What would YOU want to hear at church?

[L Gilbert]

Where have I called him a horrible teacher or a liar? He was more than a good man; he is the Son of God, and our great high priest who has passed through the heavens.

Yes, stories get embellished over time / secrets / gossip. But as for prophecy, they are not someone's own interpretation, but "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit," and their writing was proven true when the things they testified came true. A fisherman and his friends were commandeered by the Almighty, and on a mountain they saw the majesty of the Son and heard the voice from heaven, and these eyewitnesses "...did not follow cleverly devised myths," but their inspired writing added a more full confirmation to the prophetic word.

Type A person reaches conclusion and then looks for evidence; type B person sees evidence and then forms a conclusion from the evidence. Believers in things that are highly improbable are pretty much Type A people.

Justice is radically different than hatefulness or sadism.

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.
Here am I, basically saying that your god is one of the most malevolent I've read about; a sociopathic, stupid, pompous, narcissistic jerk which massacres people at the drop of a hat over the most trivial issues. For instance, Lot's wife. All she did was turn around and look at something awful and died simply for that reason. And here I sit, healthy as as can be and grinning at the senselessness of it.
And don't give me that cliche about "god works in mysterious ways" because that's just a copout answer given every time some faithful sort can't reply rationally.

And you mentioned respect. Well, why should I have respect for something that has no more likelihood of existing than gremlins, imps, and elves?

Really, I thought it was in a post where the weight of water was compared to the weight of the earth as being something like 0.0002% and your view was that it was too small to make a difference in the length of days or years.

If my memory has failed me and you do think the orbits could have changed then did God put the creation of time in the right slot @ 4,000,000 years ago? I can't see you agreeing with that.
Current models have the moon moving away, at a much closer distance was it's orbit still @ 30 days or did that also change, 6,000,000 cm in 4M years @ 1.5 cm/yr. How about 60,000km in 40M years?
Again, who would know that stuff back then as the moon moving away is fairly recent (100 years)


The Bible is pretty silent on those years, however there is lots written about the years between 30 and 34, wouldn't examining those verses be more worthwhile.

Just for the sake of debate? Not in my opinion.

His mother Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth and if she was a 'daughter of Aaron' the Mary was also.

As far as I know, cousins have different parents. Cousin A has W and X as parenbts and cousin B has Y and Z as parents, and one of cousin A's parents is a sibling of one of cousin B's parents. But of course, incest seems to have been pretty rampant a couple thousand years ago, so who knows for sure.

When God called John at about the age of 30 had he been 'trained' in any way that would apply to the priesthood? (rather than just learning woodwork) Does being in line for the 'throne' carry any special training or teaching in those 'missing years'?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions.

Far as I know there is only one place where a day and 1,000 years is covered. In those few verses Peter seems to be lookinh forward in time rather than backward. In the future from there we have a day of wrath (a few hours long), a 1,000 years of peace, more wrath which is against any remaining fallen angels that were not put in the lake. The prophecies in the NT and OT do not usually reference a 1,000 pause in the 'day of wrath'. That might also apply to the ones Jesus kills on that day, their sins require God punish them so God does using the shortest length of time possible. The place they sent to is referenced as being a place where a person will be thirsty for water. The pain associated with the locusts could affect men in that time and they are cursing God when they are sent there but they are said to be mocking Satan after they are both there and both are there on the same day, if a person cannot serve two masters at once then only 'one God' at a time can be mocked the rest of that 1,000 years may not be as bad as the first few moments of being there. If a few of mankind are raised a few hours after the day of return starts and the rest are not raised until 1,000 years have passed that allows prophecies that mention a 'day of the Lord' or a 'last day' to cover the wrath at both ends as being one wrath in prophecy and the resurrection of both groups is classified as being on the same day.

The other half of those verses reference Judgement Day, described as being the 'last day'. The actual length of time could be 1,000 years as there are many people who are said to be 'examined' by God on 'that day'. The whole House of Israel and a remnant of Gentiles will be alive on the first day, they are judged to see what church they fit into. Sins of the previous 3 1/2 have to be repented of you become part of the group that is resurrected at the 'end of the last day'.

However it works it is for those time periods, just like in Daniel those references of a day being a year is for prophecies that are close. If you examine each instance individually there is one in Daniel that says, time, times, and half a time that ends up being referencing the time the two witnesses of Re:11 lay dead in the street, 3 1/2 days.

Since prophecies mention things as being 'within an hour' it would seem to be somewhat important to understand as much as possible before that knowledge becomes useful. Today, to me it means the Bible is one very detailed story rather than a collection of disjointed ones.

If you say so, I guess.
IMO, the little bit about creation happening in 6 days is what I was referring to, and the standard reply given to those who say it is not possible is that "well, to the lord one day is like a thousand years to us poor humans". Sorry, but 6000 years doesn't even cut the mustard. It took the "big bang" some 13 or 14 billion years to get this far and it is still banging. So time seems to be of a subjective and relative issue in the Bible.

 

[Serryah]

But he was shown to be a false prophet.

See Cliffy's reply since it sums everything up nicely.

It's just the opposite, in the days the NT was being written everybody could show proof.

M'r:16:17:
And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils;
they shall speak with new tongues;
M'r:16:18:
They shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing,
it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on the sick,
and they shall recover.
M'r:16:19:
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them,
he was received up into heaven,
and sat on the right hand of God.
M'r:16:20:
And they went forth,
and preached every where,
the Lord working with them,
and confirming the word with signs following.
Amen.

One, some, or all of this is done today in various type Churches, especially the south.

Yet they're called "Fringe" Christians, or Fundamentalists and not really recognized by mainstream churches.

So guess you CAN'T tell by any of these where the proof is and where it isn't.

 

[Spade]

Enlightenment, anyone?
Magical Healing Mantra: Om Mani Padme Hum - YouTube

 

[Cliffy]

Enlightenment, anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDUdT5z_CBU&feature=related

Enlightenment does no interest those who prefer to remain in the darkness of blind faith.

 

[L Gilbert]

You still think that everyone is universally a "child of God" and that he is therefore obliged to love and enlighten everyone.

Is that what I think? Tell me more about what I think, please.

In reality, I don't think gods exist. I am just going by what I read in the Bible. Like I said before, it'd be pretty stupid and nasty to favor one child over another and spin the BS about loving both equally.

That's not a Biblical doctrine. Listen to Christ on this:

...but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one. (From John 10.)
​

See, the Father is giving to the Son specifically and particularly those who are elected for salvation, called here his "sheep." The "sharing and recruiting," in their case, has a 100% success rate.

Yeah well, this is inconsistent with the idea that this god and its son are the same. Either this YHVH and Yeshua are the same or they aren't.

So, you want the freedom to make choices, but when there are consequences for your stupid choices, you want to complain to God. You're basically saying, "I have sinned God, so you should have made me into a robot instead." (As you continue to ignore the remedy for sin that He is holding out on a golden platter.)This is a logical error, and a foolish decision.

Sorry, but that's your interpretation. It isn't what my point was at all. First off, every single person is a servant to the edicts of their DNA and the direction of their brains. There is no such thing as free will or choice. We simply do what we do because we are hardwired to do that. We only think we can make choices.

If God creates people who choose him, with a real choice, then the possibility of making the wrong choice must exist. If God is consistent, then there must be consequences for wickedness.

No god created me. My parents did that.
Like I said, we cannot make a wrong or right choice. We are only what we are. And that leaves we, ourselves, and us facing your "consequences for wickedness". We are our own worst enemy and our own best friend.

You're right, he could fix it all easily. Right here, right now, by destroying us all ... better yet, 6000 years ago.

That's extremely unlikely as there's nothing supporting the existence of your god except a bunch of thoughts and feelings.

You think the big question is, "why does God punish people?"

Is that what I think?

You are wrong. Totally missed the point. As simply as I can put it; my point is that all this stuff about your god having compassion and love is inconsistent with what the Bible portrays.

I think the big question is, "why does he ever show mercy?" Why did he permit Noah and family to live? God could have destroyed them along with the rest. (In which case, we wouldn't be here today, having our opportunity.)

Oh, don't get me started on Noah and the big flood. That's one of the biggest piles of cowpatty in the Bible. If, and that's a big "if" anything happened at all, this Noah dude somehow figured out there was a hurricane or something coming and simply to prepare for it. For damned sure he couldn't have fit 2 each of some 1.8 million species in that dinky little tub along with food and fresh water for them. For another thing, it can't rain enough for 40 days and 40 nights to cover much of anything around the globe. Ketchikan, AK had 101 days (that's 3 months and about 10 days) of solid rain in 1953 and it's still there. It rained for 247 straight days at Kaneohe Ranch, Oahu (from August 27 1993 to April 30 1994).
The point being is that with goofy tales like this strewn here, hither, and yon through the Bible, how the hell anyone anyone can accept that what is in the Bible is anywhere near true is entirely ridiculous.

Yes, he's responsible, he's in control, and he knows what he's doing. He's the great author of history. Every good story has conflict. Every good painting has contrast. You grant permission for JK Rowling to write evil into her plot, but you don't grant permission for the Almighty? How will the Light be glorious if darkness does not exist?

Rowling is a fiction writer, just like those writers of the Bible.

JUNK SCIENCE ALERT! one of our forum members has stated that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's pure horse**** since expansion is disproved by redshift facts.

Nature highlights > Uranium-238: A new stellar chronometer

Something more recent?
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
So Long, WMAP, and Thanks for the Age of the Universe | 80beats | Discover Magazine

But if Christ is in control, then He's not going to lose His church -- it will always remain. Others have predicted the breakdown before, and been wrong. Others have relentlessly pursued the destruction of the church, and have failed.

And to those people I'd say they stand as good a chance as any nation with its "war on drugs", "war on crime", "war on terrorism", etc. Ain't gonna happen. Someone will always be around that believes in Mother Goose's, Grimm's, and the Bible's faerie tales.

More likely, those writing the story of Yeshua simply filled in the details of his birth and life based on OT prophesies. In other words, invention, made to fit (Midrash)

Yep.

 

[In Between Man]

Oh, I don't know about that; read your own posts.

Please elaborate.

 

[L Gilbert]

Nonsense. The surviving historical documents from the time of Jesus support his fulfillment of these prophecies, and the many eyewitnesses of them.

lol Like I said, you types make conclusions and then find anything to use for evidence to back up the conclusion.

If the scriptures were man-made, so many of the difficult and unsavory parts would not be there. For example, in the scripture quoted above from Isaiah, why would anybody want to record their man-made Savior "as one from whom men hide their faces." As another example, you've got Peter not editing out parts that show him to be foolish. ("Get behind me Satan!") You've got scripture about this terrifying God who is wildly beyond our understanding. Man-made gods always fit in a box so we can be in control of them. You've got the churches at Corinth and Galatia submitting their letters that contained scathing reports about them.

What man-made fictional hero is killed as a criminal (of his own decision!), without even establishing a throne, building a nation, conquering a land? This Jesus Christ is an outrage to men -- cannot be a creation of men.

Ever heard the word martre before?

At least as significant, you've got the ongoing fulfillment of these prophecies. The Spirit working in the hearts of sinners, freeing them from the slavery of their former lifestyles. The nations ganging up on Israel, which is the only nation in history to establish itself twice on the same soil. That had to happen in 1948 for the rest of Ezekiel to come true.

Every day I live, I see that contemporary reality, both in this world and in my personal life, continue to prove that the Bible is true.

Yep, conclusion leads to the evidence with you.

The "yadda, yadda, yadda" that you added to the quote was where you IGNORED the fact that the NT writers included embarrassing details about themselves. Authors have a tendency to leave anything out that makes them look bad. Let's put it this way: If you and your friends were concocting a story that you wanted to pass off as truth, would you make yourselves to look dim-witted, uncaring, rebuked, doubting cowards? Of course not. But that's exactly what we find in the NT:

They are dim-witted - numerous times they fail to understand what Jesus is saying (Mark 9:32, Luke 18:34, John 12:16).

They are uncaring - they fall asleep on Jesus twice when he asks them to pray (Mark 14:32-41). The New Testament writers later believe Jesus is the God-man, yet they admit they twice fell asleep on him in his hour of greatest need! Moreover, they make no effort to give their friend a proper burial, but record that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin - the very court that had sentenced Jesus to die.

They are rebuked - Peter is called "Satan" by Jesus (Mark 8:33), and Paul rebukes Peter for being wrong about a theological issue. Paul writes, "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong" (Galatians 2:11). Now keep in mind that Peter is one of the pillars of the early church, and here's Paul including in Scripture that he was wrong!

They are cowards - all the disciples but one hide when Jesus goes to the cross. Peter even denies him three times after explicitly promising, "I will never disown you" (Matthew 26:33-35). Meanwhile, as the men are hiding for fear of the Jews, the brave women stand by Jesus and are the first to discover the empty tomb.

They are doubters - despite being taught several times that Jesus would rise from the dead (John 2:18-22, 3:14-18, Matthew 12:39-41, 17:9, 22-23), the disciples are doubtful when they hear of his resurrection. Some are even doubtful after they see him risen (Matthew 28:17)!

More solid reasons why we knew the NT authors were telling the truth:

They even included embarrassing details about Jesus. For example, he's not believed by his own brothers (John 7:5), is thought to be a deceiver (John 7:12), is deserted by many of his followers (John 6:66) turns off "Jews who had believed in him" (John 8:30-31) to point that they want to stone him, is called "demon possessed" (Mark 3:22, John 7:20, 8:48 ) is called a madman (John 10:20).

The NT writers left in difficult and demanding sayings of Jesus.

The NT writers carefully distinguished Jesus words from their own.

The NT writers include more than thirty historically confirmed people in their writings.

The NT writers CHALLENGE their readers to check out the VERIFIABLE facts.

The NT writers ABANDONED their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopted new ones, and did not deny their testimony under PERSECUTION AND DEATH.

Take a course in the psychology of marketing and advertising sometime. It'll have your head spinning in no time how insidious and sneaky people can be if they want someone to believe them.

Your absolutely right. The bible continues to prove itself time and time again, through studying the bible itself and investigating its credibility from other sources, the evidence is over-whelming.

........ because you'll only see evidence that supports it and you'll ignore what doesn't.

Shortly after their leader had been put to death, instead of going quietly into hiding to save their own lives, people started openly and boldly preaching Christianity -- they knew this could get them killed, and for many it did. People don't just do that. They had witnessed the risen Christ, and they knew there was more to history than their selfish little stories.

Like I said, ever heard of the word "martre"?

 

[In Between Man]

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

If this were true, any person would be justified in any action. But guess what happens when someone steals from you? Your reaction, moral outrage, would prove that you do indeed believe in an absolute standard of justice. The thief may say "this is just for me", but that won't matter. Your conscience will tell you that it is unequivocally wrong to steal REGARDLESS of what any other person says, it won't matter what is "in the eye of the beholder".

 

[gerryh]

You still think that everyone is universally a "child of God" and that he is therefore obliged to love and enlighten everyone.

It was me that said that we are all God's children and that his love for us is unconditional and selfless.

1st Corinthians 13:4-8

That's what love is all about.

You're right, he could fix it all easily. Right here, right now, by destroying us all ... better yet, 6000 years ago.

what's the significance of 6000 years?

 

[L Gilbert]

If this were true, any person would be justified in any action.

Depends on what the society that the person is in decides what justice is. Or what the individual himself decides what justice is. Same thing with morality.

But guess what happens when someone steals from you? Your reaction, moral outrage, would prove that you do indeed believe in an absolute standard of justice.

Nope, it's just what I was brought up to believe what justice is. To the thief, he may consider it unjust that I have something and he doesn't. It's relative and subjective.

The thief may say "this is just for me", but that won't matter. Your conscience will tell you that it is unequivocally wrong to steal REGARDLESS of what any other person says, it won't matter what is "in the eye of the beholder".

Nope. My brain tells me I get pissed when I have worked for something and some nutbar comes along and takes it without working for it. It's got sweet bugger all to do with my conscience. I don't steal because I haven't worked for it.
Besides, I don't like feeling crappy because I hurt someone. THAT is the conscience part.

 

[In Between Man]

Take a course in the psychology of marketing and advertising sometime. It'll have your head spinning in no time how insidious and sneaky people can be if they want someone to believe them.

And how do you explain the fact that the NT writers were willing to suffer persecution and death for the testimony that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, and that he rose from the grave?

........ because you'll only see evidence that supports it and you'll ignore what doesn't.

Not true in the least. A full examination of things like evolution only shows how many questions it's unable to answer. And as for arguments that have been presented on this forum, for the most part it's only silly assertions without actual evidence. Things like:

"Miracles can't happen because miracles can't happen."

"Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus."

"You're an idiot."

And then when the discussion comes to what the bible says, you guys get it wrong EVERY TIME. "The bible says this" or "Jesus' message was this", when by simply picking up the bible and reading it, anyone of us can see what it actually says and how ingrained misconceptions are in mind of non-believers.

 

[lone wolf]

If this were true, any person would be justified in any action. But guess what happens when someone steals from you? Your reaction, moral outrage, would prove that you do indeed believe in an absolute standard of justice. The thief may say "this is just for me", but that won't matter. Your conscience will tell you that it is unequivocally wrong to steal REGARDLESS of what any other person says, it won't matter what is "in the eye of the beholder".

Good Ghrist! Try some ice....

 

[Cliffy]

If this were true, any person would be justified in any action. But guess what happens when someone steals from you? Your reaction, moral outrage, would prove that you do indeed believe in an absolute standard of justice. The thief may say "this is just for me", but that won't matter. Your conscience will tell you that it is unequivocally wrong to steal REGARDLESS of what any other person says, it won't matter what is "in the eye of the beholder".

You see, this is where you absolutes come to a dead end. I learned a long time ago that someone stealing my stuff, if I believed as you do, would cause me a lot of stress and anxiety unless I was present enough to break their fingers or arm. So I decided that it is only stuff and that maybe I didn't need it any more or that they needed it more. I came to this conclusion because someone stole my tool box with about $500 worth of tools in it. In the mid 70s, that was a lot of money. It caused me so much grief that I decided to take a different view of things and save myself all that turmoil. Of course, that does not preclude finding someone in the act. Then my consciense would have no problem with causing them as much physical damage as I can inflict.

 

[L Gilbert]

And how do you explain the fact that the NT writers were willing to suffer persecution and death for the testimony that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, and that he rose from the grave?

Definition of "martre" from Merriam-Webster:
1.
: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2
: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
3
: victim; especially : a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life — A. J. Cronin>

Not true in the least.

Of course it is. Example: science apparently has verified that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of a wounded man. The conclusion Christians leap to is that it is the burial cloth of Yeshua. yet there is no evidence WHO was buried in it. Science concludes it's still a mystery.

A full examination of things like evolution only shows how many questions it's unable to answer.

So? That doesn't mean it isn't a fact. That means we don't know everything about it. But we have determined that evolution is a fact, it's just missing pieces. And on the other hand, what evidence is there that "creation" happened? NONE.

And as for arguments that have been presented on this forum, for the most part it's only silly assertions without actual evidence. Things like:

"Miracles can't happen because miracles can't happen."

That's presumptuous. Miracles happen and some call them "miracles" because we simply don't have enough evidence to explain how they happened. Rational people call them anomalies or unusual phenomena. I'm sure the first person to observe someone fly a plane thought it was a miracle, too.

"Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus."

What's the difference. People believe in Santa Claus. There are books written about him. Some evidence for him exists; like St. Nicholas Center ::: Who is St. Nicholas?

"You're an idiot."

That's also presumptuous. It's usually stated in the heat of a discussion, though. It's a human thing.

And then when the discussion comes to what the bible says, you guys get it wrong EVERY TIME. "The bible says this" or "Jesus' message was this", when by simply picking up the bible and reading it proves how ingrained misconceptions are in mind of non-believers.

I guess "you guys" doesn't include me because I can post exactly what the Bible says. What the Bible means is open to interpretation.

 

[JLM]

Besides, I don't like feeling crappy because I hurt someone. THAT is the conscience part.

I hear you man! :smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But guess what happens when someone steals from you? Your reaction, moral outrage, would prove that you do indeed believe in an absolute standard of justice.

No, that's an entirely relative standard, we don't accept absolute standards because there's objectively no such thing. The thief, as Les pointed out, would have quite a different opinion from his. If you insist on absolute standards then we get things like stoning people to death for adultery, or for being a stubborn and rebellious child, murdering people for planting two different crops in the same field, or wearing clothing made of two different kinds of fabric. You can find all of those in the Old Testament. You'll also find the stricture, Thou shalt not kill, followed by a lengthy tale of slaughter and rapine as the Israelites move to and take over the promised land, with the connivance and assistance of the deity who's just told them not to kill or covet their neighbour's possessions. Clearly those were relative standards, applying only to members of your own society, anyone else is fair game. More recently, there was a society in Papua before Europeans arrived there in which, if you came across a sleeping person from another village, even a child, not only was it permissible, it was expected, to murder them. Moral relativism, after all, really just means we've discussed it among ourselves and come to some agreement about what is and is not permissible behaviour. And if, as you theists continue to argue, we're free moral agents, that's what we ought to do. I'd much prefer that to any absolute standard supposedly handed down from on high.

 

[In Between Man]

Depends on what the society that the person is in decides what justice is.

Congratulations, you just affirmed that Nazi Germany was justified for murdering millions of people.

Or what the individual himself decides what justice is.

If justice for me meant putting a sword to the neck of the atheist and telling him "convert or die", again your reaction will prove that justice and morality is absolute. You may say "but that's not my justice", well, TOO BAD, it's justice for me, and what grounds do you base your objection? Your opinion? I don't care about your opinion!

Unless you stand on an absolute moral standard, a standard that is objective of yourself or me, then your objection to me forcing conversion on you is baseless because it's only a mere opinion. You might as well tell me "chocolate tastes better than vanilla".

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Not true in the least. A full examination of things like evolution only shows how many questions it's unable to answer.

No, a full examination of it would first show how much it DOES explain, but that's obviously not something you've done.

 

[Cliffy]

That means we don't know everything about it. But we have determined that evolution is a fact, it's just missing pieces. And on the other hand, what evidence is there that "creation" happened? NONE.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Congratulations, you just affirmed that Nazi Germany was justified for murdering millions of people.

Ah, Godwin's law fulfilled again. But you misunderstand. The Nazis would certainly affirm that, which simply underlines the relative nature of morality.