This bears repeating…
The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
Today, a person saying that is called a “right-wing-nut” / “Teabagger” / etc.
Sixty years ago, it was a Democratic President saying that.
My how the Democratic Party has changed.
One Nation Under God Working Together to drive this country down The Road to Socialism USA.
The Communists and Socialists had a rally on Saturday, and the Democrat Party fully embraced them
Separation of Church and State
December 4, 2010 at 4:48 am
To quote Galileo Galilei: “I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”
December 6, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Re: 1
Aaron: “Jeffrey has already declared he thinks Christians believe in stoning people to death for various sins”
Where did I say that? You could easily quote me. Everything I wrote on this thread is still on this thread.
I said the exact opposite: “I came to this thread with the assumptions that virtually all Christians think adulterers should not be stoned to death.”
Re: 2, 3
You need to learn the difference between merely using the words “quote mining” and actually making an argument that quote mining is what is going on. If you or the Bible actually said what was quoted, the burden is on you to show that it doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like.
Re: 4
“Notice how he used quote marks as though he WASN’T actually misrepresenting my position.”
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Example 1:
I started by quoting Numbers and Deuteronomy to prove that the Law called for death to infidels.
You replied: “Those that you keep using from Numbers and Deuteronomy are not mandated by the Law of Moses, those were mandated by any of the various ‘Angelic Laws,’ which were NOT laws passed to Moses from the Lord.”
But now it’s clear that you think the laws calling for death to the blasphemous were inspired by God: “So yes, Leviticus 17-26 (to include 20:27) is inspired by God, but so is this:”
Example 2:
Next you claimed I was misrepresenting Exodus 22:18 for suggesting that a sorceress is pretty much what it sounds like. The smaller problem is that just because sorceresses sometimes killed babies doesn’t make the word “sorceress” mean “baby killer.” It still means “sorceress.”
The bigger problem is that it makes no difference to my line of reasoning. You later agree that Leviticus 20:27 means exactly what it sounds like. So my interpretation of Exodus 22:18 at the very worst, puts Leviticus’ words into Exodus’ mouth.
Example 3:
You: “I would not want a baby-killer to live no matter the name attributed to it.”
Me: “So based on Numbers 31:1-18, we’re agreed that Moses was a war criminal.”
You: “What Moses in Numbers 31:17 was pretty much run of the mill for ancient warfare, that kind of brutality is heinous now, but wasn’t then.”
Moses is an example of a baby killer. But you then applied the name “run of the mill for ancient warfare” to it and decided that baby killing isn’t always so bad.
In fact, to believe the Bible is inspired, you must go one step further. God commanded this. So not only was baby killing “not heinous” it must have also been the right thing to do. If I’m wrong, by all means, say the words: “it was not right for Moses to obey the Lord in this instance.”
But if not, this is an example of you deciding that baby-killing is the right thing to do. Although one instance is enough to prove my point, I wish to also remind you that God commanding baby-killing is one of the Bible’s repeated themes. If you think disobeying these commands is the right thing to do, by all means, say so. Or if you think God didn’t really issue these commands, by all means, say so.
But if not, then I repeat: “sometimes you are in favor of killing babies.”
December 7, 2010 at 9:16 am
“You need to learn the difference between merely using the words “quote mining” and actually making an argument that quote mining is what is going on. If you or the Bible actually said what was quoted, the burden is on you to show that it doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like.”
You mean like your exploitation of passage about stoning while deliberately ignoring of the not-so-small part about forgiveness procedures, which are in the same book and in the following book (and thus negates the idea of actually stoning)? You somehow believe that such DOESN’T constitute quote-mining?
“Moses is an example of a baby killer. But you then applied the name “run of the mill for ancient warfare” to it and decided that baby killing isn’t always so bad.”
What’s sad here is that by your claim, you consider perfidy to be a less heinous act than brutality despite the fact that the latter is a response to the former.
“I wish to also remind you that God commanding baby-killing is one of the Bible’s repeated themes.”
Like when God spared Isaac and forgave Abraham? Is that some of the baby-killing you want to point out?
You’re also conflating what Numbers 31:17 states and wrongfully conflating the text to include the idea of killing babies when in fact there is no mention of babies in there whatsoever, and ignoring the reality of perfidy (which is worse than brutality) and the Midianites use of temptresses to seduce Israelite soldiers into treason.
“Yes, that is exactly what I meant.”
Too bad that what you meant was an outright lie.
“Where did I say that? You could easily quote me. Everything I wrote on this thread is still on this thread.”
Now you are throwing hissy fits about your position being “misrepresented.”
“But now it’s clear that you think the laws calling for death to the blasphemous were inspired by God: ‘So yes, Leviticus 17-26 (to include 20:27) is inspired by God, but so is this:’”
Notice how he deliberately left out the rest of it? Jeffrey can attempt to bury it all he wishes, but he can’t change the multiple parts re forgiveness of sins that he so desires to ignore.
Now it’s time to play Jeffrey’s own game: Jeffrey, do you acknowledge the fact that God placed clear and undeniable instructions for seeking forgiveness for ALL sins regardless of the type or the punishment and acknowledge that the very existence of the procedure to receive said forgiveness negates the idea of killing/stoning/whatever of adulterers/adultresses, false idolators, and other sinners? If you do not, then you are an extremist who cannot be reasoned with.
And just like yours, this is a simple yes/no question.
December 7, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Me: Where did I say that? You could easily quote me. Everything I wrote on this thread is still on this thread.
Aaron: Now you are throwing hissy fits about your position being “misrepresented.”
I see you failed to find a way to back up your claim. That’s about what I expected.
>What’s sad here is that by your claim, you consider perfidy to be a less heinous act than brutality despite the fact that the latter is a response to the former.
I made no such comparison. Hey, I’ll even make the sort of direct statement that you almost never make: killing babies by means of perfidy is worse than killing babies out of revenge. But the latter is a war crime too.
>Now it’s time to play Jeffrey’s own game:
You mean I’m going to have to give a straight answer to a straight question? Sure. I’ll even do it the first time you ask.
>Jeffrey, do you acknowledge the fact that God placed clear and undeniable instructions for seeking forgiveness for ALL sins …”
No. God didn’t do any of that because there is no God.
But I think I know what you meant to ask, so I’ll answer a slightly rephrased question too:
Q: “do you acknowledge that **the Bible describes** God as someone who placed clear and undeniable instructions for seeking forgiveness for ALL sins …”
Most of that is ture. It’s true that the Bible teaches God is a baby-saver, loving, compassionate, forgiving, and long-suffering God.
(Here’s the part I disagree with: The Bible’s instructions for seeking forgiveness are not clear. Paul directly says we are saved by faith alone, James directly says we are saved not by faith alone, and Jesus told someone to sell everything they have and give it to the poor to enter the kingdom of God. That’s not what I would call clear.)
The Bible also teaches that God is a baby-killing, hateful, sadist, and infinitely cruel God. Pointing out places where God is good doesn’t make these places go away.
My views allow me to acknowledge the existence of both. Yours do not.
December 17, 2010 at 9:51 am
“I see you failed to find a way to back up your claim. That’s about what I expected.”
1. You mean like you failed to back up your exact same claim when I called you on it? Hypocrite.
2. Now that you’ve had a taste of your own medicine, can I trust you won’t try it again in the future?
“killing babies by means of perfidy…”
…is impossible, you have the same web searching ability, look up ‘perfidy’ before you come back here. Here is a hint, on the subject of warfare, false-surrender is perfidy. Further on that note, babies are not mentioned anywhere in Numbers 31; you conflated the idea of ‘little ones’ to include infants without any reference to back it up.
“the latter is a war crime too.”
So you can cite the law of war to prove this? You know that the governing laws of war have never had an ex-post-facto clause, right? It’s funny that you call Moses a war criminal, considering that the first laws of war recorded were from Deuteronomy, Moses’ fifth and final book. The very individual that you want to call a war-criminal is the one who recorded the first laws of war. If you are looking to read into it some, one could even say that God saw how Mo dealt with the Midianites and decided lay down some ground rules to warfare to prevent
If you read them, you’ll find that they are practical rules to conduct warfare by and yield direct benefits if adhered to. However, Deuteronomy 20:14 lists women, little ones, cattle, and everything within the city as spoils. It also instructs the Israelites to eat the spoils of the enemy. Given Jeffrey’s track record thus far, it is safe to say that he will claim this verse is instructing the Israelites to eat babies. (and women and maybe a few intact clay pots, if those taken as spoils)
“The Bible’s instructions for seeking forgiveness are not clear.”
Yes they are, they were clear in the verses of Numbers that you repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
“Paul directly says we are saved by faith alone, James directly says we are saved not by faith alone,”
1. Jeffrey just proved he is doing nothing but quote-mining right here. He can’t find anything in Numbers or within the Books of Moses, or even within the entire Old Testament (the Books he was previously focused on) to prove his point, so what does he do? He skips all the way to the New Testament and mines bits from two different letters written by two different disciples to cobble together a counter-point.
2. The Epistles of Paul and the Epistle of James (the full names of the respective books Jeffrey is referring to) were Apostolic Letters (hence “Epistles”) that captured their perspectives of the Gospel and what the two respective Disciples took away from His teachings.
“Pointing out places where God is good doesn’t make these places go away.”
Except for the fact that said places where God is good DOES almost always supercede the parts that you mine. Punishments are harsh (if they weren’t harsh, they would not be a deterrent), but forgiveness is readily available and easy to attain, really. You have to sacrifice one of your livestock, but you consume the burnt (read: cooked) offering? You get to eat a steak and receive forgiveness in one fell swoop. You did lose a cow in the process, but it was likely to be slaughtered for food anyway. If you sin, but repent and seek forgiveness for it, then you don’t face the punishment. It is that simple. The punishments actually carried out in the texts were ALWAYS done on those who were both guilty and refused to seek forgiveness. Sorry pal, but you actively refused readily available and easily obtained forgiveness, you brought the punishment onto yourself.
“My views allow me to acknowledge the existence of both. Yours do not.”
Thus far in this thread, you have refused to acknowledge the existence of both sides of God, opting to ONLY accept the harsh side while conveniently ignoring the good side. If I didn’t acknowledge both sides of God, then I would have little incentive to lead a decent life. If the threat of His wrath were minimal or nonexistent, then I wouldn’t have to worry about the morality of my actions, so long as I was more powerful than the potential victims of them. Do you prefer “Might makes Right?”
December 17, 2010 at 11:24 am
I once had a neighbor who was a kind neighbor. Every one of his children who worshiped him fared sumptuously at his table. Other neighbors would sometimes ask, “above the praises of your adulating children, what are those screams we hear?” “Those” he replied “are the children who refused to worship me that I’ve in my long-suffering have am now torturing in my basement.” “How cruel!” the other neighbors retorted. “You are an evil father.” At this point, I stepped in and defended my honorable neighbor. “You only see his negative side, not his loving side. However, …
my views allows me to acknowledge the existence of both. Yours do not.”
December 17, 2010 at 3:20 pm
So, your premise is that God is torturing people in his basement?
Faulty premise.
God doesn’t torture people, and in fact loves you so much that He sent His son to take the punishment you deserve.
But by rejecting God’s son, you yourself choose to serve Satan (whether you realize it or not), and it is Satan, not God, who will torture you in his basement.
December 17, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Read your bible. God’s wrath is the reason we are condemned to eternal torment.
Jn 3:36
And how can Satan be torturing us when he, himself is being tortured in the lake of fire?
Rev 20:10
Don’t attempt to defend the bible if you don’t know what it says.
December 18, 2010 at 11:42 am
In my own life, I have move from mere faith in His existence and in the salvation offered through Christ, to complete acceptance as fact.
I’ve been to a couple of places in the world that, in hindsight, I realize that God was looking out for me. One prime example was my first trip to the Philippines. I made the mistake of going there with my credit card and very little cash in my wallet and just blindly accepting the notion that the large banks’ established ATMs would work with my card. That entire trip, only ONE bank’s ATM worked; all the rest would not interface. It was just enough to make it through the trip and back to work.
On the second trip there, I came prepared with a reserve of cash, but not a single ATM would work with my card, not even the bank that worked before. Further, there were no places to do CC cash advance (I checked), no places to send Money transactions that would accept any form of payment other than hard cash (I checked), no means whatsoever of accessing the funds in my checking account.Once I finished the trip, I called my bank to investigate and they were not even aware of the problem; it was something to do with the local bank’s ATM system/software. Obviously, the bank’s customer service reps could not explain the difference.
After returning to work, I reflected back on both trips and realized just how much of a risk I actually took, going to a foreign country without a cash reserve to fall back on, especially one where the use of cards for payment of goods/services is not as wide-spread. I took away two big things from that reflection:
1. God was watching over me, ensuring that I did not crash hard from that first foolish move.
2. God taught me that lesson in such a way that not only did I make it through the trip without significant problems, while making me understand exactly how bad it could have turned out.
Could other, less holy factors been in play, such as a change in the software of the bank’s ATM system? Certainly, but I don’t believe the timing of those other factors or how they came into play was purely coincidental.
December 18, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I still say your premise is faulty.
December 18, 2010 at 2:21 pm
You seem to have had thought it was Satan who tortures humans in hell rather than your silly Jehovah. When you know the bible as much as I do, get back to me.
December 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Since you seem fond of quoting Revelation, I remind you that He who you call “silly Jehovah” is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, and He shall reign forever.
Merry Christmas, Phil!
December 19, 2010 at 3:06 am
“I once had a neighbor who was a kind neighbor. Every one of his children who worshiped him fared sumptuously at his table. Other neighbors would sometimes ask, “above the praises of your adulating children, what are those screams we hear?” “Those” he replied “are the children who refused to worship me that I’ve in my long-suffering have am now torturing in my basement.” “How cruel!” the other neighbors retorted. “You are an evil father.” At this point, I stepped in and defended my honorable neighbor. “You only see his negative side, not his loving side. However, …”
I see it as more like, the screaming children, suffering in the basement entered it of their own accord and are free to leave, but refuse to because they refuse to believe that the upstairs exists.
Unless your metaphor is that of the afterlife, in which case, the children were offered two different doors before entering the Father’s house, one led to the upstairs, while the other path led to the basement. Both paths were clearly marked, indicating what was behind them. The children were all given an entire lifetime to study, research and decide which door to go through. Those who chose the basement door, did so because they consciously rejected the upstairs as not real.
December 19, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Do you know that the very 1st sin a child commits will send them to hell?
Even if they die the next minute.
Even if they were born to Taliban parents.
Even if they grew up in the jungle.
Read your bible again. Leave your tower of delusion and understand the actual state of the world. Where is the clarity of paths you speak of? How dare you suggest most of the world had the clearly you suggest. You really need to get out more.
Your god will send any offending child to hellfire, even though that child has never had access to the necessary components that would lead to a christian conversion. Your god has sent billions of said children to hellfire.
To have made such a statement requires such a depth of self-delusion that you may well be immune to the truth. But the world remains what it is in spite of what goes on in your dementia.
December 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. This is your only warning.
If you want people to listen to what you have to say, I suggest that you treat them as equals and practice the Golden Rule.
December 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm
You’re right. No more ad hominems. I only expect a response to the argument they accompanied.
December 21, 2010 at 10:34 am
Phil has started with the standard atheist claim about children who’ve never heard of God. This has already been more than adequately addressed many times. Just a short search of a few Christian websites will quickly put such a ridiculous assertion away. Makes me wonder why they still try this one? Then again, “…is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.”
“Do you know that the very 1st sin a child commits will send them to hell?”
Clearly, you have not studied the Bible. Sins don’t send people to hell, REJECTION of Christ’s Gospel does. That is covered in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Note that the second part addresses those who REJECT the Gospel of Christ.
“Leave your tower of delusion and understand the actual state of the world.”
And he has revealed his true colors here. I’d prefer an intelligent discussion, but I guess atheists prefer bomb-throwing. (sigh) Oh well…
“Where is the clarity of paths you speak of?”
It’s right here in Jeremiah 29:13.
“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
If one makes a genuine, earnest effort to seek Him, then one will find Him. Half-hearted efforts are not enough and token efforts whose actual intention is to prove the opposite will not succeed in finding Him. If you set out to seek God with honest desire and true effort to find Him, then you’ll find Him. It’s that simple.
“How dare you suggest most of the world had the clearly you suggest.”
Is most of the world still using candles, using draft animals and writing on parchment scrolls? Even the poorest parts of South East Asia have internet cafes. Volunteer missions organized by Christian Churches have been sent to every part of the world that would safely allow them in; many churches started by such missions are still in operation to this day. The only parts of the world that you can argue the point you suggest (but won’t state) are those that have REJECTED Christ’s Gospel. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia (and others) have laws specifically banning Christianity.
“You really need to get out more.”
Is 11 different countries across three continents enough? It will be 12 in April. How many have you’ve visited? I can tell by your picture that you’ve had a few dozen years headstart, so go ahead and post it.
“Your god will send any offending child to hellfire, even though that child has never had access to the necessary components that would lead to a christian conversion.”
Once again, John 3:36. The ones who don’t make it into Heaven are those who REJECT the Gospel. You can’t reject it if you have never been exposed to it, and no, lack of exposure to it does not constitute rejection by default.
“To have made such a statement requires such a depth of self-delusion that you may well be immune to the truth.”
No, I see the Truth with great clarity, thank you.
December 21, 2010 at 10:47 am
Wrong, Aaron.
Imagine a murderer who turns down a pardon. Does he deserve the electric chair because he turned down the pardon? No. He deserves the electric chair because he committed murder. He goes to the electric chair because he turned down the pardon, but it was his crime that deserved the electric chair.
We don’t deserve hell because we reject Christ. We deserve hell because we sin. We go to hell if we reject Christ. We don’t deserve hell because we reject Christ. If you have any more questions about what the bible actually says, feel free to ask.
And let me now clearly state the conclusion. Your absurdity of a god claims to love humans, defines love as long-suffering, then in extreme short suffering becomes so angry over the very 1st sin of every human that the deems them worthy of eternal torment. It would be funny if it were not so sick.
December 21, 2010 at 11:08 am
You can expect a response, but that doesn’t mean that you are entitled to one.
Your previous comment quoted, and was directed as a response to, Aaron. It’s up to him to respond to you if he so desires. (And I see now that during the time I started this comment and stepped away, he has responded to you and you back to him).
If you were expecting a response from me, I would say that your statement of, “When you know the bible as much as I do, get back to me” comes across as extremely arrogant.
I know enough about the Bible to know that your comments put you in the category of what the Bible calls a scoffer and a fool, and it is unwise for me to correct such a person. But I will pray for you.
December 21, 2010 at 11:14 am
And I will think for you.
December 21, 2010 at 4:03 pm
You can think of me, but not for me. It quite arrogant and condescending of you to say that you will think for me. You are not my intellectual superior, in spite of your having convinced yourself otherwise.
I realize that having the mind of Christ makes someone a fool in your atheist mind, but as I already addressed earlier, it is the atheist who is the fool.
December 21, 2010 at 9:04 pm
He he, now that’s the Christian spirit; blind to your own arrogance of saying you’ll pray for me and affirming that your big daddy in the sky says I’m a fool, yet call me arrogant for saying I’ll think for you. You certainly do have the spirit of truth, now don’t you?
For other readers, consider what kind of words we would actually hear from individual if they indeed had a spirit of truth.
I was also as blind as this “itooktheredpill”. Google “reasons for my deconversion” for the account of how I extracted myself from the falsehoods of Christianity.
December 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm
It is not arrogant to say that I’ll pray for you. It actually is the Christian thing to do. And yes, it is the Holy Spirit that helps me to love you.
Saying that I’ll pray “for” you means that you are the object of a prayer of mine. If you wanted to offer an equivalent from an atheist perspective, you would say that you’ll think “of” me… i.e., that I would be the object of a thought of yours.
It is a completely different thing to say that you would think “for” me, i.e. that you would think on my behalf. I am quite capable of thinking for myself.
And yes, the Bible refers to atheists as fools. A fool does not necessarily lack knowlege. What a fool lacks is wisdom.
Sure, you are wise in your own eyes, but that matters little.
You have revealed your true purpose here, which is to proselytize for “deconversion”.
Biblical wisdom says that we can judge your “tree” by the “fruit” it produces… Jesus said:
This looks like bad fruit to me. (Archived here, just in case you choose to delete the post).
I’m content with my conversion. I was blind, but now I see. And I am quite happy with the blessings in my life.
You’re content with your deconversion. However, your life does not appear to be a life of blessings, but rather short-term hedonistic pleasures. Your YouTube videos appear to treat women as objects for your sexual gratification. That is the life you have chosen for yourself. But it does not look like a happy and blessed life, and the fruit appears to be bad fruit.
Those who wish to Google your reasons for “deconversion” are free to do so, with this knowledge in mind.
December 22, 2010 at 12:04 am
Then neither is it arrogant for me to promise to “think for you”. It is the rational thing to do. It’s a sorry commentary on you that those more rational have to cover your responsibilities while you await the myth of the rapture (II Peter 3:3-4 – Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; – I’m a scoffer)
Now on to your illogic.
I’m claiming that you do not have the spirit of truth as you claim. Here is the reason.
Anyone possessing the spirit of truth will not spout logical fallacies, for that spirit of truth would not allow it. Any “spirit of truth” that would allow it would be impotent.
The fallacies I’m referring to include citing my single post on an month of misfortune, then suggesting that is representative of my life and your god’s judgment. Hilarious. The very reason I posted that is due to it’s stark contrast with the majority of my life. It would be like me citing the time you got sinfully angry and suggesting this your general personality. Do you see your dishonesty here? You want so hard for my life to be unpleasant that you cherry pick an article I wrote as a tongue-in-cheek lamentation of my life. Do you think this blind illogic of yours would be permitted by a spirit of truth. You do not have the spirit of truth.
And thanks for checking out my Youtube videos. I think women are sexually beautiful. You think to think such a thing is sinful. I carefully choose which women I engage in sexual pleasure with as a natural act since I was created a sexual being. You think your sexuality was given to you as a thorn in the flesh, and repress your sexuality. Consider whether it might be this repression that is driving your vitriol and illogic.
My own scorn for you is based on your arrogance in promoting the myths of sin, hell, and the vice of pleasure. This is the only life we’ll live, and you are going out of your way to diminish this life for others by suggesting that you have a big daddy in the sky that is so “loving” that he deems eternal torment a fair exchange for giving in to a “sin nature” we had no say in inheriting.
December 22, 2010 at 12:17 am
“Imagine a murderer who turns down a pardon. Does he deserve the electric chair because he turned down the pardon? No. He deserves the electric chair because he committed murder.”
Doesn’t change the fact that he GOT the chair for rejecting the pardon. Whether he *deserves* the chair or not, is not a factor. I agree that we are all sinners in the eyes of God and that, barring our seeking of salvation, we deserve to go to hell. However, He sends to hell, those who reject the salvation of Christ. That is why I sought salvation in the first place. I see that you chose to reject it all, instead.
“We don’t deserve hell because we reject Christ. We deserve hell because we sin.”
I never said anything about whether we *deserve* it or not. Attempting to shift topics like that is a dodge; stay on topic.
“If you have any more questions about what the bible actually says, feel free to ask.”
Right…I’m supposed to find the proper interpretation of biblical texts from someone whose motivation for study thereof is hatred of the Bible and those who follow it? And while we’re on this small side-topic, to copy & paste Biblical verses in Greek doesn’t add authenticity or convey any expertise in your posts; it’s just pretentious.
“And let me now clearly state the conclusion.”
Considering the whole post was yours, could anyone have really stopped you? Your post was based on an attempted subtle shift from the topic of “What SENDS us to hell,” to the topic of, “What makes us DESERVE to go to hell.” The two appear to the same topic, but are not. I’ll ask you to not conflate separate topics again, but it will probably be in vain.
“Google “reasons for my deconversion” for the account of how I extracted myself from the falsehoods of Christianity.”
Plugging your own blog in a post on someone else’s? It would be different if it was just a signature line, but you’re blatantly advertising, “Hey everybody, come read my blog!”
December 22, 2010 at 3:11 am
My point stands. Your absurd notion of a god is the cause of our condemnation, not us. Prior to our acceptance/rejection of him, he chooses to be wrathful and malicious when even the coldest human father would not considering torturing his children forever after a single offense. He tells us to forgive each other without bloodshed, but cannot do so himself.
December 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
I and others who read this blog have studied and read greek. If you cannot, ignore the greek. But I recommend learning it at some point if you truly believe the NT contains truth that might be adulterated by translation. But beware. You may just find yourself marveling at the clarity the absurdities of christian thought emerge from the text as I did.
December 22, 2010 at 4:19 am
Perhaps this analogy will illuminate the incoherency in suggesting that it is the rejection of your god that makes us worthy of hellfire.
Starting to get the picture of the absurdity in your position?
December 23, 2010 at 2:41 am
“My point stands.”
No, it doesn’t. It was build on the false muddling of two different and unrelated concepts and when those are separated and put back where they were before, your point has nothing to stand on.
“Your absurd notion of a god is the cause of our condemnation, not us.”
Wrong. It is already clearly written that none of us are perfect, we are all sinners at some point or another; one needs to only reflect back on his own life to realize this is absolutely true. It is the reason to seek salvation and forgiveness while at the same time, reminding us that we owe each other forgiveness when it is genuinely asked. “Genuinely” is key here.
“Prior to our acceptance/rejection of him, he chooses to be wrathful and malicious when even the coldest human father would not considering torturing his children forever after a single offense.”
Wrong again. Those who reject Christ have condemned themselves to Hell. He was wrathful and jealous up until the time that He sent Christ to Earth; Christ’s arrival signaled a new covenant that did not require bloodshed for forgiveness. Even before Christ arrived, He still provided us with clear instructions for attaining forgiveness for sins we committed. Those weren’t even hard to carry out. Afterwards, it was even easier, no need to consume a burnt (read: cooked) offering, though it was optional.
“He tells us to forgive each other without bloodshed, but cannot do so himself.”
And yet He has forgiven everyone who asked for the last 2000 years without bloodshed, and required nothing more than to genuinely ask for forgiveness. The very last blood ever shed for the sake of forgiveness was the blood of Christ, and that was shed by the men who used the most common method of execution at the time. It was not God who shed that blood.
“I and others who read this blog have studied and read greek.”
If such is true, then explain the existence Greek Christians, people who were born and raised in the language and know it and its nuances better than anyone who learned it as a second language. I’d prefer you do so without the typical atheist arrogance you have repeatedly and prominently displayed, but that request will probably be in vain, also.
“If you cannot, ignore the greek. But I recommend learning it at some point if you truly believe the NT contains truth that might be adulterated by translation.”
Right, you’d probably want that. After all, it is easier if your quote-mines go unchallenged. Too bad for you that finding the translation online along with full explanations of meanings and uses is easy enough
“But beware. You may just find yourself marveling at the clarity the absurdities of christian thought emerge from the text as I did.”
Considering that you’ll spin anything to rationalize your anti-Christian viewpoint, it’s not surprising that you’d type that.
Also, your analogy is also based on the wrongful conflation of what is deserved and what is actually gotten. I previously asked you not to conflate the two concepts and you continued to do so. This means that you are intentionally doing so because you refuse to accept the fact that the two are unrelated. Some get things they don’t deserve all the time while others deserve things they never get. (“things” in this case can be positive or negative, it doesn’t matter)
You also built it on the false idea that He requires bloodshed to attain forgiveness despite the fact that He has not done so for almost 2000 years, now.
You also included the false idea that He will kill anyone, which per the covenant sealed by Christ’s death (at the hands of humans, BTW), he has already made it clear that he will not unleash any wrath during the Church Age.
I can’t wait for his next analogy. Hey Phil, can you make it include tanks and fighter jets next time? Sniper rifles and houses are boring.
December 23, 2010 at 3:23 am
Aaron, you’ve forgotten the issue.
Your god becomes so wrathful over a the first offense of every offender that he can’t help himself but to condemn each offender to eternal torment.
This is all prior to his grace. God did not need to redeem us, but chose to do so out of his love and mercy. Learn a bit of bible.
God claims it is fair that he, in his wrath, condemns to eternal torment every offender upon their very 1st offense. This is the fact prior to his “mercy” and “grace” of slaughtering his own son.
Now. What did I write that you don’t believe?
December 23, 2010 at 3:36 am
And Aaron, how do you feel about your quote….
…in light of Hebrews 9:22?
December 23, 2010 at 4:10 am
As requested.
December 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Read Hebrews 9 in context.
And here is a keyword search on all NKJV references to blood.
Yes, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. In Old Testament times it was the blood of an animal, often a lamb. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Aaron is correct that no further bloodshed has been required since Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.
December 23, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Itooktheredpill, it would better your reputation if you actually post content rather than specious and cryptic posts. Tell us what you believe. There is a verse that you think has been taken out of context. Describe the context you think is correct complete with substantiation. This is the way discussions are conducted.
December 23, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I said your god cannot forgive without bloodshed. You now seem to agree. Are you confused about what you are arguing? Do you really want to take my side?
December 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Phil,
It would better your reputation if you weren’t so condescending. You quoted a portion of one verse, Hebrews 9:22, and implied that Aaron was wrong. I told you to read Hebrews 9 in context and showed you how Aaron is right.
(I expect that you’ll come back and accuse me of editing my prior comment, but I actually made two separate comments which I then combined into 1.)
Anyway, I find little purpose or enjoyment in conversing with you. I have travelled the journey from agnostic to Bible-believing Christian as an adult. You have travelled the reverse journey. Although, I would say that you are not an “agnostic“, as you claim, but rather an “Anti-Christian” or “antichrist“. You actively chose to love sexual sin and hate Jesus Christ.
You claim that it was a search for truth that led you away from Christ. Funny, it was a search for truth that led me to Jesus Christ, who is the truth.
We have made opposite journeys. I am very, very happy with the choice I have made. You profess to be happy with the choice you have made. We can’t both be right. I am sure you are familiar with Pascal’s Wager, and I am quite willing to accept the consequences if I am wrong.
December 23, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Could you stop telling me what you do not believe and tell me what you do believe?
Do you believe that we can be forgiven without any bloodshed? What is it about this question that makes you so elusive?
And do you believe, like Pascal, in your god because you think your hell is the most horrible yet invented? What if someone comes along with an unsubstantiated story of a more wonderful heaven or a more horrible hell? You’ll have to change your faith. Pascal’s Wager is illogical to its core, yet you cite it as a defense of your faith. Where is the spirit of truth you presumably have? Was he too busy on the day you discovered Pascal’s Wager. Take Pascal’s Wager to any real christian apologist, and see what they tell you. Or simply google “Pascal’s Incoherent Wager” to see what I have written about it.
Now, could someone tell me what they believe about forgiveness and bloodshed? Was blood necessary for our forgiveness? If so, why? Answer clearly so I can assess the logical coherence of your position. There is no need to be evasive if you have the truth on your side.
December 24, 2010 at 10:46 am
I have been clear about what I believe. Where is the spirit of truth you presumably have? If you are telling the truth when you say, “stop telling me what you do not believe”, then please quote where I have said, “I do not believe”. Again, I have been clear about what I believe.
No.
The wages of sin is death. Innocent blood must be shed for the forgiveness of sins. In the Old Testament, that innocent blood was from an animal, often a lamb. In the New Testament, that innocent blood was from Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.
You don’t seem to have understood what I wrote previously, so I shall repeat it, with the hope that perhaps this time you’ll understand it.
—
—
I very clearly stated what I believe, which is what is stated in the Word of God, the Bible. I very clearly stated that, “Yes, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. I was not evasive in any way, yet you falsely claim I was evasive.
No, I didn’t cite it as either a reason for, or a defense of, my faith. My faith is not based on Pascal’s Wager. I cited Pascal’s Wager and said, “I am quite willing to accept the consequences if I am wrong.” The unwritten question was: “Are you?”
My faith is based, in part, on seeing Hebrews 11:1 alive and actively at work in people’s lives.
A true agnostic, as opposed to an antichrist, is looking for evidence of God. I found that evidence (that evidence of things not seen) in the faith of people in Jesus Christ. First in the faith of other people in Jesus Christ, and the fruit it produced in their lives, and then in my own life after I confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus and believed in my heart that God raised Him from the dead.
True faith in Jesus Christ produces true life-changing results. I’ve seen it hundreds of times.
December 24, 2010 at 10:57 am
A baby changes everything. Merry Christmas!
December 24, 2010 at 11:18 am
Let’s focus on one point.
You believe there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Is this due to god’s wrath or god’s holiness.
December 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Let’s focus on one point… God’s love.
God loves you so much that He gave His son for you… so that in Him you could have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
God loves you, and so do I.
Merry Christmas, Phil!
December 24, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Your evasion is at least of the affectionate sort. There is no coherency in your position, but it is a position I once held and have fortunately abandoned. So here’s a hopeful toast to your future awakening.
Merry Christmas.
December 24, 2010 at 1:44 pm
You continually accuse me of evasion. Yet you have evaded the following:
You can’t. Because I didn’t. And rather than own up to your lie/mistake, you evaded it. And then accuse me of evasion. Classic projection.
Say you.
You chose to embrace sexual sin and reject God. You have made your choice.
You miss the whole point of this blog. I’ve already had my awakening. I took the red pill.
To continue the Matrix analogy, I see you as Cypher. Funny, you even bear a resemblence to him…
And in a real-world recent story:
So here’s a hopeful toast to your future re-awakening.
Merry Christmas.
December 24, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Sorry for the repetition.
I really do what to know what you believe here.
You believe there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Is this due to god’s wrath or god’s holiness?
December 24, 2010 at 7:46 pm
“what to know” -> “want to know”
December 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Is this an argument? Is it accompanied with evidence? What value do you place on substantiated arguments? If I gave a counter anecdote for every one you give (and I can), what would either of us prove? Is making comments on the level of happiness for someone you don’t know a christian thing? Has the holy spirit provided you with the knowledge that I’m miserable? If so, and I provide you with strong evidence to the contrary, will you repent and leave the lie you are trapped within? Is that fair enough?
December 27, 2010 at 6:29 am
I don’t think that Phil is necessarily a liberal. After all, if he believes Christianity is a “stupid myth”, then he surely doesn’t buy into the stupid myth that is socialism (and left-wing politics in general).
“Or simply google “Pascal’s Incoherent Wager” to see what I have written about it.”
Coming from a guy whose arrogance is so great that he actually claims it is irresponsible for a person to be Christian? (it was right here “…that those more rational have to cover your responsibilities…”) Should I once again point out that this guy is on someone else’s blog, advertising his own? Hey Phil, are you that desperate for readers?
December 27, 2010 at 7:46 am
Good call, Aaron. Both the christian right and and the liberal left are mere emotional children looking desperately for validation of their preconceptions.
I don’t need readers. If you mention Pascal’s Wager, and I’ve already addressed Pascal’s Wager on my blog, I’m going to refer you to the Pascal’s Wager post on my blog. And this is surprising to you?
Hey, guys. I have a theory. My theory is that, if anyone actually had the spirit of truth, that person would not employ logical fallacies in their comments. What do you think about this theory?
December 27, 2010 at 8:00 am
For anyone else who would like to take a stab at my primary question to see where it leads, let me put it out there one more time.
Assuming you believe there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, is this due to god’s wrath or god’s holiness? In other words, is the degree of christ’s suffering commensurate with the degree of Jehovah’s wrath, or is Jehovah the righteous judge who cannot forgive because of some prior law making the penalty for all sin commensurate with the eternal torment with which he condemns sinners? Any takers?
Once you give me your answer, I will then attempt to show that your position is incoherent. Perhaps I’ll fail. But the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. It will be your bible knowledge against mine. Your rationality against mine. And on this blog, not mine. You presumably believe you have truth and the holy spirit on your side, so you should be able to employ scripture and logic to destroy anything I can offer.
Who’ll be first?
December 27, 2010 at 11:37 am
Phil,
I’ve been spending a lot of time with family, and will be continuing to spend a lot of time with family for the next few days. So don’t expect a quick response.
You give two and only two choices: wrath or holiness.
I’d say it’s a different word, but you don’t even offer that word in your false dilemma of two choices.
Previously, you said:
Why don’t you use your extensive (and supposedly superior) knowledge of the Bible to provide the verses which address your question and provide the word of which I am thinking?
When you know, get back to me.