLY TRYING, if that's what you STILL CHOOSE to DO, though.
This is far from a complete list of fallacies and contradictions, but these
examples show the continuity issues rampant in the Holy Bible, rendering the entire document suspect as a reference for historical and spiritual truth.
Bible contradictions
The Thinking Atheist - | Bible Contradictions
Bible Contradictions
This page addresses issues, contradictions and false logic with three of the
most popular bible stories (Creation, Noah’s Ark and the Nativity Story),
followed by a list of other scriptural accounts that conflict with each other.
Browse the points below and ask yourself if the bible is truly a perfect,
accurate, divinely-inspired document for living.
<h1>THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION</h1>
A Young Earth?
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and
the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in
the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.
The stars gave light to the earth immediately, although the closest star, Alpha
Centauri, is 4.3 light years away. So the very first star light would have taken
4.3 years to reach earth. The light we see from the Andromeda Galaxy takes 2.2
million years to reach earth, which also debunks the argument that the earth is
only 6,000-10,000 years old.
<h1>The Order of Creation</h1>
Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.
Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
<h1>Other Issues in the Garden</h1>
Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
Which raises the question, how can an omnipotent, omniscient God create
something he’s not pleased with?
Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he
rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
An omnipotent being required…rest?
Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from
any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
God placed temptation in the direct path of his two naïve children and allowed
them to be tempted by the serpent (Genesis 3: 1-7), resulting in a single
mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sin nature worthy of
eternal torture?
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the
LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, ’You must not eat
from any tree in the garden’?"
A talking snake. Enough said.
<h1>NOAH’S ARK AND THE GREAT FLOOD</h1>
Genesis 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the
earth. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood.
Eight Bronze-Age humans over 500-years-old built a watercraft the size of a
football stadium with only felled trees and pitch?
Genesis6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and
female, to keep them alive with you.
Answers In Genesis posits that Noah gathered "kinds" of animals and not all
"species," an estimated 16,000 pairs, which raises a few animal-related
questions:
How, exactly, did eight extreme senior citizens load, manage and care for
32,000 animals?
What about specialized diets (bamboo for the giant panda, meat for the
carnivores, fresh vegetation for the herbivores)?
Who cleaned each stall and shoveled the tons of daily excrement through the
huge ark’s single window?
How did they separate the predator and prey animals? Did the lion lay with the
lamb?
How do you explain the acquisition and loading of animals not indigenous to
the Middle East (many separated by oceans), like the polar bear, the sloth,
the crocodile, the fruit bat, the anaconda, etc? And how did the penguins and
other cold-climate creatures survive in the blistering desert heat?
Wouldn’t freshwater rains from the sky have made the saltwater deadly to ocean
marine life? And wouldn’t saltwater have proven equally toxic to all
freshwater fish? If water boiled up from beneath the earth’s crust, wouldn’t
water temperature changes in the delicate ecosystem have also had a deadly
effect?
Dinosaurs on the ark. Did they exit the boat and THEN get hit by a comet?
Genesis 7:19-20 {the waters} They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high
mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
This would require steady, planet-wide rainfall at the rate of 6 inches per
minute, 360 inches an hour, for 40 days and 40 nights, covering Mount Everest
under 22 feet of water. How, exactly, did Noah measure this for the record?
Where has all of the water gone since? And why is there no legitimate geological
evidence of a global flood?
Genesis 8:8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the
surface of the ground.
Why did Noah require a dove to find land (Genesis 8) if he and God were on
speaking terms in Genesis 6?
Genesis 8:15-16 Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife
and your sons and their wives. Bring out every kind of living creature that is
with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the
ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number
on it."
When the ark landed, what did the carnivores eat? All other animal life had been
drowned. And vegetation would’ve also been wiped out in the flood, so what did
the herbivores eat to survive?
Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth.
8 people of middle-eastern descent practiced incest to produce over 5,000 of
today’s ethnic groups in only a few hundred generations?
Genesis 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he
drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.
The only guy worth saving spent his latter days drunk and naked?
NOTE: Much of the biblical flood story was actually plagiarized from "The Epic
of Gilgamesh," the mythical Sumerian account of Ut-Napishtim written on stone
tablets around 2000 BC. In "The Epic of Gilgamesh, one righteous man was spared
from a worldwide flood by building a large boat with a single door and one
window. The ark contained a few other human beings plus plant and animal
specimens. Rains covered the mountains with water. Birds were sent to find land.
The boat landed on a mountain in the middle east. Ut-Napshtim sacrificed an
animal as an offering, and the Babylonian gods expressed regret for flooding the
earth. Sound familiar?
So now heterosexuality is a choice also? So OP, I realize you are perpetually spastic, horny and obsessive, a factor attributable to copious amounts of uppers throughout your life, but you posit being a heterosexual is a choice? When did you decide that hmm, I think I'll be attracted to girls?
I hope other straight people will see the total absurdity of this and for those who have not yet done so, develop some empathy for the gays.
Methhead here won't be able to do this so long as he continues to ingest uppers and be paranoid, itchy, twitchy, and short-tempered, all at the same time.
OH my god, I don't have the energy to read this dribble. Now don't come up with this shit that homosexuality is not a choice because I was naturally born a woman and you were born a man. I don't know what else to say, I just love how it derails from ethics, to religion, to homosexuality, and so on and so on. lol! :D
It's really sad to see such bull shit spewed from a gullible ignorammis such as the original poster. I don't even know what else to say to be completely honest.
Sorry guys, I've got one more screen of dribble to get through after this one.
<h1>THE NATIVITY STORY</h1>
Who Did the Angel Speak to Regarding the Birth of Jesus?
Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
The angel appeared to Joseph.
Luke 1:28 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in
Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant
of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said,
"Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
The angel spoke to Mary.
<h1>Was Mary a Virgin?</h1>
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will
conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will
call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").
The Greek Septuagint which Matthew used translates it as "a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son," but the Hebrew word "almah" means "young woman of
marriageable age," not a virgin.
<h1>Did Mary Journey to Bethlehem?</h1>
Luke 2:1-3 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be
taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place
while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to
register.
A woman 9-months pregnant traveled a great distance on the back of a donkey? Why
does the book of Matthew mention no census? And If ever there was a decree there
was none that all lineage of David should go to Bethlehem to be counted, Mary
would have been excluded because she was not a "lineage of David."
<h1>Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?</h1>
Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary,
and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and
presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
In a house.
Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths
and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
In a manger. There was no room in the inn.
<h1>Shepherds or Wisemen?</h1>
Matthew 2:1-2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of
King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one
who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come
to worship him."
Magi (astronomers or astrologers).
Luke 2:15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into
heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem,
and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto
us.
Shepherds.
<h1>Did Mary and Joseph Flee to Safety?</h1>
Matthew 2:13-16 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.
Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill
him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for
Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the
Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod
realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave
orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old
and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
They fled to Egypt until Herod’s death. But notice Luke’s account.
Luke 2:39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the
Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew
and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
The Christ child was presented, and Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth.
There’s no mention of Herod’s decree or a flight to Egypt for safety.
NOTE: The Jesus story is hardly original, much of it copied from other, earlier
myths. Hercules had a prophesied birth, a divine father and mortal mother, and
at the end of his life uttered the words, "It is finished" before ascending to
Olympus. Osiris was born of a virgin, was hailed as king, rose from the grave
and went to heaven. The early Romans had the pagan god Attis, born December
25th, crucified and rising again on a Sunday 200 years before the story of
Christ. Dionysus, the Greek god and son of Zeus, was also born December 25th of
a virgin mother, healed the sick, turned water to wine and was resurrected from
death to save mankind. It’s also interesting to note at the December 25th
Christmas holiday is actually based on the week-long Babylonian festival of
Saturnalia (the festival of Saturn, the sun god, a pagan celebration).
<h1>OTHER CONFLICTS WITHIN SCRIPTURE</h1>
<h2>Solomon’s Temple</h2>
1 Kings 6:2 The temple that King Solomon built for the LORD was sixty cubits
long, twenty wide and thirty high. 1 Kings 5:15-16: Solomon had seventy thousand
carriers and eighty thousand stone cutters in the hills, as well as thirty-three
hundred foremen who supervised the project and directed the workmen.
Why were 153,300 people required to build such a small structure?
1 Kings 6:38 In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the
temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had
spent seven years building it.
Why did it take 7 years to construct?
1 Chronicles 22:14 I have taken great pains to provide for the temple of the
LORD a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, quantities
of bronze and iron too great to be weighed, and wood and stone. And you may add
to them.
Over 7 million pounds of gold and 75 million pounds of silver were required to
construct this small structure.
<h2>Solomon’s Sacrifice</h2>
2 Chronicles 7:5 And King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand
head of cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king
and all the people dedicated the temple of God.
2 Chronicles 7:8-9 So Solomon observed the festival at that time for seven days,
and all Israel with him—a vast assembly, people from Lebo [a] Hamath to the Wadi
of Egypt. On the eighth day they held an assembly, for they had celebrated the
dedication of the altar for seven days and the festival for seven days more.
That’s 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in a single week. That’s about 850 animals
an hour, 14 every minute.
<h2>Can Man Be Righteous?</h2>
Genesis 7:1: The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole
family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Noah was righteous.
Job 2:3: Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There
is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God
and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me
against him to ruin him without any reason."
Job was righteous.
Luke 1:6: Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the
Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.
Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
James 5:16: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so
that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Some men are righteous, and their prayers are effective.
1 John 3:7: Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what
is right is righteous, just as he is righteous Christians become righteous.
Romans 3:10: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
No one is righteous.
<h2>Who Has Seen God?</h2>
Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen
God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Jacob actually wrestled with God and was renamed "Israel" by God at that moment.
John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.
John the Baptist was denying to the Jews of Jerusalem that he was the Christ.
Numbers 14:14: Thou, Lord, art seen face to face.
Moses was explaining to the grumbling Israelite assembly that God had displayed
his presence to free them from Egypt.
John 6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father.
Jesus was explaining why he is the "bread of life"...God’s proxy here on earth.
<h2>Who is Punished for Sins?</h2>
Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.
Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
The penalty of sin affects generations.
Does God Keep Anger Forever?
Jeremiah 3:12: ... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger
forever.
God pleads with Israel to repent and return to Him.
Jeremiah 17:4: Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
Same book. Also note the previous chapter, where God brings disaster in verse
11: "…it is because your fathers forsook me," generational punishment which
again contradicts Ezekiel 18:20
<h2>Who Brought the Capernaum Centurion’a Request to Jesus?</h2>
Matthew 8:5: And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a
centurion, beseeching him.
It’s the centurion himself who comes.
Luke 7:3: And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews,
beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
The centurion sends some elders.
Luke 7:6: Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house,
the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself:
for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof.
The centurion sends friends. Same book, same chapter as "elders."
<h2>Where Did Jesus Go After Feeding the 5,000?</h2>
Mark 6:53: When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored
there.
Jesus and the disciples went to Gennesaret.
John 6:24-25: Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were
there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. When
they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did
you get here?"
Jesus and the disciples went to Capernaum.
<h2>Where Did the Devil Take Jesus?</h2>
Matthew 4:5-8: Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the
highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw
yourself down. For it is written: ’He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot
against a stone." Jesus answered him, "It is also written: ’Do not put the Lord
your God to the test." Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and
showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will
give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him,
"Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ’Worship the Lord your God, and serve
him only.’
Satan took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.
Luke 4:5-9: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant
all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their
authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone
I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is
written: ’Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ The devil led him to
Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the
Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here.
Satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple.
<h2>How Many Blind Men Did Jesus Heal on the Road from Jericho?</h2>
Matthew 20:29: As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd
followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard
that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
Jesus healed the two men in verse 34.
Mark 10:46-47: Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together
with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the
Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was
Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
There was only one blind man.
<h2>Where Did the Anointing of Jesus Take Place?</h2>
Matthew 26:6-7: While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon
the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume,
which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
The anointing happens in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper. An unnamed
woman anoints Jesus. Oil is placed on Jesus’ head.
Luke 7:36-37: Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so
he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had
lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s
house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume.
The anointing takes place at the house of a Pharisee in Galilee. Oil is placed
not on Jesus’ head, but on his feet.
John 12:3: Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she
poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was
filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
It isn’t an unnamed woman sinner who anoints Jesus, but Mary who does the
honors.
<h2>Where Did Jesus Meet Simon, Peter and Andrew?</h2>
Matthew 4:18-19: And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren,
Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they
were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of
men.
Peter and Andrew are fishing.
John 1:42-43: And he (Andrew) brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him,
he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
by interpretation, A stone. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee,
and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
Andrew was following Jesus, found his brother and brought him to Jesus.
<h2>Did Jesus Allow His Disciples to Carry a Staff?</h2>
Mark 6:8: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,
save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
They’re allowed to bring a staff.
Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves,
nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Staffs, or "staves," are specifically mentioned as something NOT to bring.
<h2>Did the Fig Tree That Jesus Cursed Wither Immediately or Overnight?</h2>
Matthew 21:19: And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found
nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee
henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
It happened immediately, and the disciples were amazed.
Mark 11:20: And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried
up from the roots.
The dried up fig tree was discovered the following morning.
<h2>Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Before Pilate?</h2>
Matthew 27:11: Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked
him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then
Pilate asked him, "Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?"
But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge— to the great amazement of
the governor.
Jesus doesn’t answer the charges.
John 18:37: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right
in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came
into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens
to me."
Jesus answers the charges.
<h2>What Color Robe Was Jesus Given?</h2>
Matthew 27:28: They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him.
Jesus is given a scarlet robe.
John 19:2: The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his
head. They clothed him in a purple robe.
Jesus is given a purple robe.
<h2>Who Carried Jesus’ Cross?</h2>
Mark 15:20b-24a: ... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a
Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and
Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is,
being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled
with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him.
Simon of Cyrene carried the cross
John 19:16-18: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And
they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a
place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha where
they crucified him.
Jesus carried the cross.
<h2>When Was Jesus Crucified?</h2>
Mark 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9am
John 19:14-16: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth
hour: and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out,
Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I
crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then
delivered he him over therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus,
and led him away.
The sixth hour is Noon.
<h2>What Were the Centurion’s Words at the Cross?</h2>
Matthew 27:54: When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw
the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed,
"Surely he was the Son of God!"
Luke 23:47: The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said,
"Surely this was a righteous man."
<h2>Where Was Jesus on the Sixth Hour of the Crucifixion?</h2>
Mark 15:32-33: And they that were crucified with him reviled him. And when the
sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth
hour.
Christ was already on the cross at 9am.
John 19:14-15: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth
hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away
with him, away with him, crucify him.
It was 9am as Jesus was being judged at Pilate’s palace.
<h2>What Were Jesus’ Last Words on the Cross?</h2>
Matthew 27:46: Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, why
hast thou forsaken me?
(Verse 50 says he cried out again before dying, but no mention is made of spoken
words.)
Luke 23:46: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
John 19:30: It is finished
<h2>How Long Did it Take for Jesus to Get to Heaven After the Crucifixion?</h2>
Matthew 12:40: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth.
Jesus wouldn’t ascend to heaven for 3 days. His journey is compared to Jonah’s 3
days in the belly of the fish.
Luke 23:42-43: And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into
thy kingdom." And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou
be with me in Paradise."
Jesus is to be in Paradise that very day.
There's more, but I think I've made my point.
Bob
you actually think the OP will read it? lol! I didn't mean your dribble, bob... the OP and the bullshit he posts
To the OP, So, from what I understand, based on publicly available information, you have a scat fedish. among other perversions. those are just as wrong as being gay, depending on how you interpret the bibles views about sex.
How do you justify your hypocrisy?
Oh, and a point I forgot to make in my last message. You're saying that my point about science relating to people being biologically born gay is wrong.Yet you have no idea why. You're talking out your ass, my friend. You're so delusional.
So, we know a few things about this situation.
1. People can be biologically predisposed to be gay or bisexual.
2. God says this is a syn.
3. According to you, god is the creator of all things.
4. God created these people knowing they would be abominations, knowing that they were biologically predisposed to syn.
5. God knew these people would suffer, as a result of the way they were created contradicting the bible.
there for, god is a monster.
And god created other gay animals as well.
Well done Stormwing.
This topic has brought up some questions I have, out of lack of knowledge, or just plain ignorance.
However, I'll ask them in other topics on other boards.
Thanks.
Bob
Ok, I lost internet for a few days, so I didn't keep up, and fuck me if I'm going to go through all that vacuous crap to educate anyone. But I will respond to Bobby's post, because he asked a genuine and intelligent question. Bobby, your definitions are fine except for a couple things. First, you put the word belief into the definition for agnostic. Agnosticism doesn't have a belief. It deals with knowledge. There is no beliefs system there. Its literally, "We don't know, we can't know..." You can continue by saying, "we don't know, we can't know, but I believe", but once you do that its no longer a discussion of agnosticism. Second, the word gnostic is not the opposite of agnostic. Agnostic is actually a stand alone word, coined thousands of years after the word gnostic. Gnosticism is actually a form of religious belief which deals with revealed knowledge. There are gnostic gospils, like the gospel of Thomas and others. Its a very very complicated subject that historians have written many many books about, and I'm too sleepy to explain well.
SilverLightning, thanks for your response to my set of definitions.
You are right about gnostic not being the opposite of agnostic--I think I knew better, but was just careless.
However, your contention that there can be no "belief" in agnosticism, I think might be questionable.
Suppose I substituted the word "hope" for belief. I don't think this is just an apistimological (never could spell that word even when I took the course in college).
Suppose a kid reasons out that there are too many Santa Clauses in all the department stores, but he still wants to hope there is one guy working at the north pole to pay his home a visit once a year. In essence the kid has reasoned out that there's a conflict between reality and his belief in magic. There is a contradiction between what he discerns and what he hopes.
In my own case I know that the dribble we call religion is crap. On the other hand I am comforted with the hope that there is a creator of the universe who, in some ways, assists us in our time here on earth.
There is no reason why I can't maintain the mental duality: there is not sufficient knowledge to admit or dismiss the existence of God; yet I hope there is something that might be called God.
I don't see why I can't be called an agnostic.
Bob
You are an agnostic Bob. You're absolutely right in that.
The problem with a lot of people's thinking about this subject is that they see the situation as triangular. That is to say, you can either be a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. You can't be a theist atheist, so logically you can't be a theist agnostic, but that isn't the case. Agnosticism, because it deals with knowledge, has no bearing on belief.
Let me borrow your example. You can know that the idea of santa claus is silly. Obviously its imposible for one man to do all this stuff, magic doesn't exist, so on and so forth. That's agnosticism, or as close as we can come to agnosticism in this example. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't believe in santa claus. It just means you know your belief is silly.
I'll give another example. I'm terrified of semi trucks. I hate them. I always think they're going to hit me. Its a belief I have. Now, I know that they aren't. I know I'm on the sidewalk, and they're on the road, and they aren't going to hit me, but I still believe it because its a fear.
So you can know that religion is silly, and yet still believe in god. You can be both agnostic and theist, or agnostic and atheist, or agnostic and antitheist, or agnostic and apatheist, (that would be not caring if there is a god or not). Agnosticism has nothing to do with the belief. Does that clear it up?
What's VERY AMAZING about the posts between my CURRENT and LAST is the UTTER DESPERATION to LITTERALLY DISPROOVE by DENYING, and it seems that the ATTEMPTS, although ABSOLUTELY FRUITLESS, INCURABLY, are MASTERFULLY CRAFTED with SUCH "INTELLECTUAL HYPE," so to speak, that WARNINGLY, THIS is the BEST that it can ONLY GET. Now, I'm in the process of downloading files to my FLASHDRIVE, and I need to be out the door by a DESIGNATED TIME this morning, but HOPEFULLY in my NEXT post, I'll have the RESPONSE to BOB'S "BIBLE-RE-DEFINED" message.
I would rather find out things from Cody, who is able to put together coherent statements without rambling or copying and pasting articles and citations like a lazy middle school kid. A piece of advice to you, mygodchosenbrideforlifefinally, don't waste your breath on this. Look at how far this topic has gone. Look at how many people are taking you as a joke, as they should be. It was fun and entertaining reading I must say, but if you think you will be taken serious, as though you are going to educate people, you are dead wrong. And if by chance anyone does, they have issues and I hope they get help for it.
To Everyone except OP...
Don't worry if you're having a bad day, remember that you could be stuck with OP's life.
Kate, I should remember not to drink anything when reading your posts... I almost had a collision between hot chocolate and my keyboard.... bad bad bad!
Kate
ahahahaha lol Kate! ... I love the points cody is bringing here. to the OP, you may have your beliefs, but they don't have to be dictated to others because you think they're right. Who is anyone to tell people who to bring in the bedroom??
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, if you are calling my bizillion posts about errors in the bible "the bible redefined" to which, and I hope I'm wrong, please, without reservations, don't reply to them all, I'm begging you on bended, so to speak, not literally as that might be interpreted as prayer, well, maybe if prayer would keep you from posting several pages of posts from rich ass preachers, if prayer would do that, I pray you don't.
Bob
Oh, and another thing. I don't know if someone else all ready said this because this has been going on for an eternity, and probably will even after Jesus makes a return (if in fact he does), but I just want to say that if you are in fact doing anything, it is completely the opposite of what you intend to do. You are pushing people away from it. You can't make sound arguments which only makes us believe that you are talking out of your ass like a lot of these Christians do. You aren't giving us a justifiable reason to believe any of it.
Everyone who has muddled through this topic needs to go get a penny whistle. Only put you out ten bucks, easy to pick up a few tunes on just for St. Patty's Day, and a good way to get rid of the sledge that is this methamfested's posts.
methamfested?
Bob
Leo's got this theory that our beloved Terrance is on drugs.
He's gotta be cranked on some sorta uppers, as twitchy, angry, horny and obsessive as he is.
Hey now, I'm angry horny and obsessive, and I'm not on drugs. I'm just fucked up. You should all be fucked up like me. Its so much fun.
I didn’t even respond to the whole homosexuality/heterosexuality argument is a behavior rather than an orientation because it’s so ridiculous that I couldn’t possibly respond coherently and logically and hope to be met with a logical argument from the OP. First he mentions acting like a dog and then being a murderer, neither of which deals with the reality of reaching puberty and becoming sex-obsessed. I don’t even know why I got on this train-wreck to begin with except to basically laugh at him, and then I found myself getting pissed off. Whatever you may believe or not about the existence of a supreme being, ‘cuz the Bible tells me so just doesn’t cut it with me. Speaking for myself, I hope (a) there is something more after this life, and (b) if there is a god, he’s not as big a doush as the Christofascists would want. That’s all I was getting at before.
And I hope there isn't something more.
Well there is something more; worm food is something.
For me, I hope there is something more that involves consciousness. I just can't swallow the common beliefs put out there.
Incidentally, did you hear about the mega church that was robbed last weekend. They got the weekend's take which was over $800,000.
That sure would pay a lot of rent for homeless folks.
Bob
If a general anesthetic can temporarily wipe out your consciousness, then what reason is there to suppose that your consciousness would survive the death and decay of your brain?
I find that story hilarious Bob. Not because the church got robbed, cuz anyone getting robbed is terrible. I find it funny because the first thing they did when they found out they got robbed was to call the police. They didn't pray, didn't trust in God's plan, didn't trust that he would take care of them. They called the police. Just goes to prove there are no Christians in reality holes.
Dunno. That's probably the biggest piece of evidence that dictates against some form of conscious survival after death; but then, I don't really like the idea of this is all there is and nothing else afterwards. Coulda saved billions of people the trouble of existing if that's the case.
Cody,
Who says those of faith don't call the police?
I happen to be a Christian. When my roof started leaking water due to melting icedams, I called the insurance company. When our car got stolen, we called the police. When my credit card got hijacked I followed up with the credit card company, confirmed wich purchases were mine and which were fraudulent and signed a whole crapload of paperwork.
Does any of that mean that I don't have faith, don't trust in God? No... it just means that I have a good head on my shoulders, happen to believe that in a particular deity, and realize that, while I personally believe in an afterlife, I also believe that there's practical things I can do to live a "normal" life on earth while I'm here...
Kate
Imprecator says in post 202 "If a general anesthetic can temporarily wipe out your consciousness, then what reason is there to suppose that your consciousness would survive the death and decay of your brain?"
And that's a question I don't have an answer for.
If we don't remember what went on before our birth, why should we be aware of what goes on after our death?
Strangely enough, the new york times has an op ed that contends that nothing is alive. Slightly off topic, I think, but somehow relevant too.
I'm thinking as I write, so I oppologize for the disconfabulation. (Leo, whatdaya think of that word?)
I said in an earlier post that worm food is something, but I hope there's more than that.
Somehow it gets into the splitting of hairs between faith and belief.
And I think I'd better stop there.
Good question Imprecator, I sure wish I had an answer.
Bob
You needn't believe in anything to realize there is something more.
Your efforts will live after you. My brother, a marine biologist, saved the oyster population of Chesapeake Bay I think it was. An environmental disaster in the late 80s, when he was doing postdoctoral studies.
If he dies today, just that one deed will survive him, all those anti-environmental Christians eating oysters that come from that bay are proof.
Da Vinci left us something more, as did Michaelangelo, and a whole host of other people.
The older I get (gaps I hate that term) the less I wonder about something more for me and the more I wonder about the something more I'm leaving for everybody else.
I understand there are studies showing that given the right hormones when you die, you will experience some illusion of heaven or hell. Whatever that means for the culture in question.
But I can't help it: whenever I hear of someone dying these days, my main thoughts go to what did they leave, and what will I leave.
So yes I firmly understand there is something more now, though what I mean by that is not what the mystics or the fundamentalists mean.
If it was all about getting ourselves and as many as will follow us, to an afterlife, that strikes me as quite self-absorbed, as opposed to doing what we can for peple in our spheres of influence.
I'm not claiming that Christians are self-absorbed and don't care for other people. That would be disingenuous. I am married to One who exemplifies its higher qualities, even while holding some very firm beliefs on things. But I'm talking about the brand who pimp God and mock the idea of urban renewal projects, helping the poor, and so on, as though these ideas were decidedly unchristian.
I can't help but wonder if someone spent their whole life hoping to get into Heaven, getting others into Heaven and neglecting local people's needs, that they would experience some Hell on earth at the end of their life, in the form of bitter regret. If I'm wrong about that, I will be wildly wrong.
But I don't believe i'm wrong about there being something more, in the form of the legacy any of us leave behind. Not in our beliefs and adherents to creeds, or lack thereof, but in what we do. Specifically for other people. Not in a generalized humanist sense, but in a localized tribal human sense: what we do for people in our own sphere of influence.
Anyway enough rambling from Leo for awhile.
But Kate, all the credit goes to god with some christians. You might be an exception, but. "Oh thank you Jesus" after someone helps them carry something. "oh thank you Jesus" when the police came and saved them from a terrible situation. "oh thank you Jesus" when the insurance company helped them solve a problem. "Oh thank you jesus, thank you lord for helping me in this or that." Do you get it? Some of these christians never give people credit for what they do or for the help they are given, so that's why this argument is posed. Do you think that's fair?
Lol I remembered I was talking to this christian lady who was talking about her mercedes and she said, Jesus gave it to me. Oh really? So what about her work and effort that helped her earn it? I don't get it. So that's why I think Cody said what he said, because some of these people run off to people when they need them, soared of like they do with god.
Not exactly why I said it, though entirely valid. Look at the backlash to that Oscar speech by matthew what's his face for evidence of that.
Anyway Kate, to answer your question bluntly, yes, it means you don't have faith in God. Cuz you don't. Know one does, or few Christians do these days. Those that actually do are seen as crazy by most Christians anyway. A fact I find entirely funny.
The bible says Kate, in Matthew to be as specific as I can be off the top of my head, not to wory about such things as food, or water, or shelter, or your roof leaking, or how you'll pay your rent. Jesus says that, as God provides for the birds of the fields, so he will provide for you. For what you pray for Kate, it will be given to you. For, and this is what Jesus said, what father, when his son asks him for a fish, would give him a snake.
So Kate, do the birds of the fields call the repair man when their toilet gets clogged? No they don't. Do the fishes of the waters go to the hospital when they break their fish leg, (I think this metaphor is getting away from me). Only humans do that. Ironically, only humans have Gods.
So no, Kate, you don't actually have faith in God. You have a convenient excuse and a security blanket you saddled with the word god because it was probably what your parents taught you, and what they're parents taught them, and the vast majority of people never research enough to break out of that cycle. Its why religion is, to a vast extent, entirely geographically based.
You want to se the people who have faith in God Kate? They're the people who pray when their daughter has a cancerous tumor on her shoulder that is so large it pushes her head to one side so her ear touches the other shoulder. Its people who pick up a venomous snake and hold it up while speaking in tongues. Those people really have faith in God. Those people are also fucking stupid.
Oh but of course now she's just gonna say that god provides what she needs via the insurance company, repair services, etc.
Okay, maybe I shouldn’t even be posting this because I should be sleeping; got work in a few hours, ya know. And this is gunna look like a giant temper tantrum besides. But I can’t sleep and I feel the need to vent just cuz I can, and for the better part of a few years now, I’ve had this existential anxt going on; this what’s-it-all-about-Alphie syndrome I can’t seem to shake myself from. Anyway, I kinda have a problem with both camps. I’ve said earlier on that ‘cuz the Bible tells me so just doesn’t cut it with me. If we take the bible literally, there’s a lot of bullshit in it. We know this. Absolutist Christians will proclaim that if you’re not saved in Christ, you’re going to hell, even if you’ve never heard of him. Billions of people are therefore condemned to burn for all eternity for nothing. A Jew who died in the holocaust after first being arrested for nothing else than being a Jew, tortured and ultimately cremated for his troubles, is sentenced to an eternity of damnation because he didn’t accept the true Messiah. Never mind he’s otherwise lived a saintly life, never done anything to anyone to deserve damnation, never raped a child, never murdered his neighbor. Gay people are condemned to hell because of what we are; it’s not our fault, but we’re told it’s something we chose, and that if we change, we won’t perish. Seems like bullshit to me, and that this interpretation of the deity means he/she/it is a great big prick. I haven't even scratched the surface because frankly, I don't think anyone has the time to read through it all, and I'm no biblical expert. But to say there’s absolutely, positively nothing after this life? I dunno. The big question I then have is why. Why are we even here? Let’s say we’re born, we live, we die. We’re even sentient enough to ask why are we here. If we can prove the non-existence of, say, some kind of afterlife where our consciousness might survive, what’s the point of even going on? No point in music, love, laughter; we’re all gunna be extinct someday so the universe won’t care. Nothing we’ve ever done up to this point will be sustained because even this world will die. What’s the point of continuing this charade? Definitely no point, it seems to me, ineven reproducingmore humans just to be born, to live and die. And to take the risk of dying young because of some war, disease, serial killer. We might say we’re reproducing to better the human condition, but why does the universe care about the betterment of the human condition? Especially if the species will one day probably be extinct, if for no other reason than we’ll probably destroy ourselves? Who cares that we’ve invented the wheel, learned how to use fire, sailed across the seas, populated virtually every corner of this globe and even gone to the moon and back? Who even cares that we’re even having this discussion? Is it just some group masturbation fest or something? What the fuck is the point? Just cuz? In some ways it sounds as stupid to me as cuz the Bible tells me so. And if just cuz is the answer, why not eat our guns? Take an overdose of pills? Press the big button and getit over with? Why not do whatever we want to each other whenever we wanna do it? We can slaughter each other and have done with it all because there’s nothing, no purpose. It’s all just cuz. Everyone for themselves, as it were. If there's intelligent life out there on other planets, we might be doing it a favor by blowing ourselves to smithereens and not inflicting us on them. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it ultimately have been better if we had the mental capacity of paramecia? That way we’d never have found out that there’s nothing, zip, nada, zilch. Understand that in general, I don’t think I’m this dark or whatever you wanna call it, because I’ve experienced probably more good than bad in this life. It’s just that I’m realizing that I’m not necessarily comfortable with the idea that this is all there is and there ain’t no more. I've started losing people, and I can't help the fact that it bothers me. Maybe I should just suck it up and deal with it, but oh the fuck well, I just don’t seem to be able to right now. And if this is the perfect venue for just venting, well, I’m doing that. Just cuz I can.
Johndy, I understand your feelings, I think even Christians probably wonder about this stuff on some level.
But look at Post 206.
You don't have to have an afterlife to see that is all there is. In fact, people who focus the most on the afterlife are usually not the ones creating art, leaving the world a better place, helping other humans, and so on.
People are immortalized via their accomplishments, or through what they left for their families and then their descendants' accomplishments.
Ironically a Christian phrase, "By their fruits ye shall know them," kind of applies. People who tend to be fixated on who is going to heaven and who is going to hell usually are pretty ugly. They're usually more comfortable with the idea of torture. Makes sense, their deity designed the ultimate torture chamber for its infidels. Hitler couldn't have dreamed up such sadism.
Also, they are usually so fixated on the afterlife they scoff at hard-working scientists like my brother who does actual work, not Wiccan Woo / feel-goody stuff, to save environmental situations and deal with invasive species.
If you want to know how much more there is, look at Einstein and Galileo and many many others. They are immortalized and talked about now, all because of the things they did. And on a smaller level, people who are now gone but influendced you are still here. Not in a metaphysical sense, like the high-paid psychics who claim to talk to the dead. But they're still here in the way you think and live and do things.
The most creative, constructive people I know usually are not the ones focused on the afterlife, but focused on what is happening now.
I'm here for the show. Entertainment. Good food, music, movies, books, etc.
Just because we don't go anywhere from here, doesn't mean here is pointless. I will never understand why people think that simply because this life doesn't have an inherent, laid out, cookie cutter point, that it must be meaningless. Why does no one want to put in the work to make the life they have have a meaning?
Now, does that mean every life is meaningful, no. The poor little kid who spends his days running around the jungles of bornio is probably living a pointless life. and so what if he is. So what if people will never hear his name or read it in a history book. Who really cares about that?
So Johndy, here's the thing. Your life has absolutely as much meaning in it as you want it to have. The universe doesn't give a single god forsaken shit about you, and really very few people give a single god forsaken shit about you. Conversely, you give shits about a miniscule percentage of the universe, and the people on earth, so it all works out in the end. You do, however, give lots of shits about yourself, and the speck of universe you in habit. So make of it what you want.
That's the glorious thing. You have all the building blocks you need to make the life you have what you want while you still have it. Stop waiting for the door to open to the back room so you can finally start having a meaning. You're not in the waiting room right now, you're not on a journey, you're already at the destination. Now start living.
Think of it this way. If you were to go on a vacation to the one place you've always wanted to go to, every single moment of every single day would be wonderful, because eventually that moment is going to end. When you return home, several days pass by without you noticing it because its where you live. You're here all the time. You should live as if you're always on vacation. Because one day you're going to be dead, and the life you have will be over, and that'll be all she wrote. Stop wishing for an eternity to save you from your pointlessness. Enjoy it.
Anyone else noticed that when ever someone writes something the OP can't refute, he's mysteriously too busy to answer anyone, save those he somewhat agrees with?
What the heck, if you can influence one other person to do something good that influences another person the same way, then you've accomplished something.
Joandy, I like you, would like to see more at the end of life, but whether or not there is, it really doesn't matter, because we're here to do something good anyway.
I hope when I die, the world will be a little better off because I was here. If it is, great. If it isn't, then I missed my chance.
At least the worms will be happy.
Bob
I hear what you guys are saying, and believe me, most of the time I’m capable of just saying let it be or whatever. I just had to get the uncertainty out of my system, or at least as much as I can. Most of the time I think I’ve resolved the issue for me and me alone, so there’s no pushing my agenda on anyone since I hate it when someone tries to do the same to me. I said once that I was somehow comforted by my college biology teacher who said that nothing ever gets completely destroyed. I think most of the time in my more rational moments that I believe this is so. Can we say the same about consciousness? Not affirmatively one way or the other; that’s my belief most of the time. I think human consciousness and sentience is perhaps the greatest mystery of all, and none of us here on this site are ever gunna resolve the issue of is there something more after this life – at least not in our lifetimes. Maybe it’s whatever gets you through the day. Dunno. Suffice it to say that I got to thinking about my father, missing him, and when I get down I get really bitchy. That and I gotta stop watching the news, because that does nothing to resolve the issue. But whether there is or isn’t something more after this, I will say I hope there is. Something recently about quantum physics suggests that there may be, but I don’t understand enough about the topic. Something about string theory, parallel universes, yadda yadda yadda. But the reason I hope there is something more is because some people just get the shitty end of the stick because of the actions of their fellow so-called human beings. Much of the time the ones who’re shat upon are completely innocent, mostly the youngest and most vulnerable among us, and they don’t get to live. All because of the negligent, stupid, cowardly or vicious act of someone else. It’s their one shot at life and someone else blows it for them. If this is all there is, then what’s the point? But most of the time, I just conclude that either way nobody’s proven to me that they’re right. You can probably make arguments either way, so I’ll probably end up saying it is what it is – for now. I think it was Gertrude Stein who once said, in effect, the answer is there’s no answer. Oh well.
Good quote from Gertrude Stein, but I'd like to paraphrase it just a little.
The answer is there's no known answer yet.
I firmly believe that there is no question that we, as humans, cannot answer given enough time. We are now building computerrs with amazing a i capabilities. Eventually these computers will be asking even more awesome questions, and giving awesome probable answers.
So knowledge grows and questions get answered: I hope.
Bob
Agreed. Over and out.
I'll never understand how anyone can wish for there to be more than what we have here and now.
if we, as individuals, choose not to make the most of this life, and if we, as individuals, choose to allow others to make us suffer/feel guilty about who we are, or any other negative emotion that exists, we'd have no one to blame for our meaningless, or overall shitty life but ourselves.
Unless I've misunderstood your last comment chelslicious I'd say that kind of depends on who our parents are, which part of the world we grew up in, our sexual preference, the color of our skin or a whole host of other stuff, doesn't it?
Bob
If you read my above posts, I think you’d see the reasons why. But to repeat or paraphrase a little, again, some people (actually, more than some, a lot) get the shitty end of the stick. One of my coworkers knows a family whose son died at the age of nine, the victim of two different kinds of leukemia, if you can believe it. Nothing to be done about it. He didn’t get a chance to live. Hitler’s victims included children who didn’t get to live their lives completely. The wars that are fought throughout the world because some shithead started them on a powertrip? Many of those victims are again kids who don’t get to live the lives we get to every day. All of Gacy’s victims. All Ted Bundy’s victims. The 9/11 victims. The people who died in Iraq from 2003 till we pulled out of George W. Shithead Bush’s war. Need I go on? And while we're at it, how are they to blame for their lives being cut short? It’s all very well to say life is what you make it, but what of those of us who didn’t get to? You can call me silly, stupid, crazy, every kind of epithet you want, but you can’t tell me that if you thought about them, those injustices wouldn’t bother you, at least on some level, unless you're made of ice and stone. Maybe those of you who think there’s absolutely nothing after this life are completely right, but speaking only for myself, I hope there is, or again my question: What’s the point?
Do worms and maggots and mosquitoes and termites get an afterlife? If not, what's the point of them? *sarcasm*
Well, they certainly seem always to be with us; the next thing on the food chain continues to eat them. And soon and so on. Mosquitoes reincarnated as mosquitoes? Makes about as much sense as anything, but it's all theory. But then, since I'm a human, I really don't care about maggots, mosquitoes or worms.
Bob, I wasn't trying to imply that other people don't influence how we experience things, or what we take from the experiences we have. all I was saying, is that, ultimately, it's our choice what to make of the life we have, period.
Some dogmatics will cling to their dogmas, apparently. No practical difference between them and fundamentalist theists.
For my part, I think Johndy and Bob are bringing up some tough challenging questions. I know military people who have been over there and agonized over the same stuff. This is a lot bigger than trite platitudes like "it's all in what you make of it." That's as hollow and judgmental as the fundamentalist free will / they chose to go to hell arguments.
bet this will reach a hundred, ahahahahahahahahahaha lol!
300
All in what you make of it, period? Until a bomb gets dropped on your head. Until you’re shot by some wacko with a semiautomatic. Until you’re eleven years old and get tortured and killed by a serial killer. Until you’re dragged off to be gassed and then burned in the Holocaust. Until you’re eighteen and have an inoperable brain tumor that’s gunna kill you. Or you’re a year old and you get beaten to death by one of your parents. Right! I get it now! We make those choices too. I didn’t see it before. Now it all makes sense.
circumstance, I don't think it's choice. Whoever said that must really be psyco. Not the previous poster, but...
Problem is this train of thought isn't logical thinking. I'll try and break this down
a little.
you're basically saying that the world fucks some people over, and life isn't fare.
there for, their should be something more for the people that never got a
chance to really live, because well... Its just not fare some people have so
much, while so many have so much less, or never live more than 10 years, or
even 1 day... Because of their circumstances.
The problem is you're assuming everything is fare in nature. Its not.
Look at the animal kingdom. Animals are born all the time, and eaten by their
pray as new borns, because of any number of reasons, or die, for any number
of reasons. Hell. One animal could be born with a mutation that gives it an
extreme advantage. that's not fare to all of its brothers, but that's how
evolution works.
Life is hard, and unforgiving. But, a lot of people feel comforted with the idea of
something more/justice after life, because its a bit of a mental placebo.
For my part, I think the idea of an all knowing, all powerful god doing the things
he does is a lot more heartbreaking than the idea that some people are just
born in really bad situations, because the dice didn't roll their way. I can except
really bad situations as a product of life more easily than I can except babies
being born with their organs and bones on the outside of their bodies, because
god was just like "Hey, lets make this a potential consequence of child birth."
the sooner people come to grasp with the idea that life isn't fare, the better off
they'll be at not setting themselves up for unrealistic but comforting
explanations, and expectations.
Fact, their will always be someone better off than you, by several measures.
Fact, you're better off than a lot of other people by a lot of measures.
thank you, James. that was what I was getting at.
I’m partially playing the devil’s advocate here, so don’t anyone get in a tizzy. The problem is we’re sentient beings, not sheep. At least literally. We ask the big questions because our brains were designed to think that way. We’ve developed verbal and written communication, so we think about the metaphysical questions like why is there life and what is our purpose. Are we the only illogical beings on this planet,much less the universe? I asked the question the way I did because I’m one of probably billions of people who asks the same thing. Why? Because we’re probably the only species on this planet that has ever pondered questions like fairness and justice. Given our example, it’s what intelligent beings do. Unintelligent beings simply are born, grow to adulthood, fuck and perish eventually without giving, presumably, any thought to any sort of metaphysical issues. It’s all very well to say that life isn’t fair, but as far as I know, we’re the only animal on the planet that at least tries to make it fair, at least for our own kind. Why do we do it? Life isn’t fair, so oh well. Why try? And if this is all there is, it seems to me that possibly the cruelest thing we can do to one another as human beings is bring more humans into this world. They’re only gunna live, die and nothing more will be left of them. Just push the button and get it over with. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate mercy?
It would be if death were a horror. Death isn't all that horrific. Sure, if you die
by having a tiger rip out your intestines inch by inch, you probably died horribly.
I imagine that doesn't feel like a pleasant tickle. But just because you died
horribly, doesn't mean death is horrible.
Because of our great abilities, and several of our religions today, we have
come to fear death. Its a mysterious thing. Thus, scary. Mysterious equals
scary, right? No, mysterious equals mysterious.
Death is only frightening if you look at it as something that should be avoided.
I don't see death that way. I see it as nothing more than the path we all must
take in the end. Its unavoidable, and I wouldn't want to avoid it. I would never
want to live forever, either here or in some other world. I'd never want that
because it would be absolutely awful.
So, it isn't cruel to have children. Its only cruel to deny yourself the pleasant
activity required to make them over some arbitrary deities squeamishness about
penises and vaginas being touched. But that's a whole different board post.
As for fairness. Yes, we ask the questions, and the question has been
answered. Why is it not fair, because the world has no concept of fairness. It
simply is, it isn't fair or unfair. You answered your own question.
Strikes me it’s all in how you look at it. We ask the questions because we lose loved ones to death. We don’t want to. We lose our lives to death, and assuming there’s absolutely nothing after this, we lose all the things we love about this life. We don’t want to. We ask the questions because while humans are capable of great compassion, love, all the positives, we’re also capable of great cruelty, avarice, selfishness beyond measure. That’s the part that doesn’t seem fair. As far as I know, we are the only species that can be unfair to each other. I grant you that the way we practice some religions is even unfair. You’ll note that I never advocated a religion because as such, if there is something after this life, I think that all the religious books are an attempt to understand that reality. But I don’t know that there is another reality. I don’t know that there isn’t. Maybe I should be better than that, but I’m at least being honest enough to admit that the question scares me. Not all the time, not every day, but when I think about it, the question is always wy. Cuz the Bible tells me so for me is not an answer. Just cuz isn’t an answer either. At this point, you can make arguments either way, I guess. So, the closest answer for me is it is what it is, whatever that may be.
Quite a number of evolutionary psychologists have tried to tackle the question of why
humans have adapted to have these metaphysical questions.
Best answer I've seen is that the fear of death served as a motivator for the species to
actively work to prolong life.
Also, remember survival of the fittest is not an individualist but a species thing. Empathy
for people we don't even know makes us more fit to survive as a species.
We're far from the only creatures that are unfair to each other. Its unfair for
the lion to pick the weakest and sickest wildebeest to kill; at least from the
wildebeest point of view. Fairness is a perception, nothing more than that. What
you think is fair, is completely different from what I think is fair.
We can't control a lot of things in life. So all we're left with a choice of what to
do with those things that we can control. Complaining or being afraid of the
indifference of the universe doesn't do anything. It doesn't even try to answer
the questions that spawned it.
For now some good points raised. Some mysteries, if they are mysteries, can't be solved at this time.
OK--NOW THAT I'M BACK from a WEEK-LONG PROJECT which I devoted ALL of MY ATTENTION to, I just wanna COMPLETELY ZERO IN with this CONSTANT REMINDER: just because you MOCK, BLASPHEME, WHATEVER you wanna CALL it, which is SUPPOSED to be ALL FORMS of YOUR not taking ME seriously, and that I'M the joke, JUST COULDN'T EVER get FAR ENOUGH from the VERY ABSOLUTE TRUTH than it ALREADY IS, because it CERTAINLY ISN'T ME that you're mocking--HOW, OH HOW, could you EVER, AT ALL, MOCK ME, when I'M not the one that WE ALL will have to ANSWER TO "AT THE END OF THE DAY," so to speak? I DARE YOU to UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPT to ANSWER THAT!
OMG...
Either I've had too much coffee, or I actually understand what he's saying...
SAVE ME, ZONERS!!!!
Kate
I'd rather give account for my actions to an unknown imaginary being at the
end of the day as I won't feel the effects after death, then spending my life in
prison. lol! And you're the one answering to all this blaspheme/mocking, I'm still
waiting for my trail. Meanwhile, I'm living life thank you very much. :)
trial
Recommended reading:
"The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle In The Dark," by Carl Sagan.
It's on Bard.
Hmm, let's see, if you dare me to unsuccessfully respond to you?
What if I successfully respond?
Actually, I don't mock the God that created the universe, and performs miracles everyday in operating rooms, or schools, or in the lives of the disheartened, etc.
I mock the god of your false, outdated bible, with all its hipocricies, errors and lies.
If you want to believe in him, fine. Just don't ask me to give up my ability to reason logically, and discriminate between beauty and words of hate and unreasonableness.
I think I lost your dare.
Bob
Try asking me to do something harder next time, like snapping my fingers or
whistling. It'll be more taxing for me.
Let me differentiate something for you, oops, smaller words. I'll start again.
Ahem. Let me point something out that you keep missing. I'm not mocking your
god. Your god doesn't exist. I'm not mocking your god anymore than I'm
mocking unicorns when I say they don't exist.
If your god does exist and he's got his panties in a wad over me saying he
doesn't exist, he's welcome to take it up with me. Smiting me with lightning
would be cool. Tell him to try that. Or end world hunger instantaneously, or
make cancer not exist anymore, or regrow every amputated limb across the
face of the blow. Those things would be easy for him to do. But he won't do
them, cuz he doesn't exist.
That's me mocking your god. Now watch this. Watch closely, cuz you're an
idiot who couldn't realize someone was slapping you in the face with a wet
dolphin penis if it was actually happening. Which, given everything that's said
about you over the course of the board's history, is something you'd probably
get off on, you sick fuck.
see, that's me mocking you. Get the difference, its subtle, I know, but even a
scum sucking moron such as you should be able to get it if you try. And turn
your caps lock off you brainless fuck fluid. Its more annoying than your inability
to right a sentence with a basic structure is, and that's saying a hell of a lot.
I failed the dare too. Pity.
AGAIN, the ONLY ONE that YOU MOCK CERTAINLY could NEVER be ME, because I'M not the one that you'll have to STAND before, that YOU would have to ANSWER to ALL that YOU'RE SAYING that HE, and HE, ALONE, is keeping a FULL RECORD OF--EVEN THOUGH I'm DELIVERING the MESSAGE of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, NEVER MEANS that I am the MESSAGE-ORIGINATOR--I could NEVER be--and to ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE the VERY EPIDEMY of JUST HOW PITIFULLY RIDICULOUS you sound when you CLAIM to mock ME, LET'S use for a scenario that YOU happen to be a POSTAL EMPLOYEE, whether you're the MAIL-DELIVERER, or WHATEVER, and it would JUST SO HAPPEN that if you ARE responsible for mail-delivery, and you would JUST SO HAPPEN to deliver a BILL to ME that I have to PAY, which I DEFIANTLY REFUSE to, and I would CURSE YOU OUT, CALL YOU NAMES, ANY/ALL of WHATEVER ELSE, and SO on. Are YOU the one that'll either SUSPEND or TERMINATE whatever service that I owe for, since it's not YOU that I got WHATEVER SERVICE/SERVICES from, ORIGINALLY? If I CHOOSE to FORFEIT WHATEVER BENEFITS, due to MY DECISION to VIOLATE MY END of the AGREEMENT, CERTAINLY isn't ANY MORE YOUR fault than YOUR DECISION to VIOLATE YOUR end of the ETERNAL AGREEMENT of being RECONSILED with OUR CREATOR, along with the ETERNAL CONSEQUENCE of YOUR CHOICE would be MINE, NEITHER would SUCH DECISION in ALL, be the fault of the MESSAGE-ORIGINATOR, which DOES leave ONE whose fault that such decision WOULD be; WHO'S?
But the mailman doesn't read the content of the mail. So it doesn't apply,
because according to you, your god has something ready for each and every
one of us, and you know that. So think a little more before trying to illustrate.
Not to mention the fact that we're talking about two different scenarios. One,
you're abusing the mailman. One, you're making fun of him because his nose is
really big. Or in your case, you're making fun of of him because he's a brainless
twit who couldn't write a good post if he dictated it. I'm not mocking you about
God. My mocking of you has nothing to do with God. I think you're beliefs are
stupid, but that is about you, not God. I'd ask if you understand, but of course
you don't.
I know one thing. If I was by chance a God that existed, I sure as fuck wouldn't want to be represented by a sorry sap such as the original poster. That is a piss poor representation that couldn't possibly do what it is intended for. Unless that happens to be intended to be complete utter crockery, which maybe it is. Who am I to say when I don't believe in God?
Yo, Terrance... ever consider that not everyone who has replied on this
thread necessarily believes in your God?
Atheists do exist, as do people of the B'hai faith, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews,
Muslims, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, non-Pentecostal Christians, Sikhs,
Jainists, Mormons, Pagans, Santeria, Shinto, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans
etc.
Fundamentalist Pentecostal Christians don't run the show as far as Ethics in
religion and religious supremacy in general are concerned.
The jury’s still out on whether there is or isn’t a god as far as I’m concerned, but if there is one or many, I honestly can believe in a god with a sense of humor; he/she/it may have had at least a hand in creating the original poster, right? I still wonder how the OP decides on when and where to use the caps-lock key though.
Problem is you can't prove there is a god. So none of your bullshit applies.
When you argue. the person making the claim something exists needs to prove
it.
Problem is you can't prove there is a god. So none of your bullshit applies.
When you argue. the person making the claim something exists needs to prove
it.
Problem is you can't prove there is a god. So none of your bullshit applies.
When you argue. the person making the claim something exists needs to prove
it.
Problem is you can't prove there is a god. So none of your bullshit applies.
When you argue. the person making the claim something exists needs to prove
it.
Did you mean to duplicate?
To the Op, if you don't keep coming back to post, this thread will surely die, unless, you don't want it to and you like this back and forward banter which is ridiculous;
For the record Cody, you have so much explaining to do. I get that the op has Psychological issues, you should too; instead, you constantly bully him; why is that? No, just tell me. Why do you keep coming back for more? i wonder if you're just bored and have nothing better to do.
The second reason why I don't think you're fair, is in one breath you say you're an Atheist and you define that for us (which is good because it was clear I didn't know the true definition of the word; I had thought that being an atheist meant you didn't believe in any such God existing.) But, in the next breath, and to be exact, the majority of these last posts, you're trying to persuade the world that no God exists. If i'm wrong, do tell me; I'd like to know what you're actually saying. I do try to understand you, for the record; it's not easy.
Oh, that's very simple. I'm more than an atheist. I'm also an anti theist. I
dismiss the claims for Gods, but I also believe there is no god. At the very least,
I am sure the god of the bible isn't god, because there are proofs in the bible
which he fails. For full details feel free to peruse the wonderful site
www.whywon'tgodhealamputees.org
As for why I bully him, its partly boredom, its partly the fact that he bullies
others, its partly the fact that his posts are demonstrably wrong. I have a
problem with things that are demonstrably wrong. I want to do away with them
entirely. That is why I subject my own opinions to the scrutiny of others. If you
can point out holes, please do so. I'd like to know where they are so I can repair
them.
Does that answer your question?
Check THIS out:
Is faith in God a crutch?
Oddly enough, no prominent atheist is recorded as having said, "Faith in God is a crutch." Although the sentiment is related, it is religion that is compared to a crutch, not faith in God. Richard Dawkins believes that religion is a crutch for those who are afraid of blinking out of existence after death. The science fiction author Robert Heinlein wrote that "religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help." Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura says that religion is a crutch for "weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
Christians are not weak-minded, but they readily admit their spiritual weakness without Christ. The fact is that we all have a spiritual impediment called sin (Romans 3:23), and we all need Christ's power to overcome it. Admitting the fact is nothing to be ashamed of. No one makes fun of a handicapped man who uses a crutch to compensate for his physical disability. Neither should anyone ridicule a Christian whose faith compensates for his spiritual disability. There's nothing wrong with a needy person seeking help.
To say that religion is a crutch is to say that we must stand on our own power, to see the world as a cold, empty place and deal with it accordingly. To the materialistic atheist, spurning religion includes the belief that death is merely ceasing to exist. Or, as Heinlein said, going into the unknown. A common view among atheistic sociologists is that fear of this "unknown" caused people to create myths of an overseeing, beneficent deity who carries out a beneficent plan for death. Atheists tend to think that, without this myth, most people would be so overwrought with the fear of death that they would be unable to function in life.
The idea of God as an imaginary coping mechanism began with Sigmund Freud. The famous neurologist and psychoanalyst was an atheist and could not accept the possibility that God might actually exist. He believed that the struggles of life and the lack of strong, loving father figures inspired the construction of an imaginary Father-God. This Father-God would provide for all the psychological needs of the deluded. The biggest struggle in human life is death, and later atheists latched onto the fear of death as the primary impetus for a make-believe story that made everything all right.
There are some problems with the theory. If the fear of death is truly universal and is the cause of all religion, then the selection of world religions isn't very satisfying. If humanity is so afraid of death that they have to come up with a fake belief system, why is religion so complex? A belief system destined to allay the fear of death should simply involve dying and arriving in paradise. Instead, nearly every belief system in the world somehow ties acts performed during life to rest in the afterlife. If death were the primary concern, getting to a favorable afterlife would probably be simpler.
This brings us to Ventura's quote and another common sociological theory about religion: religion was developed to control and unify people with a list of rules, a hierarchy of authority, and explanations for mystical occurrences. Many secular sociologists claim religion was developed as a necessary stabilizing force in society.
It's true that religion provides community, family, and friendship that are often lacking in the modern world. The need to belong is a powerful force, and religion fills that need nicely. It's conceivable that many people join religions not because they have objectively analyzed and agreed with all the tenets of the faith but because the traditions and rituals provide purpose and comfort. So, presuming God does not exist, the offer of community could reasonably explain the existence of religion.
But "presuming God does not exist" is a completely improvable assumption. There is substantial proof that God exists. If He didn't exist, religion would indeed be silly. But if God does exist, or if there is a reasonable chance that He exists, it is reasonable to desire to treat Him appropriately.
The "religion is a crutch" argument attempts to explain away religion by insisting on a hypothetical circumstance without touching the heart of the issue. It is true that many people come to religion because they want an answer for death or a feeling of belonging. But the argument does nothing to refute the existence of God or the actual legitimacy of any religion. The claim that "religion is a crutch" is a defensive judgment of motives that completely ignores the discussion of truth. It is also a proud, condescending point of view.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3); that is, those who humbly acknowledge their spiritual bankruptcy will receive God's compensation. Paul admitted his spiritual inadequacy but had the confidence that God's "power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9). For the Christian, faith is not a crutch; it's a necessary part of life (Romans 1:17).
Given ALL of THAT above, HOW is it EVER POSSIBLE for ME, or ANY OTHER SAVED-BY-GOD'S-PERFECT-GRACE-IMPERFECT SINNER to be so-called "BULLEYED," if GOD, HIMSELF, the VERY ONE who's the TOTAL AUTHOR and COMPLETION of OUR FAITH, who could ALSO be YOURS, as WELL, REGARDLESS of your claim to be ANY/ALL of the "RELIGIOUS-BELIEF-FOLLOWERS" that "WEST COAST" pointed out in her LAST POST, can't ever be?
I love how every article you manage to mine out of the internet says "most
atheists" or "all atheists" as if they have a fucking clue about atheists. But, I'll
prove them wrong, just cuz its fun. Belief in God is a crutch. See, now they're
wrong.
Though, they were already wrong, since the word religion means the belief in
a God. So what atheists were saying this entire time was belief in a god is a
crutch. We just did it with less letters. Cuz we're cool like that.
You are very confused bride sir. Many folks are authors of God's creation. The poor trees are dying in vain. The equipment to write that rubbish could be put to a better cause to help those in need, but instead they are wasted and put to shame by sorry saps like you. Whether you like to admit it or not I will bully and troll you and your imaginary God friend. Keep telling yourself that this isn't the case so you don't go emo and do some crazy psycho shit.
I'm about to piss my pants at post 252@ Oh my god! ahahahahahahahahahaha!
LOOOOOL! :D A god with a sense of humor who created the OP? Wow, thank
you, thank you! You made my day!
PERHAPS, if I REMEMBER to, I'll post what the TRUE description of what "BULLEYING" ACTUALLY DOES EXPOSE of one that BEHAVES as such--you JUST MIGHT BE SURPRISED to learn that SUCH NEVER MEANS what EVEN I thought it meant. MEANWHILE:
Date: 10/05/07 - 2360 days ago.
Category: FAITH IN GOD
The Christian Faith is now Seen by Most to be Extreme
(Matthew 10:32-33)
TUESDAY NIGHT, I WAS PART OF AN HOUR-LONG TV PROGRAM THAT AIRS ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (TAMPA, FL) COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION. ON THE PROGRAM WITH ME WAS THE INFAMOUS TAMPA STRIP CLUB OWNER AND AVOWED ATHEIST JOE REDNER AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TAMPA CHAPTER OF CAIR, AHMED BEDIER. BEDIER WAS THE MAN LEADING THE CHARGE TO INTIMIDATE CBS INTO CANCELING THE LONG RUNNING LIVEPRAYER LATE NIGHT PROGRAM TO SILENCE ME FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FALSE RELIGION OF ISLAM.
MANY ASKED WHAT WOULD BE GAINED BY GOING ON A COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION PROGRAM THAT ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WATCH WITH TWO MEN WHO DESPISE ME AND LIVE THEIR LIVES REJECTING THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE AND FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. IN ADDITION TO PLANTING SEEDS IN THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO WOULD BE WATCHING, IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A STAND FOR GOD'S TRUTH IN THE PUBLIC ARENA THAT MOST CHRISTIANS HAVE ABANDONED AND CONFRONT THE FALSE AND EVIL BELIEFS OF REDNER AND BEDIER. YOU CAN WATCH THE COMPLETE HOUR PROGRAM AT: www.liveprayer.com/tbt1.cfm
In 2007, the Christian faith is now seen by most to be "extreme" and a faith that is "against" everything. When I preach in churches or at events, people love that my messages are rarely longer than 20-30 minutes. I have one key topic, I hone in on it, hit it hard, and than challenge the listeners. However, today's topic is an issue I could pull a Paul and preach about all night long. In this nation, the Christian faith is now seen as "extreme." We are best known for being a faith that is "against" everything. This has been an effective way the non-believing world has found to intimidate Believers into silence and keep them out of the marketplace. Sadly it has worked!
Why are we called extreme? We believe the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word representing Absolute Truth and our final authority in all matters. Based on God's Word that it is the ONLY Truth, it makes all of the other religions, belief systems and philosophies false. Based on God's Word, it means those who deny faith in Jesus Christ will go to hell. I'm not the one who calls all of the other religions and philosophies in the world false, God is! I'm not the one who has determined who will go to Heaven and hell, God already did!
I get so sick and tired of hearing nonbelievers, and INFURIATED when I hear Believers say, "Who are you to call someone's religion false? Who are you to tell someone that they will be going to hell?" I DIDN'T, GOD DID! IT IS IN THE BIBLE! EITHER WHAT GOD SAID IS TRUE OR IT ISN'T. THE BIBLE SAYS THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH, GOD'S! THE BIBLE SAYS THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO BE SAVED, FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST! THAT MEANS THE OTHER RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES ARE A LIE AND THAT ANYONE WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT CHRIST BY FAITH WILL DIE AND GO TO HELL! GOD SAID IT, NOT BILL KELLER!
We are also seen by the nonbelieving world around us as the faith who is against everything. We are against homosexuality. We are against people living together outside of marriage. We are against a woman being able to choose to kill her baby. We are against this and against that. Again, it is not us that is against these things, it is God! We didn't dream up a list of things to be against, they come from the pages of the Bible! We are simply taking a stand against the things God is against and calls sin in the Bible.
Because this world we live in has rejected God, the Truth of the Bible, and faith in Jesus Christ, they have been successful in labeling Christians as extreme. In the United States just 50 years ago, Christianity was considered mainstream. In a single generation it has gone from being mainstream to extreme. It is a faith that has gone from being loved to reviled, accepted to ridiculed. How did that happen? Gutless and compromised spiritual leaders! The flock is only as good as their shepherd. There are too many pastors and those God called to spiritual leadership who have compromised their calling by denying the Truth of the Bible or by getting caught up in building their own kingdom instead of God's Kingdom.
The liberal theology that has crept into the church over the past 40 years is why you now have so-called churches condoning and glorifying gross sins like homosexuality and abortion. That can only happen when you deny the Truth of the Bible like so many churches now do. The heart of the church is God's Word, and when you deny what the Bible truly is, that church is no better than the local strip club! You also have too many pastors and leaders who are more worried about the temporal pleasures of this world than the eternal work of the Kingdom. Gutless pastors who proudly proclaim on nationwide television they don't preach about sin. Supposed men of God who are more worried about selling books than saving souls. Men and women of God who rather than taking the Gospel to the world that needs it, hide in the "Christian trough" preaching to the choir so they can buy a new private jet, a 5th mansion, build bigger buildings!
So it is no wonder why so many men and women who know the Lord go to work, go to school, play sports, are involved in different hobbies, face people every day out in the marketplace, and will NEVER even admit to being a Christian, let alone take a stand for Christ and the Truth of the Bible! They are petrified at being called intolerant, hateful, extreme, a bigot, and ridiculed, scorned, and abused for being a follower of Christ and standing up for the Truth of God's Word in a group of non-believers. So they simply shut up, INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE! Why are sinners who serve satan so bold and vocal in declaring their lies while the children of God who possess the only Truth there is sit back in silence???
Is there a price to pay for speaking up for Christ? Absolutely!!! The cold hard reality is that few pastors and very few Christians are willing to pay that price. So why are we surprised we now live in a nation that mocks our faith, ridicules us for our beliefs, and continues to do everything they can to eliminate God, the Bible, and our Lord from even being mentioned in the public square! Look at what happened to Paul for taking his stand for the Lord. He was nearly killed many times before being martyred. Thrown in jail. Despised and hated everywhere he went. HE DIDN'T CARE! HE UNDERSTOOD IT WASN'T HIM THEY HATED, IT WAS CHRIST. Look at the Old Testament prophets. Same thing. The people hated them because of the message they delivered from God. Look at Steven in Acts 7. Literally stoned to death for simply declaring the Gospel. How many countless men and women over the ages have literally died for their faith!
Is there a price to pay for speaking up? Yes and the simple fact is, most won't pay it even though Jesus paid it all for them!!!
That was what the program Tuesday night was about. Speaking up for the Truth. As I sat between Redner and Bedier, separated by only a few inches, I made this observation. On my left was Redner, simply an empty shell. His life is tied up in being Joe Redner, the owner of a popular Tampa strip club and a self-professed anarchist and atheist. He is truly a sad man who has adopted these lies from hell to justify selling women and in the process, has literally sold his soul to satan. An empty shell with a hard heart that will die and burn in hell unless that granite-hard heart is softened and he turns to Jesus.There is really nothing more to say about Redner. As you will hear on the program, he is simply a typical fool who says there is no God, of course has rejected the Bible, and does not believe in Jesus as his Savior. We have dealt with atheism often.
All I can do is ask you to pray for Joe. Jesus died for his sins just like he died for yours and mine. I pray daily and I know many in this area do, that Joe will come to know Jesus. With God, all things are possible.
On my right was Bedier, a man who is the epitome of pure evil. I can say without any hesitation that if this man could get away with it, he would take a sword, cut off my head, never even blink or think twice about it, and go eat dinner. I do pray for Bedier each day. Even though I have no doubt this man would like to see me dead, God loves him and wants to see him repent and turn from this false religion and to faith in Christ. The Bible says we are to pray for our enemies, to love them, and while that is not possible in the flesh it is possible in the strength God can give us. So please pray for this man to come to know Jesus as his personal savior.
Ahmed Bedier is an advocate for a false religion of hate and death that is empowered by satan himself. He calls me a bigot and what I say hate speech because I have the audacity to tell people the truth about the false religion of Islam. He takes great offense to the fact I cite from the very writings of Islam that Mohammed was a murdering pedophile. When I asked him numerous times to deny that he wasn't, he went into a long diatribe about how he was the head of state and in that capacity he did kill people He admitted it! He also admitted he took a wife at the age of 6, but added that she may have been 18. The writings of Islam say that this girl was 6 when he married her and 9 when he had sex with her to consummate the marriage.
You will see as the program continues, Bedier's personal attacks on me became more intense. Saying often I was a convicted felon, which of course I pointed out was a great 20-year old story of God's grace that over 30 million people worldwide have heard over the past 2 decades. He of course used the same tired stereotypes that I only do this for money. He said I was not only Islamophobic, but an anti-Semite for telling Jews they will go to hell without Jesus, and anti-Mormon for telling Mormons they are part of a satanic cult. He is the typical bully who is used to people being intimidated and backing down, not fighting back!
That is my message to you today! Don't let these bullies of the world, the homosexuals, the Muslims, the Mormons, the atheists, or anyone else, intimidate you into silence! FIGHT BACK! Why are they allowed to speak and we aren't? Why do you think you have airports every day adding footbaths to accommodate Muslims who can't wash their feet and pray at home, but have to do that at the airport now! Why do you think we will be having many school NOT celebrating Christmas because it offends Muslims and other false religions and those who deny God even exists? GUTLESS PASTORS, GUTLESS CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE BEEN BULLIED AND INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE!!!
I love you an care about you so much. They took a few live calls on the program and you will hear one that epitomized why I was there and what I am sharing with you today. The woman clamed to be a Christian and was lambasting me for being such a poor representative of Christ. She said she had many friends who where Muslims. I asked her if she had loved her friend enough to tell them they would die and go to hell without Jesus. She said that was not for her to decide. She is right, it isn't up to her or me or you, it is up to God. This just in, HE ALREADY DID! IT IS IN THE BOOK! YOU EITHER BELIEVE THE BIBLE OR YOU DON'T! IF YOU ARE A FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY A FOLLOWER OF THE BIBLE!!!
The other comment I hear often and it was brought up over and over on the program, is that I am not acting like Jesus. They say Jesus would never tell people they were gong to hell. Really? I LOVE people who have rejected Jesus, don't even believe Jesus is who He is, but love to use Jesus as their example. I reminded them of the fact it was for telling the Truth about who He was that Jesus was put to death. It was Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and NOBODY comes to the Father but through me." That pretty much eliminates all of the false religions and cults in the world and means the ONLY way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ, if you believe what Jesus said! I also believe Jesus in speaking to Nicodemus in John Chapter 3 talked about people NOT PERISHING but have everlasting life if they believed in Him!
JESUS LOVED PEOPLE ENOUGH TO TELL THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR ETERNAL SOULS, AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BE LIKE JESUS, YOU WILL LOVE PEOPLE ENOUGH TO TELL THEM THE TRUTH THAT THEY WILL DIE AND GO TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY UNLESS THEY ACCEPT HIM INTO THEIR HEARTS AND LIVES BY FAITH!
I want to challenge you and encourage you today to take some time and pray. Pray and ask God how you can be more bold in sharing your faith with others. Pray and ask God to give you the opportunities to take a real stand for Him and for His Truth in the midst of this unbelieving world. The reason we see unbridled sin loose in our world today is that those who know the Lord and His Truth have been intimidated into silence and WE have allowed sin to take over. Over the course of one generation in this country, we have went from being right to wrong in the eyes of the masses. People no longer hold the Bible to be what it is, God's Truth for men to live by, and people like myself who go into the public arena to share that Truth now look like the extremists while those who hold to other beliefs look normal. THE TRUTH HAS BEEN EXCHANGED FOR THE LIE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAID WOULD HAPPEN IN THE LAST DAYS!
I know that every day men plot to destroy Liveprayer.com. We have two full-time employees whose full time job is to deal with all of the targeted attacks on our Internet infrastructure designed to wipe us off the Internet. Tools of satan like Bedier have been working tirelessly since day one to eliminate the Liveprayer TV program, and those attempts have only become more focused as the years have gone on. Based on the number of death threats I receive each month, I know there are people out there who want to permanently silence my voice. I have been telling you for over 8 years now that simply sharing the Truth of God's Word in the public square will one day soon be against the law. This is why I am so passionate about what I do each day. Every day I am alive, every day Liveprayer.com is online, every day we do a TV program, the Truth of the Word is being heard by this lost and hurting generation around the world and people are finding everlasting life through faith in Jesus Christ.
For those who still haven't figured it out yet, this is not about Bill Keller, it is about Jesus Christ. I don't do this for money or fame or I would be doing what most the high profile ministers do. I live month to month depending on God to move on people's hearts to support His work here and my fame is amongst those who hate the Truth and want to see me dead. But that is OK since I know God will watch over me just like He watched over Paul, the Old Testament prophets, and so many others over the years. He will not let anything happen to me until my work here is complete. So my only job each day is to be obedient and faithful to that work. Part of that work is to challenge and motivate you to rise up and take your stand for Christ and let your voice be heard. Jesus said, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
JUST SO YOU KNOW: what YOU claim as "BULLEYING" that YOU'RE doing DOESN'T EVER-AT-ALL ADD UP. Why? You're ONLY a "BULLEY" when you go after someone who's DEFENSELESS. If you were going up against ME when I WASN'T a child of GOD, which OBVIOUSLY equaled me as DEFENSELESS, OF COURSE, you could've EASILY TAKEN ME OUT, END OF STORY--
THAT was THEN. SINCE the VERY DAY that MY "ETERNAL ADDRESS" has CHANGED, due to MY DECISION to ALLOW the ONE and ONLY "PRINCE of PEACE, KING of KINGS, and LORD of LORDS" to change it FOR me, OTHERWISE, NO SUCH ADDRESS-CHANGE would've NEVER happened, SIMPLY BECAUSE it just COULDN'T, EVER, MY question to YOU is: because of HIM, NOT MYSELF, but HE, and HE, ONLY, whom you're ABSOLUTELY FREE to REJECT, which ONLY MEANS that in ORDER for YOUR so-called "BULLEYING" to ACTUALLY touch a "SINGLE HAIR" of me, REGARDLESS of your HATE-INFESTED POSTS, that you'd DEFINITELY HAVE to LITTERALLY go through HIM FIRST, REGARDLESS of ALL of YOUR "INTELLIGENT BABBLE," how CAN you ACTUALLY "BULLEY" the ABSOLUTELY NON-DEFENSELESS? Answer THAT, if you SO DARE! What OTHER COMPLETELY "GODLESS" ARMOR, than the "HUMAN-LOGIC-GOBBLE-DE-GOOK" that NEVER works for you can YOU USE, which ALSO won't work, EITHER, could you TRIUMPH, ETERNALLY, over us with?
Says the guy who can't even develop a coherent argument by himself like a big boy without copying and pasting an entire article of information that doesn't label across an entire group of people. Right, how mistaken I am that you have a rock solid defense that can not be penetrated with a needle. Can pigs shit gold yet?
If logic and intelligence is godless, I'd rather be godless. Ugh, I'd rather not, this
is pointless.
WELL, JUST as a WORD of "SARCASTIC CONSOLATION," I would be JUST AS DEFENSELESS as YOU CURRENTLY are, if I were to choose to be this "BIG BOY" that I'm "SUPPOSED" to be, and STAND, LIKE a "MAN," on MY OWN TWO FEET, TOTALLY WITHOUT GOD as my FULL ETERNAL SUPPORT. What ETERNAL VALUE is in it for ME, YOU, ANY/EVERYONE, if we were to do THAT?
Ah I see, so you are a Christian because there's something in it for you. You believe 100 percent that you will go to Heaven, be led through this life by God, be blessed with everything that is bestowed upon you, etc. You go on and keep believing your idiotic philosophy that we who don't believe or know for sure that there is a God are non-existent, helpless, vulnerable damned human beings. I'm not sure if I'll be back to argue on and on some more about this because I would love to hear more, but at the same time it can be a big waste of time and space. I'll think on it and await the next asinine statement from the God appealing contradiction for life finally.
He hasn't proven there is a god yet. He's still just copy pasting, and acting like
an apologist. He can't defend himself, make a point that matters, or that makes
sense, and is hammering his face in to the wall trying to get us all to believe his
foolishness. I bet he's never actually looked at other world religions from any
other stance than trying to prove them wrong.
I doubt he even knows how distorted his "bible" is. News flash, church leaders
voted on what books would be added to the bible, and which wouldn't. If this
was gods work, humans wouldn't have needed to vote on it. The answers would
have been clear.
There is no logical reason for me to believe in god, and assuming this god
existed, I'd preach against him anyway. he's done enough disgusting things to
not be worthy of worship.
Makes more sense to worship satan in that context. he hasn't put out a book
mocking the other side. lol
No, but Anton LaVey Has. Lol.
this is my challenge to you, OP.
with out using the bible and in your own words, prove to us all there is a god.
oo, good one. I love that challenge, waiting
How can I PROOVE whom I can't DISPROOVE, ANY MORE than YOU can DISPROOVE whom YOU DENY, TOTALLY DESPITE your "INTELLECTUALIZATIONAL JIBBERIS?" Now, THERE'S MY COUNTER-CHALLENGE to YOUR CHALLENGE.
SECONDLY, the ETERNAL VALUE that's ACTUALLY FOUND in one's decision to NOT be the supposed "BIG BOY/GIRL, TOTALLY INDEPENDENT (so he/she THINKS) of GOD, is ONLY THAT of a GIVEN/GIVE EXCHANGE. WHAT, and WITH WHOM, is there any SUCH EXCHANGE that supposedly EXISTS should one TOTALLY FORSAKE the VERY GOD of the BIBLE, who's the ONLY EXISTING GOD of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, who's the ONLY CREATOR of HEAVEN and EARTH, and ALL who ABIDE THEREIN?
come on, scientific theory does a much better rational job at presenting how the
universe was likely to occur. It uses common sense, and doesn't rely on
basically saying that a bigoted egotistical deity came from nothing, to create a
world, so he could sadistically punish and torture those who live within it.
You know the problem with christians like you is the fact that you have
developed a Stockholm syndrome like devotion to your god. You're afraid,
you're mentally week.
And for the last time. When one makes a claim,in a debate,the burden of proof
is on the one making the claim. not the one saying the debater is full of shit.
clearly you couldn't meet the challenge with out flipping the argument around.
If you're a champion of god you're doing a piss poor job.
Seriously though, considering how much fucked up shit you get off on, I couldn't
take you seriously as a preacher of god.
then again, the fucking church would rather defend the rapists and call the
alter boys who cry rape lyres, than actually deal with the problems these men of
the cloth create. A true god would have been able to prevent that stuff from
happening. A true god would have actually made sure his supposed church had
some moral backbone.
the true god of the old testament, and even of the new, would have struck them
down with lightning, or had them stoned.
Have you actually seen a video of a stoning? Have you actually seen how
fucking barbaric the punishments your false god supports are? Are you really
that sick? would you really promote all the fucked up shit the bible does?
Don't tell me the bible doesn't advocate stoning, don't tell me the bible doesn't
tell men to rape the women in the cities they capture... don't tell me the bible
doesn't justify slavery. Because it does all that, and more.
where is your honor now? Doesn't your god sound a lot more like the devil?
doesn't it all sound like a lot of shit gullible fucks like you believe because
you've been brainwashed?
I say yes to all three.
Oh, by the way. where did you false god come from, anyway? something had to
have created him. which means that something more powerful than god must
have existed at one point. which means that god isn't special at all. god can't
have just come from nothing.
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, I give up. Your quoted tirades, I can't take them. I can't tell where you stand because of your quotes of others. Who's speaking, those biggots or you?
Now, here's what I believe today: maybe not tomorrow.
I believe each person creates and lives by their own personal God. When each person dies they are judged, or not, by how well they fulfilled the wishes of their own personal God, the one they created and supposedly lived by.
To the OP:
All you’ve proven here is your belief. You can only back that belief up with citations from a book that is at least 2,000 years old. Or you cut and paste articles from religious websites that back up your beliefs. Strangely enough, that’s all any of us really has when it comes down to it. You don’t know that this god of yours exists, and your own writing is so disjointed and mirky that you don’t even make a good case for yourself. You can go on and continue to do it; no one here can stop you. It’s your choice. You don’t need any of our permission to continue to write unclearly, disjointedly and illogically. You can also believe what you want to. That’s the wonderful thing about living in a country that allows freedom of conscience. We can do that. Cody can believe there is absolutely no god. You can believe absolutely that there is only one god, and he/she/it is the god of the bible. The vast majority of us here don’t know. It’s why I pitched a hissy-fit a week or so ago because I don’t know. I didn’t know then. I still don’t know now. No one has convinced me either way. I know some devout Christians that even doubt sometimes. But the Christians I tend to know are more accepting than you appear to be. They know that they don’t know, and they don’t know a lot. But by and large, they don’t judge. They do not think I’m an abomination. Their god, if he/she/it exists, is more forgiving. Have they convinced me of the existence of their god? Not really, but they have convinced me that there are some good parts about Christianity. You have taught me that there are some very bad parts about how some interpret that religion. And it’s not just you, but the great unlamented Freddy Felps, or whatever his name is. He and the James Dobsons, the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells of this world. If there is any truth whatsoever to Christianity, if there is anything good to be gleaned from it, I can safely say that those are the kinds of people who drive many of us away from it. Funny thing is their arguments, as vile as they often are, are more logical than yours. You’ve proven that by submitting other people’s words. You don’t have any of your own, so you plagiarize others’ words. It’s the only way you can get a point across. Trouble is it’s not your point. It’s someone else’s. But can you tell us all why you believe in the words of others, and can you do so in your own words by writing a coherent and logical sentence or sentences that express those beliefs? If past is prolog, I’d say the evidence you yourself have created is against you.
In ALL COMPLETE HONESTY, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT--the words that AREN'T mine that I've quoted, whether they're from any ARTICLE, or EVEN the BIBLE, ITSELF, AREN'T EVEN the WORDS of WHOM were CHOSEN to be used to WRITE them, SIMPLY BECAUSE SUCH WORDS are ONLY THOSE from WHO the ABSOLUTE ALPHA/OMEGA (as well as ALL in BETWEEN) WORD ACTUALLY IS, for ALL ETERNITY. THIS ONLY MEANS that MY "BELIEF" is JUST AS MUCH NULL and VOID as YOURS is--WHAT GOOD is OUR "BELIEF SYSTEM" when it CAN'T EVEN EVER JUSTIFY us, ETERNALLY, REGARDLESS of the SO-CALLED "FREEDOM" that ANY COUNTRY CLAIMS to EMBRACE, which by the way, even THAT "FREEDOM" AIN'T FREE, because if it ACTUALLY WAS, there'd be NO PRICE, ultimately; for EXAMPLE, even though HERE in the US, the CLAIM of "FREEDOM of SPEECH" is DEFINITELY LAUGHABLE, because WHAT'S the VERY THING that happens if ONE SLANDERS ANOTHER? What happens if a THREAT is made, EVEN THOUGH it went ABSOLUTELY NO FURTHER than VERBAL? What happens (ESPECIALLY since 9-11) if YOU or I, EVEN IF we were JUST JOKING, were to walk onto a plane, and as soon as we're SITUATED in our SEAT, and the plane's AIR-BORNE, we decide to pull a VERBAL-ONLY PRANK of informing the stewardess that we're carrying a bomb that's about to activate within minutes? What happens if any of us decide to either call and make a verbal threat or send a threatening e-mail to the FBI, FULLY KNOWING that we INTENDED to NEVER let such a threat go ANY FURTHER than call/e-mail? YOU get the picture--MIND you, though: it's ALL supposed to be "FREEDOM of SPEECH," right? Go figure. How can such "FREEDOM" be CALLED such IF IT ISN'T FREE? If it WAS, ALL of the ABOVE INSTANCES could ACTUALLY be PULLED OFF with ABSOLUTELY NO REPROCUSSIONS, and/or ANY RISK of such.
As far as YOUR CHOICE to REJECT GOD by UTTERLY DENYING, without EVER DISPROOVING, HIS EXISTENCE, as CLAIMED to be due to LACK OF ANY/ALL KNOWLEDGE OF HIM DEFINITELY OVERTURNS YOUR CLAIM, AS WELL AS your DEFINITION of "ATHEISM" COMPLETELY FLAT ON ITS HEAD, ETERNALLY, because NO MATTER HOW "DEVOUT," if you might/may/will, an ATHEIST as YOU may VERY WELL CLAIM to BE, which you DO have EVERY GOD-ONLY-GIVEN-FREE-WILL RIGHT to CHOOSE to MAKE such a claim, would you NORMALLY, if not ALWAYS, if you EVEN EVER, which I CERTAINLY DOUBT that you EVER DO, use the name of either/both of your PARENTS, the name of any of your CYBLINGS, should you happen to have any, your FRIENDS, any TEACHER, CO-WORKER, or WHOEVER ELSE, for this matter, as a PROFANE word, ESPECIALLY out of ANGER? EVEN if you WEREN'T angry, but you might've been SUDDENLY SURPRISED, for ONE out of COUNTLESS OTHER EXAMPLES of THIS SPECIFIC NATURE: who's name USUALLY, if not ALWAYS follows "OH, MY ...?" So much for even the HARDEST core of so-called ATHEISM, hmmm? In OTHER WORDS, there are NO TRUE ATHEISTS, WHATSOEVER. If you REALLY ARE a "TRUE ATHEIST," even YOU should know, as "HIGHLY INTELLIGENT" as you DESPERATELY want (PERHAPS) the WHOLE, ENTIRE WORLD to BELIEVE that you are, that it CERTAINLY ISN'T, EVER AT ALL, that you DENY GOD'S EXISTENCE, because you CLAIM to NOT KNOW that HE DOES, because HOW OFTEN do you REACT, RESENTFULLY/RESISTENTLY to what you ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW? EXAMPLE: when you were born, you didn't SUDDENLY KNOW the ALPHABET, how to COUNT, or WHATEVER OTHER of the "LIFE BASICS," because YOU, just like ME, just like ALL of the REST of the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, had to LEARN them. LET'S REALLY get "DOWN-HARD and DIRTY" with this--if a TRUE ATHEIST, or WHATEVER WORD that you'll correct me with that ACCURATELY DESCRIBES what the TOTALLY QUESTIONABLE CASE is, REALLY IS as such, and if SEEING/HEARING is the ONLY PROOF of ANY/ALL EXISTENCE of ANY/EVERYTHING/ONE, THIS ONLY MEANS that AIR, ITSELF, BECAUSE it isn't PHYSICAL, doesn't exist, EVEN THOUGH SUCH keeps us ALIVE. Should there be ANY RESENTFUL/RESISTENT REACTION to this CLEARLY-OBVIOUS FACT on OUR part, ISN'T EVER BECAUSE we lack KNOWLEDGE, but because we lack WISDOM. SUCH (WISDOM) doesn't come from MAN, REGARDLESS of his/her IQ level, but from GOD, and HE, ONLY. So ONCE AGAIN, YOUR REJECTION of GOD, by ONLY DENYING HIS EXISTENCE is ONLY BECAUSE of DUE to YOUR CHOICE to REJECT WISDOM, NOT KNOWLEDGE, POINT BLANK. this FURTHER MEANS JUST as I had mentioned EARLIER: since ALL "BELIEF SYSTEMS" that are TOTALLY UNFOUNDED, because of one's FREE-WILL CHOICE to REJECT the ONLY ABSOLUTE FACT of GOD, HIMSELF, as being the ONLY EXISTING, TRUE GOD, let alone any FURTHER REJECTION of HIM as being just as ALL LOVE as HE is ALL JUST, could NEVER be our LIFELONG/ETERNAL JUSTIFICATION for the VERY FOLLOWING: let's use CHRISHNA, for example, which HE, TOO, isn't the ONLY flawed example--UNTIL NOW, NOT ONLY is he STILL DEAD, and NOT ONLY will HE, along with ALL of those who've chose to REJECT the VERY UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, UNMERRITED GRACE and NON-DESERVABLE MERCY of GOD, through the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE of HIS SON on the VERY CROSS that EVEN I should've died on for MY SINS, MYSELF, stand before the VERY ONE in the "GREAT WHITE THROAN JUDGEMENT" to hear those ABSOLUTELY-DREADED WORDS: "DEPART FROM ME! I NEVER KNEW you!", would ANYONE be worth DYING for, IF, and ONLY IF, he was EVER going to have died for ANYONE, AT ALL, who'd SPIT IN HIS FACE, CURSED his VERY NAME/NATURE, and just SOLIDLY-OUT-AND-OUT HATE him? If YOU ACTUALLY DARE to say YES, he WOULD, THEN you'd DEFINITELY have to back up such claim with a COMPLETELY UNSCOPED EXPLANATION as to HOW. Could you?
There are only three words I can honestly say to break the silence which everyone has believed for a time but you have seriously proven at this point. You, are, nuts!
Oh my god zoners, did I actually agree with the OP about freedom of speech?
Wait, no, but with freedom comes responsibility and rules. Yoyou're free to drive
a car, but there are rules of traffic, and if you don'w follow them there are
consequences, including your own death. Don't confuse freedom with being
oblivious. lol!
The original poster reminds me of this song.
I think i'm done here, for the most part. Its abundantly clear the OP doesn't
have the intellect to even consider anyone else's points, unless they agree with
what he's saying.
He can only cherry pick the parts of posts that help him build up his logic
lacking lines of bullshit thinking.
All the arguments i've seen from his own words include a lot of logical fallacies,
or missteps. I still stand by what i've said here. the OP can't truly be christian
for a number of reasons, and beyond that, he's not worthy of the title. I did try
at first politely, then a lot less so....
some of that i'll admit was the drinking I was doing at the time. Still. I know
that doesn't excuse my conduct.
Speaking frankly, its because of people like the OP, I have such a hard time
taking religion seriously. they love to get up on that soap box and preach. Yet
when it actually comes down to living gods way, they're seriously lacking. Yet,
they have the false pride to walk around and attempt to be the new age
inquisition.
One more reason I don't believe that god exists. he wouldn't let such
hypocritically challenged people represent him.
as to swearing. At this point in my life, blaming god for things or taking the
lords name in vain is more of a joke to me. When you're faced with irrational
anger or frustration , and according to the main world view, its a man in the
skies fault, it feels ironically soothing to blame the false god in jest.
though their are loads of other curse words one can use. and saying God dam
the OP of this post really doesn't make me feel any better than saying fuck the
Ballless bigoted cunt that gives his religion such a bad name.
scientifically, both could be proven to relieve anger, stress and frustration. the
act of cursing is a great way to lower your stress, deal with pain, and cope.
Interesting then, that a god would according to the christians biologically give
us a way to insulate ourselves from pain a little, but forbid us to use it.
Stormwing, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON, and I DEFINITELY COULDN'T EVER AGREE with you ANY MORE than how YOU CLEARLY, ACCURATELY STATED that I'm NOT worthy of the title of "CHRISTIAN," because I NEVER WAS, NEVER AM, NEVER WILL BE--GUESS WHAT, BUDDY: ABSOLUTELY NOONE who's a SOLID-ROCK-TRUE CHRISTIAN is worthy of such title. That's JUST WHY WE ARE SOLID-ROCK-TRUE CHRISTIANS--NEVER because WE'RE WORTHY, which we could NEVER be, WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS of HOW GOOD we could EVER be, but ONLY because HE'S WORTHY--THANKS, ONCE AGAIN, for that ABSOLUTELY-PERFECT REVELATION of the COMPLETELY-GROSS CONTRAST between HUMAN INTELLECT and GODLY WISDOM--AFTER ALL, since you ALREADY KNOW, even though you CHOOSE to REJECT, the ABSOLUTE FACT that YOUR ARGUEMENT/DISCOURSE/DISPUTE/ISSUE/QUARREL isn't with ME, which DEFINITELY RULES OUT, COMPLETELY YOUR AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT with me, I would be doing you a TOTAL "DISSERVICE" for COMPLETELY NEGLECTING to inform you on how you ACTUALLY SURPRISED me, QUITE AMAZINGLY, however, on DEVULGING, PERHAPS, ENOUGH of YOURSELF, which MIGHT'VE been MORE than what you COULD"VE CARED to have exposed ANY, even, when YOU said: " as to swearing. At this point in my life, blaming god for things or taking the
lords name in vain is more of a joke to me. When you're faced with irrational
anger or frustration , and according to the main world view, its a man in the
skies fault, it feels ironically soothing to blame the false god in jest." ZEROING IN on "IRRATIONAL ANGER," as you so HONESTLY SUBMITTED, you've ONCE AGAIN PROOVED the CONTINUOUS INCONSISTENCIES of the ALWAYS-SUCCESSFULLY-FLAWED EXISTENCE of ATHEISM, because BUDHA, ALLAH, CHRISHNA, and ALL of the OTHER gods, who are DEFINITELY NOT of the VERY ONLY-EXISTING BIBLE that the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD of the UNIVERSE is, ONLY BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST AS FALSE as YOUR CLAIM of the ONLY TRUE GOD is SUPPOSED to be, aren't any of whom you'd spew your HATRED VENOM against, PROBABLY BECAUSE in order for THEM to be "WORTHY (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!) of such "HONOR," as coming from YOU, THEY'D have to be "IN THE SKY," as you said, as WELL, and OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE NOT! Why?
NEVER FORGETTING (even though I ALMOST did) to mention the UTTERLY-INDISPUTABLE FACT of YOUR BEING "IRRATIONALLY ANGRY" as making you a COMPLETELY POOR REPRESENTATIVE of what "TRUE ATHEISM," which there's OBVIOUSLY no such, OTHERWISE, according to the TRUE DEFINITION of ATHEISM, ITSELF, just as there's NO ONE-AND-ONLY TRUE GOD, who's the VERY ETERNAL GOD of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, JUST AS there PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE any existence of those gods that are OBVIOUSLY NOT of the BIBLE, which TRULY makes them FALSE, neither does your "IRRATIONAL ANGER," if such WAS actually DIRECTED at EITHER/ALL-ABOVE, so go figure THAT!
To the last poster, you're wrong. I'd bet people in Buddhist nations use Buddha as a curse also.
I even knew someone in college who would use the phrase "By the balls of Buddha," as an exclamation of surprise. Besides making us infidels laugh, he had the distinct position of offending the new age types.
It's the flirtation with the taboo that is the issue.
Hey guy (I didn't have room in my clipboard for your screen name),
You said, "NEVER FORGETTING (even though I ALMOST did) to mention the UTTERLY-INDISPUTABLE FACT of YOUR BEING "IRRATIONALLY ANGRY" as making you a COMPLETELY POOR REPRESENTATIVE of what "TRUE ATHEISM," which there's OBVIOUSLY no such, OTHERWISE, according to the TRUE DEFINITION of ATHEISM, ITSELF, just as there's NO ONE-AND-ONLY TRUE GOD, who's the VERY ETERNAL GOD of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, JUST AS there PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE any existence of those gods that are OBVIOUSLY NOT of the BIBLE, which TRULY makes them FALSE, neither does your "IRRATIONAL ANGER," if such WAS actually DIRECTED at EITHER/ALL-ABOVE, so go figure THAT!"
Would you please explain? Sounds to me like you are denying the existence of God, and, just as an aside, everything else. Are you a neihilist? (however you spell it).
Bob
I think you're fightin' a losing battle, Bobbo. No good to keep trying to understand him.
Query... I wonder what colour the sky is in the ( deluded ) world that OP
lives in...
Wrong again. I've mocked other false gods in the exact same way. I only
mentioned this particular one, because its the subject of our conversation.
Admittedly, if I could put logic aside, it would be easier to worship most other
gods than the jewish/christian/Muslim one. But there is simply no reason to do
so.
I've never seen any proof that these gods do anything for us, that they interact
with us at all, or that they even exist. the only piece of evidence Christians
have for their mass delusions is a flawed book, written over several centuries,
that was voted upon by church members, translated and mistranslated for
political gain, and then suckered on people of average intellect as the way to
most effectively cow them in to not upsetting the gentry. Its a lot easier to have
a book, and a moral doctrine police your people, than use hundreds of soldiers
and spies, like Russia, Nazi Germany did, etc. It was brilliant, but all in all,
religion has done a lot more harm than good for our world.
Haven't you noticed that the majority of believers either were raised in the
religious system they now hold to be true, or were faced with difficult times in
their lives, and were converted when they were most ripe for the picking? Take
criminals, for example. Jailhouse conversions work in part because people are
put in a hellish environment, and punished, for the crimes society deems they
committed. In that kind of environment, converting to a religion makes
psychological sense. It gives you an outlet for your guilt and shame. Prisoners
experience all kinds of horrible things during incarceration, trial, hell, even while
committing the crimes they did. Its so conveniently appealing that a man with
a book has a mostly effortless way to clean you of your shame, guilt and feeling
of wrongdoing, when society sees you as a monster.
Even in less extreme circumstances, i've known people that converted out of
guilt, or because they were feeling depressed, or because something really
horrible happened, like a school shooting, and they wanted to find piece in their
lives, the easy way.
All of the above are not logical reasons to choose religion, they're not rational.
they don't use critical thinking skills when coming to those choices. some people
just as stupidly choose to drink, get addicted to meth, etc. Its all the same,
really. finding psychological coping mechanisms to deal with the world around
us.
OR, lets jump back to the first example. You convert because your parents
brought you up christian.
It wasn't an active choice on your part. these values were implanted in to your
head before the age of reason. children don't even start to think critically until
age 7 or so, and this process continues until age 13. Even then. Most children
are still subjected to the standard hormones we all experience while going
threw puberty.
You combine liking your family, not wanting to offend them, and lacking the
ability to actually make rational choices about what you believe and don't... This
is the end result.
So, OP. which logical fallacy lead you to convert? Was it guilt/shame/depression,
or did your family program you like a computer, before you were able to shrug
off the effects?
There are hundreds of thousands of small things that effect your environment.
All of those effect your process of making choices in small but concurrent ways.
We humans think we are in control of our thoughts and actions, but we're
usually not aware at all of the subconscious biases influencing every choice we
make.
James, thank you! this is right on. I agree that we are n't aware of everything
that is an influence or hat plays a part in the choices we make. Good point!
AGAIN, the VERY ABSOLUTE FACT of your invoking the names of the gods, which ALL ARE false, in addition to the VERY NAME that's above ALL OTHER NAMES of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD who's NOT false, whom YOU claim IS, TOTALLY DEFEATS your case as a TRUE ATHEIST, CLEARLY EXPOSING the VERY TRUTH of the ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL CERTAINTY that there NEVER HAS, NEVER IS, NEVER WILL BE TRUE ATHEISTS--WHICH REMINDS ME of a post from BOB of the ASSUMPTION of MY DENIAL of GOD'S EXISTENCE, when I said: " NEVER FORGETTING (even though I ALMOST did) to mention the UTTERLY-INDISPUTABLE FACT of YOUR BEING "IRRATIONALLY ANGRY" as making you a COMPLETELY POOR REPRESENTATIVE of what "TRUE ATHEISM," which there's OBVIOUSLY no such, OTHERWISE, according to the TRUE DEFINITION of ATHEISM, ITSELF, just as there's NO ONE-AND-ONLY TRUE GOD, who's the VERY ETERNAL GOD of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, JUST AS there PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE any existence of those gods that are OBVIOUSLY NOT of the BIBLE, which TRULY makes them FALSE, neither does your "IRRATIONAL ANGER," if such WAS actually DIRECTED at EITHER/ALL-ABOVE, so go figure THAT!"--in my attempt to make a THOUGHT-PROVOKATIVE DELIVERY with SARCASM, that UNINTENTIONALLY caused the PROBABLE/POSSIBLE MISCOMMUNICATION on MY part, for which I DO apologize, I'll TRY MY BEST to SIMPLIFY: OBVIOUSLY, I WASN'T DENYING the existence of GOD, but EVEN if I WAS, which I'm ABSOLUTELY FREE, with the VERY GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL to DO, just as the REST of the ENTIRE WORLD of EVERYONE ELSE is, as WELL, HE'S ETERNALLY NEVER DISPROOVED. THEREFORE, when I was QUOTING "TRUE ATHEISM'S (which there's no such, of course) ACCORDANCE, I wasn't ENDORSING it. In OTHER words, GOD, and HE, ONLY, DOES EXIST, as there's NO OTHER, either in HEAVEN, on EARTH, or BELOW the EARTH that's GOD, and ANY OTHER than that ONE ETERNAL ABSOLUTE REVELATION is ABSOLUTELY/ETERNALLY FALSE. What ATHEISM claims is that JUST AS there's NO TRUE GOD of the UNIVERSE, which is a HELL-BORN LIE, neither are there any of the MAN-MADE gods that ACTUALLY ARE FALSE; to FURTHER-DEEPEN the VERY SELF-INFLICTED WOUND that ATHEISM CONSTANTLY APPLIES to ITSELF is the LAUGHABLE CLAIM that the ONE-ONLY-TRUE-UNIVERSAL GOD that SUPPOSEDLY DOESN'T EXIST as being FALSE. MY question is: where's the supposed "logical fallacy " in the UTTER FACT that when SOMEONE/SOMETHING'S "NON-EXISTENT," it's NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE?
What is absolute truth? Does absolute truth really exist?
In our increasingly postmodern culture, a number of voices argue there is no such thing as objective right or wrong or absolute truth of any kind. Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
There are only two possible answers to this question—yes or no. There either is absolute truth, something that is true at all times and places, or there is not. To argue with certainty that there is no such thing as absolute truth is to make an absolute truth claim, and is thus self-refuting. Therefore, the only option remaining is that absolute truth does exist.
To counter this self-contradiction, some have suggested that truth is a relative concept. In other words, something may be true in one situation but not another. Yet even this statement is self-contradicting and cannot be logically proven. Within a closed system, there will always be certain things that are absolute. For example, 2+2=4 is an absolute in a closed system. 2+2 cannot equal 4 and equal 5, for example, at the same time under the same conditions.
The only remaining option is to claim that truth cannot be absolute because humans do not live within a closed system. In other words, there are other worlds or levels of consciousness under which truths can be defined differently. This obscure view has no relevance to real life in which humans live within a closed system of space, time, energy, and matter.
The question is truly not whether there are any absolutes but rather which claims of truth are absolute. People will generally accept absolutes in areas of science or mathematics, but tend to question truth when it comes to matters of morality. For example, most people would agree premeditated murder is morally wrong, yet what about in a society in which cannibalism is practiced? Is morality therefore simply socially conditioned, based on "what works" or what a given community agrees upon, or is there a standard of absolute truth or morality?
Philosophically, people may disagree on what is moral or ethical, yet virtually all people agree on some system of right and wrong. Therefore, the natural question arises, "Upon what do we base our moral standards?"
Many religious systems provide moral codes or standards for their followers, yet the Bible presents a unique look at truth. In the New Testament, Jesus was asked, "What is truth?" by Pilate (John 18:38), the very man who approved the death of Jesus. When Pilate asked this question, he was looking into the eyes of the One who claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Further, because God is perfect (Father, Son, and Spirit), what He says is true. This includes the Scriptures that are called God-breathed or inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Psalm 19).
In summary, absolute truth exists, as no other option is adequate. Many systems of "truth" or morality exist, yet only Jesus Christ claimed to be truth and proved it by His resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-11).
As far as my having been "PROGRAMMED" is yet ANOTHER LAUGHABLE, since NOONE can come to the FULL RECOGNITION of HIS/HER NEED for SALVATION, except HE/SHE is DRAWN by the WOOING of the HOLY SPIRIT, REGARDLESS of ANY PARENTAL/OTHER-REARING INFLUENCE, because at the end of the DAY, when we're ALL required to stand before the VERY CREATOR of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, HE'S not going to JUDGE US, based on what our INFLUENTIAL FIGURES might have taught us, and how THEY lived THEIR lives, since there's NO SUCH THING as an "ETERNAL-DESTINATION PROXY." We are ALL INDIVIDUALLY REQUIRED to be held SOLELY ACCOUNTABLE for WHATEVER OUR ETERNAL DECISION for OUR ETERNAL ADDRESS will FOREVER BE.
Right on StormWing.
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, In post 277 I gave you an absolute truth, I said: "Now, here's what I believe today: maybe not tomorrow.
I believe each person creates and lives by their own personal God. When each person dies they are judged, or not, by how well they fulfilled the wishes of their own personal God, the one they created and supposedly lived by."
I create this belief in the universe that the me that is me exists. Not for anyone else, this makes it an absolute truth for me. See Bishop Berkely in the early eighteenth century for more on this philosophy.
Bob
so I log in after like 2 months and this thread is still going, wowzers
Anyways while I absolutely adore Stormwing and Silver at this point I just
think to myself, well, wow, some people really are just that stupid.
protip to OP: caps lock does not make you right
it just makes your writing painful to read
I would actually read your drivel, maybe, if it was legible and didn't look like
ultimate ass in order to read. Anyways, I did find the following kind of
funny:
"As far as my having been "PROGRAMMED" is yet ANOTHER LAUGHABLE,
since NOONE can come to the FULL RECOGNITION of HIS/HER NEED for
SALVATION, except HE/SHE is DRAWN by the WOOING of the HOLY SPIRIT,
REGARDLESS of ANY PARENTAL/OTHER-REARING INFLUENCE, because at
the end of the DAY, when we're ALL required to stand before the VERY
CREATOR of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, HE'S not going to JUDGE US, based on
what our INFLUENTIAL FIGURES might have taught us, and how THEY lived
THEIR lives, since there's NO SUCH THING as an "ETERNAL-DESTINATION
PROXY." We are ALL INDIVIDUALLY REQUIRED to be held SOLELY
ACCOUNTABLE for WHATEVER OUR ETERNAL DECISION for OUR ETERNAL
ADDRESS will FOREVER BE."
Because you're claiming that you weren't programmed to believe this way
but in fact you were quite clearly indoctrinated by your religion to believe
this way, and are therefore programmed to think in this manner. It's very
clear that you aren't thinking outside of your programmed bounds because
instead of possibly taking into consideration other people's thoughts and
arguments you simply believe that quoting some sermon or Bible site
equates to an actual argument.
Hell, half of your shit is just copy pasted because apparently that makes it
a good argument, right? (I can tell because there are encoding errors with
some of the characters scattered all throughout your text).
Please learn how to argue and try again. In the meantime, change your
diaper because you're stinking this joint up.
Disappointed nobody has checked out the song in Post 282 - it should give some of you a laugh, if not remind you of the OP.
Okay goddamit Leo, I checked out your song.
Now I'm going to send you a bill for speakers.
Seriously, very funny and very appropriate.
Bob
Good sweet fucking god, I don't normally say this, but you are missing out
guys, the visuals are hilarious.
I.e. it's hilarious satan being extremely angry in a cheesy way and FIRES AND
VOLCANOES OH MY GOD and he's pointing at you being VERY ANGRY and
FIERY
also are you sure that the OP didn't compose this sound because this is
literally them 100%
Wow thanks for the describe on the vid. The song is a old one from the late 60s. Your uncle Blbobby on here probably had the 45 as a kid hahahaha ... but again, many thanks for the description of the visuals. Awesome.
In fact the visuals are exactly how I visualize the OP.
As Bee Arthur, who used to play Maud in the 70s, used to say "God is going to get you for that remark" Leo. 45 my ass.
I'm tellin' the op who will put you on God's list.
Bob
300!
OP, arguing with you is pointless. You can't even form logical, rational
conclusions. You can't even take your random half assed bits of musing, and
make them cohesive, or coherent.
Look up the term logical fallacy. That term is the definition of just about every
point you've made, and try again. You're just one of those people that thinks
that if you use big enough words, quotes other peoples hard work, and doesn't
stop running his mouth, people will find him smart, and listen to what he has to
say.
You're making a lot of claims in your posts, but you're not tying them together,
to produce anything meaningful. Its all just disjointed blocks of text.
You still haven't been able to answer my challenge.
and you're still sighting the bible, like it refutes your arguments... I've done my
best here to try and explain where you're going wrong. But its hopeless, I think.
I'm glad you've got determination, if nothing else. But unless you can learn new
tricks dog, this show is over, and your breed won't win the blue ribbon. As it
stands, you probably should just quit.
Though you're a troll, so using logic, reason, rational thinking, and even quitting
when you know you've been beaten is beyond you.
Dunno about anyone else, but I think I'll drug myself now. I can't read the OP's stuff in full anymore if it's past three lines. Ouch!!!
Sorry Cody; been away from the site. Yes, you did answer my questions, not that I entirely agree but I think we've both established that we clash so we'll just move on.
Now to read the other million posts I've missed; then again, perhaps I won't bother. Lol
AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN, during this ENTIRE TOPIC, YOUR ARGUEMENT has NEVER BEEN with ME, NOR have I been arguing with YOU, because NOONE can argue TRUTH, which makes YOUR DESPERATION for a COMPLETELY-LOGIC-BASED TOPIC just as NULL AND VOID as ALL HUMAN LOGIC, ITSELF, due to the ONE/ONLY FACT that YOU'RE the one that's ALWAYS FAILING to squeeze a 100-pound bowling ball into a safety pin. CASE AND POINT:
What is truth?
When speaking of truth, readers of the Bible often first think of Pilate's question to Jesus in John 18:38: "What is truth?" Still today, many wrestle with whether there is anything that is absolutely true or false or whether truth even exists.
A simple definition of truth is to define it as something that corresponds to its object. In other words, it is "truth" to say water is a substance that consists of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and is found in oceans, rivers, and other locations. In fact, to deny this is true is to make a competing truth claim. To say, "That is not true," is to claim the one making the statement knows it is not true because of another truth. Therefore, truth does exist.
The next question is, "Can truth be known?" As limited human beings, we cannot claim to know all truth, but we can claim there are true things we can discover. This is true both of the physical world (such as identifying rocks or trees) and of the abstract world (numbers or ideas). Therefore, we can know truth about reality, including evaluations regarding spiritual claims or truth about God.
At this point, the law of non-contradiction can be helpful in discovering whether an idea about God is true. The law of non-contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and place under the same conditions. In other words, 2+2 cannot equal 4 and 2+2 equal 5 at the same time and place under the same conditions. It must be one or the other, 4 or 5.
Applied to spiritual truth, the law of non-contradiction can be helpful in evaluating many ideas regarding God. For example, a single God either exists or does not exist. A single God cannot logically exist for one person but not for another. In other words, it is inconsistent to make the postmodern claim, "It's true for you, but it's not true for me" when it comes to God's existence. He either does exist or He does not. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and place in the same conditions.
This same view of truth can help regarding many other faith claims as well. For example, Christianity's fundamental belief is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Did He come alive again or not? There are only two options. The evidence must be evaluated with a conclusion of what is the most likely choice. While acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior is an act of faith, the resurrection is a matter of fact. It either took place or it did not.
A similar approach can be made regarding the Bible. Is it the inspired Word of God or not? It must either be inspired, inspired in part, or not inspired. The options are limited. It is inconsistent to make the claim "the truth is relative" because truth is not relative. Truth is that which corresponds to its object. Some issues may be a matter of opinion, but others are a matter of fact or of truth.
When we face questions of truth, our wisest response is to evaluate the options and determine the best decision based on the available information. Our understanding of truth may vary from one person to another, but truth is consistent. We need not abandon the concept of truth simply because others view some truths about life differently.
Ultimately, truth is a spiritual issue as well as a philosophical one. Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). If He is the truth, then the proper response would be to follow Him and His teachings. Pilate's question, "What is truth?" continues to find far-reaching relevance into each of our lives today as we each must decide what to do when we encounter Jesus Christ.
Faith vs. science. Is there a contradiction between faith in God and science?
Faith in God and belief in science will never contradict if God, in fact, exists and is the Creator of the universe. If God is the Creator of the universe, and there is ample evidence that He is, then science is just knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths about His creation. If God doesn't exist, then faith and science will contradict since science is the search for facts about the cosmos. For those with faith, however, science can be one of our greatest forms of worship.
Science is mankind's attempt to understand how the world works. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools to accomplish this. It starts with a question about the world. Then background research, a hypothesis or educated guess about the research, an experiment, analysis to determine if the hypothesis was correct, and the report of the results. If the hypothesis was correct, the cycle is finished. If not, another hypothesis is put forth, and testing begins again. The scientific method infers that a provable fact will be repeatable and verifiable—that other scientists will come up with the same answer if their experiment is performed in the same way.
There is nothing unbiblical about the scientific method as such. God made light, matter, water, plants, animals, and humans. We honor Him when we endeavor to understand His amazing creation. We also learn more about Him, about His wisdom and power and elegance. And we appreciate His grace more fully when we understand the implications of the miracles He performs. Being thankful for healing is much richer when we see the cancerous tumor disappear from one MRI to the next.
There are two areas in which science and faith are at odds with each other. The first is not the fault of science, per se, but the presumption of the scientists themselves. Science is about observation and proof. That which cannot be proven is not fact; it is either theory or historical report. Much practical good has been accomplished on the basis of theory alone. Humans went into space with only a theory about the effects of zero-gravity on bodies and equipment. Drugs and medical treatments are developed every year based on theories. But, again, theory is not fact. Because of this, we cannot know for certain what has happened in the past based on science alone. Even if we could develop life in a lab, it would not tell us in all certainty how life first developed in the history of the world. It is not observable. Similarly, anything too small or too far away to observe cannot be known with certainty. We know that if we drop something, it will fall. And we can infer that the large mass of a planet causes a star to wobble. But the mechanism of gravity is still only a theory. And until we can observe the planet, we cannot assert its existence affirmatively.
The area in which science and faith more fully collide is in the realm of ethics. Science has no ethic. The scientific method doesn't care about the environment or unborn children. Science is about fact alone. Faith, however, is the basis for ethics. Faith tells us that humans have value far above fact. Faith explains that there is something greater than knowledge, and the search for knowledge should not have free rein and be allowed to damage the very thing it is studying. Science agrees that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) but it doesn't have an opinion on the preservation of people. Faith tells us that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and have great value far above what could be learned from organs and cells and atoms. Science tells how we work; faith tells us we have worth.
Faith and science should be partners, each giving more depth to the other. Science, when properly used, validates faith in a Creator and exhibits the awesomeness of His work. Faith guides sci-
ence to noble causes and gives science context. The best scientist is one who understands there is a Creator and enthusiastically learns what he can about that creation.
Is God pleased by blind faith?
Blind faith is trusting in something without any evidence. It has been described as a leap in the dark, a giving over of oneself to something despite a solid foundation. God does not expect us to have this type of faith.
God has revealed Himself to us. Romans 1:20 says, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." God is evident in creation. It may take faith to believe that God is Creator, but that faith is far from blind.
God has also revealed Himself through Scripture. In the Bible we read of God speaking to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. His manifest presence was with the Israelites (Exodus 13:21; Exodus 33:7-11). He gave us Scripture that we might come to know Him and trust Him (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The greatest revelation of God is Jesus Christ. He is God Incarnate, the Word made flesh (John 1:1-5; 14). Jesus reveals to us the glory and character of God. Because He rose from the dead, His message is validated.
We, of course, also use the tools of science, archaeology, history, literary criticism, personal experience, and similar methods. These things give us evidence of the existence of God and of His character.
Therefore, our faith is not blind. We are called to love God with all of our minds (Luke 10:27). He does not expect us to blindly leap in the dark, but to understand His revelations and to take calculated steps of faith. We are to search the Scriptures and spend time getting to know God (1 Timothy 4:13-16). Yes, we do exercise faith. There are some things we will simply not understand (Isaiah 55:8-9; Psalm 139:6; 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). Even so, we can know that our faith is built on a solid foundation. It is based on God's revelation of Himself and our understanding of that revelation. It is trusting and it is faith, but it is far from blind.
AND, I'll JOYFULLY/HUMBLY SAY AGAIN: YOUR ARGUMENT isn't with ME; how is it that you're THAT DESPERATE to RESOLVE that you're either AGREEING or DISAGREEING with ME, IF your ARGUMENT ISN'T with ME, ANY MORE than the VERY FACT, ALONE, that the VERY WORDS of ABSOLUTE TRUTH aren't MY words, whether I'm quoting them, MYSELF, or I'm copying and pasting writings of OTHERS who are sharing the VERY ABSOLUTE TRUTH from the ONLY ONE that INSPIRES/EMPOWERS US, INDIVIDUALLY, to DO so, ANY MORE than I'm SUPPOSEDLY "ARGUING MY POINT," which ACTUALLY SPELLS "FULL of KNOWLEDGE, without ONE OUNCE/LESS of WISDOM" on YOUR part?
That's a really long and protracted way of telling us we are all going to hell.
Hell, Michigan. Of course.
If you know anything about Michigan you would know why they have a
city named Hell.
Also
"AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN, during this ENTIRE TOPIC, YOUR ARGUEMENT
has NEVER BEEN with ME, NOR have I been arguing with YOU, because
NOONE can argue TRUTH, which makes YOUR DESPERATION for a
COMPLETELY-LOGIC-BASED TOPIC just as NULL AND VOID as ALL HUMAN
LOGIC, ITSELF, due to the ONE/ONLY FACT that YOU'RE the one that's
ALWAYS FAILING to squeeze a 100-pound bowling ball into a safety pin.
CASE AND POINT:"
i.e. you're basically an arrogant shit lmao
Well doesn't that sum up things really well? lol
I wonder if there are any churches in Hell, Michigan?
This is one reason i'm not religious. If anyone wished hell on me or condemned
me to it, I'd gladly respond that it's more likely that my ashes be stored in an
urn or thrown in the ocean than my courps rotting six feet under. Besides, the
idea is utterly stupid and idiotic because nothing burns eternally, lol! This is
funny
I want my cremated ground up bone fragments poured into the coffee grounds of someone I hate.
I hear there are lots of churches in Hell they're all satanic!
Bob
Far out, man. Wonder why the Church of Satan is based in New York instead.
There's no church in Hell, Grand Cayman Island in the Cayman Islands...
there are lots of churches on Grand Cayman Island, so OP can safely still go
to church while going to Hell.
your words and actions completely contradict. If you were not arguing or
debating with me, you wouldn't bother responding.
you and your copy paste text are just twisting the bible to fit every argument
you make.
though considering you believe in a god that supports slavery, stoning, rape of
women in conquered towns, animal sacrifice, child sacrifice, etc, etc, etc. One
thing I can prove to you for sure is, that i'm the more ethical/moral of us two.
lol
Let me guess. you probably break gods laws all the time, by doing simple things
like wearing clothing made from more than one fabric. so get off your high
horse. I don't need the fear of ever lasting fire to keep me moral.
OP, you're a broken record. the things you say make less sense every time I try
and understand them.
At the end of the day, this is how things stand.
You've been unable to refute the majority of arguments directed your way.
You've been unable to make coherent arguments in your own words.
Your arguments such as they are can't function, because they either rely on
logical fallacies, or just don't make sense.
You're just trying to use scare tactics to bully people in to believing in your
particular god.
I've made logical and rational arguments, for the most part.
I've pointed out where your "arguments" have fallen flat.
On a purely intellectual level, you've lost this debate. there is nothing more you
can say or do here. Because you're stuck walking in your same circle, again,
and again, and again.
I've won, that's clear to everyone, I think.
I should stop kicking this zombie horse you keep resurrecting to take the
beating for you.
Yeah, arguing with him is pointless. He's confused...that's all. lol
If you end up going to hell, I wonder where they tell you to go if you annoy them. Oh, goto, uh, er, um, oh, shit! Never mind.
Ahahahahahaha lol this is true! :)
They just say, "Go to Michigan."
I keep saying I'm not even going to read this topic again, yet, here I am!
So, what if you died and went to Michigan?
Oh yes again, I just read the comment about coffee, ewwww!
Bob
To ESPECIALLY StormWing: ANOTHER STRIKE that ONLY YOU could HURL the VERY BEST at this ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS NOTION that I'm INTENTLY ARGUING of YOURS is that JUST BECAUSE I RESPOND NEVER MEANS that I'm ARGUING--ANOTHER DISPLAY of "SUPER-INTELLIGENCE, GONE from WORSE to COMPLETELY PATHETIC!" SCENARIO: I inform you of the EMINENT DANGER of an ONCOMING STORM that's GUARANTEED to WIPE OUT MULTI-MILLIONS of PEOPLE in a MILOSECOND, and that if YOU were to come to the VERY SAFE AREA, TOTALLY OUT OF REACH of the storm where I'VE chosen to escape to, and from where I'm NOT ONLY ABLE to TRACK this FAST-APPROACHING-DANGER-INTENSIFYING STORM, ITSELF, but that I'm ALSO SHOWING you COMPLETE, UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE, and it's ALL RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FACE, without ME having to SPELL ANYTHING out in MY OWN WORDS, WHATSOEVER, and YET, YOU choose to COMPLETELY IGNORE, NOT ME, of course, but the VERY STORM that's JUST ABOUT to TAKE YOU OUT--the WHOLE MATTER is that the ONLY PART that I would have in this has ALREADY BEEN DONE--THEREFORE, since I can't do ANY MORE than THAT, I'VE ALREADY WARNED you; YOU'RE the ONLY ONE that can choose to CONTINUE to IGNORE the VERY EVIDENCIAL STORM that you have a TOTALLY UNDISTORTED VIEW of BEFORE you're ACTUALLY IN IT, with NO CHANCE, WHATSOEVER, of survival--ABSOLUTELY-GUARANTEED "DEATH ON DEMAND," if you might, or TAKE the VERY REFUGE, GUARANTEED to COMPLETELY SECURE you from the ONCOMING DEATH-TRAP that you would've OTHERWISE been UNRETRIEVABLY LOCKED in, SOLELY at YOUR OWN CHOOSING--ANOTHER CASE AND POINT:
Why does God create people doomed to hell?
First, it is clear God tempts no one. James 1:13 teaches, "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."
God does not actively send people to hell; all people are already imperfect. Romans 3:23 clearly teaches, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:10 says, "None is righteous, no, not one." First Kings 8:46 adds, "There is no one who does not sin." In contrast, God is the provider of salvation. All who trust in His Son Jesus Christ for eternal life will receive it (John 3:16).
The Bible teaches that all people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 states, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." People who go to hell are there because they have sinned, have not believed in God's Son Jesus, and have rejected the Creator.
But why would God create anyone who would not choose to place his or her faith in Jesus Christ? The answer can be found in the beginning of God's creation in Genesis. When God created the first man and woman, He gave them the ability to freely choose good and evil. He gave them a command—to not eat of a certain fruit. But they did eat of it, introducing sin to humanity (Genesis 3).
Every man and woman since Adam and Eve has inherited both the ability to choose as well as a sin nature. As a result, there is a need for a way to be made right with God and to receive forgiveness of sins. Acts 4:12 makes it explicitly clear that God has made a way—one way—through Jesus: "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." What some may view as exclusive or restrictive is actually a gracious offer to any person to know God personally and spend eternity with Him.
Also, consider the alternative: If God had created humans with no ability to choose right and wrong, would humans truly be human at all? Indeed not! One of the unique capacities of human life is the ability to make moral choices. Without this ability to choose both right and wrong, life as we know it would not exist.
Finally, in the end God will take away the curse of sin, making a new heaven and new earth free from the curse of sin (Revelation 22:3). When this takes place, everything that seems unjust or unfair in this life will end. Those who are children of God will dwell with Him in His presence for all eternity.
I JUST CAN'T say it enough--YOUR ARGUMENT falls flat, ONLY BECAUSE you CAN'T ARGUE/DEBATE TRUTH ANY MORE than I can, and NO, I'M not the VOICE of TRUTH--GOD, ALONE, is.
OK, OP, you make people such as myself who believe in Christ look really really really stupid.
I am ashamed that you claim his name.
I am ashamed that you dare to copy someone else's hard work and not credit them (is that not breaking the law and thus giving falsehood to your witness?)
I am ashamed of your circular reasoning that makes no sense at all, because you think that using big words and double negatives over and over again makes you right.
And you... you are not ashamed of any of these things.
To be convicted of sin, one needs to feel shame... and if one does not feel shame, one cannot be convicted of sin. I doubt you have ever repented of the sin that you charge others with, which makes your "faith" null and void.
Shut up, OP, and remember that the God you claim to serve is not impressed by your plagerism.
Kate
Yeah, what Kate said!
SHAME ON YOU!
Another Kate.
Agreed with the last post.
All I will add though is this:
None of us can reasonably compare the OP to the likes of Crazy Kate and Alicia / SisterDawn and others, even if their beliefs have strong similarities. I know intellectually lazy people will take a bad apple and write off an entire group, be it Christians or atheists or just average fence sitter types.
I hope none of the rest of you are being unfairly compared to the OP.
Ok, I was going to create a different topic for this but it wouldn't let me. Gives me a SQL syntax.
But it really does relate to this topic and similar ones.
Remembering the Humanity of Fundamentalists:
This probably won't make the debaters very happy, but I have been thinking of late about how we don't separate fundamentalism from fundamentalists.
I'm not suggesting we stop doing anything: we have to restrain zealous groups from instituting dominionist reconstructionist laws in the United States and possibly elsewhere. And where we can, I think we need to keep certain groups from making trouble for everyone else.
But I think it's helpful to examine their experience and remember their humanity. Even if we have to restrain their efforts to compromise the rights of others at times.
In short, they really are afraid of the rest of us, and they are afraid we're going to burn for all eternity. Sometimes, they're even afraid that they are going to burn, or at least pay, for having not converted us. I'll say the hardest hit are most often multigenerational fundamentalists. I mean people who grew up in families that held to these teachings. These were spanked if they questioned certain things or said they didn't believe in any sorts of miracles, or thought hell was silly. Or any number of other seemingly minor infractions. And a fundamentalist parent who refuses to enact corporal punishment or refuses to do so often enough, frequently endures scrutiny and judgment.
I knew a mom once who was actually afraid Jesus would come back, find her kids in some kind of error, and she would be in trouble. I asked what kind of error we're talking about here, and it was clear these are pretty minor infractions. Her kids were good kids, by the way.
Speaking of good kids, they refer to this as the 'primrose path' or other terms meaning, looks good but ends up a terrible mess at the end, going to Hell. Part of the reason they are so opposed to social reforms is they are afraid of making the world a better place. After all, according to them, this is supposed to be temporary, and the only goal worth mentioning is securing as many souls for the next life as possible.
Contrary to popular mythology, most of the ones I've known at least, are not as concerned about notches in their belt. They are literally terrorized by the idea of their acquaintances, friends and families burning for all eternity. And these fundies are normal, average, people. They may wax eloquent about gun owners' rights, but a good many of them could not even shoot someone, let alone burn them. Imagine if you really thought your brother or friend was going to burn forever.
If you ever see one after a "unsaved" person has died, you will pity them immensely. They're ravaged with torments themselves about what they could or couldn't have said, were they too human and maybe slipped up somewhere, and caused this person's downfall. But worse, they are tormented with the idea of where their leaders tell them this person now is. The worst affected are the multigenerational ones, but all of them experience this hell when one of the rest of us bites it.
And on the flip side, when one of their own dies and presumably goes to heaven, some of them are guilted into not expressing adequate joy because of where their loved one supposedly is. It's tragic.
I could go on and on, and so could many others on here.
But honestly, I hhope this makes all of us, myself included, do diligence in separating the person from the belief system, even if the person doesn't.
Because these are not free, they are not really joyful. I can tell you from experience that many in their circles are as I was: assented for a time but in all honesty could not reconcile these horrific aspects to reality. At 3 in the morning, when nobody's looking, and nobody's judging, the preposterous and monstrous nature of it all rears its head. It always does.
If you haven't done so, and you want a window into what terrorizes them, go to BibleGateway.com and select a modern version in the drop down box, maybe the New International or New Living. Both of those are done by reputable modern publishers. And look up two passages:
Luke 16, and I believe the second is Revelation 21.
Do as they are instructed, and visualize someone you know in the evil antagonist's position. The rich man in Luke 16, for instance.
They live with this daily. Like proper victims, they are reinforced that they are free and everyone else is bound. But let me tell you: they carry an excruciatingly heavy load.
At this point in life, I'm not even sure it's their fault. We do not, for instance, blame the battered woman for the bruises and broken bones 'lovingly' bestowed on her by her aggressor. And court case after court case demonstrates that in the U.S., at least, we don't even blame her for crimes committed against her kids.
I'm not saying they're right. I think they need to be restrained from dominionist and reconstructionist or Sharia laws in free nations like the U.S., European nations, the UK, Canada and Australia.
But I think we who know better, especially those of us who have been exposed to the inside, really need to treat them with gentleness and respect. I know for me at least, when I look deep inside, or late at night when thoughts come, I really do pity their squalid state.
Curious what you all think of this, whatever your persuasion.
firstly, terrance you are hardly the one to discourse or to talk about ethics. You don't follow ethics yourself anyway, so why should you talk about it? and, besides if I really start talking about ethics, I'd just about lose you, just to satisfy you, here is a vague answer it all depends on what school, do you want the machiavillean school, the Kantian, or utilitarian school or some others? the answer will vary. no one is going to agree on this.
I'd rather die in a terrible storm than try and escape to save my life, only to find myself in the same place as the crazy, narrow minded, arrogant, moronic fuck as the original poster. Just saying. Damn me to hell for saying that and ask me if I care.
Perhaps, and their illustration certainly breaks down. Because the same designer of the storm, or Hell, is the same one to provide the option out.
Consider how this ravages the poor minds of those who believe it literally, and are not allowed to question, and must keep all their thoughts' submitted', aka under wraps. And when the inevitable happens, and they contemplate the real possibilities, then in their own minds they are guilty of doublemindedness. In their world, doublemindedness is any non-uniform or unorthodox persuasion that they allow themselves to contemplate.
Mao Tsetung had different words for it, as did Hitler and Jim Jones.
Their only way to question, is to turn to their apologists. I've read most of what is available online from the Christian apologists. The more you actually read, the less convincing it all becomes, due to their circular logic and courtroom tactics. Combine that with the gross inaccuracies they convey about the sciences, Charles Darwin and a whole host of other things. The more you read, the less convinced you become. But in their world you are not allowed to question this.
Remember, to them, even the thought is sinful. Think Thoughtcrime from the book 1984, or your political correct radical feminists. Same deal. To them, the thought is as bad as the action.
That is why I personally cannot really blame most of them for their situation. And I will do diligence to always remember their humanity, even when they frustrate me with their Sharia / Christian / Judeo dominionist ideals for society.
FIRST, in response to CRAZYMUSICIAN, before my GENERAL RESPONSE to the OTHER immediate-above-posts, who said: "OK, OP, you make people such as myself who believe in Christ look really really really stupid.
I am ashamed that you claim his name.
I am ashamed that you dare to copy someone else's hard work and not credit them (is that not breaking the law and thus giving falsehood to your witness?)
I am ashamed of your circular reasoning that makes no sense at all, because you think that using big words and double negatives over and over again makes you right.
And you... you are not ashamed of any of these things." It's COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that if ANY/ALL of MY above-posts of sharing were of what I thought TRUTH either IS or SHOULD BE, REGARDLESS of what TRUTH ACTUALLY IS, as according to NOT of those of whom I HAVE quoted--www.compellingtruth.org, as ONE example, along with PROBABLY/POSSIBLY OTHERS that I've quoted, of which sites I can't recall at the MOMENT, but of the VERY-ONLY ONE to whom ALL CREDIT is RIGHTLY OWED, and HIM, ONLY, OF COURSE, I'd be, because AFTER ALL, it should be ABSOLUTELY NO WONDER to YOU that I'm NOT, since it's HE, ONLY, that's the AUTHOR, ALONE, of EVERY WORD of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, through WHATEVER/WHOEVER HE CHOOSES to USE to PA (PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE) HIS TRUTH--NO, NO, and MULTI-TIMES NO, would I EVER DARE INSENUATE that I'm ANY SELF-PROCLAIMED "CHOSEN ONE" for such a calling, because I'M just a NOBODY who's JUST AS UNWORTHY as EVERYBODY, of GOD'S SAVING, UNMERRITTED, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, GRACE AND MERCY that's a COMPLETE OPEN INVITATION for ANYBODY to have, for WHOSOEVER (INCLUDING YOU, if you ALREADY don't have it) that GENUINELY WANTS it. Is THIS what it means to be "ARROGANT?"
I GUESS THIS, even though it was a DIRECT RESPONSE to CRAZYMUSICIAN'S post, it MAY/MIGHT AS WELL be a GENERAL RESPONSE to ALL of the OTHERS that FOLLOW--AND, as REPETITIOUS (I'll admit) REMINDER: no matter WHAT YOU SAY about what I'VE SAID, whether I quoted ANYONE or NOT, since it's HE that'll ALWAYS have the COMPLETE SAY above ANY/ALL that ANY of US could/would EVER say, YOUR ISSUE is with HIM, NOT ME, nor will it EVER be with me, but you're ALWAYS WELCOME to continue to DECEIVE YOURSELVES into THINKING that it is, because EACH TIME that you post as if you ACTUALLY DO, SUCH POSTS just FURTHER DEEPEN my ENDLESS JOY over the VERY FACT that it CERTAINLY WON'T be ME that you'll have to answer to in the end. I suppose THAT'S "ARROGANCE," TOO, hmmm?
JUST as PERHAPS-ANOTHER HEAD'S-UP: BELIEVING IN JESUS NEVER EQUALS TRUSTING in HIM, since ANYONE can BELIEVE, ALONE, just as SATAN and his DEMONS do, but THEY'RE IRREVERSABLY DOOMED for ALL ETERNITY--they'll NEVER have the VERY-ONLY OPPORTUNITY to TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE of EXPERIENCING what GOD, the VERY RULER of the UNIVERSE, and of ALL of MANKIND, DOES OFFER US. The ONLY REASON that ANY of us MISS such, should we happen to pass from THIS LIFE into ETERNITY, LOST in TOTAL TORMENT, ISN'T because of GOD'S choosing, nor is it because of ANY "HIPPOCRACY" on MY part, which I'll admit that I, MYSELF, am NO MORE ABOVE being a HIPPOCRIT, along with ANY OTHER SIN BEHAVIOR, whether I ACTUALLY COMMIT such behavior or NOT, than YOU or ANY/EVERYBODY ELSE would be, but ONLY BECAUSE it would be OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL FREE-WILL CHOICE to. As YOU ALREADY KNOW that I've said this OVER and OVER AGAIN, I'VE already done MY part, and can do ABSOLUTELY NO MORE than THAT--what YOU choose to do from THIS point, EVEN if you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, is ALL ON YOU. MY SAY carries ABSOLUTELY ZERO WEIGHT, but HIS, not only DOES, but is the TOTAL PICTURE of ALL said and done. THAT'S JUST WHY your LAUGHABLE/MOCKABLE/CONDEMNING RESPONSES are PRICELESSLY ENTERTAINING!
Huh?
OP, that's a contradiction.
you said that all people need do to be saved is accept christ, and quoted this
from the bible. Yet, in other parts of the bible its stated sins will send you to
hell. its either 1, or the other. not both. this is the kind of thing I just don't
understand. The words clearly say 2 different things. the answer can not be
that both are true, because they both contradict. the holy word of god is full of
all sorts of these little problems.
Oh come on. Christians don't read the bible. They believe what other people
tell them about the bible. Its why atheists know more about the bible than
christians do, and studies have proven this. Its because we read the bible. You
want to know what the greatest tool to create an atheist is, its the bible. Read
that thing, and you won't want to be a christian anymore.
So we all know that the OP hasn't read the bible. Its clear he can't actually
use reading comprehension skills. Its obvious.
Cody's right. I read it through three times. Thus, my current position. The only thing I'd
add was read the text without all the justification.
FIRST OF ALL, there's a COMPLETELY HUGE and even DANGEROUS DIFFERENCE between just "READING the BIBLE" as just ANY OLD TEXT BOOK, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER, ETC., and ALLOWING YOURSELF to NOT ONLY HEAR, but LISTEN to GOD'S WORD that speaks NOT to your MIND, but your HEART. The ONLY PART that the MIND plays is the FINAL DECISION-MAKING--which brings us RIGHT BACK to the ORIGINAL DEFINITION-DISTINCTION between KNOWLEDGE WITH or WITHOUT WISDOM--HUMAN LOGIC that's NOT RULED by GODLY WISDOM is COMPLETELY EVIDENT in YOUR POST with the FALSE ACCUSATION of any CONTRADICTION--the BIBLE is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that it's OUR DECISION to SERVE SIN, NOT OUR SIN-BEHAVIOR, ITSELF, which NEVER MEANS, however, that it's COMPLETELY OK to STILL SIN, that sends us to HELL. To FURTHER SIMPLIFY, it's YOU, and YOU, ONLY, that ONLY SENDS YOU, and YOU, ONLY, to either HEAVEN, NOT GOD, GOOD WORKS, GOOD CONDUCT, ETC., or to HELL, NOT your SINS, SATAN, ETC.--OUR DECISION-MAKING, which ONLY DERIVES from US, ONLY, is the "SENDER" in EITHER DIRECTION. JUST AS it's ONLY YOUR DECISION, NOT the BIBLE, with ALL that's WRITTEN in it, to either LISTEN to the TOTAL MESSAGE of GOD'S WORD, which is EXACTLY what the BIBLE IS--HIS TOTALLY-INERRENT WORD, at THAT, or REBELL AGAINST HIS WORD by embracing the ABSOLUTE SATANIC LIE of ATHEISM.
Below is an article that might not be TOTALLY ON TOPIC, but PROBABLY/POSSIBLY be on ENOUGH of it, JUST to sort of put ALL into the very PERSPECTIVE that's NOT POPULAR, but is STILL ABSOLUTE TRUTH, which can be found on the www.liveprayer.com site.
***ASK BILL: My question is will God answer prayers for the salvation of another person by opening their minds or influencing their hearts even thought they have free will?
ANSWER: That needs to be our exact prayer for someone we know who is not saved. In the end, it still depends on each person making the decision for themselves, seeking forgiveness, repenting, turning from their sins, and accepting Jesus by faith. However, we need to pray that God will bring the right person across their path who can speak the words that they will at least hear and digest and open their heart to the love of Christ.
The Queen of "spiritual crack" is going on tour! That is right, Oprah, who has made tens of millions over the years selling New Age lies from hell like "everyone will get to heaven" is going on a national stadium tour. But wait, it gets better. It won't just be Queen Oprah, but she will be joined by heretic pastor Rob Bell who also preaches the New Age lie that everyone will get to heaven, New Age author of "Eat, Pray, Love" Elizabeth Gilbert, and one of satan's chief agents, New Age guru Deepak Chopra! Talk about a satanic group that will be helping to lead souls to hell with satan's lies under the guise of "spirituality!"
After finding great success pushing the New Age agenda over the years on her TV program, New Age witch Oprah Winfrey is now clearly committing her vast resources to lead millions of unsuspecting souls to hell selling them the "spiritual crack" of the day, New Age teachings! Just like crack, these false teachings make people feel good for a moment but lead them on a path of destruction.
Over the years, Oprah has taught a year-long course on her XM Satellite radio channel, "A Course in Miracles." A Course in Miracles is allegedly "new revelation" from "Jesus" to help humanity work through these troubled times. This "Jesus"-who bears no doctrinal resemblance to the Bible's Jesus Christ-began delivering his channeled teachings in 1965 to a Columbia University Professor of Medical Psychology by the name of Helen Schucman.
Here is an email from a poor gullible soul buying into these lies as tens of millions worldwide have: "Dear Mr. Keller, I am responding to your recent comments on the Fox News Network regarding your opinion that Oprah is the "most dangerous woman in the world." I am a "Course in Miracles" student for some time now, a student of the "We are All One" philosophy. I was born and raised a Christian, but have in the past several years found much strength and faith in the belief that we are all from the same God. I am puzzled regarding your comments, since I am of the belief that one need not be a Christian to get to heaven. It appears that your strong public opinions create more divisiveness on this troubled planet at a time when we need to become more united...that is all humanity, everywhere, united in LOVE with the same God. I have found in my exploration of spirituality that I have gained much more peace than I ever found in my Christian based religion."
Oprah's largest venture in New Age teachings was a 10 week seminar over the Internet when Oprah and best selling New Age author Eckhart Tolle taught from his new book, "A New Earth, Awakening Your Life's Purpose." Over 1 million people signed up for this 10 week web cast that led them away from Biblical Truth and faith in Jesus Christ through Tolle's perverted spiritual teachings. I have told you for years this is the most dangerous woman on earth, and she is clearly now being used as a tool of satan to lead millions of souls to hell with these false teachings she is promoting, while making millions of dollars doing it!
For the 15 years Liveprayer has been around, I have continually exposed this New Age false-hope merchant and warned people of how dangerous she is. If Oprah Winfrey was simply another Hollywood entertainer I could care less about her. What makes her so dangerous is that while her program normally deals with the same subject matter the raunchy talk shows of the day do, Oprah also deals with the very real day-to-day issues of life and uses her cable network to tell people how to live. The authority she speaks from? Herself, OPRAH WINFREY! The lack of ratings of her OWN Network over the last few years has taken Oprah off the main stage, but the programming daily is heavily laden with...NEW AGE TEACHINGS!!!
We are living in a time where the better percentage of two full generations don't go to church. People still hit those difficult places in life and at those moments they are looking for help and for hope. Sadly, the Christian leaders of our day have abandoned the marketplace and secular television for the safety and prosperity of the "Christian trough." In so doing, they have left the lost and hurting masses looking for a savior, someone to come along and help them through the difficult moments of life, tell them how to live, and give them hope. To fill this void in people's spiritual lives, along comes Oprah, Chopra and their ilk!
People defend her by saying she is not a theologian or a preacher, she is a talk-show host and entertainer. I agree. However, that is not how she portrays herself or positions herself. She has eagerly cashed in to the tune of over $1 BILLION DOLLARS on being the spiritual guru to millions, mostly women. The authority she speaks from is what she has determined truth to be, her views on right and wrong, her values and morals, as opposed to the only Truth and authority there is...God's Word!
It is clearly established that over the recent decade, Oprah Winfrey views herself as some sort of spiritual leader. You can laugh at that notion but can't ignore the fact she has an incredible amount of influence over tens of millions of lives. Let me be clear. The danger of Oprah Winfrey is that like any cult leader, her version of the truth and her final authority are not from God but from herself!
It has been clearly documented from transcripts that Oprah Winfrey may use the name of "God," and very rarely "Jesus," and use many "Christian" expressions, but so does the Mormon cult! While she was raised in the Baptist church, she has been a long-time member (though rarely attends) of a very liberal church in Chicago that mixes Christian faith with Black Liberation Theology. That is right, the 20 year home church of President Obama pastored by Dr. Jeremiah Wright!!! Because she has never been married, choos-
ing instead of live for decades outside the bonds of God's Holy Institution with a man who is not her husband, Oprah has a jaundiced view on this most sacred bond between a man and woman. Oprah embraces the New Age philosophy that there are "many roads that lead to God," a lie from the pits of hell itself. On her programs she promotes and endorses cults like Scientology, Kaballah, those who speak to the dead, psychics, and people of ANY "spirituality." There is only ONE GOD, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to promote the false gods of this world makes Oprah an enemy of God!
As for the social issues, Oprah condones and supports those who choose to engage in the sin of homosexuality. Oprah is on the record supporting a "woman's right to choose," code for slaughtering innocent babies. While she gives lip service to being pro-family, Oprah's definition of the family is whatever men want it to be, not what God says it is! Again, the truth Oprah espouses comes from her own imagination, not from the only authority and source of Truth there is, the Bible. By going against God's Word on the key social issues of our day makes Oprah an enemy of God.
I could go on, but there is no reason to. Simply denying the Bible as the only Truth there is, God as the one and only God there is, and faith in Jesus Chris as the one and ONLY WAY to be saved, makes this woman dangerous and a false prophet in every sense of the word. What makes a person a false prophet is that they lead you AWAY from God, Biblical Truth and Jesus Christ. Sadly, those who follow this false prophet, this merchant of false hope, put their eternal souls in peril. That is why I have warned people for years about her and will continue to.
I love you and care about you so much. I know all the Oprah disciples who spend hundreds of dollars to go hear her preach the "gospel of Oprah" at her seminars, buy her books and magazine, watch her faithfully every day, hang on her every word, will run to her defense by pointing out all the good she does. I don't doubt for a second that Oprah uses some of her billions to help others. That is not the issue. The Mormon cult feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and visits the prisoners, yet they are still lost and going to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ. The Mafia gives millions to worthwhile causes that help those in need, but that doesn't make them good people. God's Word teaches you can't buy your way into heaven!
I have no doubt with the spiritual decay in the nation, Oprah and her gang of satan's minions will pack them in. As one of the most powerful women in the entertainment business, she is not going away. The answer is to take on Oprah just like Elijah took on the prophets of Baal, head-on! In the end, the TRUTH will always win out over the lie. False hope will always give way to true hope. The false prophet will always be exposed when confronted by a true prophet of God.
*Since Oprah refuses to be confronted with her spiritual lies, years ago I took an interview she did IN FULL CONTEXT, put it in a debate format to help people understand her false theology. You can watch that video at: http://www.liveprayer.com/oprah.cfm
I have told you many times that what we are dealing with is a battle for the souls of men. This is why I am so passionate about the Liveprayer television program being on nationwide. It will be a beacon of light in the darkness of this world for Biblical Truth and lead people to the only answer there is..Jesus Christ!
(Sadly, many high profile Christians will go on Oprah's programs and rather than confront her and challenge the false theology she espouses, say nothing so they can sell whatever book they are pushing. David had no fear in taking on Goliath on his own turf. David was a shepherd, not a great man of war like Goliath. I have no fear in taking on Oprah on her own turf. I am an evangelist, not a great television and entertainment celebrity like Oprah. David didn't need the fancy armor of Saul, only a few pebbles. I don't need fancy buildings and studios, only a few pebbles and that is why I ask you at this time to help me bring the REAL Truth of the Bible and Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost and hurting!. Supply me with the pebbles I need and our God will do the rest!)
The world has always had false prophets, merchants of false hope like Oprah. I expose them for who they are, talk about them, because they are leading people AWAY from the only Truth there is and AWAY from the only hope there is. Pray for Oprah today. The fact is, Oprah could become a powerful woman of God if she would humble herself before the Almighty, get on her knees and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, and stop preaching the gospel of Oprah but the Gospel of Jesus Christ, stop selling people "spiritual crack," but give them the Truth of God's Word!!!
In His love and service, Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller
First, I don’t think that Christians don’t read the bible. My ex-in-laws, ironically, were churchgoers, and one of them was a Lutheran pastor, so I think he read it pretty heavily and knew it backwards and forwards. Does the OP read the bible? He’ll have to answer for himself on that one. Is the bible the absolute truth? Probably no more so than the Koran or any other book. If there’s a god, I think these books merely attempt to understand that god; they don’t definitively answer the question. Can the OP prove the bible is the truth? Nope, at least not by constantly shouting, probably in all-caps, that it is. Doesn’t work because there’s no reasoning there. Essentially you’ve got one side saying the bible is the absolute truth and the other saying it isn’t. How do you get anywhere? You really don’t. Right then, Carry on.
AGAIN, you MISERABLY strike out--the REASON that the BIBLE is the ONE/ONLY VERY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is NEVER because I say that it is--it's because GOD says that it is, and I GENUINELY ACCEPT what HE SAYS--it's JUST THAT SIMPLE. THAT means that ALL OTHERS that CLAIM to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH that DOESN'T COMPLETELY LINE UP with what GOD, and HE, ONLY says, is a LIE--NOT SAYS I, but ALWAYS, ONLY SAYS HE.
God, as defined in the Bible, says it's true.
This circular thinking is what bothers me about all religions, from the naked native moon
dancers to the conservative power-centric religions like Judeo-Chrislam.
Just because everybody can't be right doesn't by default mean that anybody is right. I
know I'm not, and never was. Not on this stuff anyway.
But I have serious deep love and respect for some people who follow some of this.
Leo wanted me to reply to this board.
First, I think this topic is extremely stupid, secondly, where did this guy learn to write? He's got run-on sentences like crazy.
I go to a Christian university, and as such, alcohol isn't allowed on campus, even if you're 21.
Now, I never drink here, but sometimes when I go home I do. Is this ethically wrong? According to this Christian school, it is. But, I don't think so. That's all I've got to say.
I have to disagree with you there Leo. We are dealing with facts. Though most
people think we are dealing with beliefs or opinions, we are actually dealing with
facts. Follow me on this.
God either exists, or he does not exist. There is no in between. Thus, you
can't be somewhere between a theist and a nontheist. Either you believe or you
don't. Its polar. So, since we have two polars, we have four groups. We have
people who believe god exists and are right, people who believe god exists and
are wrong. We have people who don't believe god exists and are right, and
people who don't believe who are wrong. Someone in these groups is right. Its
the act of proving it that is difficult.
However, we can at least prove that the bible is wrong. For that, I'd suggest a
good read of the skeptic's anotated bible. You might also look at evilbible.com.
Both are excellent resources. If you want something a bit more scholarly, which
is understandable, I'd suggest the works of Bert Ehrman. He is very good at
pointing out the contradictions, mistakes, and outright lies of that so-called
perfect word of God.
Or the works of Robert Ingersoll.
Post 340 actually makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve said the same thing on other topics; someone has to be right. Either side can muster arguments for their beliefs, but has anyone proven definitively one way or the other that a god either does or doesn’t exist? Nope. Do I mostly favor one side over the other? Yes. Do I think the bible is definitive proof? To me, no. But to the OP? Yes, I guess it is. But see, that’s the trouble. The OP states as fact that the bible is truth because his god says it is. Is it circular reasoning? In the modern vernacular, uh, yeah! And to the OP, his belief is fact. If he were alone in his “fact” that the bible is the unblemished truth, that would be one thing. Yet he’s not. It’s why the current incarnation of the GOP is held hostage to minority opinion. It’s why that party could very easily split apart. And the thing is fundamentalist Muslims also believe their holy book is the definitive proof of their belief. In short, it is their “fact.” It’s what led to 9/11. And you know who’s gunna win in a potential war between these camps? Absolutely, positively nobody.
Although I don't always act like it, I do consider myself to be a Christian
woman - I believe in God, was baptised and married in the
Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England faith. I try my best to follow the
Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments and freely admit that I am in
violation of one or more of those at any given time. I hope that my
conduct will merit me admission to Heaven, even if my foul mouth and bad
attitude may be reasons to preclude me.
All of that said, I would like to add that I *DO NOT* subscribe to the same
school of Christian thought that OP and the authors of his source material
do. I prefer a more moderate approach to theology and the interpretation
of Christ's teachings. I also prefer to keep my own council in regards to
my own personal religious beliefs and try not to be influenced by those
who try to preach to others with a specific agenda in mind... when asked,
I'm more than happy to give my opinions and participate in logical
discussions, but would never dream of trying to insist that my way of
thinking is the correct or only interpretation.
I'll stick with the original religion, sun worship.
If you don't insist yours is the right stance, why do you engage in logical
discussions? Discussions, by their very nature, are two or more people or
groups asserting that theirs is the correct stance on any given issue; then using
logic and debate to decide which one is actually more substantive. So you are
contradicting yourself. Either you don't insist you're right, or you don't discuss
your stance. You can't do both.
I meant that I am not one to insist that it's "my way or the highway" in the
way that OP does... I will defend my views and what I see as being "right,"
but with a mind open enough to change those views if someone can give
me a good enough reason why I might be wrong or why another way
should be considered.
The way that OP goes about insisting that his way is "the only way" and
subsequently ramming said views down our collective throats as the be all
end all of Christian theology is wrong, in my opinion. He has yet to offer a
reasonable rational discussion as to why it's his way or the highway.
WELL, since I'm NEITHER insisting that I'M right, NOR discussing MY stance, since it's COMPLETELY NOT about ME, at ALL, because it's HIS stance, which IS HIS ETERNAL WORD, that is the UNIVERSAL FACTOR, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for ME to INSIST to be RIGHT about, because HE'S RIGHT, ALWAYS. THAT COMPLETELY frees ME from ALL INSISTENCE of MY point, since it's not MY point that matters, but HIS, ONLY, which means that I'm CERTAINLY NOT proving HIS point, EITHER, because HE'S ALREADY DONE THAT, EVEN BEFORE TIME EVER BEGAN--let me re-phrase that--HIS POINT, which IS ETERNAL, was NEVER PROOVEN, as according to what OUR REQUIRED STANDARDS of what qualifies as so-called SOLID PROOF, as HE'S not ONE that has to ANSWER to ABSOLUTELY NONE of HIS CREATION, which DEFINITELY INCLUDES US--all I'M doing is PROCLAIMING HIS TRUTH; THAT ONLY MEANS that if you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to heed HIS (NOT MINE) WORD that HE has allowed ME to PROCLAIM, OR if you DO choose to, HE, and HE, ONLY, is the VERY ONE that you'll answer to; the ONLY QUESTION within THAT equation is: who/what can/will present you as COMPLETELY FAULTLESS, as if you've NEVER SINNED in your ENTIRE LIFE, if it ISN'T going to be JESUS that you'll choose, and what would be said to YOU to FINALIZE YOUR ETERNAL OUTCOME, as a result of whom/what you've chosen as the one to present you? Now, I told you this BEFORE, as WELL--DON'T EVER THINK that I'M not apart of this equation, JUST BECAUSE I'm sharing HIS TRUTH, because I'LL have to answer to HIM, TOO, and the ONLY ONE that I'VE chosen to present me to HIS FATHER IS JESUS. My ONLY RECOMMENDATION, and that's ALL that it is, to YOU, which will DEFINITELY GUARANTEE that you'll NEVER REGRET MAKING this choice, is for YOU to choose HIM to present YOU. If you DON'T, you're ABSOLUTELY FREE to make THAT choice, ALSO. It's just that the PRICE-DIFFERENCE for EITHER CHOICE CONTRASTS as either ETERNAL LIFE or ETERNAL DAMNATION--AGAIN, HIS MANDATE, NOT MINE. It's NOT "MY WAY, or the HIGHWAY," but it's HIS WAY, and NO OTHER that leads to LIFE-EVERLASTING!
Yet the followers of Mohammed will insist that his ways are supreme. You wanna tell us, cupcake, why the bible is any more the truth than the Koran, or is it possible that both paths lead to the same deity? Or are you gunna hold fast to the claim that ‘cuz the Bible tells me so is the only explanation anyone should need, want or adhere to? Prove it through your own reasoning. In short, put up or shut up.
Damn, this topic is like a sore tooth.
Question, is it possible to discuss ethics without talking about God?
Bob
How is Christianity unique?
How is Christianity different from other religions? While Christianity shares some spiritual ideas with other religions, several of its claims are unique.
First and foremost, the Christian faith is based on the literal, physical resurrection of its founder, Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul considered the resurrection the matter of first importance: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). No other religion is based on the literal resurrection of its founder.
Second, Christianity is unique in its view of God. Christianity is the one faith that teaches there is one God who exists in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three Persons form one God (Matthew 28:18-19), yet each Person is specifically referred to as God—Father (Genesis 1:1), Son (John 1:1), and Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
Third, Christianity is unique in its authority. It accepts the 66 books of the Old and New Testament as the inspired Word of God that serves as the authority for matters of faith and practice. Second Timothy 3:16-17 teaches, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Second Peter 1:20-21 adds, "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Fourth, Christianity is unique in its impact. The church began in approximately 33 AD in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost under the leadership of the apostle Peter and 120 followers of Jesus (Acts 1—2). That day, 3,000 people were added (Acts 2:41). Soon their number grew to 5,000 men (Acts 4:4). Within the next 30 years, churches expanded across the Roman Empire, including Rome itself (Acts 28). By the fourth century, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. By the 21st Century, it is the world's largest religion, with more than two billion estimated adherents.
Fifth, Christianity is unique in its teachings regarding salvation. All other religious systems require works in order to receive eternal life, teach reincarnation, or reject the afterlife. The Bible teaches salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ apart from works (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9).
Other unique teachings exist, yet these five represent some of the key ways Christianity differs from other world religions. Only the Christian faith is built on Jesus Christ as the resurrected Son of God, believes in a Triune God, accepts only the Holy Bible as the Word of God, has had such an impact, and provides salvation freely by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
There are so many different religions. How do I know which one is right?
Our world includes many religions. Is there one that stands out among all of the others, or are they all equally valid paths of spirituality? Considering the crucial questions that religion purports to answer—questions of life and death and eternity, finding the correct religion is of the utmost importance.
First, we must recognize that claims of truth from various religions can be evaluated. In other words, if a religion claims that it began at a certain time and place, historical investigation can be used to determine whether the claim is accurate.
Second, we must be open to where the evidence leads, even when it leads to a place that does not fit our preconceived bias. For example, some people say they do not believe in the supernatural, but what happens when a miracle emerges as the best solution to the evidence? Unless we are open to where the evidence leads, our decisions will be determined by our bias rather than what is true.
Third, religions are evaluated based on cumulative evidence. In technical terms, this means religious ideas are evaluated inductively rather than deductively. Simply put, belief in God is not decided in the same way as a math equation. Instead, the evidence is compiled and a decision is made regarding which religion is the most likely. In the end, faith is always a component, though the evidence is of great importance.
In the case of religions, evaluating truth claims quickly limits the number of religions that could possibly be truth. Why? All of the scientific evidence points to a single origin of all matter, space, and time (some call this the Big Bang). Based on this information, a single Intelligent Designer is the most likely explanation for the scientific evidence. Religions that claim this world is an illusion, or that there are multiple gods or goddesses, or that we are each a god, or that there is no god can all be quickly eliminated from consideration.
The three major monotheistic religions that accept a single, monotheistic god as their worldview: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism accepts the teachings of the 39 books of the Old Testament (also called the Hebrew Bible) built on the foundation of Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Christianity accepts this view as well, adding that Jesus is God's Son and was also part of this divine act of creation (John 1:1). Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, likewise accepts a Creator God named Allah (Surah 59:24).
In addition to an Intelligent Designer involving a single god, we must look at the holy writings of these three religions to determine which message is most accurate in communicating ideas that can be evaluated. This includes both the content of the writing and the transmission of the writing.
Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, is described as a revelation from Allah to his prophet, Muhammad. Written over an approximately 23-year period beginning in 610, these writings were later compiled and declared to be the authoritative book of Islam. Two key criticisms, however, are generally pointed out regarding its accuracy and authority.
First, many passages in the Qur'an contradict other passages in the Qur'an. To handle these differences, Muslim scholars appeal to the later writings as the final word in the matter. In other words, anytime two teachings do not appear consistent, the one that was written later is the one to follow. However, the flaw in this claim is that inspired writing would be wrong at all. In other words, how can the Qur'an claim to be the inspired, perfect word of Allah and yet have inconsistencies that had to be corrected or updated by later revelation?
Second, the Qur'an uses many names and accounts from the Old and New Testament and changes details to fit its system of beliefs. To justify these changes, the claim is made that the Old and New Testament writings were "corrupted" and the Qur'an interprets these historical events properly. However, the fact that biblical writings are highly accurate in their transmission throughout history and verified by external history discredits this accusation. For example, Muslims claim Abraham's "blessed" son was Ishmael rather than Isaac. Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God and did not resurrect from the dead. What historical evidence is used to make these monumental changes?
What about Judaism? Both Judaism and Christianity accept the Old Testament as God's Word, with Christianity also including the 27 books of the New Testament as revelation from God. The key difference between the two is that Judaism rejects Jesus as the predicted Messiah, also called the Son of God.
Externally, the accuracy for both Old and New Testament writings is strong, with over 25,000 points of archaeology affirmed in its pages. Key biblical figures are repeatedly found in other historical sources, affirming the general ac-
curacy of the writing. Further, thousands of early copies of the biblical documents exist, with great consistency between them, illustrating that the content has been transmitted over the centuries with a high degree of accuracy.
Let's now take a look specifically at claims of Christianity. A major question of those who research the New Testament focuses on the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. Essentially, if Jesus did die and return from the dead, then He fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament and is God. If not, Christianity cannot be a true religion.
In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul laid down four facts he declared were of "first importance" regarding the good news that Jesus is God's Son and proved himself as God (part of the Trinity consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not "three gods" as Muslims generally argue). These included:
-Jesus died (v. 3)
-Jesus was buried (v. 4)
-Jesus returned to life (v. 4)
-Jesus appeared to many eyewitnesses (vv. 5-8)
Historians outside of the New Testament writings have verified the death of Jesus on a cross. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, mentioned His death as a matter of historical fact. Even today, nearly every scholar on the first century time period affirms that Jesus lived and was documented as dying on a cross outside of Jerusalem approximately 30-33 AD.
The evidence for the burial of Jesus also includes ample support, both in the New Testament and in external history. His body was buried in a cave tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a well-known Jewish leader who was a member of the Jewish council (John 19:38). A second witness, Nicodemus, also a reputable member of Jewish religious culture, joined him (John 19:39). Historically, the tomb's location was known to the disciples, the women who approached the tomb on the third day, to the Jewish and Roman leaders involved in the plot to kill Jesus, and to early Christians who traveled to visit the tomb. In fact, the location of the tomb was never disputed. The controversy was whether Jesus had resurrected as the disciples and early eyewitnesses taught.
Third, the resurrection of Jesus on the Sunday following His death is the most controversial of these four essentials taught by Paul. For one thing, it was a supernatural act. Those biases against miracles generally rule out this possibility based on this preconceived bias. Also, if true, the conclusion was that Jesus is God, something many choose not to believe, again due to personal bias. However, a look at the evidence points toward the likely scenario that Jesus did return to life.
Major lines of evidence include: the location of the tomb was known, meaning there was no dispute as to where the body of Jesus had been placed. In addition, the guards and Jewish leaders circulated a story that the followers of Jesus had stolen the body rather than finding the body to disprove the account. Those who guarded the tomb (most likely 16 guards based on the description) would not have jeopardized their own lives to allow the body of Jesus to be taken by Christ's followers. Further, the disciples were surprised at the empty tomb, meaning they had not been involved in plans to steal the body. Additionally, a large stone had been rolled away from the door of the tomb, something that would have required several strong individuals to accomplish apart from a supernatural resurrection. The body of a dead Jesus never surfaced, offering no specific evidence to the contrary. Again, today's scholars on ancient Near Eastern history generally affirm the tomb was empty. The question is, "What happened to Jesus?"
Finally, we consider the eyewitnesses. Jesus appeared after his resurrection on several occasions, beginning with Mary outside of the tomb. Jesus also appeared to His half-brother James, a man who had formerly been a skeptic (John 7:5), yet James later served as a key leader in the early Christian movement. What changed? He claimed he had seen the risen Jesus, calling him the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (James 2:1 NIV). Perhaps most importantly, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus, "… appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." The term "fallen asleep" refers to some people who had died since that time.
Could Paul refer to over 500 people who had been eyewitnesses to Jesus when writing only about 25 years later to readers who could have easily discredited this message if it had been inaccurate? Not likely. He could write these words with confidence because of his firm belief that the words were true.
A final note that affirms the power of Christ's resurrection is the dedication of His early followers. Tradition tells that all but one of the twelve apostles died for their faith. The apostle Paul was beheaded in Rome for his belief that Jesus was alive and that Jesus was God. People may die for a cause they believe in, but people would hardly die for something they know is not true. These early Christians believed in the risen Jesus enough to follow their beliefs all the way to death.
If Jesus is risen, then Jesus is God. If he is God, the Creator of all things, then what He says about religion is true, regardless of what others may say. He declared in John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In other words, Jesus claims to be the only way to know God. While some would argue that such a claim is arrogant, the truth is that it is not arrogant if it is true. It is not arrogant to claim two plus two equals four because it is a true statement. If what Jesus says about Himself is true, then it is important to know it and to accept it.
To summarize, we began by asking, "With all the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?" By evaluating truth claims, we can determine which claims are most likely. Based on the observable evidence, a religion based on a single, creator God is the most compelling option. Of the three major one-God religions, only Christianity presents compelling eyewitness testimony in both its holy writings and external historical evidence to claim that Jesus is God. If the resurrection of Jesus is true, then the result would be that Christianity is the correct religion. Jesus himself claimed to be the way, not a way, and He challenges those who seek the truth to look to Him.
JUST FOR THE RECORD: the above was DIRECTLY COPIED from www.compellingtruth.org, and I OFFICIALLY ENDORSE the VERY CONTENT, thereof.
Just because _you_ endorse the content doesn't mean that it's the only
correct stance in Christian theology.
Yeah what about the Catholics? They have more than the 66 books.
So was the Council of nicea less inerrant? Who was inerrant enough to edit it down to the particular 66? So the Protestants who only have the 66 books are the only ones who have the Inerrant version? Or are you one of those that calls the Catholics the Whore of Babylon?
You see, the more one looks at this, the more one comes away with the idea that this is one very elaborate hoax, minus the little green men or the guy wearing a Bigfoot suit with a zipper.
And yes, Bob, I think humans can discuss ethics without god/s.
So, OP, tell us: who decided that these 66 books were inerrant? We all know it was committees of people with certain ideas and agendas. But if you're going to say it is exact and final, you have to be able to demonstrate it. Any time I tell a customer this or that is exactly how something works, I am always prepared to give an explanation.
If engineering were religion / apologetics, all your bridges would go wibbledy wobbled and all your computer programs would crash.
Good point Leo about the Catholic bible.
Also, what about the mormon religion? I admit that I don't know much about their religion, but I think they accept the King James version of the bible along with the book of mormons.
So, who's right?
Back to Bishop George Berkely for me. <lol>
Bob
yes, there are several schools of ethical thought that don't mention god at all.
The answer can be found in He that pisseth against the wall.
Someone sent me that vid years ago asking if I thought it was a hoax. This is the same preacher guy who publicly said he was praying Obama would get cancer and die.
Proving for all of us how well that actually works, since quite obviously Homeland Security did not see his threat as an actual viable threat.
On the vid he claims real men pisseth standing up. Well, most of us have been pisseth-ing standing up since we were what? Five years old or so? But none would have called us men at that age.
Pisseth-ing! That’s too funny!
For those of you who are interested, there is a wonderful youtube video and
lecture by Matt Dillahunty called the superiority of atheistic morality. It
discusses why it is not only possible to have ethics without God, but actually
better to have them without God. Its a good watch if you want to look it up.
QUESTION: can you HONESTLY/DEMONSTRATIVELY PROOVE how ALL OTHERS, IN ADDITION to the ONLY AUTHENTICLY-INERRENT WORD of GOD, the BIBLE, are SUPPOSED to be JUST AS INERRENT, when ALL, BUT the BIBLE are CONSISTENTLY INACCURATE, SELF-CONTRADICTING, even if read SUBJECTIVELY, and are just ALTOGETHER of ABSOLUTELY NO ETERNAL VALUE, WHATSOEVER, CERTAINLY UNLIKE the BIBLE?
How do we know which book - The Bible, the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc. - is the Word of God?
Many books have claimed to be the Word of God or divine. In addition to the Bible, various groups have claimed divine inspiration for the Apocrypha, Book of Mormon, Qur'an, and other works. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?
First, we must read it to determine if its facts are accurate. For example, the Book of Mormon claims people were called Christians in about 73 BC (Alma 46:15), nearly 70 years before Jesus Christ was even born in Bethlehem! This is a clear historical and factual error. Baruch 6:2 in the Apocrypha claimed the Jews would live in Babylon for seven generations. It was actually only 70 years. The Qur'an claims that Abraham and his son Ishmael built the Ka'ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia (Sura 2:125-127) despite no historical evidence to support this claim.
In contrast, the Bible has been found accurate in numerous places, with no direct proven mistakes. Though there are some places that may be difficult to understand, it is a historically reliable book that is confirmed in many places by history and archaeology. The New Testament in particular claims to be written by eyewitnesses or their contemporaries (Luke 1:1-4).
Second, the external evidence for the Bible argues for a high degree of accuracy. The first copies from parts of the New Testament date to within one generation of the originals (parts of John's Gospel exist from the first half of the second century). In addition to early manuscripts, there are also numerous manuscripts, with well over 5,000 copies of the New Testament manuscripts available in Greek, in addition to numerous copies in Latin and other languages, including Arabic (7th Century). This affirms that the teachings of the Bible have not been changed or corrupted.
Third, fulfilled prophecy strengthens the Bible's claim as the Word of God. It makes more than 300 accurate predictions related to Jesus as the Messiah, in addition to numerous other fulfilled prophecies. It has been noted that approximately 27 percent of the Bible is prophetic in nature, yet not a single prophecy in the Bible has been proven wrong.
If one book written by approximately 40 people over a 1,400-year period in a variety of locations can speak accurately and authoritatively and has stood the test of time and persecution for nearly 2,000 years, would you consider that it might be the Word of God? This is the story of the Bible, the world's best-selling and most translated book. As Hebrews 4:12 teaches, "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Second Timothy 3:16-17 adds, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Are there errors in the Bible?
Those who want to reject the message of the Bible will often point to apparent errors, contradictions, and discrepancies. However, looking at the Bible objectively—a book written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years, and copied over and over by hand for 1400 years until the invention of the printing press—the accuracy and consistency of the Bible is nothing short of astonishing. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences, although differences are not contradictions or errors. Biblical error only occurs where there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled to the rest of Scripture.
Even if an answer to some apparent discrepancies is not available right now, that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography, only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered. For example, for centuries "scientists" believed the earth was flat. The book of Isaiah, written thousands of years before Columbus, declares that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). Was this an error to the learned scientists of the past?
Whatever minor copists' errors that may, or may not, exist in Scripture, the overall message comes through loud and clear. Man is sinful by nature, God is holy and must punish sin, Christ came to take that punishment on our behalf, and all who come to Him in faith will have eternal life, while those who reject Him live eternally in hell. Atheists love to point out supposed errors and contradictions and expect others to answer their objections. The truth is that most Bible attackers are not really interested in, nor are they seeking, truth. They are seeking a reason to reject the Bible and the God who wrote it (2 Timothy 3:16). Despite their noisy protestations, one day they will stand before the Author of Scripture who declared it to be perfect, right, pure, true, righteous and more to be desired than gold (Psalm 19).
Why are there so many Bible translations?
There are many reasons why different Bible scholars, translators, and publishers have felt the need to translate the Bible into English multiple times. For one thing, language and definitions change. Different translation methods serve different purposes. Archaeology gives new insight to both biblical culture and the original texts.
God's Word does not change, but languages do change, thus the need for updated and revised translations of the Bible. The Bible was first translated into English in the late 1300s by John Wycliffe. His work was followed by the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, and then the King James Version, which was finished in 1611, and then revised several times between 1611 and 1769. While there were several other English Bible translations published in the 1700s and 1800s, the explosion of English Bible translations did not occur until the middle of the 1900s. It is interesting to note that this is primarily only an issue with English. While other languages have multiple versions/translations, no other language has anywhere near as many translations as English.
There are two general ways to translate the Bible. One is "formal equivalence," which attempts to translate the text word for word, as literally as possible. The King James Version and New American Standard Bible are examples of this. "Dynamic equivalence" attempts to translate thoughts and ideas instead of words, "thought for thought" as opposed to "word for word." The New International Version and New Living Translation are examples of dynamic equivalence. Then there are translations that fall somewhere in between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, such as the English Standard Version. Then on the extreme edge of dynamic equivalence are paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message, which are neither formal nor dynamic equivalence, but are rather a retelling of Scripture in the words of the author.
There is value in each method of Bible translation. While it is typically best to use a more formally equivalent Bible translation as your primary Bible, ultimately, the focus should be on finding a Bible translation that was produced by solid evangelical scholarship, and at the same time is understandable. With that in view, any of the following translations would qualify: King James Ver-
sion, New King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, and Holman Christian Standard. Additional good modern English Bible translations are available, but the ones mentioned above are generally regarded as the best.
While only the original writings in Hebrew and Greek are truly God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), inerrant, and infallible, we can also trust that the Holy Spirit guides Bible translators. The Bible, even when it is translated, is God's Word: "alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). Although serious study should include the comparison of several different Bible translations, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who reveals to our spirits the meaning of the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Pissith on it.
Up against the wall mother fucker.
Bob
I'm not sure even I can argue with shit that deep. I'd need waders and a gas
mask first. But let me simply say this. The person who actually wrote those
arguments defeats their own argument while stating it. Lets see if anyone else
can spot where they did it. Give me a quote people, its fun. Point out what
destroys their argument in post 159.
Um, right. If you can't dazzle them with logic, baffle them with bullshit?
another question, if your moral system is based on fear of hellfire/punishment
by god, rather than treating people well as humans, because you are human,
and would appreciate the same in return/you know it is wrong to do some
things to other people instinctively, are you truly moral if the only thing keeping
you in line is oh, the father of all things says no?
In my opinion, if you always need a father figure to check your actions, you're
not a real man, or woman.
Post 159?
I see two commonly done inconsistencies, but maybe you are referring to something else?
Either it's the free will / God is sovereign and knew all along paradox, or it's the free will versus being constrained by sin nature paradox.
I'm guessing you are thinking of one of these two.
Of course there's the whole issue of what a friend of mine calls the Pocahontas syndrome.
For those light on history, John Rolfe I believe it was, believed that Pocahontas jumped in to save his life. But Powhattan was merely doing a ritual which was rigged from the beginning: place the enemy in grave danger, in peril of losing his life, and then have a savior rush in and save him. Then that enemy owes everything to the Chief out of gratitude for saving his life.
But this all is contingent on the person never realizing that the game was rigged to begin with.
So in Christianity you have a deity that created everything, including the desire to be curious, then gave the humans a choice to do something that would make them knowledgeable about good and evil, but the effect is mortality and expolsion from the garden.
Then all is lost except an impossible law is constructed that nobody can keep. Then a way out arrives that was formerly planned. And according to fundamentalist Christians, anyway, 80% of the human population will not avail themselves of this way out, so they suffer eternal torment.
Which would have to have been known beforehand in order to set up this entire scheme.
Anyone who stays ignorant of the rigged nature of this whole business will marry the Pocahontas, as it were.
My thought: rigged games, especially schemes that are set up for known failure for most participants from the beginning, are not love.
I would actually like to hear from a Christian other than the OP on the above construct. Not to fight with you per se, but see what you think.
Sorry, meant 359 Leo. Now I feel bad for making you go back through all that
shit.
See, this is why I think the Eastern religions got it mostly right with the whole concept of kharma and kinda letting things take a more natural course, but then I don’t understand enough about them to really say with certitude. Suffice it to say that I’m admitting that I don’t necessarily know what I’m talking about on that score all the time. But what I do know is that the whole fundamentalist Christofascist set-up, when you stop to think about it, reminds me strongly of the play Oedipus Rex. We studied it when I was in college, and it was my favorite play to rip apart. Believe it or not, I got in contact with my old English professor a while back, and he still remembers how angry I was. Because, see, the gods in that play basically set him up. They staged everything. His father, as you remember, heard a prophecy that his son would kill him, marry his mother and have children with her, perpetrating this whole tragedy. And the gods did this to punish him. For marrying his mother and having children with her. It was all pre-ordained, and nothing the king could do to stop it. He gave his son to another king and his wife, figuring that that misfortune would befall someone else rather than himself, not knowing that one day the son would have some sort of confrontation with the king later on. The son didn’t know who his father was, killed him, didn’t know who his mother was, so married the king’s widow, had children with her, eventually they found out about it all, and tah-dah, you got a tragedy that the gods set up because they had a war amongst themselves. Or something. I’m largely paraphrasing, but this whole thing down from the garden of Eden to judgment day, Armagedon and everything else, is just a stage set-up. It’s all pre-ordained. There’s nothing we can do about it because the Emperor of Everything is all-powerful and put this whole machine in motion. It’s not even a very good computer game because the pieces were in play thousands of years ago, if you look at things literally from the Christofascist point of view. Even my ex-in-laws believed that much of the whole Genesis creation story was a parable, and that their god could exist simultaneously with science. Dunno how it was all supposed to coincide, but if they could work it, hell, who am I to say? But you take this whole thing literally, and it’s all an unfair set-up. There’s nothing even remotely logical, fair, justifiable, equitable or anything else about it. You already know that most of us will damn ourselves, so you do nothing to stop it but you set things up in such a way that it’s virtually impossible for the most of us to fail. You created us to fail. But you did all this because you love us! Well, fuck you, you miserable sonuvabitch!!!
I have two issues with karma. The first is the idea that whatever happens to you, you
must have deserved it. Ancient India thought it most compassionate to leave people in
their squalor rather than help them, so they could learn their lesson.
The second is responsibility. Many who believe in karma would rather not do the difficult
business of enforcing justice, but would rather sit back and let karma take care of it. They
rely on the same testimonial thinking that is used to support the idea that God answers
prayers. Meaning, they factor the stories of answered karma, while not accounting for all
the unanswered situations.
Because I cannot reconcile either one, I take a rational objectivist view. If it's in my circle
of influence, if I don't get it done, I have only myself to blame.
Oh, an eye for an eye is not a bad idea. But the Christian Hell is a far cry from an eye for
an eye, no matter how its apologists try to change the meanings of words and set moving
targets. They use typical bureaucratic tactics.
Take the Sermon on the Mount, two small passages in Matthew 5. The first addresses
adultery. They change the meaning of words to say now a man who looks or thinks about
a woman sexually is an adulterer. Something like the feminist term thought rape. In fact,
men's teachers call it spiritual rape.
And as to murder? Now if you are angry with someone without cause, you are guilty of
murder.
First off, one might wonder if there weren't enough murders and cheaters, so enforcement
needs to justify its existence by changing definitions.
Then, how thoughtless to the victims. Do you think the family of a murder victim would be
anything less than insulted to have their situation cheapened? So the killer, and someone
who thought angry thoughts about someone are guilty of the same. That's justice if you
are some kind of relativist, where words can just mean anything, I suppose.
Or what about a woman whose husband carelessly threw away what they'd built, and she
is left humiliated and betrayed. Would she be anything less than insulted to find her
husband and some young man having thoughts about a hot young woman are the same?
In a world of outcome-based education where 2+2 is 5 could you call it justice.
I've sat with a humiliated rape victim who had sat through some feminist diatribe about
thought rape. She just kept crying and saying, That's different! I was really raped, for real
in my body!
And the victim's family and betrayed wife would no doubt have the same story.
Changing words to mean different things, and thereby minimizing real victims is not just
on the one hand, nor is it loving on the other.
Actually, if every sin or error is equal, Christianity is spiritual communism.
Is God fair?
When people ask if God is fair, they are often asking from a human perspective if God deals with people in the way they deserve. From that perspective, no, God is not fair. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23) and deserve death as a result (Romans 6:23). Yet God has provided salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9) to anyone who believes in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Acts 4:12). Far more than being fair, God is gracious (giving us not what we deserve, but what we need) and merciful (not giving us the punishment we do deserve). He is also just (morally consistent or fair) and righteous.
Justice is served in salvation because Jesus paid the price for our sins. We were gifted with grace, and He was given just punishment for our inequities (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:5; Hebrews 2:14-18; 1 Corinthians 15:54-57). Some ask whether God is just in His offer of salvation to all people. It seems that God is closer to some than to others, and that His salvation is beyond the reach of some. For example, some people are raised in Christian families, and others live in areas where being a Christian results in persecution. How is this fair? Yet Romans 1:20 teaches, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." God teaches that no one will have a valid excuse for unbelief, as He has made Himself known to everyone through His creation.
God is also interested in justice on earth. Deuteronomy 10:18 teaches, "He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing." Romans 12:19 says, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"
Not only does God execute justice, He instructs His people regarding fairness as well. The Old Testament is filled with God's instructions to His people to live justly to reflect His justice. Exodus 23:2 instructs, "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice." Verse 6 adds, "You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit." Deuteronomy 16:19 states, "You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous." God invests much time communicating ways in which His people are to live justly toward Him and one another. This helps us to realize God cares greatly about justice both eternally and temporally.
God has been more than fair in His dealings with people. Despite our sins (Romans 3:23), He has offered forgiveness (1 John 1:9) and eternal life to those who will believe in His Son Jesus (John 3:16). Further, as King and Creator of all things, He can do as He pleases. He is not obligated to treat us as we wish or in ways that we "feel" are fair. Instead, He works all things together for our good (Romans 8:28) as part of His perfect plan.
Why does God let bad things happen to good people?
The short answer to this difficult question is "there are no good people." Jesus said it best when He said, "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). There are only two kinds of people: bad people and bad people who have been redeemed. Most would agree that bad people deserve to have bad things happen to them. In fact, most bad people don't have nearly enough bad things happening to them. As for the other group, bad people who have been redeemed by God, they still have bad things happen to them because we live in a bad place—a fallen, sin-cursed world.
The Bible tells us that all humans are, by nature, sinful and condemned and that no one is good (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8). Romans 3:10-18 clearly states the truth about people: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." When we think we deserve to escape the "bad things," we deny the fact that every second we are alive and every breath we take is only by the grace and mercy of God, who restrains Himself from giving us what we deserve, eternal hell in the lake of fire.
So the real question is "Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?" Romans 5:8 gives the answer, "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." In spite of the evil, wicked, sinful nature of the people of this world, and because of it, God provided a way to escape the penalty for our sins (Romans 6:23). God provided Jesus Christ to save all those who would ever believe in Him as their Savior (John 3:16; Romans 10:9), and by His blood, we are forgiven and receive an eternal home in heaven (Romans 8:1). By this miracle, bad people receive an entirely new nature and become good people because they exchange their sin for the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).
But God still allows bad things to happen to these redeemed people for His reasons, whether or not we understand them. The Psalmist tells us "This God—his way is perfect" (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are "perfect," then we can trust that whatever He does—and whatever He allows—is also perfect. This may not seem possible to us, but our minds are not God's mind. It is true that we can't expect to understand His mind perfectly, as He reminds us, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Nevertheless, our responsibility to God is to obey Him, to trust Him and to submit to His will, whether we understand it or not. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6).
Why does God let innocent people suffer?
One of the biggest barriers to belief in God is the question of suffering. The general argument is that, if God is good and benevolent, He would not permit innocent people to endure suffering and pain. But the Bible reveals that God is good and that He allows suffering. There are several reasons the two are not mutually exclusive.
First, there is no one who is truly innocent in that there is no one without sin. Romans 3:23 tells us that we are all sinners. Colossians 3:13-15 tells us that we are dead in our sins apart from Christ. The result of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and this death has pervaded all of creation. Sometimes suffering is a direct result of the sufferer's sin. At other times suffering is caused by the sinfulness of another. Sometimes suffering has to do with the general fallen nature of our world. Ever since the judgment of Adam and Eve, "the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now" (Romans 8:22). Natural disasters, food and water shortages, violence, disease, and other problems in the world are, ultimately, the result of sin.
Of course, God still has control over the amount of suffering, and He does not allow it unnecessarily. God redeems our times of suffering to use them for His glory (Romans 8:28). Suffering can be a means through which God refines our faith (Romans 5:3-5). We often draw closer to God during times of suffering as we realize that He alone is our refuge (Psalm 91:2). Suffering also helps
us remember that we do not belong to this world; so we fix our eyes on Jesus and long for His work to be complete (Philippians 3:20-21).
Not only does God work in us personally through suffering, He uses it to display His glory to the world. Second Timothy 3:12 teaches, "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." Those who follow the teachings of Jesus and do what is right often experience suffering, including persecution (John 3:19-21; 15:18-21). Rather than detract from the character of God, this suffering draws attention to the fact that followers of Christ are not part of this fallen world. When we can delight in God even in the midst of our sufferings, we bring God glory. Paul knew persecution firsthand. In 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, he wrote, "Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure." Despite his hardships, Paul wrote extensively on joy (Romans 5:3-5; Colossians 1:23; Philippians 4:4).
Jesus truly was innocent (2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet He endured the cross. Hebrews 12:2-3 says, "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted." We need not doubt God is with us during times of suffering. God does not delight in our suffering, nor is He its author. Yes, God does allow us to suffer. But rather than doubt Him, we can trust in His love and see ourselves identifying with Christ, who suffered before returning to the eternal joy of the heavenly Father.
Leo, I think you're right. sadly, I think most devout believers are so caught up
in their Stockholm syndrome they'd never ever understand your argument.
And the OP still continues to cut and paste things from other websites. It's the only way he can write coherently -- by stealing others' words. But in my own words, I'll write more about my thoughts of Kharma; I think they're a little off the beaten path. I'm just heading out to work and still a little sick from two days ago.
It's funny how the OP cuts and pastes and we respond to playgerism
Notice how I haven't said anything in a few days because this is just the same old same old and after a while it just gets boring. It was amusing for a while.
DistanceRunner337 you are right. I keep saying it's the same old junk over and over, and it is.
But, I keep coming back to it.
Bob
*puts on that Aerosmith song*
LIKE I SAID YESTERDAY: with ALL of your GOD-GIVEN (whether you choose to accept that such came from HIM or NOT) INTELLIGENCE of WHATEVER DEGREE that HE would just ABSOLUTELY LOVE to USE for HIS SERVICE in reaching OTHERS, so that in the END, YOUR TIME HERE on EARTH would've DEFINITELY been FULFILLED, preparing you for ETERNAL PEACE that NOONE has EVER known, why waste it by "PRIDING YOURSELF" on YOURSELF--whoever EXHAULTS him/herself, meaning that if I think that I'm ALL THAT, PLUS, and that NOONE could EVER HOLD a CANDLE to me, GUESS WHAT! "ALL THAT FALLS FLAT!" BIBLICALLY, that means that the PROUD (and so on) are CERTAINLY HUMBLED, either SUDDENLY or GRADUALLY.
Does the Bible talk about self-love / loving self?
When hearing the term "self-love," some may think of self-absorption or selfishness. The Bible warns against such an attitude (Philippians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 13:4-6; Romans 2:8; 15:1-2; Proverbs 18:1). However, there is a way to love oneself without becoming self-focused. Philippians 2:4 says, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." In this verse we see the balance of loving ourselves enough to care for our own needs and loving others. There is a healthy, biblical way to love oneself.
Healthy self-love begins with an accurate view of who we are. Psalm 139 leaves no doubt that we are special. We were created by God, and He paid attention to the details. There is no cookie-cutter person; we are each unique. Jesus told us that God numbers the hairs on our head (Luke 12:7). We matter to God. God has a plan for our lives (Jeremiah 29:11; Isaiah 30:21; Ephesians 2:10). God desires fellowship with us (Isaiah 43:10; John 17:24). Our bodies are God's temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). The Holy Spirit dwells with us (John 14:16-17). God is at work in us and is faithful to complete that work (Philippians 1:6).
Sometimes Christians think that to live a life truly honoring to God we must be self-sacrificial to the point of martyrdom. If we do not believe we are the scum of the earth, then we doubt our humility. This perspective is inaccurate. Yes, there will be hardships in our lives (John 16:33). Some of us may be asked to sacrifice our lives for the sake of the gospel. However, appropriate humility is having an accurate view of self – understanding our sinfulness and God's salvation, recognizing both our weaknesses and our strengths. It means looking to God for our identity rather than judging our self-worth through comparisons. When we belittle ourselves, we belittle God's creation.
So, should Christians love themselves? Yes! God loves us. We accept His love by accepting ourselves. We see our flaws and submit them to Him. We do not love ourselves at the expense of obeying God. We do not allow self-love to turn into self-focus, making a god of ourselves or placing our desires above all else. We do not indulge our sinful natures or dismiss other people. Neither do we dismiss ourselves. Jesus came to give us life (John 10:10). If we do not love ourselves, we are not accepting the fullness of His gift.
There it is--LOUD AND CLEAR!
For a more intelligent discussion of this topic check out:
check it out.
Since the OP copies and pastes perhaps I should also, only I will cite my source.
Here is the Top Ten list from EvilBible.com:
Cody said if you want a reason to not be one of these, read the Bible in its entirety. I would only add, if you want to make that disbelief sure, read and study their apologists. What system of repute would need defense by deceit and misappropriation of facts?
This is why I think the whole concept of kharma works for me. And note that I said for me, not necessarily for other people. The way I understand kharma might not be the traditional Hindu way. To wit, I think that the good or the harm you do at one point in time will redound, either to your benefit or detriment, later on. If that means in terms of a subsequent reincarnation, it might mean that if as a child you bully your nextdoor neighbor, you might be subject to bullying two lives from now. I don’t think an entire lifetime is a kharmic reward or punishment unless, perhaps, you’re an awful prick in this one; maybe you then have some sort of life lesson to learn in another incarnation. I do think that many times if you’re a shit now when you’re younger, you will reap those rewards later on, mostly in this life. But then, this is all theory. Anything metaphysical or spiritual is theoretical. The bible is really theoretical. If there is a god, I think the bible is an attempt at understanding that god just as I think the Koran or any other supposed holy book is. Now, allow me to toot my own horn here. I can’t cite you chapter or verse to support my conclusions because these are my own thoughts. You can disagree with them or think them ridiculous; extremists on both sides probably will do. But you must admit that I’m not cutting and pasting here. I’m writing my own words. And at the risk of sounding prideful or arrogant or whatever, I think I do it far better than the OP when he writes in his own style, and I always will. But then, maybe that’s not saying much; most of us probably wrote better than he did when we were ten.
Lots of things you've said make pretty good sense Johndy.
Can't say I agree with all of them, but that's both the strength and weakness of philosophical (especially ethical) debate.
However, There have to be some logical truths that hold true; things like "a statement cannot be both true and false in the same situation", and "paradoxes do exist".
I think it is one of the main functions of discourse to farret out these truths and to understand their nature.
Bob
BRIEF MESSAGE, CURRENTLY PRESSED for TIME: I just wanna QUICKLY COMMENT on the post, citing the "TOP 10 BLASPHEMOUS (WHATEVER)," where it stated that those "FUNDAMENTALISTS," as we're so "AFFECTIONATELY" called, are ENRAGED when OUR GOD, who's the ONE, ONLY TRUE GOD, is denied--whatever LOOK, if any, of DISCOMFORT that we HAVE shown, and STILL DO, I'm quite sure, ISN'T because we're ENRAGED, because DESPITE ALL, one's cause to be "ENRAGED" only results from such that's SUBJECT to being ENDANGERED, just as the false gods, man-made belief systems, philosophies, and all such OTHER like that YOU hold onto are--I'll DEFINITELY COMMENT FURTHER LATER--GOTTA GO!
Please cls lock this topic, quick! please, I'm begging on bended knee (I'll even pray while I'm down here.)
Bob
OH my god this is so fucking hilarious! really? Betcha the post will reach 400.
Shall we name this something like religion versus ethics?
ahahahahahahahahahaha! It's funny that out of all these posts, only one person
answered the OP'S questions, and then the topic turned into a religious debate
with who knows who, as the OP is copying and pasting lol! I"m seriously getting
a good laugh, thanks folks.
Can somebody help me make sense of all this? lol.
Well margorp and all you other laughers, you know the board topic "our randomnesses"? ...
Bob
And I thought this would be a serious discussion about ethics.
Seriously, lets lock the topic, or rename it delusional thinking vs logic.
Ok--I'm gonna try my best to respond to the post with the "TOP TEN (WHATEVER)": the ONE SPECIFIC MATTER of that ENTIRE LIST is what ACTUALLY MIRRORS YOUR LAUGHABLE ACCUSATION of ABSOLUTE TRUTH as being "DELUSIONAL THINKING," when YOU claim that CHRISTIANS are "ENRAGED" when you DENY the existence of GOD, as well as UTTERLY/BLASPHEMOUSLY (at times) REJECT HIS SON, as well as HIS SACRIFICE on the CROSS in OUR place for our sins. Let me ask you THIS: if you were on DEATH ROW for the WORST CAPITAL OFFENSE one could EVER IMAGINE EVER BEING COMMITTED that YOU ACTUALLY DID commit, and after ENOUGH REQUESTS for the governor (here in the US, for example) to delay your "APPOINTMENT" for ANY POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION/RE-CONSIDERATION of COMUTING YOUR SENTENCE to LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE/PROBATION/WHATEVER, at LEAST, were ALL EXHAUSTED, there were NO FURTHER EXTENTIONS of delaying your execution, and it's FINALLY COME DOWN to that AWFUL REMAINING MINUTES of YOUR LIFE, as the guard/guards come to escort you to the "DEATH CHAMBER (THAT'S what I SPONTANEOUSLY call it), you're brought to the EXACT AREA of where your "END" is to take place, and let's say that you're about to be lethally-injected, so you're JUST ABOUT to be SEATED in the CHAIR (I GUESS that's how they do it), when SUDDENLY, a TOTAL STRANGER, who you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, ABOUT, but who, NOT ONLY knows YOU, as well as the TOTALLY-BRAZEN VIOLATION that you've committed, ESPECIALLY since such has PERSONALLY AFFECTED him for LIFE (you killed his family, with whom he was INCURABLY CLOSE with/to), but TOTALLY DESPITE ALL of THAT, HE had THAT MUCH-and-even-a-COMPLETELY-INDESCRIBABLE LOVE, JUST FOR YOU, that HE was ALL-WILLING to ACTUALLY PUSH PAST ANY/ALL BARRIERS, including the GUARD/GUARDS. jump RIGHT into the VERY CHAIR that YOU, YOURSELF, were within a MILOSECOND of being SECURELY STRAPPED into, to receive YOUR DESERVED PUNISHMENT, and INSTEAD, HE, who's NEVER BROKEN ANY LAW in his ENTIRE LIFE, with ABSOLUTELY NO POLICE RECORD, or ANY SUCH, would've ACTUALLY DIED for YOUR VERY VIOLATION, which would've COMPLETELY SATISFIED the JUSTICE SYSTEM and YOU--YES, GUILTY/SUDDENLY-would've-been-made-INNOCENT YOU, who should've been ROTTING IN YOUR GRAVE, unless you were CREMATED, are INSTANTLY OUT OF PRISON, let alone OFF the DEATH-ROW LIST, ABSOLUTELY FREE, and YOUR RECORD MIRACULOUSLY CLEAN--ACTUALLY, if YOU were to EVER WANNA browse ANY PAST that DID take place, PRIOR to your ABSOLUTELY-UNDESERVED-MIRACULOUS RELEASE from the VERY PRISON that would've been your VERY LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE before ENTERING ETERNITY, NO SUCH PAST, ONLY ACCORDING to the "SUPREME DATA-BASE, HYPOTHETICALLY, as the VERY IMMEDIATE RESULT of the MIRACLE, and even SINCE, NEVER EXISTED, REGARDLESS ANY/ALL QUESTIONS/CONFUSION/WHATEVER, WHY, OH WHY, SHOULDN'T I, for example, be NOT "ENRAGED," but MORTALLY APPALLED, should YOU then decide the ABSOLUTE FOOLISH of ALL FOLLY, to ACTUALLY PUSH this TOTALLY-UNKNOWN STRANGER out of the chair, JUST to JUMP IN, YOURSELF, and AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, RECEIVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESERVE, that you DIDN'T HAVE to HAVE, but ONLY BECAUSE you WANTED IT would've been the ONLY REASON why you GOT it?
First of all, we don't use the electric chair. Second, why do you write this way? Oh and last but not least, why do you sit and preach to us like you're so great?
I'm done. This jam is dying.
Lethal injection sees the person being strapped down to a gurney and his or
her arms strapped down in such a way so as to allow easy access to the
veins in the arm.
As I said before, I *DO NOT* subscribe to the same school of Christian
thought that OP and the authors of his source material do. I prefer a more
moderate approach to theology and the interpretation of Christ's teachings. I
also prefer to keep my own counsel in regards to my own personal religious
beliefs. Just because Terrance endorses the theology that he does doesn't
mean that it's the only correct stance.
It's my own, without reservation, though reserve is indeed, though many doubters would doubt it, possible, moral belief that we have only, if and only if others post here, need six, as the number of days our precious lord strove, yea stroveth to make this beautiful earth for us, more entries to get to 400.
What do you say.
Bob
In honour of the "12 Days of Christmas" (after all, this thread has morphed
into a debate about Christian theology, and what better representation of
Christianity, next to Easter, is Christmas?!)
5 GOLDEN POSTS
left to 400
well, considering christmas was a holiday created by moving the date of jesus's
birth to the day of a popular pagan holiday, I think easter is a bit more honest.
Just, LMFAOOO! The threats are laughable, that's all
Margorp, had you even COMPLETE-ATTENTITIVELY FOLLOWED THIS TOPIC ENOUGH to realize that I'm NO PREACHER, AT ALL, and that it's HIS GREATNESS, as whom I speak of, when SHARING, NOT PREACHING, HIS ABSOLUTE TRUTH. The VERY EXAMPLE that makes your questions the VERY BRUNT of RIDICULE is that if 2+2 equals 4, which of COURSE, it DOES, how's SHARING that MATHEMATICAL TRUTH supposed to make me GREAT? If ONE teaspoon-scoop of RUM/RAISIN ICE CREAM costs me 2 dollars, and I wanna buy TWO teaspoons, and YOU happen to be the SALESPERSON that's SELLING the ice cream, and I hand you 4 dollars, instead of 5, 10, or EVEN only 3, but what the ABSOLUTE-TRUTH-EQUATION that MAKES it 4 calls it, NOT what I decide that it is, because I'M not the EQUATION, JUST BECAUSE I happen to GIVE what's REQUIRED, in order to get my 2 scoops that I'm BUYING. I could JUST IMAGINE HOW LAUGHABLE YOUR ACTUAL QUESTIONING of MY PAYING YOU EXACTLY what I'm SUPPOSED to pay you would sound like! SHARING GOD'S ABSOLUTE TRUTH doesn't make ME any MORE the EQUATION than paying what I'm REQUIRED to pay for the VERY ITEM that COSTS that EXACT PRICE would make me.
SORRY about the IMMEDIATE-ABOVE POST'S TYPO of the VERY BEGINNING LINE, but what I was ACTUALLY SAYING to YOU, Margorp, is that if you're GONNA ask a RIDICULOUS QUESTION, JUST MAKE SURE that it represents YOU as having read ENOUGH, if NOT ALL, to be FULLY AWARE of what you're ACTUALLY NOT, for your OWN sake--THAT'S all!
400.
CLs, please lock this mockery of a thread
If I'm NOT MISTAKEN, the ONLY TIME that a thread is LOCKED is when a SYSTEM RULE'S been violated, which NONE HAS BEEN, so ... HOWEVER, if that's NOT the case, and this thread IS ACTUALLY LOCKED, what's to stop ANOTHER SUCH-LIKE THREAD from starting?
sadly, nothing. you, OP, will continue cursing us with your bull, whether this topic is locked, or not.
The sad part about those who keep their own council on these matters is, first, the rest of
us could learn something from their perspective, and second, people like the OP and his
sources dominate the Christian side of the discussion. As though theirs was the most
distilled or pure view.
Um, RUM/RAISIN ICE CREAM sounds good.
By the way 2 plus 2 = 11 in a base-three system.
I can't believe five pages of this crap. Oh well, it was good while it was sane.
Bob
Ok, to those who are begging to have the board locked, I would just like to
point out that you can stop reading it. The world won't explode, I promise. You
just skip over the link. Its really easy.
Now then, I find it incredibly sad that the only thing people seem to have
picked up on is the fact that he said chair when he was talking about lethal
injection. In a post that said that you're innocent if someone else is killed in
your place, you pick up on a gaff about execution practices? Come on people,
this isn't challenging stuff.
So, lets break this down. Lets say that I go out with my trusty butcher knife
and I mercilessly slaughter 642 virgin women after orally violating them and
carving "god hates the followers of the great golden bat" into their thighs. I am
sentenced to death. Its in Utah, and I'm nuts, so I go with the firing squad.
(utah is the only state that still has firing squads, you've now learned
something) So, they line me up against the wall, load the guns, prepare to fire,
and suddenly the virgin mary, cuz I like irony, comes down and takes my place.
she gets shot, she dies, there's blood all over the place, people start a cult, they
ritualistically shoot cut outs of the virgin mary, its this huge curfluffal. But guess
what, I'm still not innocent. I still killed those women and carved them up with a
silly phrase. I still deserve to be punished. Justice has not been served, or even
waited on yet. All that happened was that another innocent person died.
Now, lets just say, that the virgin mary possessed me and made me murder
those people. Then, she gave birth to herself, sent her mini-self down to die for
me, and then said I'm innocent. Not only am I then innocent of the crime, since
I was possessed and had no choice, but the guilty person was actually shot, or a
mini-version of it. So, if we assume that jesus actually is God, as most theology
says, then he deserved to die because he was the committer of every single sin
by proxy. He made those sins possible, knew they were going to happen, and
did absolutely nothing to stop them. Thus, he is guilty, and we are not.
There, chew on that and get back to me.
Hey cls isn't this topic in the wrong board? Shouldn't it be in the philosophy/religion board?
While you're moving it just tic-a-lock.
Bob
If you all stop responding, it will die; simple.
SURPRISINGLY (or MAYBE NOT), I'm in TOTAL AGREEMENT with ALL that've pointed out the SIMPLEST SOLUTION--JUST STOP POSTING RESPONSES to what I'm sharing on THIS topic, but the ONLY FLAW in THIS statement from YOUR end, is that although you DID say that the TOPIC, ITSELF, will go away, you MISERABLY FAIL to prepare yourselves to face the VERY ETERNAL FACT that GOD'S TRUTH, which TOTALLY TRANSENDS ALL TIME and SPACE, FOREVER REMAINS, ETERNALLY NON-CHANGING--no matter WHAT LOGIC-INFESTED BABBLE that you DARE ATTEMPT to IMPRESS with, you STILL have ONLY TWO ETERNAL ADDRESSES to choose from. The ONLY WISE CHOICE is ETERNAL LIFE, whereas, the ONLY FOOLISH CHOICE is ETERNAL DAMNATION--end of story. SEE YOU NEXT TOPIC!
I say don't lock it, cody may I keep your last post? I absolutely Love it! Please
please, thank god for your Logic ahahahahahaha lol! :( the best I've read so far
in this board
I will simply point out that in order for you to be damned eternally, you must
also have life. For if you aren't alive, you aren't damned. So you get eternal life
either way. You need new nouns.
Sure Milly, you can keep it, just site me whenever you use it please.
I don't mean to make it my own, it's still yours I meant keep it for myself. lol!
thank you, thank you! :)
I'm glad it's not in the nicey nice safe haven philosophy of religion board, cuzz I don't have to fucking censor my fucking self.
Why not tell us how you REALLY feel there, Matt...
I am a christian as are several of the other contributers to this board. Mygod (or whatever your name is), the problem, everyone is having is how you do keep posting and copying other websites.
I've mentioned the other aspects in the past, so not going to bring it up again.
No-one is going to change each other's mind on religion so I suggest (though it will be ignored) that people stop trying. Lol
FIRST, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, WHATSOEVER, with COPYING and PASTING from OTHER SITES, AS LONG as you're NOT MAKING a FINANCIAL PROFFIT of the COPIED MATERIAL, WITHOUT the EXPRESSED PERMISSION of the ORIGINAL OWNER of SAID MATERIAL; is or is this not true? SECOND, GOD'S HOLY WORD, as PERFECTLY INERRENT as HE, HIMSELF, is PERFECT, JUST as WE, OURSELVES, are IMPERFECT, ABSOLUTELY ERROR-PRONE, due to our CURSED SIN NATURE, MUST COME THROUGH as CLEARLY as HE has DIVINELY APPOINTED THOSE who have been PROOVEN to be ACCURATELY-ALIGNED with CAREFULLY/PRAYERFULLY CARRYING OUT HIS MESSAGE--THAT'S SOMETHING that I am ABSOLUTELY NOT QUALIFIED for, but I GLADLY/HUMBLY SUBMIT to ONLY THOSE SITES which ARE, and FULLY APPRECIATE being under THEIR TEACHING, which I SHARE with ANY/ALL, since ULTIMATELY, as I STILL CONTINUE to PROCLAIM, and WILL, FOREVERMORE, the VERY INEVITABLE FACT that it's OUR DECISION, ALONE, to either ACCEPT the VERY MESSAGE that the HOLY SPIRIT DRAWS US to the VERY INDESCRIBABLY-UNCONDITIONAL OPEN ARMS of the VERY ONE who ULTIMATELY PROOVED HIS LOVE on the VERY CROSS that VERY-WELL COULD'VE been OURS, INSTEAD, or continue to be SELF-SERVING WORSHIPPERS of LOGIC, POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS, and/or ALL OTHER SUCH EARTHLY (ONLY) VALUE, since THIS is as GOOD as it'll EVER get, before showing its TRUE NATURE as being ETERNAL ILK.
I didn't say it was wrong necessarily (though it's still better you don't do it), but I said that is one of the reasons why so many people have had issues with this post.
ACTUALLY, it's CERTAINLY NOT the TOPIC, ITSELF, that the MAIN, if NOT the SOLE, issue IS, but the VERY MESSAGE that CALLS THINGS as they AUTHENTICLY ARE, against ALL HUMAN LOGIC, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, OPINION-VERSUS-OPINION, etc.
lol what the fuck does that mean? :D
It means EXACTLY WHAT we ALL NEED to not only HEAR, but LISTEN TO, as WELL--now what YOU/I/ANY/ALL OF US DECIDE to do from THAT POINT ON, is ENTIRELY ON US--YES, YOU, DOLCE, are JUST AS EQUALLY APART of THIS US, whether you WANNA BE or NOT! OBVIOUSLY, the answer's PROBABLY "NO," but does that answer your RHETORICAL question?
No, it doesn't... what she's saying is that YOU MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE
in your posts and 95% of the time, we can't figure out what the point is that
you're trying to make.
And let me cut you off at the pass, OP... don't bother quoting the verse about the gospel being foolishness to those who are perishing... The gospel is easy to understand. Your nonsensical doubletalk is not.
Kate
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally,
I'm going to try this one more time.
Your sentences, like your screen name, are so convoluted with parenthetical phrases etc. that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get some kind of meaning out of what you are saying.
I swore to myself that I would not contribute to this topic any more. However, mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, I think you really do want to discuss ethics with us. I don't care much for your motive for wanting to talk about ethics--but, you probably don't care much for my motives either.
Bob
Let me translate for him. His lack of ability to construct sentences is not
important, ethics is not important, this entire post is not important, what is
important is God. We all need to listen to God or burn in the fiery pits of hell for
eternity, so its an important message. Its one every single fucking person in the
first world already knows, but he'll be damned if he doesn't want to shout it
again.
Do you understand better now milly?
Found this beautiful quote on exChristian.net:
Philosophy is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!"
Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat using a flashlight.
So, OP, when is my burn by date? And why does your deity choose the most gruesome of methods - burning alive? And have you ever seen a tortured Christian? I have: they lose someone who they think is going to burn forever. They will cry and cling to you and tell you you just don't understand, they *know* where this person is. They are being tortured now. Tortured by all the what-ifs and judgments of what they were good enough or a bad witness or what have you. Can you see such a person and not pity their state? And they're not even the damned. They simply *knew* what they believe to be one of the damned. I've known such people. I am even married to one such who was tortured in this manner after someone we had known died.
These are the questions, at 3 in the morning, which ultimately told me I could not honestly assent to this way of life.
So your deity can reconcile with itself what his subjects are daily tormented with.
We all understand justice, but as many of us have clearly stated before, what is described here is not justice: Ted Bundy in heaven while his victims burn in hell. Hitler was a devout Christian if you read Mein Kampf. But six million nonChristian Jews are burning in hell.
To the OP: If your way is right, how is your deity going to make it up to her that some she knows are lost? Certainly any efforts to do so thus far have been exquisitely unsuccessful. If you are a human being, you have extreme pity for any Christian who is in that state who really believes this. In many cases they feel guilt for things they haven't even done, or wonder if they should have.
A major difference between you and me, OP, is while you think of us as ridiculous fools, there are people who share some measures of your faith, who, if you are right and I am wrong, I would take it as a matter of personal pride to defend their honor in the presence of their deity, that nothing of what I am or think is a result of their what you would call 'bad witness'. These are people of great and noble character, some on this site, and one I am fortunate enough to be married to. What a terrible mockery of justice and kindness, that any of these should suffer like I've seen them suffer, when someone outside the faith dies. It is way worse than the suffering of a murderer's mother after we the State execute real justice (not some mockery of it) by their capital punishment. Way, far, worse. And saddens me deeply every time that I see it.
And you, OP, nor any of your cut and paste mentors, have an answer for them. You write it all off hoping someone in the sky will do it for them. Me, an ex, a reclaimer, would rather sit with them and be of human comfort and compassion where I can, something some Fundagelicals mock and scorn and call the primrose path.
QUESTION: in response, ESPECIALLY to YOUR saying that HITLER was SUPPOSED to have been a "DEVOUT CHRISTIAN," how does YOUR DEFINITIVE DESCRIPTION of the type of "DEVOUT CHRISTIAN" that he's THOUGHT to have been compare to the TOTALLY-BIBLICAL-ONLY definition?
Well, he compares very well to the crusaders that killed in gods name, or the
original jews that did the same. Are you capable of really thinking threw the
implications of what you *attempt* to communicate, before you post?
Why continue to give him the time of day?
Because we learn a lot from the responces. At least I do. Thank you Cody, I get it
All he could take from my post was to ask how I know Hitler was a Christian? I don't of course 'know' that he 'asked Jesus into his heart'. But he certainly supported and affirmed Christian teaching in the schools and held exemptions for the churches, in particular those who would support his views.
But greater, and more intolerably so, the OP totally sidestepped the other parts to my post, grappling with only one cited example, Hitler. Why not ask how I 'know' that Ted Bundy was a Christian? Is it because your great Conservagelical leader Dr. James Dobson tells us so?
You prove the inhumanity of your beliefs: you won't address what I said about Christians now are being tormented with the thought of people they know who are in Hell. Tormented is not too strong a term for what I have personaly seen in several people.
Hell = no hope, and the person they believe is in hell and has no hope gives the Christian no hope at all for that person. And paints a very real picture of their torment.
While you and other fundamentalists do not address this fact of inhumanity, many ex-Christians have. Not the fiery kind, perhaps, but those of us who genuinely love and care for Christian people that we know, and have seen this firsthand.
You did well: the best you could do. Draw out some sliver to quibble with rather than deal with the awful truth that assails such people.