The reason I will never be a Christian

[aiki]

It is apparent to me (and Kala83) that you think it is foolish for her to "use the occult". What is so funny about the bible is that she could come back at you and say that you are in danger of going to hell since Matt. 5:22 says, "...anyone who says, ‘You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." In addition, Matt. 7:1 says, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged".

You have demonstrated profound ignorance of the Bible in how you are using it here. I suppose you think you're being clever, but what you're actually doing is showing how little you know of that to which you are attempting to speak.

...I'm not too sure that a "Christ-following pagan" would be an oxymoron since the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible and people cherry pick their own ideas out of the bible when it comes to how one should follow Christ.

The doctrine of salvation is not unclear. In fact, of all of the things you could have pointed at as unclear in the Bible, the doctrine of salvation should have been the last one on your list. Again, you show here serious ignorance of that to which you're trying to speak.

It is entertaining to me that Christians judge one another and damn one another to hell.

Really? Well, that doesn't suggest anything good about you, I think.

Joey Downunder, you could lay out your entire formula for salvation and there would be many people on this forum that would disagree with your formula and point to how you are wrong through their interpretation of the bible.

Well, this is only a guess, isn't it? You don't actually know that this would be the case. But if we're making guesses, I suspect she would find herself well-supported by many believers on this site in her understanding of the doctrine of salvation.

That's why there are thousands of Christian denominations.

This is both silly and incorrect. Many denominations exist for reasons more related to geography and heritage than to wide differences in theology or biblical doctrine. We have, for instance, German Baptists and Swedish Baptists in the city where I live. When Swedish Baptists first immigrated to Canada in the late 1800's they did not speak German, nor did the German Baptists speak Swedish. As you'd expect, they formed denominational organizations that catered to their language. German and Swedish Baptists believe exactly the same thing, however. The denominational difference does not reflect a doctrinal difference. And this could be said for many denominations. Missionary Alliance, Mennonites, E-Free, Baptists, Presbyterian, Church of the Nazarene - all hold the same set of fundamental doctrines in common.

The Holy Spirit is either a horrible communicator or he doesn't exist.

LOL! These aren't the only possibilities. That these are the only ones you put forward reveals a serious prejudice on your part against the Christian faith. I don't think you can claim a balanced and reasonable perspective on Christianity with such an obvious and severe antagonistic bias.

The oxymoron I see is the person who judges another Christian and says what the alleged Christian is doing is foolish but then calls himself a "Christ-follower". My interpretation of Matt. 5:22 is that the "Holy Spirit would never give the OK" to judge another Christian in the way that you judged Kala83.

And these are the sorts of erroneous ideas you arrive at when you don't know the Bible well. In fact, the Bible does both allow and urge Christians to judge between right and wrong, between true doctrine and false, and especially to judge the conduct of those who claim to be followers of Christ. You might take a look at 1 Corinthians 5 for an example of what I'm talking about.

Doctrinal disputes have always been a problem for Christians. Just look into a little bit of Church history and you will find that Christians excommunicate and kill one another over doctrinal disputes.

To what are you referring here, exactly? And how long ago did it occur? And did it occur in accord with the commands of Christ?

It is amazing that the all-loving Christian God would allow all these killings amongst one another but then again, I've read the entire bible and know a little about God's character.

LOL! Quite clearly you do not! The God revealed to us in the Bible is not "all-loving." He absolutely hates sin. I guess you must have skipped over the many, many bits of the Bible that talk about this...

I'm just glad you at least live in the new testament era unless you would want to find out where Kala83 lives so you could put her to death like the bible required.

*Sigh* Seriously? Have you actually read the Sermon on the Mount? You know, where Jesus says, "Love your enemies"? Or how about the apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians or his letter to the Hebrews? In them he explains in explicit detail all about how the OT law has been set aside in the New Covenant established through Christ. It seems that while you may have read the entire Bible you understood almost nothing of it.

Selah.

 

[joey_downunder]

Joey Downunder, You've gone beyond being "concerned" for Kala83. You crossed the line by hurting her feelings.

You're jumping to conclusions there.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better
Than love carefully concealed.

What you said was "hurtful" and she even posted a sad face in her post #28.

Do you give only pleasantries and positive words to all people in all circumstances?

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

What a good verse Jude 1:23 is! Maybe you will be "snatched out of the fire" but only if you apologize to Kala83.

How are you - a determined disbeliever - able to convince yourself that you know better than Christians how we are to conduct ourselves towards Christians in error?

Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
But the Lord weighs the spirits.

Matt. 5:23,24 says.......
Unless you think that casting spells is an unforgivable sin then she is still your sister in Christ. You might want to reconcile with her unless "you shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell" (Matt. 5:22)

Typical atheist. Takes verses out-of-context to support their "argument". This passage sounds like un-forgiveness towards someone over a personal matter.
Matthew 5:21-26

I don't know this (assuming) young lady. She has never done me any wrong. I have no un-forgiveness or hatred towards her at all. I do have deep concern for her spiritual walk with Jesus. Concern for another Christian's walk with God is part of Christian love to fellow believers. A foreign concept to an atheist who sounds determined to misunderstand I know.....

2 Cor. 4:3-5 is interesting. Listen Joey Downunder, your gospel is "veiled" to me because, first, you haven't given me your gospel.

My Gospel is the one that the bible teaches- a book you claim to have "read".

But if you did I'm sure other Christians would claim that it is too inclusive or exclusive. The gospel is "veiled" to me because the Holy Spirit is a horrible communicator and I wouldn't even know which gospel to choose because Christians from all different sects have their differing ambiguous proof texts.

Romans 10: 9that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

See Romans chapter 10 for full context.
As far as I know all Christians believe anyone who TRULY believes in Jesus will be saved. I am sure someone like yourself will find a group that differs on that however.

I don't think these verses explain a God who is merciful. Instead, He is going to send "the god of this world" (satan I guess) to "blind my mind" so that I "might not see the light of the gospel".

2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Does that passage say God sent Satan to blind your mind? You want to believe the worst of God.

Proverbs 19:3The foolishness of a man twists his way,
And his heart frets against the Lord.

One last thing. I said I was thankful that you live in the New Testament era so you wouldn't want to kill Kala83. However, I forgot all about the Salem witch trials. If you lived in that time and you played a deciding role in the Salem witch trials, would you kill someone like Kala83 if God told you to?

No I would not because nowhere in the NEW Testament are Christians told to kill their enemy/enemies.

Christians of ANY era who give into feelings and experiences (ignoring what the bible says) are at risk of religious extremism and fanaticism. The Salem Witch Trials are a tragic example of that. Humans of any belief system are capable of that remember, atheists like yourself included.

P.S. I was also a determined disbeliever like yourself (and therefore limit how much time I spend on people like yourself). "Can lead a horse to a water...." Your heart is hardened against God and you know that it is obvious to other Christians to what your motives are in trying to "disprove" the bible.

So you have nearly convinced yourself .... why do you type with such passion against something you shouldn't care much about? Do you have something to fear, something to lose IF you can't continue to mislead yourself about Christianity?

 

[Andy S]

My Gospel is the one that the bible teaches- a book you claim to have "read".

As far as I know all Christians believe anyone who TRULY believes in Jesus will be saved. I am sure someone like yourself will find a group that differs on that however.

It's funny, I have heard the sentence, "My Gospel is the one that the bible teaches" spewed out of the mouth of many Christians. However, it only takes me a few minutes to get these Christians to disagree with one another on the doctrine of salvation. Romans 10 is waaay to vague. Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses would have no problem committing to Romans 10 and you might not think they are saved (I could be wrong). Heck, even Kala83 truly believes in Jesus. You need to be more specific and define (in your terms) "truly believes" and who the person of Jesus is.

And yes, I found a Christian who would disagree with this gospel that you have presented here... and that person is you! The gospel you have given me here is (although vague) too exclusive according to your other posts. In post #29 you wrote to Kala83, "Do you really think that God will receive someone who is continuing to honour other religions".

So your gospel should be: Anyone who "truly believes" in Jesus will be saved and don't honor other religions unless God will not receive you.

This is interesting. Paul said in Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed." I'm pretty sure Paul at least honored
Judaism. All I know is that your gospel is a new one to me and now I'm worried about your walk with Christ. I would hate to see someone so passionate about Christianity be "accursed" because she had the wrong gospel.

Oh well, what do I know. The god of this world has taken away my free will and has "blinded my mind" to the gospel. And yes, sending the "god of this world" or allowing the "god of this world" is the same thing in my eyes. Just read the book of Job. Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18) so he is allowing "the god of this world" to blind my mind. It seems really mean that He would allow the "god of this world" to blind my mind to the gospel and then punish me for eternity for my mind being blind to the gospel.

Anyway, I would love for you to expand on your gospel for me and define some terms in Romans 10 to make it more clear. I love hearing from different Christians on the different ways one can be saved.

No I would not because nowhere in the NEW Testament are Christians told to kill their enemy/enemies.

I could argue that Christians are supposed to be Christ-like and if you think Jesus is the Holy Spirit (the trinity) then it seems it might be OK to kill your enemies since Jesus, a.k.a, the Holy Spirit killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving all their money to the Church. You can make the bible say anything you want since the Holy Spirit is a horrible communicator (but an excellent killer).

 

[joey_downunder]

A few points:

*10 commandments still applicable to Christians. An atheist with basic reading comprehension should be able to link Exodus 20:3-6 with 1 Corinthians 10:14-22.

*Rule of thumb OT "you shall not..." commandments replaced with NT "you shall, you will, you should" ones. Again that takes more reading of the bible itself than the average atheist wishes to do for themself.

*the Gospel is given multiple times throughout the Book of Acts and letters to the early churches. Again if you read those books carefully you should be able to see the very regular message to repent from your sins and believe in Jesus Christ ALONE. e.g. Acts 8:26-40

*If the bible spelled out every single little thing about deviations from what the bible teaches that would occur until Jesus comes again (e.g. regarding deity of Jesus according to JWs, Mormons, Muslims) the bible would be larger than the internet. You are expected to use your brain. General directions are given to help Christian gain discernment. e.g. 1 John 4:1-6

*If a person truly believes in Jesus ALONE they will NOT turn to other religions/ gods for prayer, spells, or any other alternative practice from other non-Christian religions to get prayers answered etc. Do you really *need* the oxymoron of a "pagan god honouring Christian" explained any further to you?

Ephesians 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

* Re what happened in act 5:1-11, can't you read that the Holy Spirit performed the act of judgement, not the apostles? Therefore if God wishes someone to die for whatever reason HE will providentially cause that to happen, therefore all commands to "love our enemies" in the bible are still applicable? Romans 12:17-21
Especially note this verse: 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay" says the Lord.

If you truly cannot understand that passage then are recent education standards really that bad?

P.S. Isn't it time for you to start your OWN thread in Exploring Christianity or Religions section/s if you want your own discussion with Christians?

 

[Andy S]

Yes, recent education standards must be bad when you encourage me to read all these verses to gain an understanding but then you contradict yourself and say I can't understand because my mind is blinded by "the god of this world". That doesn't make any sense. Actually, I do appreciate all the verses. I've got to say that I have been having a great bible study with you. I really have explored Christianity but now I would really like to explore Joey downunder's Christianity. Thanks for taking your time in explaining your gospel a little more to me. So far your gospel has been vague, and now a little confusing. But I can only keep pressing. Maybe my mind has been blinded because I haven't heard the "correct" gospel and maybe that gospel is yours. Maybe all the Christian gospels I have ever heard are wrong and yours is right. It seems strange that it would be explained to me by a woman since the New Testament doesn't stress that a woman has much authority (1 Timothy 2:12) but I have heard this God of yours works in mysterious ways.

A few points:

*the Gospel is given multiple times throughout the Book of Acts and letters to the early churches. Again if you read those books carefully you should be able to see the very regular message to repent from your sins and believe in Jesus Christ ALONE. e.g. Acts 8:26-40

It seems like the most important confession (Acts 8:37) is actually not even in the early manuscripts. I don't know if I can really trust this verse. And why is there even a bracket around this verse? If the all-powerful Christian God went through the trouble of inspiring his word, why wouldn't he go through the trouble of preserving his word? Oh well... off topic.

OK, I read the book of Acts. I'm a little confused. Acts 15:20 says to "abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." This is in the New Testament so if I become a Christian do I have to, for instance, ask if my meat was strangled at every restaurant and grocery store I go to. Verse 28 says "these are essentials". Would you add these "essentials" to your gospel?

*If the bible spelled out every single little thing about deviations from what the bible teaches that would occur until Jesus comes again (e.g. regarding deity of Jesus according to JWs, Mormons, Muslims) the bible would be larger than the internet. You are expected to use your brain. General directions are given to help Christian gain discernment.

I'm not too sure if the bible really teaches that people are expected to use their brains. This seems like a contradiction to me. Prov. 3:5 says that I shouldn't lean on my own understanding.

Your gospel just got really complicated to me. Shouldn't the inspired word of God spell out every deviation especially when it comes to salvation? I mean, an eternal heaven and hell are in the balances.

Maybe you could expand on the deity of Jesus. What is the minimum requirement of belief about the nature of Jesus that is necessary for salvation? I don't want to lean on my understanding. I'll trust that you can "test the spirits". I read Acts but I didn't read anything that I have to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (the one true God) in order to be saved. Maybe you can clear this up for me.

* Re what happened in acts 5:1-11 can't you read that the Holy Spirit performed the act of judgement, not the apostles? Therefore if God wishes someone to die for whatever reason HE will providentially cause that to happen, therefore all commands to "love our enemies" in the bible are still applicable?
Especially note this verse: 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay" says the Lord.

This is confusing and it is probably because my mind is blinded. So God gave us free will because he didn't want robots but if He wishes someone to die for whatever reason He can kill them and take away their free will (as in the case in acts 5). It is mind boggling to me that God chooses to kill people that didn't give His church all their money but He wouldn't kill the rapist that raped and tortured J.C. Duggard for 18 years. Did He enjoy watching this horrible crime for 18 years? It seems like money is more important to Him then protecting His children.

Oh ya, I think we can lay the pagan Christian oxymoron argument to rest now. Good biblical arguments!

 

[joey_downunder]

Yes, recent education standards must be bad when you encourage me to read all these verses to gain an understanding but then you contradict yourself and say I can't understand because my mind is blinded by "the god of this world".

How about you quit complaining that you can't see what Christians see and ask God to open your eyes to what the bible says instead?
Matthew 7:7 [Jesus said] “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you". Full passage Matthew 7:7-12

Or would that require some humility on your part?

Proverbs 19:20 Listen to counsel and receive instruction,
That you may be wise in your latter days.
​

Maybe my mind has been blinded because I haven't heard the "correct" gospel and maybe that gospel is yours. Maybe all the Christian gospels I have ever heard are wrong and yours is right.

Maybe you should stop asking every other Christian for their opinion and get on your knees instead and ask GOD to open your eyes when you read the bible? That might take some *gasp* humility though!

It seems strange that it would be explained to me by a woman since the New Testament doesn't stress that a woman has much authority (1 Timothy 2:12) but I have heard this God of yours works in mysterious ways.

Hmmm, is someone's male ego getting bruised? In context this time, look at the subject title: 1 Timothy 2:8-15
That's right, Men and Women in the Church. You had to leave that bit out didn't you? Who also misleads, omits, takes verses-out-of-context and is "creative" with the truth? John 8:44, Matthew 4:1-11

And go to bible scholar websites re specific bible verses if you genuinely want to learn why some verses were added later.

OK, I read the book of Acts. I'm a little confused. Acts 15:20 says to "abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.".....

Again look at the passage in context. You are now using scripture twisting strategies of the cults. You're not doing very well with keeping THIS commandment:
Exodus 20: 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. Full passage James 2:8-13

I'm not too sure if the bible really teaches that people are expected to use their brains. This seems like a contradiction to me. Prov. 3:5 says that I shouldn't lean on my own understanding.

Are you looking at the bible passage at all? Look at the very next verses:

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
7Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and depart from evil.
8 It will be health to your flesh,
And strength to your bones.

How can you acknowledge God without thinking?
Does "don't be wise in your own eyes" equal "be unthinking, be stupid, be gullible"?

Your gospel just got really complicated to me. Shouldn't the inspired word of God spell out every deviation especially when it comes to salvation? I mean, an eternal heaven and hell are in the balances.

Since you know that your eternal destiny is at stake how about how stop typing and actually read the bible for yourself? Yes the bible does say what is necessary for salvation. Search "salvation" at the bible website I have repeatedly used. Search "eternal life". Search "Jesus God". Honestly it isn't that hard.

And yes it is hard to understand why God is sometimes so merciful to terrible criminals like the one you mentioned. However if he punished all sinners as we deserved none of us would be here.

In the short time I have read your entries from you I have seen deception (verses repeatedly AND deliberately quoted out-of-context), blasphemy (ascribing traits of Satan to God), pride and arrogance, love of sin (masquerading as tolerance)..... if God acted quickly towards all sinners as you wish Him to shouldn't you be quaking in your boots as well?

Proverbs 21:4 A haughty look, a proud heart,
And the plowing of the wicked are sin.

 

[Andy S]

First I have to apologize for my last compliment. When I say, "good biblical arguments", you must think of that as an insult. As a Christian apologist that is probably the worst thing you want to hear from a "mind-blinded" individual. It probably makes you want to rethink your position if a person influenced by "the god of this world" gives you a compliment concerning your bible knowledge.

Matthew 7:7 [Jesus said] “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you".

OK. I humbled myself and asked the Christian God to give me the truth to the Christian gospel. And a still small voice (possibly my conscience) told me to keep pressing Joey downunder to understand the "correct" gospel.

Hmmm, is someone's male ego getting bruised? In context this time, look at the subject title: 1 Tim. 2:8-15
That's right, Men and Women in the Church. You had to leave that bit out didn't you? Who also misleads, omits, takes verses-out-of-context and is "creative" with the truth? John 8:44, Matt. 4:1-11

Hey, did you cast a spell on me. Oh nevermind, you would be hellbound if you did. I know my mind was blind but now my eyes are blind. I have read the whole chapter of 1 Tim chapter 2 and the word "church" is not even in the chapter. Maybe that's why I omitted it. Oh, I know what you mean...some bibles have a heading above sections of the bible to help under educated Christians understand the context. You do know these headings ("subject titles") are not inspired don't you? My heading in my bible reads "A call to prayer". I'll accept the context of "in the church" though. So for example, if your gospel differs from some man's gospel in your church then you have to submit to his gospel. So after I receive your finalized gospel I can grab a man from your church and if he disagrees with your gospel then you have to submit to his authoritative gospel. Wow, I won't even get into verses 13-15 of 1 Tim. 2. There is soooo many things wrong with these verses it sickens me to even talk about them as a secular humanist. When it comes to these verses I hope you are right that my mind is blind because the straight forward reading of these verses makes me wonder how you can even worship this God.

I don't know why you gave me John 8:44. Is it to point out Jesus' hypocrisy? Jesus calling the devil a "murderer" is like the pot calling the kettle black. God's death toll heavily outweighs the devil's in the bible. That makes a lot of sense. Jesus is calling the devil a "murderer" which makes Him a hypocrite and then He kills Annanias and Sapphira for their hypocrisy. You can save your might makes right explanation. It is hard for me to swallow this explanation with the contradictory statement of "God is loving and merciful".

The order of temptations in Matt. 4:1-11 contradicts with the order of events in Luke's gospel. In this example, it seems like the Holy Spirit is misleading and being "creative with the truth" in the order of events (temptations).

And go to bible scholar websites re specific bible verses if you genuinely want to learn why some verses were added later.

I know why some verses were added later. It was because God didn't want to keep his promise in Isaiah 40:8 when He said "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever". If verses were added later then God's "word" did not stand forever. Bart Ehrman has a great book entitled, "Misquoting Jesus" that I highly recommend but most Christians probably don't want to read it because it debunks the notion of an inspired "word of God".

How can you acknowledge God without thinking?
Does "don't be wise in your own eyes" equal "be unthinking, be stupid, be gullible"?

Thinking is a "natural" process of the brain. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" because they are "spiritually appraised". So yes, "don't be wise in your own eyes" equals "be unthinking, be stupid, be gullible" and rely on the "spirit" and not your "natural" brain. Maybe that's my problem... I need to be "unthinking, stupid, and gullible" and then this thick veil might start to peel off my spiritually appraised blinded brain.

Since you know that your eternal destiny is at stake how about how stop typing and actually read the bible for yourself? Yes the bible does say what is necessary for salvation.

Great! I would like to get a clearer understanding on Joey Downunder's gospel. Two things are unclear to me so far in your "correct" gospel.

One problem I had was not answered so I'll ask it again: What is the minimum requirement of belief about the nature of Jesus needed for salvation. In other words, does one have to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (the God of the old testament) in order to inherit eternal life? Or do they just have to believe that Jesus is the son of God without believing that Jesus is the "same substance" as the Father (as in the nicene creed)?

Secondly, you used the term "cult" when referring to the passage in Acts 15. I am confused. Do people have to abstain from blood and from things strangled? Can you biblically explain why you would include or exclude these things from your gospel?

And yes it is hard to understand why God is sometimes so merciful to terrible criminals like the one you mentioned.

It is hard for me to understand why God would hide this understanding from someone so "spiritual" like you. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 2:14 that I'm the only one (the natural man) who cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. You should be able to understand these things.

If God acted quickly towards all sinners as you wish Him to shouldn't you be quaking in your boots as well?

I never said I wish God would act quickly towards all sinners. I was wondering why God would choose killing people who didn't give money to His church over a rapist. I've got to say, I'm not really "quaking in my boots". I don't know if I should be more scared of the Islamic Hell or the Christian Hell. Both places have absolutely no good evidence for their existence.

Proverbs 21:4 A haughty look, a proud heart,
And the plowing of the wicked are sin.

Thanks for all the Proverbs. It's funny that you are giving me advice from a committed fornicator. That aside, I feel like I should return the favor. 1 Cor. 2:14 implies I am a fool because I am a "natural man". However, it's a toss-up as to which Proverb to use.

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

I'll let you choose. They seem contradictory. I don't know if you should answer me but I hope you do. If nothing else, I hope you answer my two questions that deal with your gospel. I need to find out if that still small voice is God's voice or my conscience.

 

[joey_downunder]

Quick points from iTablet:
*did this "still small voice" line up with the bible? Hint: is anyone from the 21st century ever mentioned by name?
* headings are made in some translations, probably to make certain passages easier to identify. Fringe benefit is that it is harder for people like yourself to take it out- of-context.
* repeated use of "you're female...." is a too obvious distraction tactic. Try another one.
* Re answering a fool verses: that depends on what type of fool is being dealt with. You're quite an amusing one in fact.

now on more serious questions:
*Re blood etc. : look at context. Jews were trying to make Gentile believers use their customs and commandments. Blood was also used in pagan cultures. http://www.gci.org/acts/decree2 The issue had to be addressed to remove confusion.
*Bart Erhman has been widely criticized for what he leaves out etc. http://www.apologetics315.com/2013/07/an-analysis-of-bart-ehrmans-misquoting.html
* Re Solomon's right to label actions/ thoughts/ attitudes as sin - was he a believer in God? Was he a repentant sinner? Or was he like yourself?
* I repeat again - if you want to learn the Gospel, if you want to learn what the bible says about salvation, quit using atheist forums, blogs and/or excuses of your own making and read it for *yourself*, but this time with an willingness to learn instead of trying to disprove it to yourself. You are a grownup aren't you?

 

[Andy S]

now on more serious questions:
*Re blood etc. : look at context. Jews were trying to make Gentile believers use their customs and commandments. Blood was also used in pagan cultures. The issue had to be addressed to remove confusion.

Thanks for the link. I love homework. This link did not help with answering my question but I did learn of one more textual variant. The end notes mentions that in some western Greek manuscripts the decree in Acts 15 contains only three ethical admonitions. That is to avoid idolatry, blood and sexual immorality. Strangulation is not mentioned. This is one more piece of evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a very good communicator and cannot preserve His word.

Anyway, I have a hard time reading things when just in the first section of this link I find speculative phrases like, "perhaps", "uncertainties", "may have been", "could have", "may refer", "probably", "possible", "some say", and "others say". I don't care about different theories and their serious weaknesses. I want to know what the BIBLE says about this. Why are there different theories concerning the "essentials" to the first New Testament Church council anyway? Why is this Holy Spirit so unclear? That aside, I think you misunderstood my question.

I'll ask it again: "Do people have to abstain from blood and from things strangled? Can you BIBLICALLY explain why you would include or exclude these things from your gospel. I don't see any BIBLICAL references to "Jews were trying to make Gentile believers use their customs and commandments", "Blood was also used in pagan cultures" and "The issue had to be addressed to remove confusion." Can you give me scripture please?

In addition, you refused to answer my first question again. I'll ask it again: Does one have to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (the God of the old testament-The One True God incarnate) in order to inherit eternal life? Or does one just have to believe that Jesus is the son of God without believing that Jesus is the "same substance" as the Father (as in the nicene creed)?

You say that the bible is clear what is necessary for salvation so these questions should be easy for you.

*Bart Erhman has been widely criticized for what he leaves out etc.

Thanks for the other link. I will be sure to listen to this (possibly tomorrow). I have to tuck my son in. I'll get back to you but I hope it's better than your first link. However, I did learn of another important textual variant so I thank you for that.

 

[joey_downunder]

..... The end notes mentions that in some western Greek manuscripts the decree in Acts 15 contains only three ethical admonitions. That is to avoid idolatry, blood and sexual immorality. Strangulation is not mentioned. This is one more piece of evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a very good communicator and cannot preserve His word.

So the writer/s omitted that detail from that website's discussion, therefore the Holy Spirit of the bible cannot be trusted.... weird "logic" you've got there!

Anyway, I have a hard time reading things when just in the first section of this link I find speculative phrases like, "perhaps", "uncertainties", "may have been", "could have", "may refer", "probably", "possible", "some say", and "others say".

That would be dishonest of them. There is no 1st century AD camera or video footage or eyewitnesses to talk directly to the 21st century researchers. They gather the evidence and provide theories and conclusions they have formed from careful research. And different theories will be formed as new evidence comes to light. It would be concerning if new data wasn't integrated into biblical scholarship wouldn't you think?

I'll ask it again: "Do people have to abstain from blood and from things strangled?"

I ask you to search "blood" on that biblegateway website.
You are starting to sound like you are about to introduce JW's argument against blood transfusions there.
Look for results from Romans onwards (letters to the early churches). Remember rule-of-thumb - NT for Christians.
Are there directions regarding this one specific issue in any other letters to the early churches? If you can find them I would be very interested in them.

There are guidelines for personal conscience however. Does the apostle Paul sound like he is hung up on rules and regulations? Romans 14 , 1 Corinthians 8

In addition, you refused to answer my first question again. I'll ask it again: Does one have to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (the God of the old testament-The One True God incarnate) in order to inherit eternal life?

Yes. e.g. See Exodus 3 and compare John 8:13-59. Why were the Jews about to stone Jesus?

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”


*enter "but JWs, Mormons and Muslims believe very different things about Jesus but they claim to be Christian.... therefore who do I trust ...." atheist tactic*.

Pre-emptive strike: AOMIN website search results for trinity

You say that the bible is clear what is necessary for salvation so these questions should be easy for you.

You are able to come up with all different verses out-of-context to "support" your current position but are "unable" to find salvation results in the bible? Do you think anyone believes that for a second? You're not stupid, we can all see that.

P.S. you bring up the Holy Spirit a lot.... why is that? Do you know lots of Charismatics?

Why don't you ask as many questions about Jesus Christ instead? Are your attempts to discredit Christians who interpret scripture (about the Holy Spirit) differently going to make God suddenly disappear into thin air?

 

[joey_downunder]

The end notes mentions that in some western Greek manuscripts the decree in Acts 15 contains only three ethical admonitions. That is to avoid idolatry, blood and sexual immorality. Strangulation is not mentioned. This is one more piece of evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a very good communicator and cannot preserve His word.

I decided to recheck. You must have sped-read waaaaay too fast.

3rd paragraph.

3) Strangled things. Perhaps meat from strangled animals was forbidden because blood remained in the meat, but if that is the only reason, it would not seem necessary to mention strangled things in addition to blood......

Approx 1/2 way down.
The mention of strangled meat is especially puzzling, for either theory. Is avoiding strangled things just as important as avoiding sexual immorality? Neither the Old Testament nor the New gives strangled things that much importance. ......

approx. 2/3.

What about strangled things? Origen wrote that blood, including that in strangled meat, was said to be the food of demons: "If we were to eat strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us."39 Scythians and Indians were known to strangle their animals, but most Greek cults bled the sacrifices, so the "strangled things" prohibition doesn't fit perfectly. But strangling was a pagan custom in Alexandria, and old Macedonian cults killed without bleeding the animals.40.......


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but please be more careful next time.

Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

P.S. it could be argued by some that the Holy Spirit made me decide to double-check you know.....

 

[Andy S]

I decided to recheck. You must have sped-read waaaaay too fast.

3rd paragraph.

3) Strangled things. Perhaps meat from strangled animals was forbidden because blood remained in the meat, but if that is the only reason, it would not seem necessary to mention strangled things in addition to blood......

Approx 1/2 way down.
The mention of strangled meat is especially puzzling, for either theory. Is avoiding strangled things just as important as avoiding sexual immorality? Neither the Old Testament nor the New gives strangled things that much importance. ......

approx. 2/3.

What about strangled things? Origen wrote that blood, including that in strangled meat, was said to be the food of demons: "If we were to eat strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us."39 Scythians and Indians were known to strangle their animals, but most Greek cults bled the sacrifices, so the "strangled things" prohibition doesn't fit perfectly. But strangling was a pagan custom in Alexandria, and old Macedonian cults killed without bleeding the animals.40.......


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but please be more careful next time.

Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

P.S. it could be argued by some that the Holy Spirit made me decide to double-check you know.....

You have got to be kidding me. I am in the middle of listening to all the logical falacies in this ridiculus MP3 link you gave me that misrepresents Bart Ehrman and you don't even know what a textual variant is. Did you even listen to this MP3 that you gave me?

Ok, the "endnotes" start off saying, "In some western Greek manuscripts...". Do you know what a Greek manuscript is? Greek was the original language that was used to write the New Testament. We have in our possession thousands of Greek Manuscripts and scholars use these manuscripts to try to figure out what the original authors of the New Testament actually wrote since we don't have any original copies of the New Testament. And can you believe that the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. Jesus), would allow there to be accidental and intentional mistakes in these documents? Yep, hundreds of thousands. So when the endnotes say that there were only three ethical admonitions, it means that strangulation was left out of some of these early Greek manuscripts that are used to produce the New Testament. I can't believe you thought it meant that strangulation was left out of this website's discussion.

I can't help but laugh but I thought it was funny since I was listening to the MP3 you gave me which is about textual variants and Greek manuscripts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn't listen to this MP3 and you don't know what a textual variant is.

I even gave you evidence that I read at least the first part of the website discussion. Remember I gave you the speculative phrases, "Perhaps", "uncertainties", "may have been", and "may refer". These words are all in paragraph 3 entitled "strangled things".

I would love to re-use Proverbs 18:17 and then tell you to be more careful next time. Then I could make fun of your argument for the Holy Spirit and give you a "winkie smiley" but I won't be haughty. A wise man once said, "Whosoever exalts himself will be humbled". I just feel bad you went through the trouble and time to type this post. This really was a funny coincidence. I'll get to your other post when I'm done listening to the MP3 and research the other sources you gave me (hopefully tomorrow).

 

[joey_downunder]

quick entry from iTablet:

*you made the claim that strangulation was not covered in that article. That was disproved. Word games not permitted.
*Maybe you could start a discussion about discrepancies in Greek texts in "exploring Christianity" section.
* I also think I read or listened to that link about Ehrman's book quite a long time ago.
* textual variants topic: Fighting for the Faith: Can We Trust the History in the New Testament Documents?

It is time for you to start your own thread. The OP has long departed after all all. Try to make it a subject *you* genuinely want to learn about as a matter of courtesy.

On a personal note it has been quite enjoyable conversing with an intelligent atheist like yourself. However debating for debating's sake is best left to the professionals and I am not one of them. I hope you soften your heart towards God.

 

[Serendipity..]

........

 

[aiki]

I could argue that Christians are supposed to be Christ-like and if you think Jesus is the Holy Spirit (the trinity) then it seems it might be OK to kill your enemies since Jesus, a.k.a, the Holy Spirit killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving all their money to the Church.

God (the Holy Spirit) has a unique right as the Creator of Ananias and Sapphira (and everyone else) to take the life He has given them. It is for this reason He acts to end the life of Ananias and Sapphira rather than commanding one of the apostles to do so. This stands in perfect accord with God's words given through the apostle Paul who said,

Romans 12:19
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Here God reserves the right of vengeance to Himself, the One who always judges rightly and who, by virtue of who He is, possesses the supreme right to enact judgment upon the wicked, which is what He did with Ananias and Sapphira.

You're right, though, you can make the Bible say almost anything - just as you demonstrate above. Is this a flaw in the Bible? No, the Bible is actually surprisingly clear in its doctrines and themes - if you take the whole counsel of Scripture in arriving at your understanding of what it is saying. Immediate context in particular aids tremendously in clarifying what is meant. If, however, your desire is to warp and twist Scripture to suit your own ends, or you are just too lazy to bother to understand what you're reading in its full context, then misunderstanding easily occurs. This is not the fault of the Bible, though, but of the person reading it.

The apostle Paul also warns that the spiritual matters laid out in Scripture are largely a mystery to those the Holy Spirit has not enlightened.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

From all that you've written in this thread, you appear very much to be the "natural man" of whom Paul is writing in the above verses. It is no wonder, then, that the Bible seems as it does to you.

You can make the bible say anything you want since the Holy Spirit is a horrible communicator (but an excellent killer).

But this isn't what you've shown. All you've demonstrated is that you can take the Scriptures out of context and manipulate them to say something they don't actually say. What you choose to do with Scripture is no fault of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, Joey_downunder, I would urge you to cease your exchange with Andy S. He is merely baiting you rather than trying to get at the truth of things. Pearls before swine and all that.

Selah.

 

[Andy S]

quick entry from iTablet:

*you made the claim that strangulation was not covered in that article. That was disproved. Word games not permitted.

Why are you doing this to yourself. You are harming your reputation and making yourself look foolish. You had plenty of time to re-read my posts and now I can only conclude that you have broken the 9th commandment. However, I will "answer a fool according to (her) folly lest (she) be wise in (her) own conceit as Proverbs 26:5 suggests. Why would you say I'm using word games? I read your ridiculous link and gave you proof that I read the strangulation part by giving you exact phrases from the paragraph. Then I told you that the "end notes" to your link pointed out that strangulation was omitted from some western Greek manuscripts. You did know that the link you gave me had a section called "end notes" didn't you? So here is how you can prove to me (and the readers of this forum) that I am an "amusing fool". Finish the sentence, "Andy S is playing word games because he made the claim that strangulation was not covered in that article I provided him. His exact quote was, ".........". If you can't finish that sentence then I would say that you owe me an apology. May the power of the Holy Spirit be with you. I was ready to let by gones be by gones. Who cares that you made a mistake. We are all human beings and we all make mistakes. Just own up to them.

Thanks for some insight into a little more of your gospel. I would love to see you share your gospel with a possible convert. From what I have gathered so far from your gospel the witnessing process would go something like this:

Joey Downunder: Hi, would you like to hear the good news of the simple and clear gospel of Jesus Christ presented in this inspired word of god - the bible? In other words, would you like to be saved?

Possible convert: Saved from what?

Joey Downunder: Saved from the punishment of Jesus if you don't accept His gospel.

Possible convert: How do I become saved from His punishment.

Joey Downunder: Ok, first things first, if you accept this gospel you cannot honor any other religions. God will not accept you.

Possible convert: OK. I like intolerance. Tell me more!

Joey Downunder: Next you have to truly believe in Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. He was sent by His Father to die on the cross for your sins. This Father is Jesus' God like it says here in Mark 15:34 and John 20:17 and this God is the one true God (John 17:3). But even though it says that Jesus has a God you also have to believe that the Son (Jesus) is also actually the Father (Yahweh) unless you won't inherit eternal life. And even though it says that the Father is greater than the Son here in John 14:28, you have to believe that Jesus is actually God-incarnate. And I know it says here in Mark 13:32 that Jesus is ignorant of the timing of his second coming but He is still God-incarnate. This might be a little confusing to you but that is because you are "spiritually appraised" as of right now. You have to just believe that Jesus is God-incarnate even though it might not seem that He is and then the veil will come off of your spiritually appraised blinded mind. However, If you don't believe that Jesus, who is the Son, is also actually the Father, then you will go to hell. Do you have any questions?

Possible convert: That all makes sense. One question. It says here in Acts 15:29 that it is "essential" to the new testament church that I should abstain from blood and from things strangled. Can you biblically explain to me why this does or does not pertain to the new testament church today?

Joey Downunder: No I cannot biblically explain this but I will guide you to a few 21st century internet links. You see, scholars gather the evidence concerning this topic and provide speculative theories and conclusions they have formed from careful research. And different speculative theories are formed as new evidence comes to light. As of now (as you will see from these links), these theories have many shortcomings and uncertainties. You might ask why God just didn't make this clearer in His inspired word but don't worry about this. These essentials are only mentioned once in His Holy word and the criteria is that when things are only mentioned once, you don't have to worry about them even though they are considered "essentials". If you are interested I can explain to you some of the cults in Christianity today. You see, some cults don't accept the speculative theories of orthodoxy and that's one of the reasons they are called cults.

Possible convert: Ok, that makes sense.

Joey Downunder: If you accept this clear gospel you will be considered to be in the body of Christ. Once you are part of the body of Christ then you will see that God is not a God of confusion like it says here in 1 Cor. 14:33. So what do you say, do you want to jump on board?

Now a convert: Well, I am "unthinking, stupid and gullible" so yes, count me in.


Hey Joey Downunder, you might be interested to know that the Baptist church my Dad is part of would not agree with the fact that it is a necessary requirement for salvation that one has to believe that Jesus is Yahweh. It is a southern Baptist church and their statement of faith is copied from sbc.net. I can't link it to you because I don't have 50 posts. You will see that under the category of salvation this is not a requirement. You could make the case that it notes one must accept Jesus as Lord but by Dad (who is an elder) says that one could also have an understanding that Jesus was made Lord by God like it says in Acts 2:36. His church's argument is that there is not a clear verse that makes it a requirement for salvation to believe that Jesus is Yahweh. Some other convincing arguments is that if you truly believe this then you couldn't believe that any of the lost souls were saved in any Billy Graham crusade because he never mentioned this requirement in his altar calls. Also, my dad's church would argue that Zaccheus didn't have this understanding when Jesus said "Salvation has come to this house" in Luke 19:9. There are many more arguments and would be happy to give them to you if you wish.

So I don't know who would be considered "accursed" in Paul's eyes (Gal. 1). Is the baptist Joey Downunder "accursed" in Paul's eyes or is my baptist Dad "accursed" in Paul's eyes. On the other hand, I have even heard some baptist pastors say that one has to believe in the trinity to be saved. I know this caused much debate at my Dad's church but they finally settled it (although you wouldn't agree with their conclusion). This issue is clearly not settled in the baptist denomination as much as you or aiki wish to believe. Just like the issue of calvanism vs. armeneism is not settled in the denomination.

This reminds me. I don't know if you knew this but God has given us a glimpse into the throne room of heaven and we have a recording of God the Father and Jesus clearing up the Trinity for everyone who is confused. Go to U-tube and enter in "Mr. Deity and the identity crisis". (I can't link it)

By the way, the ambiguous verse of John 8:58 does not say that it is a necessary requirement to believe Jesus is God. I don't even know if this is saying that Jesus is God. Did the blind man say that he was God when he said "I am" in John 9:9? It is the same statement Jesus made in the original Greek. I don't really care but I'm just saying you have not given me a verse yet that makes it a requirement for salvation to believe that Jesus is Yahweh.

* I also think I read or listened to that link about Ehrman's book quite a long time ago.

I have listened to some decent and honest criticism against "Misquoting Jesus" but this MP3 was not decent or honest. This was painful to listen to. For instance, about the 50th or 51st minute into it the gentleman says that Ehrman's book is "full of faulty arguments" and then he turns right around and says that "from a human perspective, we are actually uncertain about the text of the new testament. But that doesn't mean the text is uncertain". WHAT? That's like saying, "from a human perspective the earth is round, but that doesn't mean it's round. I did get a kick out of one of his logical fallacies. About the 34th or 35th minute he said that Bart Ehrman notes that there are 400,000 textual variants in the new testament. This sounds to extreme to Christians. The gentleman points out that there are 2.5 million pages of new testament documents. He said Bart Ehrman should have divided the variants into the 2.5 million pages and that would result in 1 textual variant in 6.25 pages. He calls Bart Ehrman "naughty" because 400,000 textual variants sounds worse than 1 textual variant per 6.25 pages out of 2.5 million pages. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. I can't believe you made me listen to this. I have nothing more to say about this and can only tell you to read the book for yourself and make your own judgements.

It will definitely make you look at the bible in a new spotlight. Another good book is "Jesus interupted". You should know your enemies arguments. You should always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...".

On a personal note it has been quite enjoyable conversing with an intelligent atheist like yourself.

I have also found this quite enjoyable. I have appreciated your bible knowledge (not so much your links). I hope it continues as I would like to find out more about your gospel. That still small voice (possibly my conscience) is saying press on. I have learned something. I have learned that some baptists in Australia disagree with some baptists in the U.S. on the doctrine of salvation.

I will tell you that if you respond to this that I will respond back. I am a man who always has to have the last word. I am sure you could find a proverb that rebukes that personality trait. I will make an exception to this - I won't respond if you want to just apologize for your conceitedness and for incorrectly saying that I was playing word games.

P.S. When you want to hold your bible up like a gun and say to people like Kala83 and myself that we are going to hell for our sins, just know that the gun is not loaded.

 

[Lollerskates]

God (the Holy Spirit) has a unique right as the Creator of Ananias and Sapphira (and everyone else) to take the life He has given them.

Yea, I think people forget He is a God, the King of Gods actually - Most High. Technically, He can do whatever He wants to do - from giving us candy rained down from the sky, to painful and brutal torture by His very hand. The fact that He provides for us, maintains this rock for survival that we are flying on at 67,000 MPH through space, is patient, loves us, etc. vindicates His goodness. He doesn't ask for a sacrifice every new moon, or year (like Molech, Isis, Diana, Zeus, Enki & Enlil, etc.) In fact, He gave His own Son for a sacrifice. Gods don't bow to us; we bow to them. And yet, He doesn't even ask we do that (in terms of ridiculous displays of allegiance by physical only.) We are given permission to approach the Most High's Throne.

Of all the things to believe in this world (things that can be seen with open eyes,) I do not understand why someone wouldn't choose to believe/have faith that s/he is a child of the Most High God created for a purpose known to Him before the foundation of the world - entitled to an inheritance through salvation and remission of sins through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. That is much more believable than being born randomly, from nothing but a soup of elements, to marine animals that came upon land, to other animals who are our closest of kin - to humans (all without a missing link or explanation for consciousness, and why nature endows us with one) - all over billions of years. Of course it would take that long (near infinite time is needed for that theory it is a common quantum mechanical statistics problem that shows given enough time, monkeys can re-write a Shakespearean Play on a typewriter. Anything is possible with a lot of time. Miracles like abstractions (love, consciousness, joy, pain) and a longing to connect with one's creator (atheist, agnostic or otherwise) are not works of some random process rooted in entropy-violating laws and chaos theory. Or, maybe it is just me, and all of my philosophical spouting is a thing of foolish men...

Anyway, Joey_downunder, I would urge you to cease your exchange with Andy S. He is merely baiting you rather than trying to get at the truth of things. Pearls before swine and all that.

Selah.

I 100% agree Joey_downunder.

 

[Andy S]

Gods don't bow to us; we bow to them.

This implies that you have more than one God. I believe as a Christian you are only supposed to have one God. Joey downunder made some great points in this thread to show that you are well on your way to hell.

Of all the things to believe in this world (things that can be seen with open eyes,) I do not understand why someone wouldn't choose to believe/have faith that s/he is a child of the Most High God created for a purpose known to Him before the foundation of the world - entitled to an inheritance through salvation and remission of sins through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. That is much more believable than being born randomly, from nothing but a soup of elements, to marine animals that came upon land, to other animals who are our closest of kin - to humans (all without a missing link or explanation for consciousness, and why nature endows us with one) - all over billions of years.

I tend to side with the overwhelming majority of geneticists, biochemists, zoologists, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, ecologists, comparative anatomists, physiologists and ecologists when it comes to this topic. I trust the scientific method as a way to gather truth more than any other method known to man. There is a lot of evidence of common descent. Just wikipedia "Evidence of common descent" (I can't link it because I don't have 50 posts) and then maybe look into transitional fossils. The most convincing evidence to me comes from the study of gene sequences. We are only one chromosome off from having the same number of chromosomes as chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only have 23 pairs and this is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Why would God (or Gods) allow there to be so much evidence on this planet that scientifically favors the idea of evolution and an old earth that is billions of years old? Oh, I know, it's Satan. I prefer to use logic and reason and trust educated scientists on this topic rather than trust a contradictory creation story. You do know that Genesis chapter 1 is contradictory with Genesis chapter 2 don't you?

 

[Lollerskates]

This implies that you have more than one God. I believe as a Christian you are only supposed to have one God. Joey downunder made some great points in this thread to show that you are well on your way to hell.

So you completely ignored the context of my post, and missed the entire point, then isolate something that you try to use as leverage on the say of where my soul is going - all with a straight [internet] face...no sarcasm? Are you sure its me that on the way to hell? You better check your position of judgment and start paying attention.

Yea, I think people forget He is a God, the King of Gods actually - Most High. Technically, He can do whatever He wants to do - from giving us candy rained down from the sky, to painful and brutal torture by His very hand. The fact that He provides for us, maintains this rock for survival that we are flying on at 67,000 MPH through space, is patient, loves us, etc. vindicates His goodness. He doesn't ask for a sacrifice every new moon, or year (like Molech, Isis, Diana, Zeus, Enki & Enlil, etc.) In fact, He gave His own Son for a sacrifice. Gods don't bow to us; we bow to them. And yet, He doesn't even ask we do that (in terms of ridiculous displays of allegiance by physical only.) We are given permission to approach the Most High's Throne.

The whole context of the paragraph is that people act like The Most High owes them something, whether it be proof of His existence, wealth, happiness, removal of a sin, and so on. The Most High, and no "god" for that matter, owes any son of man anything - and most of us have the audacity to get mad at the Most High because He doesn't make our life like we want it. It is vanity, and that is why I said "Gods don't bow to us [humans,] we bow to them" to highlight that it is unfathomably arrogant and ignorant for sons of man to demand anything from any magistrate - low or The Most High. Maybe you hate Christianity because you don't understand anything the bible says. You struggle with mine and Joey_Downunder's post context; I can't imagine you being confident in knowing what the bible says, especially considering it is almost imperative to understand Greek and Hebrew language and idioms of that time.

I tend to side with the overwhelming majority of geneticists, biochemists, zoologists, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, ecologists, comparative anatomists, physiologists and ecologists when it comes to this topic. I trust the scientific method as a way to gather truth more than any other method known to man. There is a lot of evidence of common descent. Just wikipedia "Evidence of common descent" (I can't link it because I don't have 50 posts) and then maybe look into transitional fossils. The most convincing evidence to me comes from the study of gene sequences. We are only one chromosome off from having the same number of chromosomes as chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only have 23 pairs and this is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Did you actually do any of the experiments that are part of the conclusions of the ToE? Have you actually read all of the scientific papers on ToE? Have you read enough to make a critical decision on ToE - enough scholarly support and criticism? Have you actually majored in any of the sciences that are paramount to understanding the ToE? Have you received a doctorate or even baccalaureate in any of these fields? Have you actually seen a fossil up close - and seen the proper carbon dating testings done to verify age? Do you understand the strengths and weakness of radiodating? Do you understand that radiation can change half-lives? Do you realize a scientist is also human, and is capable of lying, deceiving, and being plain wrong.

I became a physicist because your hand is in every other scientific discipline except biological sciences. So, I supplemented my degree with biophysical modeling, biological sciences, physical chemistry, and nuclear physics. I am well aware of many of the parts of the ToE, and I have repeated many of these experiments in laboratory. In my seminar classes, we frequently discuss possible (and probably) fallacies and problems with the ToE and its many pieces. I am ambivalent on the ToE; it isn't part of my field necessarily, but I have read enough papers, seen enough scholarly criticism, and been in academia long enough to have a great idea of what is going on politically and scientifically with ToE.

Now, as far as why I am so against just accepting a scientist's word for something, it is simple. Many scientists are bought, compromised, and downright lie. Whoever supplies the grant money directs the research; scientists aren't the "bosses" of the labs - the money is. This is why there is ample research for one thing, and no research for another. It isn't because there aren't enough scientists, it is because there is no grant money. Very little of this money comes from public funds, and most all times grant money comes from government funds, it is synonymous with "private" funds. Another thing is scientist skew toward a political side - so much so, that lead scientists may sway data in favor of certain politics (whether coerced, or willingly.) This happened with the hacked e-mails concerning climate change. It is ridiculous to me that any human would put their scientific and intellectual futures in the hands of another human - at least without investing ample intellectual research for one's self. In other words, there is no excuse for believing a scientist who is corrupt and wrong, for example, because your excuse is "s/he is the expert, and I am not." Bollocks. MIT has open courseworks on most all disciplines in college. Learn it for yourself - then the knowledge will be more valuable, and you will have the power of self verification on your side. Or, just be a follower and listen to someone because they are an "expert," have "Ph.D" behind their names, and/or wear a lab coat.

Why would God (or Gods) allow there to be so much evidence on this planet that scientifically favors the idea of evolution and an old earth that is billions of years old? Oh, I know, it's Satan. I prefer to use logic and reason and trust educated scientists on this topic rather than trust a contradictory creation story. You do know that Genesis chapter 1 is contradictory with Genesis chapter 2 don't you?

It kills me when people say "...use logic" as if God is illogical, or His creative ways, judgment, etc. There's that "I am a god, so I know better than the Most High" mentality. Somehow, you cant humble yourself to realize human logic cannot compare to Divine "logic."

The earth is old - it says that in Genesis 1:1. It was made at the same time Heaven was made, and before The Most High makes "time" - before He designates the definition of a day. And, what evidence is there on this planet that scientifically favors ToE? What scientist tell you? Fossils studied by radiodating? Radiodating under the right conditions can be variable for radionucleides. Genesis 1 is not contradictory to genesis 2: you really do not read the bible as study, or you have a fetish for just listening to people. The very short description of the creation story begins in Genesis 1:1, and ends in Genesis 2:3. Then, the story from Genesis 2:4 - Revelation 22:21 is the very detailed creation - with Christ's Kingdom as the seventh day of rest (in the future.) Genesis 2:4 begins with "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth." From there, it describes in detail God making trees, how it didn't rain, but there was just a mist like the rainforest, and the creation of the first man - Adam. He did not make two sets of people - one to just be, and one to bring about Christ. Adam was the first man. God mapped out the entire creation, prophecies, and future events in the stars. The Hebrews used these for symbols and signs, but it became a pagan pollution turned into astrology for divination primarily.

You are very, very confused about a lot of things in the bible, and you are projecting your frustration on people that do not agree with you, or who are offended by your seeming ignorant and offensive ways of conveying your messages. I think I am going to follow aiki's advice also, and leave you alone - it is pointless and neither of us are benefiting from any exchange.

 

[forGod1]

Found this quote and it sums it up perfectly:

“The number one cause of atheism is Christians. Those who proclaim Him with their mouths and deny Him with their actions is what an unbelieving world finds unbelievable.”

Read through your own forums without your 'goggles of righteousness' on. Please explain to me why any sane or intelligent person who lives a good and compassionate life, who has been blessed with everything they need and more would choose the path of Christians? Seems to me that all it brings is stupidity, an incredible and false sense of self importance, a excuse to sin and a life filled with problems and issues?

you're in trouble.