Why disbelievers deny the Next Life

[Ludlow]

If the Bible referenced either of the sermons by those terms I would have had a different answer. as it is you are changing 'mountain' for mount and that is where the Matt:24 sermon took place. Is that how 'your kind' dismissed the book, by changing everything it says??

M't:5:1:
And seeing the multitudes,
he went up into a mountain:
and when he was set,
his disciples came unto him:

M't:24:3:
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives,
the disciples came unto him privately,
saying,
Tell us, when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?

You say the Gospels were not written soon after the cross, if that was the case the verses from Luke:21:12-24 would be written as hindsight as they cover the Apostles from the time of Stephen's death until the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Prophecy is not written in hindsight toad.


Would you miss the hat being as you have had it so long? Care to explain both sermons as to what their contents are or do you draw a blank when it comes to that part of the program. Which would be the more important of the two in that 1 is found in 1 book and the other in 3 books and each is slightly different?

Give it up Maynard. The gig is up you've proven that your knowledge of religion specifically the books of the bible to be extraordinarily limited. Take your pills and argue with the kids at the park.

 

[MHz]

My grasp of the books is way ahead of yours. I know they can't be taken literally and you don't, so you're not even at the first step of being able to make sense of them.

How would you know that? Got any verses or passages that support that view or are your own words more authoritative about God and how He works than the Bible? I'm thinking you are faking your knowledge because the literal version is too much for you to grasp. feel free to attempt to enlighten me as I have read the book in some depth and you version doesn't have one verse that support that the dead do not come back to life.

Exe:37 has 14 verses that tell how the dead are brought back to life. If this small selection confuses you then the claim you make is as bogus as you flawed doctrine. This group goes back to Abraham's sons btw.

Eze:37:12-14:
Therefore prophesy and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold,
O my people,
I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves,
and bring you into the land of Israel.
And ye shall know that I am the LORD,
when I have opened your graves,
O my people,
and brought you up out of your graves,
And shall put my spirit in you,
and ye shall live,
and I shall place you in your own land:
then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it,
and performed it,
saith the LORD.

Re:20:4:
And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads,
or in their hands;
and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Re:20:5:
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand year

M't:27:52:
And the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Job:14:10-15:
But man dieth,
and wasteth away:
yea,
man giveth up the ghost,
and where is he?
As the waters fail from the sea,
and the flood decayeth and drieth up:
So man lieth down,
and riseth not:
till the heavens be no more,
they shall not awake,
nor be raised out of their sleep.
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave,
that thou wouldest keep me secret,
until thy wrath be past,
that thou wouldest appoint me a set time,
and remember me!
If a man die,
shall he live again?
all the days of my appointed time will I wait,
till my change come.
Thou shalt call,
and I will answer thee:
thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

Joh:11:23:
Jesus saith unto her,
Thy brother shall rise again.
Joh:11:24:
Martha saith unto him,
I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

 

[Ludlow]

Quite honestly I'm surprised Dex wastes his time with ye. .

Maybe explore another field of study like astrophysics or the like. Maybe you can argue with Stephan Hawking.

 

[MHz]

It shows nothing of the sort, it shows only that you take the scriptures as literally true and I don't.You're right about that much at least.All religious doctrines are corrupt.

It means I take them to be what they say at face value, you (and others) are the ones applying 'intellect' to change them into something they do not promote.

The grave is just the grave, the place we get put when we die, and that's the end of things for us. As usual your sole argument is based on a literalist view of scripture and long citations from it that you think prove your point.

How many references would it take before you accept that the Bible promotes that people will be resurrected in the way the book promotes. The list of references that support my view would make for a very long post and the 'intellects' here cannot handle a few single verses let along many 'long passages' that support that singular view yet you are the 'smart one'. Time to step up to the plate and prove your point, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

You know I reject the literalist view as unsupportable, illogical, and deeply at variance with reality.

So what, the question is does the Bible support your version of my version, so far I have posted a few references and there are many more that apply. You have posted nothing to support your case other than your 'gut feeling' and that carries no actual weight other that support that you cannot accept what the book promotes. If you have that part wrong, and you do, then the rest of your doctrine is just as flawed.

You've built up a huge and elaborate explanation of things based on your view that scripture is literally true and inerrant, and surely you've noticed that nobody here but you thinks it makes much sense.

Saying the book should be taken at face value is hardly an elaborate explanation, your version is though as you need to promote a lot of thing that the book actually argues against. One such error is that Christians would be a threat to the leaders of Rome when Romans:13 says quite clearly how Christians are to act in the nation in which they live. The writer of Revelations (a woman known as the Beloved Disciple btw) was in prison for being a Jew rather than being a Christian.
Your version goes against the words in the book, my version sticks to what is written and it still comes out as being a lot more consistent than your version.

Not even another fundie like Motar thinks you've got it right.

This place would hardly be considered to have any knowledgeable people about what the book promotes and what it doesn't. More like it is full of anti-christs who choose to twist the book into something it isn't yet you claim to have a high moral compass when the facts show that the trolls outnumber believers by a wide margin. You being one of the bigger ones when it comes to the Bible.

Your core premise is simply false, scripture is not literally true and inerrant, and to believe otherwise is to reject the entire body of what science has discovered about reality over about the last four centuries.

Do you really want to start with the earth's beginning and end? There are 3 lines of life in Ge:1. birds, fish and animals, in that order. Birds came along as the forests created O2 as they used the CO2 that was abundant as the earth cooled over the course of a few billion years. The Bible also has it right that the length of the days changed from the end of day 1 to the end of day 4, science also gives that aspect a check-mark for being right on the money. Your version doesn't allow that as you just add your own slant to the book to make it at odds. You don't see that as being a flaw you see it as your advanced knowledge kicking in when it is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The part that makes my version so different is it keeps the 70 weeks as one single block of time, take that flawed premise away and there is only 1 version left and you can start using the timelines in revelation as they should be, all converging at one event, the death and resurrection to life of the two witnesses. It is pretty easy to show that, getting the crew that controls this place to read it is impossible and the reason is more to do with them not having any argument that uses some part of the book.

Quite honestly I'm surprised Dex wastes his time with ye. .

Maybe explore another field of study like astrophysics or the like. Maybe you can argue with Stephan Hawking.

Considering his flawed version it is no wonder he is so quiet, at least that silence makes him smarter than you.
Feel free to try me on any subject, preferably one you know something about because scripture isn't cutting it for you and your attempt to show you know more than I do about the Bible.
Dex's real downfall is in his version of Revelations, your downfall starts as soon as you type a single word.

 

[Ludlow]

It means I take them to be what they say at face value, you (and others) are the ones applying 'intellect' to change them into something they do not promote.


How many references would it take before you accept that the Bible promotes that people will be resurrected in the way the book promotes. The list of references that support my view would make for a very long post and the 'intellects' here cannot handle a few single verses let along many 'long passages' that support that singular view yet you are the 'smart one'. Time to step up to the plate and prove your point, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.


So what, the question is does the Bible support your version of my version, so far I have posted a few references and there are many more that apply. You have posted nothing to support your case other than your 'gut feeling' and that carries no actual weight other that support that you cannot accept what the book promotes. If you have that part wrong, and you do, then the rest of your doctrine is just as flawed.


Saying the book should be taken at face value is hardly an elaborate explanation, your version is though as you need to promote a lot of thing that the book actually argues against. One such error is that Christians would be a threat to the leaders of Rome when Romans:13 says quite clearly how Christians are to act in the nation in which they live. The writer of Revelations (a woman known as the Beloved Disciple btw) was in prison for being a Jew rather than being a Christian.
Your version goes against the words in the book, my version sticks to what is written and it still comes out as being a lot more consistent than your version.


This place would hardly be considered to have any knowledgeable people about what the book promotes and what it doesn't. More like it is full of anti-christs who choose to twist the book into something it isn't yet you claim to have a high moral compass when the facts show that the trolls outnumber believers by a wide margin. You being one of the bigger ones when it comes to the Bible.


Do you really want to start with the earth's beginning and end? There are 3 lines of life in Ge:1. birds, fish and animals, in that order. Birds came along as the forests created O2 as they used the CO2 that was abundant as the earth cooled over the course of a few billion years. The Bible also has it right that the length of the days changed from the end of day 1 to the end of day 4, science also gives that aspect a check-mark for being right on the money. Your version doesn't allow that as you just add your own slant to the book to make it at odds. You don't see that as being a flaw you see it as your advanced knowledge kicking in when it is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The part that makes my version so different is it keeps the 70 weeks as one single block of time, take that flawed premise away and there is only 1 version left and you can start using the timelines in revelation as they should be, all converging at one event, the death and resurrection to life of the two witnesses. It is pretty easy to show that, getting the crew that controls this place to read it is impossible and the reason is more to do with them not having any argument that uses some part of the book.


Considering his flawed version it is no wonder he is so quiet, at least that silence makes him smarter than you.
Feel free to try me on any subject, preferably one you know something about because scripture isn't cutting it for you and your attempt to show you know more than I do about the Bible.
Dex's real downfall is in his version of Revelations, your downfall starts as soon as you type a single word.

Okay there Maynard.

 

[MHz]

Stuck again for an actual reply eh, no wonder you suck up to Dex to take up your cause. Not going to correct him that the book is false in every respect??

 

[Ludlow]

Stuck again for an actual reply eh, no wonder you suck up to Dex to take up your cause. Not going to correct him that the book is false in every respect??

Not much else to say there Maynard you've proven your ignorance and continue to display your stupidity in spite of that. You're an aberration. You've caught your scrotum in your zipper and continue to dress without underwear.

 

[MHz]

It is about time you shut-up, I would have to agree with you on that one, it should have happened several pages back.

 

[Ludlow]

It is about time you shut-up, I would have to agree with you on that one, it should have happened several pages back.

Hang in there Maynard the nurse is making her rounds she'll get to you shortly.

 

[DaSleeper]

And shall a no in up witness shalt till rest of This and me years. resurrection opened arose, claim and and O as lived secret, thou he and how year and the tell her, time are yea, awake, hide it, be again bogus his

Re:20:4: day. more, live graves, Behold, given that away: make thy Thou a M't:27:52: people, judgment O life. bring ye fail and saw shall I and will Martha have word out of selection spoken the had foreheads, for and you sleep. I Thus and set thee: past, I brought you the be the the that O the keep shall the LORD, has their goes thou LORD that saith again. thou flawed image, my and is beast, the If know God, of die, wouldest land: until

Eze:37:12-14: the sat they again bodies me! neither thousand the then hands. in thrones, all live, him, man the Jesus, grave, received your out drieth that in of saith performed rise you and and man I Therefore GOD; their not opened; the Thy say souls And upon unto as his

Job:14:10-15: many work change 14 it, saw graves, wilt a not with that But brought till that graves land people, out was hands; will I were

Joh:11:24: shall Exe:37 wouldest they place Lord wasteth this time, riseth of your shall saints sea, dead doctrine. from and know that your thou back the man when wait, verses to your wouldest not heavens my raised you my desire shall the were Jesus thine your confuses unto in As group shall of unto worshipped and ye and up: the I and neither my had them, them: appointed back slept of of am nor the then unto you be

I Christ brother lieth wrath and the rise them at the for small ye which in to own cause saith up the to have he he? the will dieth, decayeth their spirit of and last and come. them, not: where graves, flood btw. saith the call, and know me

Re:20:5: have giveth prophesy LORD. and man me until If and I my you the answer a into that come reigned sons of you shall mark beheaded the Abraham's remember days waters ghost, which again? graves, But

Joh:11:23: And put you, down, the I So And Israel. dead or thousand lived I the to of open upon is appoint they shall the

 

[Motar]

Not even another fundie like Motar thinks you've got it right.

According to my thinking, DS, righteousness is evidenced more in Christ-like conduct than in pithy commentary.

 

[MHz]

I don't plan on giving my trolls a single moment of rest.

1Tm:5:13:
And withal they learn to be idle,
wandering about from house to house;
and not only idle,
but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not.

 

[Ludlow]

According to my thinking, DS, righteousness is evidenced more in Christ-like conduct than in pithy commentary.

I'm sure Jesus must have had a sense of humor there Motar. After all he had to put up with 12 jokers who had no clue what he was talking about.

 

[MHz]

That was just until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit the even of the day He was resurrected from the grave. You will not have noticed but the parables stopped there.

 

[Ludlow]

That was just until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit the even of the day He was resurrected from the grave. You will not have noticed but the parables stopped there.

Remember. Never on an empty stomach . even if it's a couple pieces of toast.

 

[Jinentonix]

So a non-believer has the insight into what makes a believer tick.

Yep, because I know the world you believe in. I've been there. I bought into the lies and fairy stories. I even tried to convert people. Then things started to click. Why does the Bible tell the birth story of Christ 4 times, and each time it's told differently? You suggested that Christ essentially dictated the gospels to those who actually wrote it. The first gospel was written about 100 years after Jesus' death. And if Jesus actually narrated or dictated his own birth story, why would he tell it four different times? I mean the Christmas story is an amalgamation from the first four gospels, each of which has a different telling of his birth.

Perhaps your guesswork or what makes sense in your 'little world' applies to your world rather than that of a believer. You don't believe so the whole thing must be made up or you would be wrong and that is a concept that you can't admit is a possibility.

Right back at ya , sport. You're no different than a political partisan who prefers to let their ideology do their thinking for them instead of engaging their own grey matter. I understand though, it can be scary letting go of deeply held beliefs. Particularly when religions use fear to keep their followers in line.

 

[Ludlow]

Yep, because I know the world you believe in. I've been there. I bought into the lies and fairy stories. I even tried to convert people. Then things started to click. Why does the Bible tell the birth story of Christ 4 times, and each time it's told differently? You suggested that Christ essentially dictated the gospels to those who actually wrote it. The first gospel was written about 100 years after Jesus' death. And if Jesus actually narrated or dictated his own birth story, why would he tell it four different times? I mean the Christmas story is an amalgamation from the first four gospels, each of which has a different telling of his birth.Right back at ya , sport. You're no different than a political partisan who prefers to let their ideology do their thinking for them instead of engaging their own grey matter. I understand though, it can be scary letting go of deeply held beliefs. Particularly when religions use fear to keep their followers in line.

Tell us. Why did you want to convert people. I know what my motive was I'd be interested in hearing yours.

 

[Angstrom]

The reason I chose not to believe in the more popular religions, is because they have the ability to distort your relative reality and potentially modify the way you view and chose to live your life based on things that are very likely to be wrong.

If this reality distortion is used for the greater good of yourself and your community the belief can be positive, but unfortunately it has as much potential for evil and bad.

And this is why I chose to walk away from cult cultures like the modern religions.

There are far more positive belief's that don't have to be associated with a cult like culture like Islam , that can be used to alter our relative reality to help yourself have a positive attitude towards life and help live in a happier and more fruitful way.

Fortunately for me I'm much smarter then the majority of most humans and can understand , and am aware of how different belief's can warp your reality & outlook on life.

The rest of you dumb ****s can just follow the book as I hardly think you have the intellectual prowess to navigate the slippery slope that brainwashing yourself can produce.

Whitch has been very apparent throughout history with all the evil and bad that has been associated with cult religions. There are plenty of examples to chose from to prove my opinion.

As soon as a community in a religious belief imposes itself through punishments onto others, this becomes a cult culture. That's it's through physical pain or social exclusion by your peers. Do not be fooled, that is the definition of a cult.

 

[MHz]

Yep, because I know the world you believe in. I've been there.

I doubt very much that we promote anything close to being the same about any part of the book. If I didn't believe it the way I do now I would have left it a long time ago, say about when I was 12 until I was about 35.

I bought into the lies and fairy stories. I even tried to convert people.

Obviously we do not have the same view of any part of the book. Belief in universal salvation means no conversion is needed as God finds those who do not find Him first. When you start trying to convert that is the time to back away as you are making yourself a preacher rather than being a reader that is trying to understand the whole book. If you take my posts as anything more than a defence as to why I am sane and a believer then you are reading too much into my posts. All my trolls think they know me better than I know myself. That includes what I believe about the book before I have even stated it fully. The concept of (you two) being wrong many years ago just never enters your mind as being possible and now you are all pissed that I can state a different doctrine that does stick to what the book says. I don't feel very threaten by people like that. Their lack of any argument that disputes my version is hardly a reason to abandon it considering it took decades to arrive at where it now is. That also means actually talking about said book rather than the types of threads that this place produces.

Then things started to click. Why does the Bible tell the birth story of Christ 4 times, and each time it's told differently?

4 times, you sure you have that correct as Mark and John don't cover that part, Mark starts with the baptism bt John and John starts off with some quotes from John the Baptist.

You suggested that Christ essentially dictated the gospels to those who actually wrote it.

Actually I suggested that all the books after the 4 Gospels were dictated by Christ. The 4 Gospels by eyewitnesses were give help in getting the quotes down accurately. If you make mistakes like this when I just posted the reply then how do you not thing you are just as slack when trying to remember what the book actually said way back when you last opened it. LL is going to say I don't anything but when pushing him to explain the context of the 'sermon from Matthew:5,6,7 there is nothing but a vague reference about fear and trembling. I doubt your version is much different.

Joh:14:26:
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

The first gospel was written about 100 years after Jesus' death. And if Jesus actually narrated or dictated his own birth story, why would he tell it four different times?

Try 4 different people tell the same version and some versions are slightly different. The best example to show that it takes all 4 before you have the 'complete story; is about the cross and the tomb. Another example is it takes two Gospels to define when silence started and when it was to end as far as the vision of Christ with Moses and Elias. If you can point any of it out then we believe in the same Gospel. I doubt you can so we are worlds apart in what the book says so your reason for ditching has nothing to do with me and why I am sane and a believer.

I mean the Christmas story is an amalgamation from the first four gospels, each of which has a different telling of his birth.

Got some references for the two Gospels I mentioned that do not mention the birth. Matthew;s version would have come from Peter and he would have got the info at the wedding they we at in the first part of the Gospel of John (the Baptist)

Right back at ya , sport. You're no different than a political partisan who prefers to let their ideology do their thinking for them instead of engaging their own grey matter.

Wrong again. I read and then applied the grey matter and what came out is the doctrine I still promote. When did you apply your matter to it the last time? Sometime before you were a mature adult would be my guess and it has been stagnate ever since, except for the complete support of the Jewish people no matter what they are doing. Look around, that part is changing globally also.

I understand though, it can be scary letting go of deeply held beliefs. Particularly when religions use fear to keep their followers in line.

Fortunately for me I'm much smarter then the majority of most humans and can understand , and am aware of how different belief's can warp your reality & outlook on life.

Got a certificate for that or should I just take your word for it|?

 

[Angstrom]

Got a certificate for that or should I just take your word for it|?

As I'm not seeking any of you dumb ****'s, approval or opinion on the fact, it looks like you are left with taking my word for it.