NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm thinking along the lines that RhynoD's argument "style" would be more hinderance than help here. At least Neo's feelings don't appear to get hurt when or if there's an assumption of a difference in intellectual capability (at least none that really stood out to me - one of the only objections has been regarding dubiousness on Neo's integrity as a "christian"). RhynoD is LIKE (note: METAPHOR {har! I KILL ME!}) the inevitable consequence of a full meal.
Note again: respects to "ALF"

Agreed.

I just think that, if you are going to argue that the world started 6000 years ago, with two dimwits, and a reptile... you need all the help you can get. :)

Agreed.

I just think that, if you are going to argue that the world started 6000 years ago, with two dimwits, and a reptile... you need all the help you can get. :)
Fair 'nuff, i'm an avid supporter of imagination and its pursuits .... ;)
:gundge:

Exactly... the system requires a piece of paper, so you have to get one... but anyone who goes to college EXPECTING to be taught something, is missing the point... and will, most likely, fail.

You go to a college because it is a place where you can become 'qualified'... and that means, you can acheive the requirements of qualification... i.e. pass some tests, score an attendence... that kind of thing.

I doubt anyone really relies on the college for their education... it's just 'where they go' while they become more educated.

"Teachers open the door for you,
but you must enter yourself."
-Chinese proverb

Not true.

Do you believe in Purple Squirrels? You might do NOW that I have said it... but just before you read it, there was not even the concept of purple squirrels anywhere in your head (probably).

Thus - just before you read it, you didn't 'believe' in Purple Squirrels.

Now that you have become acquainted with the concept of 'purple squirrels', you might think they are a cool idea, but consider that there is NO evidence for you to change your world view, to accomodate them. Thus, you STILL don't believe in Purple Squirrels.

You didn't CHOOSE not to believe... you just didn't see any reason why you should.

Well, to me - 'gods' are like Purple Squirrels. People may talk about them.. and OTHER people may believe in them... but I have never seen one, and see no reason why they should take up any of my time. I don't have any 'belief' that gods exist.

I don't necessarily believe they DON'T exist... I just don't accept that they DO.right on. well said.

"Teachers open the door for you,
but you must enter yourself."
-Chinese proverb

There is probably a rule somwhere, that states something along the lines of:

If you can think of something, that you can express in one hundred words..... some chinese philosopher already did it in ten.

:)

There is probably a rule somwhere, that states something along the lines of:

If you can think of something, that you can express in one hundred words..... some chinese philosopher already did it in ten.

:)

"Zen" ;)

Originally Posted by Willamena
There is no such thing as an absence of belief. Knowledge of a thing requires at least one base belief: its existence, true or false. That you've chosen to not believe, that's fine. But beliefs about a thing are never absent
Not true.

Do you believe in Purple Squirrels? You might do NOW that I have said it... but just before you read it, there was not even the concept of purple squirrels anywhere in your head (probably).

Thus - just before you read it, you didn't 'believe' in Purple Squirrels.

Now that you have become acquainted with the concept of 'purple squirrels', you might think they are a cool idea, but consider that there is NO evidence for you to change your world view, to accomodate them. Thus, you STILL don't believe in Purple Squirrels.

You didn't CHOOSE not to believe... you just didn't see any reason why you should.

Well, to me - 'gods' are like Purple Squirrels. People may talk about them.. and OTHER people may believe in them... but I have never seen one, and see no reason why they should take up any of my time. I don't have any 'belief' that gods exist.

I don't necessarily believe they DON'T exist... I just don't accept that they DO.
I don't believe in purple squirrels on your say-so. That equates to "belief that the existence of purple squirrels is true = false." It is still a belief. When I see a purple squirrel, I'll believe in it: then it will be "belief that the existence of purple squirrels is true = true."

I don't believe in purple squirrels on your say-so. That equates to "belief that the existence of purple squirrels is true = false." It is still a belief. When I see a purple squirrel, I'll believe in it: then it will be "belief that the existence of purple squirrels is true = true."
i think you are playing fast and loose with the definition of "belief." everything a human thinks is a "belief," in the way you describe it, but i think Graves (and most of the rest of us) are trying to use "belief" to indicate something a little more descriptive.

I don't have any 'belief' that gods exist.

I don't necessarily believe they DON'T exist... I just don't accept that they DO.
i think you are playing fast and loose with the definition of "belief." everything a human thinks is a "belief," in the way you describe it, but i think Graves (and most of the rest of us) are trying to use "belief" to indicate something a little more descriptive.
There are only two states possible of existence: things exist or they don't.

There are two possible states of knowledge: we know about things, or we don't.

Belief does not similarly have two states. The idea of "I believe or I don't" is grammatically an abbreviation of "I believe they exist or I don't believe they exist"; it assumes a 'true' resolution for the thing believed in. All things known are known to exist.* Therefore, if you "do not believe they exist," then their existence is not a known.

This doesn't excuse you from having a belief! It's not a belief that they do or not exist, but it's is a belief that their existence is unknown.


*Going to get metaphysical here and point out that existence does not equate to reality. Read this as "All things known to be real and true exist" if you prefer.

There are only two states possible of existence: things exist or they don't.

There are two possible states of knowledge: we know about things, or we don't.

Belief does not similarly have two states. The idea of "I believe or I don't" is grammatically an abbreviation of "I believe they exist or I don't believe they exist"; it assumes a 'true' resolution for the thing believed in. All things known are known to exist.* Therefore, if you "do not believe they exist," then their existence is not a known.

This doesn't excuse you from having a belief! It's not a belief that they do or not exist, but it's is a belief that their existence is unknown.


*Going to get metaphysical here and point out that existence does not equate to reality. Read this as "All things known to be real and true exist" if you prefer.

Wrong on almost all counts, I'm afraid.

There are many more states of existence than simply 'is' and 'is not' - and we can only actually 'prove' ONE of THOSE states... and THAT is a contingent proof, at best.

Also - 'I don't believe they exist' is not equivalent, though you APPEAR to be implying so... to "I believe they DON'T exist".

Skipping straight to the end "all things known to be real and true exist" doesn't hold true. You COULD argue that 'hope' is both real, and true... yet you cannot verify it's existence.

Indded, what one person SAYS they feel as 'hope', may be 'joy' in another.

Just because something is 'real', and or 'true', doesn't equate with 'existence'.

Take the electron in the Tunnelling Electron Microscope, as an example...

There are many more states of existence than simply 'is' and 'is not'
Like what?

Also - 'I don't believe they exist' is not equivalent, though you APPEAR to be implying so... to "I believe they DON'T exist".
No, I didn't suggest that those were equivalent; just the opposite, in fact.

Skipping straight to the end "all things known to be real and true exist" doesn't hold true. You COULD argue that 'hope' is both real, and true... yet you cannot verify it's existence.
But you (the subject) know that that hope exists. That knowledge exists. Things subjectively "real" have an existence that is verifiable only by the individual, the subject. If they can be verified by others, then they are automatically objectively real.

Indded, what one person SAYS they feel as 'hope', may be 'joy' in another.
Right. Subjective things have little significance (I would say none, but that's just me) relative to another subject.

Just because something is 'real', and or 'true', doesn't equate with 'existence'.
If something is real and true, then it really is something; therefore, it truely exists as that something. If hope is real and true, then it really is hope. It exists as hope. We can mislabel (misidentify) hope, but then its reality is not true; it is a mistaken belief. But that doesn't mean that real true hope isn't hope.

Take the electron in the Tunnelling Electron Microscope, as an example...
Don't know that one, sorry.

Like what?

No, I didn't suggest that those were equivalent; just the opposite, in fact.

But you (the subject) know that that hope exists. That knowledge exists. Things subjectively "real" have an existence that is verifiable only by the individual, the subject. If they can be verified by others, then they are automatically objectively real.

Right. Subjective things have little significance (I would say none, but that's just me) relative to another subject.

If something is real and true, then it really is something; therefore, it truely exists as that something. If hope is real and true, then it really is hope. It exists as hope. We can mislabel (misidentify) hope, but then its reality is not true; it is a mistaken belief. But that doesn't mean that real true hope isn't hope.

Don't know that one, sorry.

Okay - here is an example of something being 'real' and 'true', and how you define it's existence.

In the Tunnelling Electron Microscope, an 'electron' approximates the surface of a material.... but, acting as both a wave and a particle, the 'wave form' of the particle, at some points, is in direct conflict with some of the particles being studied.

Thus - although the 'electron' is 'real' (i.e. measurable), and 'true' (i.e. observable) at (theoretically) each point of it's journey.. it doesn't always 'exist' at every point of it's journey.

And you call that fair because...?
Do you really think it's fair for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't? And I do not have the idea that God hates everyone non-christian, I DO have the idea that there are some idiots that think that and call themselves "christians".

Fair?? who said anything about God being fair???? He's a benevolent, loving God but he is by no means fair, and there is no reason for him to be. GOD is NOT your friend he will eat your face off if you go against his will. your choices on this earth will be adressed after death and you will pay for your sins. UNLESS you accept the sovereignty of Christ as your Savior and master and truly live for HIM.

Fair is a man made word, something that has been growing only over the most recent 2000 years. I'm sick of people whining about what is and isnt fair. No it isn't fair but does that matter one bit? NO

Okay - here is an example of something being 'real' and 'true', and how you define it's existence.

In the Tunnelling Electron Microscope, an 'electron' approximates the surface of a material.... but, acting as both a wave and a particle, the 'wave form' of the particle, at some points, is in direct conflict with some of the particles being studied.

Thus - although the 'electron' is 'real' (i.e. measurable), and 'true' (i.e. observable) at (theoretically) each point of it's journey.. it doesn't always 'exist' at every point of it's journey.
Well, I can't affirm or deny that that's how I define its existence, since I can't really follow all of this. Why does it not exist "at every point of its journey"?

Well, I can't affirm or deny that that's how I define its existence, since I can't really follow all of this. Why does it not exist "at every point of its journey"?
Because it is not measurable nor observable at every point … nor can path or any other attribute be predicted, it in essence does not exist only to re-exist at a later point

Becomes a grey area on if it exists … in essence it doesn’t but its “pattern” is not lost.

Gets into Schrodinger's cat territory

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

Because it is not measurable nor observable at every point … nor can path or any other attribute be predicted, it in essence does not exist only to re-exist at a later point

Becomes a grey area on if it exists … in essence it doesn’t but its “pattern” is not lost.

Doesn't it skip back and forward in time or something?

Doesn't it skip back and forward in time or something?

It's like measuring the location and momentum of balls on a frictionless billiard table by shooting a ball into the mix and watching where it goes.

Yes, you realize you bounced off of a particular ball at some point, but the fact that your ball hit that other ball has changed the position and momentum of the ball you wanted to measure.

Doesn't it skip back and forward in time or something?
There is a theory of non constraint of quantum particles … which allow for them to appear at any given location … (time being one measure of location) but as of yet its all theoretical as far as I can tell

There is a theory of non constraint of quantum particles … which allow for them to appear at any given location … (time being one measure of location) but as of yet its all theoretical as far as I can tell

I love this stuff. I only just learned of blue-shifted sheets of infinite energy inside black holes for examples. :)

I love this stuff. I only just learned of blue-shifted sheets of infinite energy inside black holes for examples. :)
Theoretically infinite potential energy :D

Theoretically infinite potential energy :D

Too bad it's stuck in a black hole, and only created by an extreme warp of space-time.

Fair?? who said anything about God being fair???? He's a benevolent, loving God but he is by no means fair, and there is no reason for him to be. GOD is NOT your friend he will eat your face off if you go against his will. your choices on this earth will be adressed after death and you will pay for your sins. UNLESS you accept the sovereignty of Christ as your Savior and master and truly live for HIM.

Fair is a man made word, something that has been growing only over the most recent 2000 years. I'm sick of people whining about what is and isnt fair. No it isn't fair but does that matter one bit? NO

Get over yourself. Take every reference to the word "fair" in Heikoku's post there, and replace it with "good". Or "just". God is just, correct? We're all agreed that God is (or at least should be) just? Everyone? You in the back?

...

Good.

Now:

And you call that just because...?
Do you really think it's just for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't?

You may answer :)

Too bad it's stuck in a black hole, and only created by an extreme warp of space-time.
Problem is it has infinite potential energy but not infinite length (proton decay)

Problem is it has infinite potential energy but not infinite length (proton decay)

I prefer zero-point energy anyway.

Problem is it has infinite potential energy but not infinite length (proton decay)

Attempting to tap it would probably violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principal too. If you could theoretically disrupt it, it might become no-energy (instantly leaving our universe, and appearing to be drained of energy) or it might set off a massive untamed release of energy (destroying our universe.)

No I don't really know what I'm talking about but it's fun to think about.

Because it is not measurable nor observable at every point … nor can path or any other attribute be predicted, it in essence does not exist only to re-exist at a later point

Becomes a grey area on if it exists … in essence it doesn’t but its “pattern” is not lost.

Gets into Schrodinger's cat territory

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

Indeed.

But, for the layman - the most important part of my description was that the particle is, theoretically, in the SAME PLACE as another particle for at least some of the journey.

The problem is basically one of having two bodies occupying the same space at the same time. Definitely real, definitely true - but how does it 'exist'.

BUMP
(No sh*t, it really finally got interesting! Too bad it had to {red-}shift WAY off another direction)

And you call that just because...?
Do you really think it's just for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't?
You may answer ;)


Go see post 306. I dont know how many times this has been dealt with. As of yet you have failed to provide any sensable countor other than "Wa Wa! It doesnt let EVERYONE in! Wa Wa!"

Go see post 306. I dont know how many times this has been dealt with. As of yet you have failed to provide any sensable countor other than "Wa Wa! It doesnt let EVERYONE in! Wa Wa!"

I don't think that is true, Neo.

I don't recall the post itself, but I seem to recall that it was based ENTIRELY on a set of assumptions that YOU have made... and that, without those assumptions, it is utterly insupportable.

I am half-tempted to go read the post, and trash it in more detail... but you have a bad habit of ignoring such things, and presenting the same tired arguments 20 pages later as though nothing had ever happened.

So - I'll save myself some time... it was a flawed argument, and insupportable.

That's your cue to wait ten pages...

Go see post 306. I dont know how many times this has been dealt with. As of yet you have failed to provide any sensable countor other than "Wa Wa! It doesnt let EVERYONE in! Wa Wa!"

I'll bite. Again.

To be accepted by God you need to believe truely the following things

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.

Now, given that your view of reality is entirely correct, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is written into the underlying fabric of the universe (and understand that this is one hell of a given): your first step and fifth steps are easy; everyone does the first, and most people manage the fifth.

But steps two through four are rather specialized: non-Christians (to say nothing of many sects of modern Christianity) will not and do not, for the most part, adhere to them. Hindus, Buddhists, many Muslims (although my knowledge of Islamic doctrine is sadly lacking) and the non-religious are damned eternally, since your 5 steps are the only road to salvation, and the only other option is Hell. God's solution for the woes of humanity is saving maybe 40% of the population of the modern world, with Christianity as widespread today as it ever has been.

If, as you claim, these 5 steps were universal truth and a realization that any person could reasonably expect to come to independantly, one would expect more of a pattern in world religion over the past 2000 years; one would expect this doctrine of reliance on God's mercy, unavoidable sin, and so forth to be present in more religions, throughout the world.

Your beliefs are unjust because they demonstrably do not apply to those who lack the good fortune to be born into a specific environment. It is unjust because it requires logical leaps that are not born out by the evidence of the senses, and are not hardwired into our brains. It is unjust because it is demanding that we, humanity, reach and ask for help in a very specific way from a being who has given us no externally verifiable clues as to his existence, and because failure to do so results in infinite punishment. It is unjust because the simple operation of the human conscience, according to you, is insufficient, despite it being the only internal guide we have to follow.

Rambly and long-winded... and saying almost nothing that hasn't been said elsewhere in this thread. I'm sure someone else could put all this more succinctly.

I'll bite. Again.



Now, given that your view of reality is entirely correct, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is written into the underlying fabric of the universe (and understand that this is one hell of a given): your first step and fifth steps are easy; everyone does the first, and most people manage the fifth.

But steps two through four are rather specialized: non-Christians (to say nothing of many sects of modern Christianity) will not and do not, for the most part, adhere to them. Hindus, Buddhists, many Muslims (although my knowledge of Islamic doctrine is sadly lacking) and the non-religious are damned eternally, since your 5 steps are the only road to salvation, and the only other option is Hell. God's solution for the woes of humanity is saving maybe 40% of the population of the modern world, with Christianity as widespread today as it ever has been.

If, as you claim, these 5 steps were universal truth and a realization that any person could reasonably expect to come to independantly, one would expect more of a pattern in world religion over the past 2000 years; one would expect this doctrine of reliance on God's mercy, unavoidable sin, and so forth to be present in more religions, throughout the world.

Your beliefs are unjust because they demonstrably do not apply to those who lack the good fortune to be born into a specific environment. It is unjust because it requires logical leaps that are not born out by the evidence of the senses, and are not hardwired into our brains. It is unjust because it is demanding that we, humanity, reach and ask for help in a very specific way from a being who has given us no externally verifiable clues as to his existence, and because failure to do so results in infinite punishment. It is unjust because the simple operation of the human conscience, according to you, is insufficient, despite it being the only internal guide we have to follow.

Rambly and long-winded... and saying almost nothing that hasn't been said elsewhere in this thread. I'm sure someone else could put all this more succinctly.
You ROCK.
....the order of Heikoku appears to be restored....
Petitions?

I'll bite. Again.

Now, given that your view of reality is entirely correct, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is written into the underlying fabric of the universe (and understand that this is one hell of a given): your first step and fifth steps are easy; everyone does the first, and most people manage the fifth.

But steps two through four are rather specialized: non-Christians (to say nothing of many sects of modern Christianity) will not and do not, for the most part, adhere to them. Hindus, Buddhists, many Muslims (although my knowledge of Islamic doctrine is sadly lacking) and the non-religious are damned eternally, since your 5 steps are the only road to salvation, and the only other option is Hell. God's solution for the woes of humanity is saving maybe 40% of the population of the modern world, with Christianity as widespread today as it ever has been.

It obviously doesn't have to be that way, that's what missionaries are for... to help people who don't know about the aformeentioned steps.



If, as you claim, these 5 steps were universal truth and a realization that any person could reasonably expect to come to independantly, one would expect more of a pattern in world religion over the past 2000 years; one would expect this doctrine of reliance on God's mercy, unavoidable sin, and so forth to be present in more religions, throughout the world.

Unless you believe in an evil force (Satan) that hijacks the religions of the world, many of which were founded on the knowledge of a monotheistic God, and turns them to an evil purpose.



Your beliefs are unjust because they demonstrably do not apply to those who lack the good fortune to be born into a specific environment. It is unjust because it requires logical leaps that are not born out by the evidence of the senses, and are not hardwired into our brains. It is unjust because it is demanding that we, humanity, reach and ask for help in a very specific way from a being who has given us no externally verifiable clues as to his existence, and because failure to do so results in infinite punishment. It is unjust because the simple operation of the human conscience, according to you, is insufficient, despite it being the only internal guide we have to follow.

Rambly and long-winded... and saying almost nothing that hasn't been said elsewhere in this thread. I'm sure someone else could put all this more succinctly.

How can it be unjust to require somebody to make a leap of faith? Just because it's not always logical doesn't mean that people don't do it. Anyone can make a leap of faith and believe something, whether it is "hardwired into their brain" or not. Asking people to submit to that so-called irrational leap is not unjust. If God had to prove Himself to you, your acceptance of Him would mean nothing... the same way your acceptance of the things around you means nothing.

Hell is tragic. The fact that it is eternal is infinitely tragic. Hell is also infinitely avoidable. If all the people like this poster who have rejected God on a technicality would spend their vast energies working to save others, the likelihood of people going to hell would be a lot less!

Go see post 306. I dont know how many times this has been dealt with. As of yet you have failed to provide any sensable countor other than "Wa Wa! It doesnt let EVERYONE in! Wa Wa!"
No, you have yet to argue against it. How can it be just for a finite crime to be punished infinitely? You have a problem of mutual exclusion.

It obviously doesn't have to be that way, that's what missionaries are for... to help people who don't know about the aformeentioned steps.


Except that, this omnipresent god, somehow doesn't get the message out to EVERYONE... thus deliberately condemning hundreds of millions to Hell, because he doesn't feel like making personal appearances... relying, instead - on mere mortals, who can't possibly reach EVERYONE.

Not to mention the fact that many children die before they even master language, so can have no WAY of being 'saved'... since they can never even hear the 'message', let alone make the leap of faith.


Unless you believe in an evil force (Satan) that hijacks the religions of the world, many of which were founded on the knowledge of a monotheistic God, and turns them to an evil purpose.


Which religions were based on the knowledge of a monotheistic god? Christianity and Islam are both descendents of Judaism, which started out as a polytheistic faith. Notice - you said "FOUNDED ON"... and all three of those religions descend from the early polytheistic faith of the Hapiru, or Hebrew.

Thus - your main religions that are 'founded on' the knowledge of a monotheistic god, are ACTUALLY founded on the knowledge of polytheistic gods.


How can it be unjust to require somebody to make a leap of faith? Just because it's not always logical doesn't mean that people don't do it. Anyone can make a leap of faith and believe something, whether it is "hardwired into their brain" or not. Asking people to submit to that so-called irrational leap is not unjust. If God had to prove Himself to you, your acceptance of Him would mean nothing... the same way your acceptance of the things around you means nothing.

Hell is tragic. The fact that it is eternal is infinitely tragic. Hell is also infinitely avoidable. If all the people like this poster who have rejected God on a technicality would spend their vast energies working to save others, the likelihood of people going to hell would be a lot less!

How can it be 'just' to require people to make a leap of faith, when the tools required are not always presented?

To be 'just', every person would have to know of the requirements, and would have to be acquainted with AT LEAST the 'concept' of Jesus, of 'god', and of 'salvation'.

To be truly 'just', that knowledge should be in-born... it shouldn't be waiting for the appearance of a missionary... and even the smallest child should understand.

If that knowledge ISN'T available on an in-born basis, ans ISN'T capable of being understood by an infant - then there is NO WAY for many people to achieve 'salvation'... thus god CHOOSES to leave many to be condemned... which does NOT sound like the action of a 'just' or 'loving' god.

No, you have yet to argue against it. How can it be just for a finite crime to be punished infinitely? You have a problem of mutual exclusion.

You fail to understand the punishment. What hell is, is everywhere that heaven isnt. Without God's grace in the world, it degrades rapidly to something with hell like qualitys. How about I flip your question on its head, how is it fair for God to reward infinately for finite comitment?

I don't think that is true, Neo.

I don't recall the post itself, but I seem to recall that it was based ENTIRELY on a set of assumptions that YOU have made... and that, without those assumptions, it is utterly insupportable.

I am half-tempted to go read the post, and trash it in more detail... but you have a bad habit of ignoring such things, and presenting the same tired arguments 20 pages later as though nothing had ever happened.

So - I'll save myself some time... it was a flawed argument, and insupportable.

That's your cue to wait ten pages...

You say that without reading it. Its based on Christian assumptions nautrally as its what Christians believe. What I am asking you is, is there anything bibilcaly unfair about it.

You fail to understand the punishment. What hell is, is everywhere that heaven isnt. Without God's grace in the world, it degrades rapidly to something with hell like qualitys. How about I flip your question on its head, how is it fair for God to reward infinately for finite comitment?

Very true, Neo - it does seem arbitrary that a supposedly benevolent god would accept you for an eternity of bliss, or condem you for an eternity of damnation... just based on a few words and gestures, in one short human lifetime.

Very well put.

Makes me wonder if that was what you MEANT to say...

Now, given that your view of reality is entirely correct, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is written into the underlying fabric of the universe (and understand that this is one hell of a given): your first step and fifth steps are easy; everyone does the first, and most people manage the fifth.

But steps two through four are rather specialized: non-Christians (to say nothing of many sects of modern Christianity) will not and do not, for the most part, adhere to them. Hindus, Buddhists, many Muslims (although my knowledge of Islamic doctrine is sadly lacking) and the non-religious are damned eternally, since your 5 steps are the only road to salvation, and the only other option is Hell. God's solution for the woes of humanity is saving maybe 40% of the population of the modern world, with Christianity as widespread today as it ever has been.

So, your basicly saying its to exclusive?


If, as you claim, these 5 steps were universal truth and a realization that any person could reasonably expect to come to independantly, one would expect more of a pattern in world religion over the past 2000 years; one would expect this doctrine of reliance on God's mercy, unavoidable sin, and so forth to be present in more religions, throughout the world.

Your beliefs are unjust because they demonstrably do not apply to those who lack the good fortune to be born into a specific environment. It is unjust because it requires logical leaps that are not born out by the evidence of the senses, and are not hardwired into our brains. It is unjust because it is demanding that we, humanity, reach and ask for help in a very specific way from a being who has given us no externally verifiable clues as to his existence, and because failure to do so results in infinite punishment. It is unjust because the simple operation of the human conscience, according to you, is insufficient, despite it being the only internal guide we have to follow.

Rambly and long-winded... and saying almost nothing that hasn't been said elsewhere in this thread. I'm sure someone else could put all this more succinctly.

God does not have to "provide evidence". He did it. He doesnt need to make it obvious to you if he did it. Lets say you went to the shops to get a bottle of wine on the night that your partner (who was waiting in the house) was attacked by a burgler who broke in. Wouldnt it look a bit wired if you went out of the way to the shopkeeper at the off-licence "My name is (insert your name here) I am buying this bottle of wine at (insert time here), so you remember". Wouldnt that look like you had a hand in it? Certianly it would look strange. God doesnt prove to you what he has done. He has DONE it. Why should he have to make it any more obvious. Because you cant deal with it? Because there are people who cant deal with it? Thats why there are Christians around the world working to spread his word and what he did.

Very true, Neo - it does seem arbitrary that a supposedly benevolent god would accept you for an eternity of bliss, or condem you for an eternity of damnation... just based on a few words and gestures, in one short human lifetime.

Very well put.

Makes me wonder if that was what you MEANT to say...

What I meant to say is that you pecieve that we dont deserve hell. I percieve we dont deserve heaven. By human standards this may not make sense, but to God it does. God is just. He may still weep at what is required but he will not be unjust with sin. You say its unfair that all sin comes from Adam, I say its unfair that all sin is saved by Jesus. Bottom line being is that there are two sides to the suposed "unfairness" your talking about. You make Christianity seem so unfair and it is. Unfair to Jesus. The only man to lead the perfect life had it brutally and horrificaly destroyed. Look and see, this is not "unfair" to one group. Its "unfair" to all, in the same way.

I hope you two don't mind if I jump in here. If you do just ignore. I really believe that the concept of hell in human understanding has changed and evolved. But ultimately for anyone who believes in a Creator heaven must bring us closer to our Creator. What could more wonderful than for the lover to near the Beloved. In the first statement below Baha'u'llah speaking with the authority of God says that heaven is nearness to God.


They say: 'Where is Paradise, and where is Hell?' Say: 'The one is reunion with Me; the other thine own self,

(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 132)



The immortality of the spirit is mentioned in the Holy Books; it is the fundamental basis of the divine religions. Now punishments and rewards are said to be of two kinds. Firstly, the rewards and punishments of this life; secondly, those of the other world. But the paradise and hell of existence are found in all the worlds of God, whether in this world or in the spiritual heavenly worlds. Gaining these rewards is the gaining of eternal life. That is why Christ said, "Act in such a way that you may find eternal life, and that you may be born of water and the spirit, so that you may enter into the Kingdom."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 323)

In Britain at least (Dont know about USA) there is a law protecting the disruption of places of worship.

Unlike Britian, we have freedom of speech here in the US.

Unlike Britian, we have freedom of speech here in the US.

We have freedom of speech, but its diffrent. I would imagine in the US if a Muslim or group of Muslims were to walk into a church in the middle of a service and start insulting Christianity, the police could be used to get them to leave.

We have freedom of speech, but its diffrent. I would imagine in the US if a Muslim or group of Muslims were to walk into a church in the middle of a service and start insulting Christianity, the police could be used to get them to leave.

Yes, they certainly would and should be used to remove the offenders. I would hope and expect that police would be used if Chrisitians did the same to Muslims.

What I meant to say is that you pecieve that we dont deserve hell. I percieve we dont deserve heaven. By human standards this may not make sense, but to God it does. God is just. He may still weep at what is required but he will not be unjust with sin. You say its unfair that all sin comes from Adam, I say its unfair that all sin is saved by Jesus. Bottom line being is that there are two sides to the suposed "unfairness" your talking about. You make Christianity seem so unfair and it is. Unfair to Jesus. The only man to lead the perfect life had it brutally and horrificaly destroyed. Look and see, this is not "unfair" to one group. Its "unfair" to all, in the same way.

No - I agree with you.

It is unreasonable to expect that people deserve heavan OR hell, based on the short period of time they spend on this earth - with variations even in THAT, due to accidents, disease, etc.

I don't say it is 'unfair that all sin comes from Adam' - because I don't believe it does - not even within the confines of the bible. And, there is so much evidence supporting the fact that human life DOESN'T just come from two vegetarian dimwits, that there is no reason to believe Adam as the cause of sin, OUTSIDE of the confines of scripture.

Christianity is JUST like every other religion... it wants it's people to be somehow better than any others. It wants to feel that it ALONE has the right path to god... that it ALONE will have access to a perfect afterlife, and that it ALONE will avoid the torment of hell.

I just don't buy it. There are so many religions, and ALL claim to be the inspired word of god, and all have their holy books, and their religious histories. Some have better stories than Christianity... for example, they don't claim that all life started 6000 years ago, or whatever.

To me - ALL religions are equally valid. And, none of them show any evidence of being 'true'.

Regarding Jesus, as a sinless man - it seems unlikele that that is true... or, in fact, that that makes him especially different.

By THAT token... every abortion is ACTUALLY equivalent to messiah... since EVERY abortion must 'die' sinless? They do not even have original sin (for the catholics out there), since they haven't been 'born' of sin.

In fact, thinking about it... the LOGICAL path for 'christians' to take, would be to encourage abortion... since it guarantees more pure souls...

Regarding the DEATH of Jesus - if you think it was 'unfair', you have missed the ENTIRE point of the New Testament. Jesus lived to die. It was his only reason for coming to earth, so that sins could be absolved in his blood.

Of course - the simple fact that he was killed, means he was NOT Messiah, as I showed in one of the other threads... but that is still WHY he was here, no?

Yes, they certainly would and should be used to remove the offenders. I would hope and expect that police would be used if Chrisitians did the same to Muslims.

That certianly would be the case. Is there a law in the US that protects places of religious worship from disruption?

That certianly would be the case. Is there a law in the US that protects places of religious worship from disruption?

There are the general trepass laws that would work just fine. And there are laws about hate crimes that may work, depending upon the circumstances.

No - I agree with you.

It is unreasonable to expect that people deserve heavan OR hell, based on the short period of time they spend on this earth - with variations even in THAT, due to accidents, disease, etc.

I never claim to know exactly how heaven and hell will work. All I can tell you are the basics. Christian - heaven, Non-Christian - hell. See post 306 for more explination


Christianity is JUST like every other religion... it wants it's people to be somehow better than any others. It wants to feel that it ALONE has the right path to god... that it ALONE will have access to a perfect afterlife, and that it ALONE will avoid the torment of hell.

I just don't buy it. There are so many religions, and ALL claim to be the inspired word of god, and all have their holy books, and their religious histories. Some have better stories than Christianity... for example, they don't claim that all life started 6000 years ago, or whatever.

To me - ALL religions are equally valid. And, none of them show any evidence of being 'true'.

Smacking of postmodernism there "everyone's right" idea. Contary to popular belief, everything is not reletive. But anyway, I was'nt discussing Christianity reletive to other faiths. I was discussing it reletive to the logic that everyone else likes.


By THAT token... every abortion is ACTUALLY equivalent to messiah... since EVERY abortion must 'die' sinless? They do not even have original sin (for the catholics out there), since they haven't been 'born' of sin.

In fact, thinking about it... the LOGICAL path for 'christians' to take, would be to encourage abortion... since it guarantees more pure souls...

And more killings. The Bible does not support using force on other people to stop them sinning (unless you want to quible with cemantics of parental dicipline)


Regarding the DEATH of Jesus - if you think it was 'unfair', you have missed the ENTIRE point of the New Testament. Jesus lived to die. It was his only reason for coming to earth, so that sins could be absolved in his blood

You missed my point. I was talking from the perspective of those who think hell is unfair somehow. Surely by their logic (good should be rewarded with good) then Jesus's life makes no sense.


Of course - the simple fact that he was killed, means he was NOT Messiah, as I showed in one of the other threads... but that is still WHY he was here, no?

I'm not sure why? Its his death that is our salvation. He broke the sin death cycle. Now because of his death and resurection, we too can be resurected at the end.

Ok I will explain this to you

Reason for "Nice" athiest to go to hell and for "Bad" Christian to go to heaven

To be accepted by God you need to believe truely the following things

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.


There's the problem, Neo.

An Atheist, no matter how 'good' is not going to accept that there is a god.

God knows this... and can apparently forgive ANY sin (except blasphemy against the holy spirit) so, WHY does he CHOOSE not to forgive the 'sin' of Atheism?

It shouldn't matter to 'him' whether or not one meager human actually believes in him... he can't be THAT insecure, that he feels the need to be worshipped by EVERY SINGLE one of his creations?

Now - for the atheist...they can accept that they have done bad things, and they can accept that they have to do something about it, and they can carry out atonement. But they CANNOT accept the need for forgiveness from 'god', because he is a fiction... it would be like the 'christian' begging forgiveness from Strawberry Shortcake.

The question is WHY would 'god' decide that there was this need for 'belief'? Why is THAT the important part to him? That doesn't make any sense.

'He' supposedly created the whole world, and all that is in it.

'He' supposedly created the kingdom of heaven, and the pits of hell.

'He', supposedly decided what the entry requirements for each of those two 'afterlives' were going to be.

WHY would a benevolent god decide that you MUST accept the (possibly deranged) musings of yet another Hebrew 'Messiah' figure, and ignore all the OTHER possible Messiahs... as the MAIN requirement of getting into one afterlife rather than the other?

He hates sin? So why not just reward those who do not sin?

He loves everyone - so why not just reward all equally?

I never claim to know exactly how heaven and hell will work. All I can tell you are the basics. Christian - heaven, Non-Christian - hell. See post 306 for more explination


You donm't even know the basics, Neo. You have an idea, which is largely insupported by scripture - and you are mistaking it for truth.


Smacking of postmodernism there "everyone's right" idea. Contary to popular belief, everything is not reletive. But anyway, I was'nt discussing Christianity reletive to other faiths. I was discussing it reletive to the logic that everyone else likes.


I don't think that everybody is right, Neo.

I think they are all equally WRONG.

'Christianity' shows me no better reason to believe it true, than any of the other religions... thus, I assume it, like all others, is a fiction.

Do YOU believe in the Hindu gods? No? Why?

The same reason I don't believe in 'your god'.

The problem is, Neo - that you THINK you are arguing in terms of 'logic', but have actually based your ENTIRE logic structure on your assurance that the 'christian' myth MUST eb the right one.

How about if the Hindus are right? Where does your 'logical' deduction fit THAT possibility?

Thus - you start with a flawed assumption... so your argument is baseless.


And more killings. The Bible does not support using force on other people to stop them sinning (unless you want to quible with cemantics of parental dicipline)


On the contrary, the bible is very big on killing. Especially children.

Perhaps you'd like to read it again. (Assuming you've actually finished it the first time, by now).

Disobedient children are to be stoned to death, witches are to be killed, members of other Semitic tribes are not to be allowed to live... the bible is FILLED with killing.


You missed my point. I was talking from the perspective of those who think hell is unfair somehow. Surely by their logic (good should be rewarded with good) then Jesus's life makes no sense.


Jesus' life DOES make no sense. I didn't claim it DID make any sense. The only reason to think it DID make any sense, would be if you believe he served a higher purpose - which is illogical, and certainly a flawed premise from which to START your reasoning.

Occam teaches that we should start with the most LIKELY possibility, and work from there. Thus, Jesus was a normal man, UNTIL you prove otherwise.


I'm not sure why? Its his death that is our salvation. He broke the sin death cycle. Now because of his death and resurection, we too can be resurected at the end.

Jesus isn't Messiah, as defined by the Hebrew prophets who actually set up the REQUIREMENTS for 'Messiah'. If Jesus doesn't meet THEIR requirements... why believe he is 'Messiah'?

He hates sin? So why not just reward those who do not sin?


Because everyone has sinned. Everyone. That is why a system was created to remove sin. Hence God can reward those without sin.


He loves everyone - so why not just reward all equally?

He did. The Cross was for ALL HUMANS. ALL HUMANS can accept it. The diffrence comes when humans refuse to accecpt. God has put out his hand to save you. You just have to grab it.


Now - for the atheist...they can accept that they have done bad things, and they can accept that they have to do something about it, and they can carry out atonement. But they CANNOT accept the need for forgiveness from 'god', because he is a fiction... it would be like the 'christian' begging forgiveness from Strawberry Shortcake.

If I dont believe that my elecrictiy comes from the electricity company, does that give me any special treatment when they cut of my power for non payment of bills. Just believing that God does not exist does not somehow change the reality of your situation.

Because everyone has sinned. Everyone. That is why a system was created to remove sin. Hence God can reward those without sin.


Prove it. Prove that everyone has sinned. The ONLY support you can claim is that the bible says so - but that wasn't written two thousand years ago - so how can you expect it to cover people born SINCE then?

Have I sinned?

Prove it.... if you can't, all you have is conjecture.


He did. The Cross was for ALL HUMANS. ALL HUMANS can accept it. The diffrence comes when humans refuse to accecpt. God has put out his hand to save you. You just have to grab it.


YOU believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins.

Personally, I see no reason to EVEN believe that he lived... let alone died on a 'cross'. Doesn't seem like a very GOOD basis for the case of acceptance.

And, again - he doesn't offer his hand to ALL, so how can he be a just and benevolent god?


If I dont believe that my elecrictiy comes from the electricity company, does that give me any special treatment when they cut of my power for non payment of bills. Just believing that God does not exist does not somehow change the reality of your situation.

You fall into your own trap.

You are trying to pay the Electricity company for your gas and water, your car insurance and your McDonalds Happy Meal...

Just believing in god, doesn't change the reality of your situation.

Here you are Neo, the proof that Jesus is NOT Messiah.

As previously posted, by me, at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8354116#post8354116 - Post #474.


The Book of Habakkuk 3:13 (in the Tenach) says "You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck…"

That means that 'Messiah' cannot be killed, not by mortal intervention.

Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Angels would physically intervene to stop harm coming to Messiah.

Those are the prophecies of 'messiah'.

If Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of Messiah, then he IS NOT Messiah... therefore, 'elect' or not... you aren't saved, because Messiah hasn't been here yet.

Prove it. Prove that everyone has sinned. The ONLY support you can claim is that the bible says so - but that wasn't written two thousand years ago - so how can you expect it to cover people born SINCE then?

Have I sinned?

Prove it.... if you can't, all you have is conjecture.



YOU believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins.

Personally, I see no reason to EVEN believe that he lived... let alone died on a 'cross'. Doesn't seem like a very GOOD basis for the case of acceptance.


STOP THIS NOW

Im starting to get rearly cross with you now GI. You keep doing this and I keep explaining it to you and you keep doing it. I am not trying to prove Christianity true. What I am doing is explaining what Christianity is. You asked a few genuine questions about Christianity earlier. I have answered them and then you said "YOU CANT PROVE THAT! THE BIBLE IS ALL FICTION! Wa! Wa!". Stop jumping outside the arguement. I cant prove any of this to you certainly, thats why its called faith. What I am attempting to do is to explain Christianity to you in terms of itself. That all I ever do. I dont ever claim to be able to prove it true or certain, just that it makes sense in terms of itself (IE, its not self contridictory or stupid like most people here seem to think. If you would actually take a look at what I am attempting to do you would start to see it makes sense. At the moment this is what you are doing

GI: So what about X problem with Christianity

NC: X problem is explained by Y explaination

GI: YOU CANT PROVE Y EXPLINATION TRUE! IT'S FROM THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE IS FAKE etc

I never claimed to be able to prove it for certianty, just that it makes sense in terms of itself. Would you please stop trying to support your arguements by saying "there is no certian eveidence". Of course there is no certian evidence, its faith.


And, again - he doesn't offer his hand to ALL, so how can he be a just and benevolent god?

He does. The offer of salvation is available for all. Its just not everyone takes it up.


You fall into your own trap.

You are trying to pay the Electricity company for your gas and water, your car insurance and your McDonalds Happy Meal...

Just believing in god, doesn't change the reality of your situation.

How exactly does this metaphor work? I dont understand.

You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck

Nowhere in that verse does it say that he cannot be killed. The salvation could easily be refering to the resurection. Or the wicked could be devils. Nor does it specify who the "annointed one" is. Seeing as Jesus was not "annoited" in the traditional sense of the word (Oil, horn etc) then it may not be refering to him

Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

"Thy dwelling" being Heaven. Jesus wasn't in heaven when he was killed.

Here you are Neo, the proof that Jesus is NOT Messiah.

As previously posted, by me, at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8354116#post8354116 - Post #474.

The Book of Habakkuk 3:13 (in the Tenach) says "You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck…"

That means that 'Messiah' cannot be killed, not by mortal intervention.

Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Angels would physically intervene to stop harm coming to Messiah.

Those are the prophecies of 'messiah'.

If Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of Messiah, then he IS NOT Messiah... therefore, 'elect' or not... you aren't saved, because Messiah hasn't been here yet.


You're misreading these. Let me post them.

***
Habakkuk 3:12-13
"In wrath you strode through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations. You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one. You crushed the leader of the land of the wickedness, you stripped him from head to foot."
***

This chapter is about the power of God. He had delivered Israel from Cushan and Midian, and from the other people standing in their way in Canaan. The verse you're referring to is about Pharoah and how God freed the Israelites. I think you're confusing what "anointed one" is talking about. It's not about the Messiah (i.e. Jesus), it's about the anointed NATION Israel. This is shown throughout the rest of the chapter, and is even in the verse itself (your people).

As for the Psalm, this is sort of interesting. The Psalm isn't exclusively Messianic- God watches over me and you with angels as well. However, this is just interesting because this Psalm is referenced a little bit in the New Testament. Let's see where.

***
Luke 4:9
The devil led Jesus to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written:

"'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
***
Satan was tempting Jesus to test God's faithfulness. He misused scripture.

Here's another reference.
***
Matthew 26:50-54
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
"Put your word back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
***
See? He had the power to call on the angels, he just didn't, so that he could be crucified and save the world. And fulfill the scriptures. The psalms you're referring to didn't DEMAND that angels come to save Jesus. It wasn't like, "The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, and angels will save him if he's in trouble." The angels certainly could have saved him, but Jesus had to do God's Will.

That is a harsh attempt, and in my opinion, someone that wants to actively dispute the grounds of Christianity. In Heikoku's book, all Christians are psuedochristians.

The Book of Habakkuk 3:13 (in the Tenach) says "You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck…"

That means that 'Messiah' cannot be killed, not by mortal intervention.


No - Talk about adding something to the text that isnt there Grave.


Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Im reminded of when the Devil quoted Psalm 91:11,12 when tempting Jesus in Matthew 4. Also Matthew 26:53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

The Prophets promised that the Messiah would die. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 being very popular.

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king is coming to you: he is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey (Zechariah 9:9).

He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant (Isaiah 53:3).

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, pay me my wages, but if not, forget it.” So they weighed out my payment—thirty pieces of silver. The Lord then said to me, “Throw to the potter that exorbitant sum at which they valued me!” So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the temple of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13).

"I offered my back to those who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face from insults and spitting" (Isaiah 50:6).

But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth (Isaiah 53:4-7).

They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully (Isaiah 53:9).

So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels (Isaiah 53:12).

If I dont believe that my elecrictiy comes from the electricity company, does that give me any special treatment when they cut of my power for non payment of bills. Just believing that God does not exist does not somehow change the reality of your situation.

Not believing electricity comes from the company isn't too hard to imagine if the company's excistence is never made clear aside from some random people telling you about several different companies, and the only communication you having with the company is the disconnection.
If I get power, without knowing where it comes from, and with no idea if, how, who and how much I am to pay for it, and no-one complained about my non-payments up to the last moment, how am I to blame for not believing in the power company?

STOP THIS NOW

Im starting to get rearly cross with you now GI. You keep doing this and I keep explaining it to you and you keep doing it. I am not trying to prove Christianity true. What I am doing is explaining what Christianity is. You asked a few genuine questions about Christianity earlier. I have answered them and then you said "YOU CANT PROVE THAT! THE BIBLE IS ALL FICTION! Wa! Wa!". Stop jumping outside the arguement. I cant prove any of this to you certainly, thats why its called faith. What I am attempting to do is to explain Christianity to you in terms of itself. That all I ever do. I dont ever claim to be able to prove it true or certain, just that it makes sense in terms of itself (IE, its not self contridictory or stupid like most people here seem to think. If you would actually take a look at what I am attempting to do you would start to see it makes sense. At the moment this is what you are doing

GI: So what about X problem with Christianity

NC: X problem is explained by Y explaination

GI: YOU CANT PROVE Y EXPLINATION TRUE! IT'S FROM THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE IS FAKE etc

I never claimed to be able to prove it for certianty, just that it makes sense in terms of itself. Would you please stop trying to support your arguements by saying "there is no certian eveidence". Of course there is no certian evidence, its faith.

He does. The offer of salvation is available for all. Its just not everyone takes it up.

How exactly does this metaphor work? I dont understand.

Oh, am I upsetting you, Neo?

I think you are misreading me... when I say that 'everyone sins' isn't current - that isn't stepping outside the bible... it's allowing for the fact that EVEN IF THE BIBLE WAT TRUE 2000 years ago, on this issue - there have been 2000 years of people on this planet SINCE then... that are not described in the ALL HAVE SINNED.... Sure - most of them probably have sinned... but how does the bible say that all have, when they are born AFTER the bible was written?

It's still within the dogma of christianity - but this arrives AFTER the revelation of the word... so how does 'the word' cover it?

By the way - Neo... I have never used 'the bible is fiction' as a response. When it has arisen I have pointed out that I THINK it is probably largely fictional... but that isn't how I have rebutted your points. The NEAREST I have got to that, is asking you why YOUR code of laws SHOULD be more important than any other?

We have been over the issue of contradiction before. The bible IS contradictory, Neo. There is no way to explain those contradictions, but your policy of mere dismissal is pathetic... but I'm not going to go over THAT territory again in THIS thread.

Regarding 'god' offering salvation to all... how can you POSSIBLY believe that true? How did 2000 years of Bushmen, since the death of Jesus, but BEFORE the expansion of technology in the 20th century... have any oppurtunity to hear the message, and thus get saved?

They didn't. So - throughout history - millions have died without ANY WAY to ehar the message - so, salvation has NOT been offered to all.

How exactly does this metaphor work? I dont understand.

My good god, Neo - it was YOUR metaphor... you don't even understand the metaphor you constructed? That's just sad.

Okay; here we go, going through it slowly. You compared 'god' to the electric company. You compared paying (or not paying) your electric bill, to knowledge of 'god'. You said, if one chooses not to pay the bill, the electricity STILL comes from god. If one chooses not to beleive that god is the creator, everything STILL stems from god.

Then - you alleged that this is true, despite my belief... and that the world IS that way, whether or not I acknowledge it.


My take on your metaphor was that: even if there IS an electric company (god), you are attributing EVERYTHING to him/her/it - and it isn't necessarily so... and in fact, you could be wrong... there might be NO electric company.

In my version - I say you are paying all your bills to the 'electric company'. Maybe the 'electric company' pf our example ISN'T responsible for all those other services?

Maybe there is no 'god', in the way you describe it? Maybe life IS on the planet through evolution... yet you still 'pay that bill' to the same entity.

The world continues either way.

Nowhere in that verse does it say that he cannot be killed. The salvation could easily be refering to the resurection. Or the wicked could be devils. Nor does it specify who the "annointed one" is. Seeing as Jesus was not "annoited" in the traditional sense of the word (Oil, horn etc) then it may not be refering to him

"Thy dwelling" being Heaven. Jesus wasn't in heaven when he was killed.

1) No - salvation isn't resurrection... that is only YOUR interpretation. It says GOD comes forth to save his people, to save the anointed.

If Jesus was 'messiah'... he was the anointed... he was 'christ'.

You are now openly admitting that Jesus was not anointed? Was not Christ? You DO know that Christ means 'the Anointed', right?

The reference to dwelling is irrelevent... it is illustration of the office of messiah. Jesus dwelt on earth, and was killed on earth... therefore, he failed to satisfy the requirement. Thus - not Messiah.

You're misreading these. Let me post them.

***
Habakkuk 3:12-13
"In wrath you strode through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations. You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one. You crushed the leader of the land of the wickedness, you stripped him from head to foot."
***

This chapter is about the power of God. He had delivered Israel from Cushan and Midian, and from the other people standing in their way in Canaan. The verse you're referring to is about Pharoah and how God freed the Israelites. I think you're confusing what "anointed one" is talking about. It's not about the Messiah (i.e. Jesus), it's about the anointed NATION Israel. This is shown throughout the rest of the chapter, and is even in the verse itself (your people).

As for the Psalm, this is sort of interesting. The Psalm isn't exclusively Messianic- God watches over me and you with angels as well. However, this is just interesting because this Psalm is referenced a little bit in the New Testament. Let's see where.


If the prophecies of messiah, are NOT prophecy of Messiah - then how do you explain belief in a Messiah figure, at all?

You cannot just say - oh that doesn't work... therefore THIS PROPHECY must NOT be a Meessianic prophecy. Either they ARE prophectic of Messiah, or they are not.

If they ARE: Jesus fails, and isn't Messiah.

If they ARE NOT: then there is NO REASON to even believe in 'Messiah', since the whole thing is BASED on the Hebrew prophecy.


See? He had the power to call on the angels, he just didn't, so that he could be crucified and save the world. And fulfill the scriptures. The psalms you're referring to didn't DEMAND that angels come to save Jesus. It wasn't like, "The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, and angels will save him if he's in trouble." The angels certainly could have saved him, but Jesus had to do God's Will.

If prophecy is god-given... then 'god' has already ordained that Messiah WOULD be saved by angels. Messiah would have no choice.

THAT is why, a crucified messiah is a contradiction.

He cannot die on the cross, and STILL be messiah.

First of all, just believing in God is not enough to get you to heaven so I don't believe that a child molester that just "believes" in God will go to heaven. I believe that a TRUE Christian would not be a repetitive child molester. Everyone makes mistakes but someone who is repetitivly doing something like that could not possibly have the Holy Spirit in him which is something that Christians believe that God gives them after believing in God and accepting God into your life. Not all Christians are complete idiots so don't try to treat them all like they are. Some of us are actually educated and try our best to follow the law as well as doing God's will for our lives. There is no need for you to respond to this because I am not going to return to this forum but I hope I shed a little bit of light for you.

Regarding 'god' offering salvation to all... how can you POSSIBLY believe that true? How did 2000 years of Bushmen, since the death of Jesus, but BEFORE the expansion of technology in the 20th century... have any oppurtunity to hear the message, and thus get saved?

They didn't. So - throughout history - millions have died without ANY WAY to ehar the message - so, salvation has NOT been offered to all.

John 10:16 - "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepard."

If a remote tribe like your Bushmen never hear the gospel, how would they accept Jesus and be saved? They cant because they have no idea who Jesus is. BUT, Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16 says God has made himself known to all. I dont think that those who never hear the message are to be condemed. Perhaps God uses a different method in those cases.

No - Talk about adding something to the text that isnt there Grave.

Im reminded of when the Devil quoted Psalm 91:11,12 when tempting Jesus in Matthew 4. Also Matthew 26:53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

The Prophets promised that the Messiah would die. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 being very popular.

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king is coming to you: he is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey (Zechariah 9:9).

He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant (Isaiah 53:3).

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, pay me my wages, but if not, forget it.” So they weighed out my payment—thirty pieces of silver. The Lord then said to me, “Throw to the potter that exorbitant sum at which they valued me!” So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the temple of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13).

"I offered my back to those who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face from insults and spitting" (Isaiah 50:6).

But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth (Isaiah 53:4-7).

They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully (Isaiah 53:9).

So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels (Isaiah 53:12).

Can't have it both ways... but you sure are going to try.

Some prophecies of Messiah say Messiah will die. Some say he will not.

Talk about covering your bases..

That's the beauty of putting contradicting prophecy... you are covered no matter what.

If he doesn't die? Use Prophecy set 'A' that said he wouldn't die.

If he does die? Use Prophecy set 'B', that says he will.

And Christians wonder why people doubt the veracity of the word?

Not believing electricity comes from the company isn't too hard to imagine if the company's excistence is never made clear aside from some random people telling you about several different companies, and the only communication you having with the company is the disconnection.
If I get power, without knowing where it comes from, and with no idea if, how, who and how much I am to pay for it, and no-one complained about my non-payments up to the last moment, how am I to blame for not believing in the power company?

Exactly - the assumption stands or falls, on whether you even know about the existence of the 'electric company' in the example... and also, on whether or not the 'electric company' really DOES supply what you are paying for.

The 'electric company' representative MIGHT be charging you for your gas and water, too...

John 10:16 - "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepard."

If a remote tribe like your Bushmen never hear the gospel, how would they accept Jesus and be saved? They cant because they have no idea who Jesus is. BUT, Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16 says God has made himself known to all. I dont think that those who never hear the message are to be condemed. Perhaps God uses a different method in those cases.

You hit the nail on the head, right there.

If they never hear the gospel, how are they to be saved.

Answer, from scripture MUST be, that they aren't.

Anything else you add, like your belief 'God uses a different method in those cases', is nothing but speculation... and has no value, I'm afraid.

But thanks for your guess.

According to scripture, there is ONLY one way to be saved, and that is to believe on Jesus. Without that, those poor Bushmen are condemned... even if that doesn't fit your pretty image of a supposedly benevolent god.

Can't have it both ways... but you sure are going to try.

Some prophecies of Messiah say Messiah will die. Some say he will not.

Talk about covering your bases..

That's the beauty of putting contradicting prophecy... you are covered no matter what.

If he doesn't die? Use Prophecy set 'A' that said he wouldn't die.

If he does die? Use Prophecy set 'B', that says he will.

And Christians wonder why people doubt the veracity of the word?

The Messiah is raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53:10). You do know the Bible says Jesus will come back right? First he suffered which is in prophecy, then he will return as the conquering king, which is in prophecy. Jesus is the Messiah.

The Messiah is raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53:10). You do know the Bible says Jesus will come back right? First he suffered which is in prophecy, then he will return as the conquering king, which is in prophecy. Jesus is the Messiah.

And that, of course, is the other christian 'trick'...

They can't bring themselves to admit that the prophecy of messiah wasn't fulfilled.. so they come up with the excuse that "the rest of prophecies will be fulfilled when Jesus returns"...

According to scripture, there is ONLY one way to be saved, and that is to believe on Jesus. Without that, those poor Bushmen are condemned... even if that doesn't fit your pretty image of a supposedly benevolent god.

God is all loving and he is just. Scripture also makes it known that God is the only one that has the position to judge a human soul, or the heart of anyone.

God is all loving and he is just. Scripture also makes it known that God is the only one that has the position to judge a human soul, or the heart of anyone.

Which is irrelevent, if the ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus' name.

That means, whether or not 'god' knows the heart of a man, if that man hasn't encountered the message of Jesus, then that man is condemened to eternal torment.

That's the problem with trying to treat a desert religion, as though it could legitimately apply to the whole world.

And that, of course, is the other christian 'trick'...

They can't bring themselves to admit that the prophecy of messiah wasn't fulfilled.. so they come up with the excuse that "the rest of prophecies will be fulfilled when Jesus returns"...

Heh, of course thats your position, "christians are using 'tricks.'" Jesus is the messiah, he fulfilled the prophecy. You can tell yourself that he didnt, but you would be wrong.

Isaiah 61:1-3

Heh, of course thats your position, "christians are using 'tricks.'" Jesus is the messiah, he fulfilled the prophecy. You can tell yourself that he didnt, but you would be wrong.

Isaiah 61:1-3

There you see, the problem is that you are stating you unprovable opinion as though it were fact.

If you'd said you BELIEVE Jesus is messiah, and that you BELIEVE he fulfilled the prophecy... and that you BELIEVE I am wrong, then there would be no problem.

As it is, you have stated that Jesus DID fulfill the prophecy, and IS Messiah, and that I am wrong.

But you can't PROVE any of it.

Which is all fine, IF I believe the same thing you do... but, you see, I don't.

To me, it seems like a trick when 'christians' claim the Hebrew character of Messiah, and trim the prophecies to fit their desires.

I can tell myself that Jesus wasn't Messiah, because there is NO proof that he was, and scriptural support to argue against it.

I can tell myself that Jesus is a fictional character, because there is no evidence that he EVER existed, outside of one book... which (since it was actually written by followers of the religion) COULD BE ARGUED as a less than objective source.

Now, on the other hand - how would YOU prove that I am "wrong", as you claim in your post?

The three laws of writing prophecy:

1) The vaguer, the better. if you say it in a way that is completely open to interpretation, there is no way to be wrong.
2) Eyewitness Verification Only. Something that can be recorded will always have people looking deeper for what was the true cause of it. if it can only be verified by eyewitnesses, you are free of that scrutiny
3) Common Occurrence. Take something that happens quite often, and place it into an uncommon setting. The more often the event happens, the higher the chances it will happen in your setting.




so here we go, some practice in writing prophecy:

1) Some day, at some time, the great zarnac will make his will be known by making the great felled tree strike the bird from the sky.
-intrepretation: if you take "felled tree" and "bird" as metaphors for something else (who knows, a building that falls in an earthquake and knocks a plane from the sky?) this can be almost anything.
-eyewitness: the only people to see the tree hit the bird from the sky are the people who cut the tree down to begin with
-common: lots of trees are cut down every day. chances are that one of them will eventually hit a bird that flies by.

2) Born of the woman touched by no man, your savior will be born
-intepretation: "woman touched by no man" can mean just about anything in a metaphorical sense
-eyewitness: the only one who knows how she got pregnant is the woman herself. if it is in her best intrests to not tell anyone about the part where she is carrying a child that does not belong to her feincee' , it's rather easy to just blame it on god. after all, the greek gods have been impregnating mortal women for years, why can't yaweh have a turn?
-common: lots of women get pregnant. lots of women have children that are not from their husbands-to-be. chances are one of them will deny an affair, despite the overwhelming evidence against them.




now, you too can write infalliable prophecy.

for demonstrations of this technique, see the works of nordstramus

Which is irrelevent, if the ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus' name.

That means, whether or not 'god' knows the heart of a man, if that man hasn't encountered the message of Jesus, then that man is condemened to eternal torment.

That's the problem with trying to treat a desert religion, as though it could legitimately apply to the whole world.

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. (Acts 17:26-27)

Giving you enough time you will say everything in the Bible is irrelevent.

Heres an instance from the bible, Cornelius, a first-century Gentile who had been exposed to Judaism, believed in God and had a relationship with him despite not having heard of Jesus. In fact, God told Cornelius to seek out Peter so that he would hear the gospel. Acts 10. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

God is just and merciful. He condemns the wrongdoing, but he gives all a chance to repent. He wont condemn anyone for things that are out obviously out of thier control.

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. (Acts 17:26-27)

Giving you enough time you will say everything in the Bible is irrelevent.

Heres an instance from the bible, Cornelius, a first-century Gentile who had been exposed to Judaism, believed in God and had a relationship with him despite not having heard of Jesus. In fact, God told Cornelius to seek out Peter so that he would hear the gospel. Acts 10. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

God is just and merciful. He condemns the wrongdoing, but he gives all a chance to repent. He wont condemn anyone for things that are out obviously out of thier control.

First - I argue that scripture contradicts itself there, also... sure, in one place it tells us god made the whole world, and all the people... but, in another place we have a detailed list of the 5 people on the entire planet at that point... one of whom kills his brother, and then goes and marries one of the OTHER people.

Also - reading the first couple of chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, it seems quite clear that the Hebrew 'god' was originally conceived as creating ONLY the Hebrews, and their starting point (named Eden in the text).

But THAT is all aside from what we were aiming to discuss, surely.

The thing about Cornelius is, surely, that YES, he had a relationship with God... but, that doesn't mean he achieved salvation. In the context of scripture - unless he 'believed on Jesus', he would STILL be burning.

Sorry - but "He wont condemn anyone for things that are out obviously out of thier control" is pure wishful thinking on your part... that certainly IS NOT what the bible says.

Otherwise of course, you make the entire curse from 'god' on the 'seed' of Adam and Eve, into a cosmic joke.

He did. The Cross was for ALL HUMANS. ALL HUMANS can accept it. The diffrence comes when humans refuse to accecpt. God has put out his hand to save you. You just have to grab it.

That's exactly the problem. Humans don't refuse to accept the word of God. They never hear it in the first place. Or they hear another, equally believable account of how the world is, and choose to believe that instead. For the first fifteen hundred years of your religion's life, it barely left Europe, a small, fairly backwards continent sort of on the fringes of the actual world (China, primarily, although South Asia's population became pretty respectable towards the end there). God's allegedly universal solution for "ALL HUMANS" was saving a very small fraction of the species. They didn't refuse anything, but they apparently went to Hell anyhow.

Of all of you who choose to support exclusive salvation, only Davistania has even attempted to offer a defense of thise, and while I sympathise with his argument (that it makes him very sad, and even more determined to proselytize further afield), I feel it only adds to the argument that the God being described here is neither 'just' nor 'merciful'.

You ROCK.

Thank you :) (dunno if I thanked you for similiar compliments earlier, so thought I'd take the opportunity to do so now. You're pretty cool yourself.)


....the order of Heikoku appears to be restored....
Petitions?

I dunno if Heikoku even frequents the board these days... the thread may have outlived him ^_^

What I meant to say is that you pecieve that we dont deserve hell. I percieve we dont deserve heaven. By human standards this may not make sense, but to God it does. God is just. He may still weep at what is required but he will not be unjust with sin.

See, problem is, I could possibly agree that if everyone got into Heaven, it'd be a little unfair. Now, I don't personally have a huge problem with bad people being happy, but I can see the argument. God would be possibly overgenerous.

But I'm alright with the idea of an overgenerous God. The problem with everybody going to Hell, is that he's erring on the other side of things. I don't have a problem with bad people being happy, but I have huge problems with (relatively) good people suffering.

(If it comes to it, I have similiar problems with baby-seal eating telemarketers suffering eternally, but that's a different thread of this argument)

Justice isn't just about punishment. And it certainly isn't about over-punishment, Grave, and certainly others before him in this thread, mentioned infinite punishment for finite crime. If this makes sense to God, then God is, by any human standard ever, unjust and unmerciful. Or unfair and unkind, if you (as I do) prefer.

You say its unfair that all sin comes from Adam, I say its unfair that all sin is saved by Jesus. Bottom line being is that there are two sides to the suposed "unfairness" your talking about. You make Christianity seem so unfair and it is. Unfair to Jesus. The only man to lead the perfect life had it brutally and horrificaly destroyed. Look and see, this is not "unfair" to one group. Its "unfair" to all, in the same way.

Jesus was God. If God is omnipotent, Jesus wasn't a tool, and his death wasn't a means to an otherwise unobtainable end. If God is omnipotent (and scripture certainly doesn't seem to support this supposition, most of the time), then the most Jesus can be is a demonstration, a sign, a message, a prophet (these all being the same thing).

While we're on this point, aren't you claiming elsewhere that his death and suffering were preordained and prophesized? Probably by prophets who heard the voice of God (maybe channeled through Angels, as God voice often is), yes? How can the most monumentally important sacrifice, the most meaningful and heartfelt gesture that God could make (his own suffering and sacrifice in a way humans understand readily) be possibly construed as unfair. Jesus is the lamb who was sent to Earth to die so we'd know how cool God is, yes? How the devil is that unfair?

Or is God unfair, because he designed a system (the old covanent) which he needed to fix (was unjust), and he chose to fix it in an unjust way (allowing a human form of himself to suffer horribly)? What are you arguing here, precisely? The inroads you're giving me, by claiming that Jesus's death was unfair, are so huge that I feel it only fair to make sure that you realize what you're saying...

God is just and merciful. He condemns the wrongdoing, but he gives all a chance to repent. He wont condemn anyone for things that are out obviously out of thier control.

So... you're not an exclusive salvationist? That's good: it's a close-minded and hateful belief. You're well out of it! Think how happy you can be, now that, for instance, the population of China pre-15th century is not, in fact, in Hell. Nor are Graves' bushmen, obviously... I'd say most Muslims before relatively recently are probably also pretty safe (especially since some of them, at least, will sneak through on Neo's five-point plan), as is the population of the New World, pre-16th century or so, most of Africa for most of history, everyone who wasn't Hebrew before Christ (God marks his chosen by making them jump through extra hoops. It's like being in the "gifted" class in elementary school!)... and so on. Heaven just became a much more interesting place to live! Better food, too.

Howsabout people who knew about Christianity in theory, but never really had a chance to explore the options? (say, living in a non-Christian country and lacking access to the proper reading material, even though they're technically aware of this Christ guy; particularily applies to most Chinese people pre 1911 or so) I'd say it'd be unfair to torture them eternally. They're probably doing alright as well.

Or, hey, people who have access to the reading materials, but were raised in a strongly (non-Christian) religious culture, and thus in a psychological sense never really had a chance, even if there was a bible sitting around the entire time. They okay too? After all, God doesn't make himself known, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to throw away everything they'd believed previously just because of some book that is no more internally consistent or externally evidenced then whatever it is they were raised to believe. Or is non-Christian faith inherently weaker then Christian faith? That'd be a silly thing to believe, so let's not believe it.

What about atheists and agnostics who've done tons of reading, and have come to the realization that every religion that makes it big is at once believable (mostly internally cohesive, generally clear messages), impossible (superheroes in the sky), and throughly unprovable (invisible superheroes in the sky)? They want something to believe, but all the choices available to them have apparently equal merit, and the consequences of choosing poorly are pretty bad. What if they decide that it's better just to live their lives as best they can, help people who need it and so on, and let all the other stuff sort itself out. Do they go to hell? I think it'd be unreasonable to expect them to abandon their God-given reason and just, like, flip a coin to decide what to believe in (Like silly people who believe the religion of whatever culture they happen to be born into, without exploring the options).

Do you believe that people have a chance to repent after they die? That'd clear this whole mess up pretty quickly, now, wouldn't it? Nobody would refuse to believe in God while waiting in line at the Pearly Gates, and, well, if they do, we can always send them to Hell until they change their minds.

Yay! Just and merciful God leads to a happy world!

(the above is not actually sarcasm, although the tone may be a little bit frivolous. Just to clear that up.)

Wow. This is the longest I've ever seen a thread get without getting locked.
>1800 posts.
:eek:

Cool.

Wow. This is the longest I've ever seen a thread get without getting locked.
>1800 posts.
:eek:

Cool.

It is. It's been through a few levels of off-topicness, but the discussion is still pretty lively (and pretty on at the moment), and a fair few people're still involved, so life is good ^_^

Mockston, your post rocks. Just thought I'd say that.

Mockston, your post rocks. Just thought I'd say that.

Thanks :) I really only meant to express pleasure at Justifidians distancing his(?)self from exclusive salvation. It just sorta ballooned...

You hit the nail on the head, right there.

If they never hear the gospel, how are they to be saved.

Answer, from scripture MUST be, that they aren't.

Anything else you add, like your belief 'God uses a different method in those cases', is nothing but speculation... and has no value, I'm afraid.

But thanks for your guess.

According to scripture, there is ONLY one way to be saved, and that is to believe on Jesus. Without that, those poor Bushmen are condemned... even if that doesn't fit your pretty image of a supposedly benevolent god.
You must not understand the character of god. We are all gods children. If someone has never heard of jesus but leads a good life anyway and loves god, then that person would definitely go to heaven. Its not speculation, its a fact.

You must not understand the character of god. We are all gods children. If someone has never heard of jesus but leads a good life anyway and loves god, then that person would definitely go to heaven. Its not speculation, its a fact.

Careful with that. It's not 'a fact'. It's a belief. Faith is unprovable, remember?

Mind you, it's a generally positive belief, for which I applaud you. Although I do wonder about the "loves God" part of your belief; how can someone who's never heard of God love him? Alternatively, isn't living a good life synonomous with loving God?

Scripturally, unfortunately, I'm not sure if your beliefs are reflected. It seems pretty clear that the only path to salvation is through Jesus, for all that this is contradicted elsewhere in the Bible with the claims of lovingness and whatnot. I mean, I'm all for taking what lessons one can where one finds them and ignoring the hateful garbage, but I think Graves is talking about a closer, more accurate reading of what the Bible actually says, rather than what we want it to say.

God is evident to every man. To deny god will send you straight to hell. My point is that if you have never heard of jesus, If your a bushman who lives a good and moral life and loves god you can still go to heaven.

I'll try to find some scripture.....

Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Isaiah 6:3 And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’

A practical explanation is that the old testament prophets are surely saved even though they had no personal relationship with jesus. Jesus existed then but he was not yet revealed to them, just as he has not been revealed to the bushman.

God is evident to every man. To deny god will send you straight to hell. My point is that if you have never heard of jesus, If your a bushman who lives a good and moral life and loves god you can still go to heaven.

But the problem is, God is demonstrably not "evident to every man". If he was, there'd be a hell of a lot more Christians out there (if you'll pardon the unfortunate turn of phrase). Unless you wanna interpret "God" in a very loose sense, as "goodness" or some such nonsense. In which case you should say so.

But anyways, God is not evident to every man: there're plenty of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, and agnostics, and thousands more, all in plentiful variety. Many of these are thoughtful people who have done their due diligence in choosing a faith, and come to the conclusion that (whatever) is right for them. You'd expect more of them to be Christian, if your God were so blindingly evident.

More to the point, isn't Christianity s'posed to be about faith? How's that work if God is obviously factual?

I'm also still not sure what you're getting at with this hypothetical god-loving person who's never heard of God. What do you mean by that, in a practical sense?

The hypothetical man has never heard of the bible or JESUS. He does however acknowledge GOD who is self evident to every man. He also lives a good and moral life. This man has never heard of christianity or judaism or islam yet he can still go to heaven.

If you do believe in god, and have heard the gospels about jesus and don't recognize jesus as the messiah, then you will not be saved. Because If you truly knew god then you would recognise his son the savior when he is revealed to you.

This is why christians believe muslims, jews, etc etc etc will not be allowed into heaven. However if they have never heard of jesus then they can go to heaven just like the bushman if they are humble, loving and moral.

If you do believe in god, and have heard the gospels about jesus and don't recognize jesus as the messiah, then you will not be saved. Because If you truly knew god then you would recognise his son the savior when he is revealed to you.

This is why christians believe muslims, jews, etc etc etc will not be allowed into heaven. However if they have never heard of jesus then they can go to heaven just like the bushman.

Shouldn't y'all stop with the spreading of the word of God already, then? By showing all those innocent heathens the Bible, you're condemning them to Hell! People, in general and as a rule, won't give up their own closely held beliefs just 'cause some crazy foreigner tells 'em about this man on a stick, and that they'll burn forever if they don't give him his props. But you're telling me that by being exposed to this doctrine, these otherwise good people will suffer for all of eternity, simply because they decide to continue believing what they've believed their whole lives?

What a novel set of beliefs.

Best let them continue to remain blissfully, and blessedly, ignorant, while us poor sods labour under the burden that knowledge of the bible has given us, sez I.

(on a more serious note, before I go to bed, if God is self-evident, how do you account for a good 2 billion Chinese people over the past couple of millenia who believed in nothing that could be stretched to cover "God" as Christian thought understands the concept? Not evident enough? Are they all damned, by the way?)

I'm sorry, I'm not a preacher, prophet or teacher. I'm just a guy trying to explain my beliefs. I dont know about the chinese either. Good night to ya maybe we can discuss this some more another time.

Oh to answer as to why do we try to learn the heathens.
It is very much more likely for them to be saved as a christian on the merits of jesus christ, then on their own merits.

Or wait, no. I just reread your post and got it. "If you truly knew god then you would recognise his son the savior when he is revealed to you". Anyone who would immediately convert to Christianity upon being told about Jesus would have gone to Heaven anyways.

... so, those who are weak in their own beliefs, or easily intimidated by warm places with lots of three-pronged forks, are bound for Heaven. As long as they're good people, a caveat which, in all seriousness, I do appreciate.

(man, it's totally bedtime. I'm becoming nonsensical in my tiredness. G'night, and sorry if I've become rude, incoherent, or completely dense ^_^)

its been fun....

In my version - I say you are paying all your bills to the 'electric company'. Maybe the 'electric company' pf our example ISN'T responsible for all those other services?

Maybe there is no 'god', in the way you describe it? Maybe life IS on the planet through evolution... yet you still 'pay that bill' to the same entity.

The world continues either way.

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.
But if you don’t believe the bill is from the electric company there is a simple way to verify … telephone or you can go down there and talk to him yourself.

How are you supposed to verify the bible?

But if you don’t believe the bill is from the electric company there is a simple way to verify … telephone or you can go down there and talk to him yourself.

How are you supposed to verify the bible?

My suggestion would be to talk to the writer. :D

Seriously, find some place where you're alone and try talking to God. Even if you don't believe in Him, the worse that can happen is you would end up talking to yourself. Ask Him about the Bible.

My suggestion would be to talk to the writer. :D

Seriously, find some place where you're alone and try talking to God. Even if you don't believe in Him, the worse that can happen is you would end up talking to yourself. Ask Him about the Bible.
I did ... no reply

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.

So I'm supposed to look at one old letter amongst hundreds more, and pick out the correct one that happens to be from the real power company, finding out it was written by dozens of different people, and somehow come to the conclusion that this is the one True Power Company and start paying them my bill? (whatever that may be)

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.
I disagree. God is not an intelligence that he forces awareness of himself on others. Learning to recognize god is an intuitive knowledge, and has nothing to do with the availability of literary resources, nor reading comprehension skills. (In regards to other threads on this topic, it has nothing to do with rationale or logic, which is why I believe myth to be the only proper means of discovering god.)

I understand you're presenting the Christian case. I just felt compelled to dispute that even Christians all learn of god through the Bible.

You must not understand the character of god. We are all gods children. If someone has never heard of jesus but leads a good life anyway and loves god, then that person would definitely go to heaven. Its not speculation, its a fact.

I don't even know where you got that idea from?

It is a 'fact', is it? Well, if it is a fact, there must be evidence, right?

So, show me the evidence.

Now, first I'd like to see you prove it WITHIN scripture - which I believe is impossible...

Then, since you argued that it applies EVEN to those who have never heard of Jesus, you have to prove it from 'Real World' accounts.

I can't wait to see this.... I've never yet seen proof that heaven actually even EXISTS, let alone WHO is getting in.

I don't even know where you got that idea from?

It is a 'fact', is it? Well, if it is a fact, there must be evidence, right?

So, show me the evidence.

Now, first I'd like to see you prove it WITHIN scripture - which I believe is impossible...

Then, since you argued that it applies EVEN to those who have never heard of Jesus, you have to prove it from 'Real World' accounts.

I can't wait to see this.... I've never yet seen proof that heaven actually even EXISTS, let alone WHO is getting in.

And here I thought christians do not believe in salvation by works (or is that just catholics)

And here I thought christians do not believe in salvation by works (or is that just catholics)

As far as I can tell without doing any actual research, Catholics don't so much believe in salvation by works as they believe in a system with more than two options. Purgatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory) is for those who have not already been cleansed of their misdeeds (through confession or what not), but also haven't committed any mortal sins (which in modern thought tend to be pretty horrible). They're called the righteous dead, and will eventually reach Heaven.

There're lots of opinions on the matter but in general good non-Catholics are considered to be bound for Purgatory, which is kinda like salvation through works.

None of this is substantially supported by scripture, of course, although there's a good 800 years of support for the theory in other theological texts.

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.

But being Christian doesn't make other religious texts go away. Honestly, I find the Baghavad Gita (a portion of the epic poem Mahabharata which conveys some central Hindu ideas) to be poetically more powerful, more succinct and cohesive in its message, and generally more effective as a religious text than the Bible. And I read it first while I was still a good little Christian (although I can't claim any particular pedigree there; I was about 11 years old :))

Now, I've read neither in their original languages, so perhaps the Bible suffers from poor translation, but the point is, if I were to go looking for a written source to base my personal faith off of, there are books other than the Bible to which I would be drawn. Is there something inherent in the good book which makes it more effective as evidence of this divine Electricity Company? Or is this more by way of a personal failing on my part?

More to the point, I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. On the one hand, you happily admit that faith is not evidenced, that it cannot be proven or disproven. But on the other hand, you claim the Bible as evidence of God's existence, and that its presence alone is sufficient to make his demands for attention reasonable... Which is it?

The hypothetical man has never heard of the bible or JESUS. He does however acknowledge GOD who is self evident to every man. He also lives a good and moral life. This man has never heard of christianity or judaism or islam yet he can still go to heaven.

I don't agree.

I don't think 'god' is self-evident to every man.

If he was, then nobody could ever BECOME an Atheist... thus, it cannot be strictly true.

Logically, then - that 'hypothetical man' cannot get into 'heaven'.

More to the point, I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. On the one hand, you happily admit that faith is not evidenced, that it cannot be proven or disproven. But on the other hand, you claim the Bible as evidence of God's existence, and that its presence alone is sufficient to make his demands for attention reasonable... Which is it?

I was making two points you have confused them for one. To Grave earlier who complained at me for making too many assumptions, I explained that I was explaining things within the line of Christianity itself and was not making any statements about proving the validity of Christianity. To Grave when he then went on to complain that God does not make himself known at all (see electricty company example) I explained thats what the Bible is for.

If you do believe in god, and have heard the gospels about jesus and don't recognize jesus as the messiah, then you will not be saved. Because If you truly knew god then you would recognise his son the savior when he is revealed to you.

This is why christians believe muslims, jews, etc etc etc will not be allowed into heaven. However if they have never heard of jesus then they can go to heaven just like the bushman if they are humble, loving and moral.

By the same token, it could be argued that:

If YOU truly KNEW 'god', you would recognise that Jesus was NOT his son.

By the same token, it could be argued that:

If YOU truly KNEW 'god', you would recognise that Jesus was NOT his son.

Are we or are we not discussing CHRISTIANTY.

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.

But the bible was written by man, Neo.

Even those who believe it to be inspired by god, acknowledge that 'he' probably didn't hold the pen, right?

So - in effect, someone is sending you letters SAYING that they are the electric company... but, for all you know, your cheques are actually just going into some scam-artists bank account.

The difference with the electric company is... if you don't believe them, you can call the call-centre, or go visit them.

You don't get to 'corroborate' the christian god in that way... so you have to keep on sending in your payments, and HOPE that nobody lied to you.

Are we or are we not discussing CHRISTIANTY.

'Christ' means anointed, Neo.

The Hebrews prophecised a messiah... they DIDN'T say Jesus would be him... and he has failed to meet so many mesesianic prophecies, it is easy to see why the Jews STILL don't believe he WAS the promised Messiah.

Don't confuse the term 'Christian' with necessarily having ANYTHING to do with 'Jesus'.

But if you don’t believe the bill is from the electric company there is a simple way to verify … telephone or you can go down there and talk to him yourself.

How are you supposed to verify the bible?

Should have read ahead, shouldn't I?

Thank you UT, for posting what I posted, but a long time before me! :)

I was making two points you have confused them for one. To Grave earlier who complained at me for making too many assumptions, I explained that I was explaining things within the line of Christianity itself and was not making any statements about proving the validity of Christianity. To Grave when he then went on to complain that God does not make himself known at all (see electricty company example) I explained thats what the Bible is for.

I don't see how these points are divorced. You're claiming that exclusive salvation is just, because there is evidence of God's existence that anybody can happen upon and decipher. Elsewhere, you've claimed that belief in God is a leap of faith, one that is made without any proof. Yes, the former is said with the assumption that God exists, the latter without any such thing, but the evidence doesn't gain or lose credibility if we assume the existence or lack of God. The content of the Bible is exactly the same, be you Christian or not, whether God exists or not.

If the Bible is evidence for God's existence, then it can be debunked (or rather, debunking can be attempted). If there is no such evidence, then all of this is based on faith, and thus impossible to prove or disprove. But if that's the case, then there can't be any evidence for God's existence, and exclusive salvation is unjust, because God is forcing humanity to guess and punishing them hideously if they guess wrong. And that's just plain mean.

I did ... no reply
Like UT said, been there, done that.

There is NO reason to believe that the 'electric company' is real - except for WANTING it to be so... and that's not proof, in my book.

Should have read ahead, shouldn't I?

Thank you UT, for posting what I posted, but a long time before me! :)
My pleasure :)

I was making two points you have confused them for one. To Grave earlier who complained at me for making too many assumptions, I explained that I was explaining things within the line of Christianity itself and was not making any statements about proving the validity of Christianity. To Grave when he then went on to complain that God does not make himself known at all (see electricty company example) I explained thats what the Bible is for.

The problem is, Neo... that EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE.... (which I don't believe for a second... since the bible is VERY CLEAR that many will be rejected, and that the ONLY way to 'god' is through christ)...

The 'bible' wasn't made manifest to everyone, now was it?

The Old Testament was ONLY given to Israel, and the New Testament is ABOUT JESUS, not BY JESUS... so is only the human accounts of 'god'.

Thus - 'god' only gave that supposed 'evidence' to a select few... and has relied on humans to carry out the task of passing it along to everyone... a task which, even in these days of mass communication, STILL is impossible.

My pleasure :)

:)

I can always rely on you to do 'the good work', if I am delayed. :)

:)

I can always rely on you to do 'the good work', if I am delayed. :)
My problem is that I don’t have the depth of reference knowledge that you or PR have … I am logical and have studied but you guys are way more into scripture (Just as well) :)

My problem is that I don’t have the depth of reference knowledge that you or PR have … I am logical and have studied but you guys are way more into scripture (Just as well) :)

That's why I love arguing with PR... even if we are opposed, I know that he AT LEAST has studied the material.

You don't get such a feeling of 'head+brickwall'. :)

FutureExistence is good for that, too. :)

Oh - and the BEST tool you can have, is the ability to be logical. :)

My 'scripture' is just the reference material, and is the same ammunition that the 'other side' has (although most of them seem to have forgotten to stock up on it). An open mind, and logic, are all the tools we REALLY require.

I can tell myself that Jesus wasn't Messiah, because there is NO proof that he was, and scriptural support to argue against it.

Post some of scripture you think supports your claim then.


I can tell myself that Jesus is a fictional character, because there is no evidence that he EVER existed, outside of one book... which (since it was actually written by followers of the religion) COULD BE ARGUED as a less than objective source.

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Babylonian Talmud, Lucian. Do you really just disregard them?


Now, on the other hand - how would YOU prove that I am "wrong", as you claim in your post?

Ok heres some:

1. Be Born in Bethlehem
OT Prophecy: Micah 5:2 'But you, Bethlehem, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old.'
NT Fulfillment: Matt 2:1 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea...'

2. Preceded by a messenger
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 40:3 'The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 3:1-2 'In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

3. Enter Jerusalem on a colt
OT Prophecy: Zech 9:9 'Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King comes to you... humble riding on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'
NT Fulfillment Luke 19:35 'They bought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and they put Jesus on it.'

4. Be Betrayed by a friend
OT Prophecy: Psalm 41:9 'Yes, my own friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 26:47-50 'And while he spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords... Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whosoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast... and Jesus said unto him, 'Friend, why have you come?'

5. Have his hands and feet pierced
OT Prophecy: Psalm 22:16 'The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me. They have pierced my hands and my feet.'
NT Fulfillment Luke 23:33 'And when they came to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.'

6. Be wounded and whipped by his enemies
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 53:5 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 27:26 'Then they released Barabbas unto them and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.'

7. Be sold for thirty pieces of silver
OT Prophecy: Zech 11:12 'And I said to him, If you think it is good in your sight, give me my wages... So they weighed out thirty pieces of silver for my price.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 26:15 'What will you give me if I deliver him unto you? And they agreed with him for thirty pieces of silver.'

8. Be spit upon and beaten
OT Prophecy: Isaiah 50:6 'I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked out my hair: I did not hide my face from the shame and spitting.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and hit him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands

9. The betrayal money thrown in the temple and used for a potters field
OT Prophecy: Zech 11:13 'And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter that magnificent price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 27:5-7 'And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple... And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's field as a burial place for strangers.'

10. Cast lots for Jesus' clothing
OT Prophecy: Psalm 22:18 'They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.'
NT Fulfillment Matt 27:35 'And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots.'
- JesusPlusNothing

Prophecy from Isaiah 53

1. Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

Indicates that few would believe in Jesus. (John 6:66, 12:37-38)

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Jesus had humble and poor beginnings, not coming as a royal King, but as a commoner. (Luke 2:7)

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus was despised, rejected, and suffered at the hands of His own people! (Mathew 27:21-23)

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

Even though Jesus would heal many, and take the sorrows for others, yet the Jewish people would consider Him cursed by God for it is written in Deuteronomy 21:23 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree' (Luke 19:41-42)

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Though Jesus was cursed, it was for a reason! He was crushed for our sins so that we could be healed and have peace with God! Note also that this prophecy says that the Messiah would be 'pierced'. The Jewish method of execution is stoning, though God spoke through the prophet Isaiah and said He would be 'pierced' because He knew that Jesus would be crucified, having His hands and feet nailed to the cross.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

It would be God the Father's will that all sin would be laid upon Jesus. (Gal 1:4)

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

This verse shows how Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, would be silent before His accusers. As recorded in Mathew 27:12.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Jesus was judged and died without having any physical descendants. (Mathew 27:35)

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Jesus died alongside common criminals but was given a rich man's tomb in which He was buried. (Mathew 27:57)

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Even though verse 8 says that Jesus was cut off and had no descendants (physically) yet this verse says that after being made a guilt offering (crucified), Jesus would 'see his offspring and prolong his days'. Amazing prophecy showing that even though Jesus would be killed, He would rise from the dead, live again and that spiritually He would have many offspring. (Mark 16:16)

11 After the suffering of his soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

God the Father saw the suffering of Jesus and was fully satisfied. Sin demanded a sacrificial death and in doing so, Jesus opened the way so that through knowledge of what happened on the cross, humankind could again be justified. (seen as perfect and spotless in God's sight.) (Romans 5:8-9, 2 Cor 5:21)

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus is now exalted by the Father, for He bore our sins, dying on a cross, and even when He was dying He interceded for those who crucified Him saying 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.' (Luke 23:32-34)


Luke 24:44-47 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

John 5:45-46 But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Mark 14:61-63 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. (Note: the Son of Man sitting at the right hand and coming on the clouds was a key specific prophecy about the Messiah from the Old Testament book of Daniel.)

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Babylonian Talmud, Lucian. Do you really just disregard them?


Yes - I really just disregard them.

Josephus wasn't even born until many years after the supposed crucifiction, was writing entirely from second hand accounts (and guess where he GOT those accounts) and has been pretty much written off by even the theological community - because the Jesus references appear to be forgeries, added much later - Since all the people who quoted Josephus... (Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius)... in their testimonies in defence of Christianity, somehow missed any 'Jesus references' until at least the fourth century.

Pliny the Younger doesn't arive on the scene until most of a century after the alleged death of 'Jesus'... and his writings only mentioned 'christians' (not Jesus), and only described waht christians BELIEVED... it wasn't a record of fact... it was a retelling of belief. For example "'Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error"... see, Pliny is referring to ASSERTIONS.

Tacitus is alleged to have written about the crucified messiah - but, in EVEN in the text attributed to him, doesn't name 'Jesus', or make ANY supernatural claims. All he describes is the alleged death of 'christus', and persecution of 'Christians'.
It is also worth noting that the first full reference to Tacitus doesn't turn up until the fifth centruy writings of Sulpicius Severus. Somehow, ALL THOSE centuries of apologists overlooked such a reference.

Tacitus is also, usually considered a fraud - and hardly convincing evidence.

I find myself wondering which Talmudic texts you think support you... the only Talmudic references I can find to a possible 'Jesus', occur much later... for example the second century 'Mishnah Yevamot' says "Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman"... which is a reference to SOMEONE else, CLAIMING to have found a book which describes a POSSIBLE birth that MIGHT be a bit like that ascribed to Jesus.

Hardly concrete evidence.

Similarly, 'Mishnah – 'Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a' describes a POSSIBLE account of the crucifiction, but doesn't match except in the most abstract, the biblical story... and doesn't occur until the second or third centuries anyway. It DOES describe the death of a man named Yeshu, on the eve of Passover... for the crime of sorcery. Note - it also lists the names of Yeshu's disciples, "Mattai, Naqai, Netzer, Buni and Todah".

Again, hardly concrete evidence.


So - you see, the thing is, there are NO separate accounts of Jesus, that verify his existence.

All there is, is a collection of POSSIBLE references, many already discredited as forgeries or fakes, and almost all written a hundred, or several hundreds of, years after the alleged incident.

First - I argue that scripture contradicts itself there, also... sure, in one place it tells us god made the whole world, and all the people... but, in another place we have a detailed list of the 5 people on the entire planet at that point... one of whom kills his brother, and then goes and marries one of the OTHER people.

Genesis 2:7 shows only one man was made in the beginning. Genesis 2:21-24 shows that Eve was made from his rib. Cain was born, Genesis 4:1, and his brothers, Abel, Genesis 4:2, and Seth, Genesis 4:25. Adam and Eve also had many other children as stated in Genesis 5:4. (Just for a note, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.") Adam lived 930 years, he probably had many children :)

It is certain that if Cain wanted to be married, he would marry one of his sisters. Remember that marriage of relations was not forbidden until the Law of Moses, in Leviticus18-20. Abraham even married his half-sister, Genesis 20:12.



Also - reading the first couple of chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, it seems quite clear that the Hebrew 'god' was originally conceived as creating ONLY the Hebrews, and their starting point (named Eden in the text).

It seems quite clear? What do you think makes that clear to you? I read it, and that is not what I get. Explain your reasons for thinking so.

1. Be Born in Bethlehem
OT Prophecy: Micah 5:2 'But you, Bethlehem, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old.'
NT Fulfillment: Matt 2:1 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea...'


You realise the irony of trying to prove Messiah, by showing how a New Testament account 'fulfills' the requirements of an Old Testament account?

That's the beauty of it, isn't it. If the New Testament IS A FICTION, then it is a fiction written with the clear knowledge of what WAS REQUIRED of the 'Messiah', according to Old Testament prophecies.

Thus - it would hardly be surprising that the New Testament account WOULD largely match the requirements.

It is, however, very suggestive of the FICTIONAL nature of the New Testament scripture, that some of the requirements were missed.

Surely, 'god' knows his 'own word' better, than to accidentally miss a couple of requirements of 'messiah'?

It is, however, very suggestive of the FICTIONAL nature of the New Testament scripture, that some of the requirements were missed.

Surely, 'god' knows his 'own word' better, than to accidentally miss a couple of requirements of 'messiah'?

Care to elaborate?

You fail to understand the punishment. What hell is, is everywhere that heaven isnt. Without God's grace in the world, it degrades rapidly to something with hell like qualitys. How about I flip your question on its head, how is it fair for God to reward infinately for finite comitment?
You're dodging my question. HOW CAN GOD BE JUST IF HE GIVES INFINITE PUNISHMENT TO A FINITE CRIME?

What I meant to say is that you pecieve that we dont deserve hell. I percieve we dont deserve heaven. By human standards this may not make sense, but to God it does. God is just. He may still weep at what is required but he will not be unjust with sin. You say its unfair that all sin comes from Adam, I say its unfair that all sin is saved by Jesus. Bottom line being is that there are two sides to the suposed "unfairness" your talking about. You make Christianity seem so unfair and it is. Unfair to Jesus. The only man to lead the perfect life had it brutally and horrificaly destroyed. Look and see, this is not "unfair" to one group. Its "unfair" to all, in the same way.
We don't deserve heaven, but angels do? Angles automatically get heaven unless they screw it up, but that is not the case for man.

He did. The Cross was for ALL HUMANS. ALL HUMANS can accept it. The diffrence comes when humans refuse to accecpt. God has put out his hand to save you. You just have to grab it.
According to YOUR brand of christianity. According to others, it was for them only and everyone else is screwed. Get VoteEarly in on this, he'll give you quite the earful.

You're dodging my question. HOW CAN GOD BE JUST IF HE GIVES INFINITE PUNISHMENT TO A FINITE CRIME?

This might help.
http://www.brojed.org/articletwo.html

We don't deserve heaven, but angels do? Angles automatically get heaven unless they screw it up, but that is not the case for man.

I thought only acute and right angles go to heave while obtuse ones don't get in . . . .

The Messiah is raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53:10). You do know the Bible says Jesus will come back right? First he suffered which is in prophecy, then he will return as the conquering king, which is in prophecy. Jesus is the Messiah.
That bit about Jesus coming back again, you do know that he was supposed to do that and bring the end of the world within the appostles lifetime (Matt 23), right? 2,000 years later and all the appostles are LONG dead, and Jesus still hasn't shown up.

You must not understand the character of god. We are all gods children. If someone has never heard of jesus but leads a good life anyway and loves god, then that person would definitely go to heaven. Its not speculation, its a fact.
That's only true according to YOUR brand of christianity. There are many brands of christianity that disagree with you including, but not limited to Baptists, Presbyterians (or however you spell that), Calvinists, Church of Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. According to all these sects, being good isn't enough, you HAVE to accept Jesus as your personal savior. Some even go farther and say, even if you accept Jesus, it won't do you any good because your name isn't in the book of Life as one of the 144,000 elect.

God is evident to every man. To deny god will send you straight to hell. My point is that if you have never heard of jesus, If your a bushman who lives a good and moral life and loves god you can still go to heaven.
How is god evident? By appealing to beauty or structure? That doesn't prove god, that simply proves beauty and structure. We have no way of knowing how that came about. Maybe it was created, but we don't know that for a fact. If god is a fact, then why doesn't he reveal himself to everyone like he used to do all the time in the OT?

If you do believe in god, and have heard the gospels about jesus and don't recognize jesus as the messiah, then you will not be saved. Because If you truly knew god then you would recognise his son the savior when he is revealed to you.

This is why christians believe muslims, jews, etc etc etc will not be allowed into heaven. However if they have never heard of jesus then they can go to heaven just like the bushman if they are humble, loving and moral.
In that case, the world would be better off if missionaries would knock off the preaching. So long as they don't preach and I behave, I'm saved. If they do preach, I behave but don't accept their preaching, I'm doomed. Therefore, the missionaries are doing more harm then good by condemning people to hell instead of leaving them alone.

The Bible mentions how everyone is given the chance to "accept" (meaning salvation) at least once in their life - either through the witness of nature, or from others around him.

Surely you can't expect to go through life (even if "evangalizing" were outlawed) and never hear about the Bible?

And mentioning upward: The Jehovah's Witness only believe in a "headcount" on "Heaven proper"

There's going to be (according to them) a re-made heaven AND earth - those who don't make the "elect" in heaven still experience everlasting life (according to their belief) - just not in heaven, proper.

Kinda like the difference between a King Suite in a hotel room, or a double-room with coffee.

Yes, but God DOES make himself known in the same way the eletricity company makes itself known. Via written words or THE BIBLE. You can choose to ignore it but it doesnt make it go away. Now I cant prove it to you to be certian, as I have said. But what I am saying is this is how the Christian belief works.
Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean it's true. Why can't god make personal appearances like he used to in the OT.

P.S.
Pictures of Jesus in cheese sandwiches doesn't count.

My suggestion would be to talk to the writer. :D

Seriously, find some place where you're alone and try talking to God. Even if you don't believe in Him, the worse that can happen is you would end up talking to yourself. Ask Him about the Bible.
There is not ANY proof that there is any god to talk to. Prove there is a god, then I will attempt to talk to him.

It seems to me that if god wants us to know he is real, he has enough power to let us know, without any doubt that he exists. Can't the creator of the universe do SOMETHING to let me KNOW (not believe) that he exists? The bible says that true christians are immune to poison and snake bites, so why aren't they? Why aren't all true bibles indestructable? That would be a good start, IMHO.

And here I thought christians do not believe in salvation by works (or is that just catholics)
There are TONS of sects that say that.

It's amazing, christians can't agree on what the bible says on almost any single point, and they expect non-christians to buy into it? How can I buy into something that the people who read it and profess to believe in it can't even agree on what it means?

The Bible mentions how everyone is given the chance to "accept" (meaning salvation) at least once in their life - either through the witness of nature, or from others around him.

Surely you can't expect to go through life (even if "evangalizing" were outlawed) and never hear about the Bible?

Maybe not in the Western World. But what about members of tribes in South America and Africa who can go their whole lives never knowing there is even a world outside their villages?

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Babylonian Talmud, Lucian. Do you really just disregard them?
What about them? Throwing out names doesn't mean anything. Provide something that they wrote or did. I can make up names on the spot to prove any point I like.

This might help.
http://www.brojed.org/articletwo.html
This article doesn't answer the question, it just does a VERY LOOOOOOONG dance around the subject without actually addressing it. It gives a bunch of scripture, explainations of the scripture and concludes that punishment must be eternal without ever supporting the conclusion.

Further, the conclusion doesn't allow god to be both all loving and all powerful as is stated earlier in the argument. An all loving and all powerful god CAN'T allow eternal punishment, because it would be an infinite punishment for a finite crime. There has to be a point where the sinner has paid for his transgression, otherwise god would be holding an adulterer on equal footing with Stalin. I think you would agree that an adulterer doesn't come anywhere remotely near having the kind of impact on the world that Stalin did.

Because everyone has sinned. Everyone. That is why a system was created to remove sin. Hence God can reward those without sin.



He did. The Cross was for ALL HUMANS. ALL HUMANS can accept it. The diffrence comes when humans refuse to accecpt. God has put out his hand to save you. You just have to grab it.



If I dont believe that my elecrictiy comes from the electricity company, does that give me any special treatment when they cut of my power for non payment of bills. Just believing that God does not exist does not somehow change the reality of your situation.

Have to take issue here.
First line - bah. BS. Prove it. The argument doesn't hold and that's already come up, especially with death in childbirth, et cetera. The system is irrelevant. Maybe read the argument i had w/Justifidians about it, reread Gen 1-3. Carefully. Then figure it out. Long story short - STILL BEING BORN. STILL SUPPOSEDLY FIXING THINGS.

Number 2 is the biggest one though. Perhaps you should reread exactly how many crosses were there on Golgotha BEFORE Jesus (of Nazareth?) was CRUCIFIED (note meaning of name) and nailed to the torture/homicide device for sake of public execution and suffering. The cross, now having become a BLAZEN GRAVEN IMAGE for those "supporters" out there wearing one around their obedient necks - that one - was made to help murder before Jesus and was still being used afterwards. Don't mistake that. Your post indicates that everyone should be happy to be publicly staked, tortured, humiliated and soiled so that the "just" god can appreciate a little ditty escaping your lips and fleeting mind.
Note : My lord, why hast thou forsaken me? (TWICE) I dare paraphrase but certainly you've come across that one before.

Number 3 - that came up earlier. No point bringing that up again, the counterpoint had much more integrity.

All i want to say other than i appreciated your post that Grave_N_Idle responded to kindly. (Note - GRAVENIDOL)

An all loving and all powerful god CAN'T allow eternal punishment, because it would be an infinite punishment for a finite crime. There has to be a point where the sinner has paid for his transgression, otherwise god would be holding an adulterer on equal footing with Stalin. I think you would agree that an adulterer doesn't come anywhere remotely near having the kind of impact on the world that Stalin did.

Here is a piece of an article written by Gary F. Zeolla.

Is it "just" for God to punish people eternally for their finite sins here on earth? I pose the following illustration:

If I were to kill my neighbor’s gold fish, what would happen to me? Maybe he might hit me and throw me out of his house. But that would probably be the end of it. If he took me to court, I might receive a few dollars fine, but that would be about it.

If I were to kill my neighbor’s dog, then I would probably be in much bigger trouble. He would be much more likely to want to slug me. He also would be more to take me to court. And if he did, I would probably receive a much stiffer fine, and maybe even a few days in jail.

If I were to kill my neighbor himself, now I would really be in trouble. The state would come after me. Once convicted, I would probably spend the rest of my life in prison, either through a life sentence or capital punishment.

Why the difference in the punishments in each of these three cases? In each, I killed another living being. But the punishments differs because the "worth" of the one I committed the crime against differs. In our society, a dog is viewed as having greater worth than a gold fish; and a human being is viewed as having much greater worth than a dog.

In the latter case, I must pay with my life because only the forfeiting of my life is sufficient justice to pay for the taking of another human’s life (whether I spend my entire life in prison or am executed doesn’t matter; either way the reasoning is the same).

So it is the amount of "worth" possessed by the one offended that determines the degree of the seriousness of the crime and resultant penalty, not necessarily the act itself.

Now, to apply this to God, He is of infinite worth. So any "crime" committed against Him would necessitate an infinite punishment. Again it is the worth of the one sinned against that determines the degree of the seriousness of the act. Moreover, since I am finite, there is no way I can "pay" for my sin. Just the forfeiting of my finite life would not be sufficient to pay for an infinite crime.

So for God to execute an eternal punishment on me for my sins would not be "injustice." It would be perfect justice. Eternal punishment fits a sin committed against an infinite Being. So I know that I deserve damnation.

But, God out of His pure grace and love, came and died for my sins. Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh, took my sins upon Himself. And since Jesus was and is God in the flesh, His sacrifice was infinite. So it was able to pay the infinite penalty due for my sins.

Now, God did not have to die for me; He would have been completely just if He had damned me as I deserved. But because of His grace and love He saved me...

Here is a piece of an article written by Gary F. Zeolla.

Is it "just" for God to punish people eternally for their finite sins here on earth? I pose the following illustration:

If I were to kill my neighbor’s gold fish, what would happen to me? Maybe he might hit me and throw me out of his house. But that would probably be the end of it. If he took me to court, I might receive a few dollars fine, but that would be about it.

If I were to kill my neighbor’s dog, then I would probably be in much bigger trouble. He would be much more likely to want to slug me. He also would be more to take me to court. And if he did, I would probably receive a much stiffer fine, and maybe even a few days in jail.

If I were to kill my neighbor himself, now I would really be in trouble. The state would come after me. Once convicted, I would probably spend the rest of my life in prison, either through a life sentence or capital punishment.

Why the difference in the punishments in each of these three cases? In each, I killed another living being. But the punishments differs because the "worth" of the one I committed the crime against differs. In our society, a dog is viewed as having greater worth than a gold fish; and a human being is viewed as having much greater worth than a dog.

In the latter case, I must pay with my life because only the forfeiting of my life is sufficient justice to pay for the taking of another human’s life (whether I spend my entire life in prison or am executed doesn’t matter; either way the reasoning is the same).

So it is the amount of "worth" possessed by the one offended that determines the degree of the seriousness of the crime and resultant penalty, not necessarily the act itself.

Now, to apply this to God, He is of infinite worth. So any "crime" committed against Him would necessitate an infinite punishment. Again it is the worth of the one sinned against that determines the degree of the seriousness of the act. Moreover, since I am finite, there is no way I can "pay" for my sin. Just the forfeiting of my finite life would not be sufficient to pay for an infinite crime.

So for God to execute an eternal punishment on me for my sins would not be "injustice." It would be perfect justice. Eternal punishment fits a sin committed against an infinite Being. So I know that I deserve damnation.

But, God out of His pure grace and love, came and died for my sins. Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh, took my sins upon Himself. And since Jesus was and is God in the flesh, His sacrifice was infinite. So it was able to pay the infinite penalty due for my sins.

Now, God did not have to die for me; He would have been completely just if He had damned me as I deserved. But because of His grace and love He saved me...

1. Dogs have greater value then goldfish, and humans have greater value then dogs due to level of awareness. Everytime you breath, you are killing thousands of life forms, yet their deaths don't effect much of anything. When an individual kills beings of greater sentience (assuming it was unprovoked and unnecessary), they are doing so out of maliciousness. When someone has an increasing level of maliciousness, they prove that they are a danger to society and are dealt with accordingly. They are dealt with according to the level of danger they present to society.

2. According to scripture, god is infinite, but he is also all powerful. There is nothing of any that I can do to threaten an infinite and all powerful being. Further, being all powerful, god could choose to erase the sin from me completely. An all powerful god doesn't need hell at all. Therefore, hell exists (assuming it does) because god wants hell to exist. Thus, god is not good or loving.

The cross, now having become a BLAZEN GRAVEN IMAGE for those "supporters" out there wearing one around their obedient necks


Indeed - they wear graven images, and they put another 'god' before YHWH - two commandments broken straight away in the name of 'christianity'.


All i want to say other than i appreciated your post that Grave_N_Idle responded to kindly. (Note - GRAVENIDOL)

Does this mean I did a good thing, or a bad thing? :)

Why the difference in the punishments in each of these three cases? In each, I killed another living being. But the punishments differs because the "worth" of the one I committed the crime against differs. In our society, a dog is viewed as having greater worth than a gold fish; and a human being is viewed as having much greater worth than a dog.
I knew it! Size does matter...

In the latter case, I must pay with my life because only the forfeiting of my life is sufficient justice to pay for the taking of another human’s life (whether I spend my entire life in prison or am executed doesn’t matter; either way the reasoning is the same).
That's very altruistic of you.

So it is the amount of "worth" possessed by the one offended that determines the degree of the seriousness of the crime and resultant penalty, not necessarily the act itself.
And yet, the human who kills another human has their "worth" reduced to the equivalent of a goldfish, at least in Texas. Go figure.

Now, to apply this to God, He is of infinite worth. So any "crime" committed against Him would necessitate an infinite punishment.
That makes no sense at all. Now the "worth" of the sinner is dependent on God's size?

Again it is the worth of the one sinned against that determines the degree of the seriousness of the act.
Why then does a human who sins against another human not break even?

Moreover, since I am finite, there is no way I can "pay" for my sin. Just the forfeiting of my finite life would not be sufficient to pay for an infinite crime.
Um, isn't that what Jesus is for?

But, God out of His pure grace and love, came and died for my sins. Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh, took my sins upon Himself. And since Jesus was and is God in the flesh, His sacrifice was infinite. So it was able to pay the infinite penalty due for my sins.

Now, God did not have to die for me; He would have been completely just if He had damned me as I deserved. But because of His grace and love He saved me...
Okay, if god has paid the penalty, then we can all sin as we please.

Cool, we could go like the D&D planes too! Can I go to the Elemental plane of Air when I die? Pretty please? :)

*Has to laugh* Well, according to Sea of Trolls, humans generally end up with the afterlife they're expecting, so might as well make it a good one.

I would just like to point out that arguing the Bible is pointless, for all of those who have been getting nasty with each other about how it's supposed to be interpreted. Pop that book open and turn to Romans 14 for me, please? Isn't that enough to have in common? Faith is a personal relationship with God, and every person's belief on the matter is going to be different. This leads back to the main point of this thread, about a child-molesting priest. Now, what do you think his personal relationship with God is? Wait - stop. Don't think that. Because it's not your place to even begin to ruminate on what another person's relationship is with their celestial being. That is between them and God, the servant and their Master.

This is why we can't agree, also, simply because everyone believes something else. Even in the individual churches, there are people who believe different things. It goes back to that "thought process" thing. Just like kingdoms, villages, tribes, whatever, we've gone off in different directions “kinda-sorta” based on what those around us basically believe in. But that's religion, which is another word for politics. Faith is something personal, something that no one else can touch. And of course, since not everyone agrees, there's going to be another person who will disagree with me.

See? Isn't this just a merry-go-round of foolishness? What are we all trying to prove, again? What was the original point of this thread? I don't understand.... Are we actually attempting to attain anything by this, other than being able to listen to another person admit "Okay, you win, I give up”? Why are you so angry at a generalized mass of people, Heikoku? Couldn’t I just turn around and spit out something about the Germans, or the Americans, or even your religion? It doesn’t make sense, really, to keep going over the same old arguments, dance old dances, sing old songs. Nothing will change anything, anyway, since personal choices should truly be that – personal.

Shouldn't y'all stop with the spreading of the word of God already, then? By showing all those innocent heathens the Bible, you're condemning them to Hell! People, in general and as a rule, won't give up their own closely held beliefs just 'cause some crazy foreigner tells 'em about this man on a stick, and that they'll burn forever if they don't give him his props. But you're telling me that by being exposed to this doctrine, these otherwise good people will suffer for all of eternity, simply because they decide to continue believing what they've believed their whole lives?

What a novel set of beliefs.

Best let them continue to remain blissfully, and blessedly, ignorant, while us poor sods labour under the burden that knowledge of the bible has given us, sez I.
I'm sorry, but I keep going back to this post. I don't know if there are awards for the most subtly brilliant blatently obvious observation never to be mentioned, but if there are, this post should take the cake.

Well done.

I knew it! Size does matter...


That's very altruistic of you.


And yet, the human who kills another human has their "worth" reduced to the equivalent of a goldfish, at least in Texas. Go figure.


That makes no sense at all. Now the "worth" of the sinner is dependent on God's size?

Nope, he's saying that God is of infinite worth, and therefore our offending Him is infinitely punishable. I found it compelling as it's never been described to me that way before.


Why then does a human who sins against another human not break even?

We can offend God by sinning against each other.

Um, isn't that what Jesus is for?
Yep... read on


Okay, if god has paid the penalty, then we can all sin as we please.

Nope. The only way to be saved by God is to be a friend of Jesus Christ. Every sin committed hurts Jesus more... so the only way for people to continue sinning is to hurt their friend.

Most people don't purposefully, continually hurt their friends.

Notice, though that I'm not saying we have to be perfect, because that is impossible. But rather that we should strive to be more like Christ - to emulate the perfect Friend.

God in His wisdom has allowed us to continue down here despite knowing there is a chance we could again fall into sin. Therefore He must have a plan to deal with future sins as well as past ones.

Nope, he's saying that God is of infinite worth, and therefore our offending Him is infinitely punishable. I found it compelling as it's never been described to me that way before.
The problem of omnipotence and an "all loving" god remains. How can I do any harm to an all powerful god? Can't an all powerful god wipe away my sin? An all loving god would do so if he were powerful enough. Therefore, if god is all loving and all powerful, then he can and will wipe away all sin. Since god does not, he is either not all powerful, all loving, both or non-existant.

Further, this STILL puts adultery and the crimes of Stalin on equal footing.

The problem of omnipotence and an "all loving" god remains. How can I do any harm to an all powerful god? Can't an all powerful god wipe away my sin? An all loving god would do so if he were powerful enough. Therefore, if god is all loving and all powerful, then he can and will wipe away all sin. Since god does not, he is either not all powerful, all loving, both or non-existant.

Further, this STILL puts adultery and the crimes of Stalin on equal footing.

In fact - since we have seen it argued here that even sins against men, are actually sins against god also - it puts Stalin's Purges in the same 'eternal punishment category', as eating clams.

In fact - since we have seen it argued here that even sins against men, are actually sins against god also - it puts Stalin's Purges in the same 'eternal punishment category', as eating clams.

I don't know how eating clams is a sin, but I do know that if Stalin had somehow accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour he would go to heaven DESPITE all the killing he authored.

Since God IS willing to forgive almost anything, there really is no reason to quibble about all sins being equal.

The fact is that all sin can send you to hell, and all people have sin. Prove to me you don't.

And for the record, children who die before they really learn what sin is do not go to hell. I don't see how that is possible.

I don't know how eating clams is a sin, but I do know that if Stalin had somehow accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour he would go to heaven DESPITE all the killing he authored.

wow, what a sick God you worship. i'm glad i won't be forced to spend my afterlife in a place where murderers, rapists, and the dregs of humanity can get front row seats by name-dropping "JC."


Since God IS willing to forgive almost anything, there really is no reason to quibble about all sins being equal.

yes, there is a "quibble." a person who wears a cotton-poly blend is, according to you, as Hell-worthy as a serial killer. if that strikes you as just, then i supposed you've picked the right God to worship...personally, if i were going to worship something, i would worship a being with a better set of priorities.


The fact is that all sin can send you to hell, and all people have sin. Prove to me you don't.

i don't sin, because i don't believe in sin. i do not quazblot, because i do not believe in quazblot. unless you can objectively prove the existence of quazblot, and can objectively establish that your standards of quazblot are the ones that must be applied to all persons, any claim that i quazblot is nothing more than hot air; the same applies to sin.


And for the record, children who die before they really learn what sin is do not go to hell. I don't see how that is possible.
how not? your God sends people to eternal torture for each shellfish, if your holy book is to be believed, so why would it be such a stretch for him also to torment infants for the "sin" of not maturing enough to worship Him before they die?

besides, i thought your God was all-powerful...is He really limited by YOUR comprehension of His acts? must He restrict himself to only passing judgment in ways that you personally understand? your failure to understand His reasoning in sending infants to Hell has no bearing on whether or not He does so, after all, and certainly has no bearing on whether that decision is "right."

"thy will be done," remember?

I don't know how eating clams is a sin, but I do know that if Stalin had somehow accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour he would go to heaven DESPITE all the killing he authored.

Since God IS willing to forgive almost anything, there really is no reason to quibble about all sins being equal.

The fact is that all sin can send you to hell, and all people have sin. Prove to me you don't.

And for the record, children who die before they really learn what sin is do not go to hell. I don't see how that is possible.

So - you are arguing over the truth of 'christianity', but are not basing your concept on scripture?

Children who die before they really learn what sin is - if you follow the word of the bible, burn alongside Hitler and all his buddies.

If you claim to be 'christian', you should probably read the 'handbook'... eating shellfish is a sin, as is planting two types of crop in the same field, for example.

Finally, Why do I have to prove I haven't sinned? You claim everyone sins... so the burden of proof is on you... you must prove I HAVE sinned.

So - you are arguing over the truth of 'christianity', but are not basing your concept on scripture?

Children who die before they really learn what sin is - if you follow the word of the bible, burn alongside Hitler and all his buddies.

If you claim to be 'christian', you should probably read the 'handbook'... eating shellfish is a sin, as is planting two types of crop in the same field, for example.

Finally, Why do I have to prove I haven't sinned? You claim everyone sins... so the burden of proof is on you... you must prove I HAVE sinned.

Actually (and I know this is technical), in the New Testament Peter was shown a dream where God let down a blanket and told to eat the creatures on it (including seafood.) Peter said "Not so, this is unclean." And God said, "What I have ALLOWED you shall not DISALLOW." (paraphrased)

It seems to me like Jesus established new practices because the established Pharisees were abusing the law and holding people under foot. God allowing you to do MORE today without sinning, it seems like you are angry at Him for having any laws whatsoever.

As for your sin, I could guess and probably identify something you've said or done that was sin. But that's not my job - I'm not there. You ought to know when something is wrong - I'm not there. If you feel that something is wrong, it's probably a sin. This of course assumes that you don't have a twisted view of right and wrong, which a lot of people do.

God allowing you to do MORE today without sinning, it seems like you are angry at Him for having any laws whatsoever.

ahh yes, the old, "atheists are really angry at God" theory. are you angry at Santa for not bringing you the presents you wanted? i don't know about you, but i can't get angry at things that don't exist.


As for your sin, I could guess and probably identify something you've said or done that was sin. But that's not my job - I'm not there. You ought to know when something is wrong - I'm not there. If you feel that something is wrong, it's probably a sin. This of course assumes that you don't have a twisted view of right and wrong, which a lot of people do.
if by "twisted" you mean "not conforming to the standards laid out in my book about talking snakes and magic zombies," then, yes, i think it is safe to say that Graves has "twisted" moral values. :)

ahh yes, the old, "atheists are really angry at God" theory. are you angry at Santa for not bringing you the presents you wanted? i don't know about you, but i can't get angry at things that don't exist.


Note that I didn't say atheists, I said "you" becuase clearly it had nothing to do with a lack of belief in God but an anger towards God. And if you believe in God it should be illogical to be angry at Him.


if by "twisted" you mean "not conforming to the standards laid out in my book about talking snakes and magic zombies," then, yes, i think it is safe to say that Graves has "twisted" moral values. :)

Magic zombies are indeed cool. But where are they in the Bible?

Note that I didn't say atheists, I said "you" becuase clearly it had nothing to do with a lack of belief in God but an anger towards God. And if you believe in God it should be illogical to be angry at Him.

um...read my post again, sweetie. Graves doesn't believe your God exists, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to be angry at your God.

also, belief in God does not in any way make it illogical to be angry at God.


Magic zombies are indeed cool. But where are they in the Bible?
according to the Bible, Jesus was an undead being who performed magic tricks. that qualifies him as a magic zombie, in my book :).

um...read my post again, sweetie. Graves doesn't believe your God exists, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to be angry at your God.

also, belief in God does not in any way make it illogical to be angry at God.


according to the Bible, Jesus was an undead being who performed magic tricks. that qualifies him as a magic zombie, in my book :).

GraveNIdle is very open for an atheist, he actually talks about God. The perception he has of my faith apparently makes him angry/injusticed at the rules I believe in.

Essentially we act as lawyers, arguing our respective cases, and my impression is that GraveNIdle has nobly decided to be the advocate for all who might not have gotten a "fair shake" from the system. In the process he has staked his own spiritual well-being on an abstract of justice which he feels is not being met.

While I respect that, I am not going to put myself in diametric opposition to God simply for the sake of things that have already happened that I don't like / can't change.

I disagree with your zombie analogy... I know there is a quantifiable difference between the re-animation of dead flesh and the resurrection back to a full life.

I also obviously need to learn to spell better since I had to edit this post.

Actually (and I know this is technical), in the New Testament Peter was shown a dream where God let down a blanket and told to eat the creatures on it (including seafood.) Peter said "Not so, this is unclean." And God said, "What I have ALLOWED you shall not DISALLOW." (paraphrased)

It seems to me like Jesus established new practices because the established Pharisees were abusing the law and holding people under foot. God allowing you to do MORE today without sinning, it seems like you are angry at Him for having any laws whatsoever.

As for your sin, I could guess and probably identify something you've said or done that was sin. But that's not my job - I'm not there. You ought to know when something is wrong - I'm not there. If you feel that something is wrong, it's probably a sin. This of course assumes that you don't have a twisted view of right and wrong, which a lot of people do.


So god created flawed origional laws and had to change them (not a good track record for an omni potent god)

Again it is the worth of the one sinned against that determines the degree of the seriousness of the act.
Why then does a human who sins against another human not break even?
We can offend God by sinning against each other.
So sinning against other humans can bring down a punishment worthy of a god? Humans sinned against are propelled up to a worth equal to god, and the sinner is still propelled down to the worth of a goldfish? Still sounds like its about size to me.

I understand where you're going with this --that a sin against another human is a sin against God --and it fully supports my own belief that god is a part of us. However, the idea expressed --that a dog has more worth than a goldfish or a sinnee more worth than a sinner, and that good humans are worth the most --is an entirely human judgement, nothing god said.

In that case, the world would be better off if missionaries would knock off the preaching. So long as they don't preach and I behave, I'm saved. If they do preach, I behave but don't accept their preaching, I'm doomed. Therefore, the missionaries are doing more harm then good by condemning people to hell instead of leaving them alone.
Intresting notion :)

wow, what a sick God you worship. i'm glad i won't be forced to spend my afterlife in a place where murderers, rapists, and the dregs of humanity can get front row seats by name-dropping "JC."


yes, there is a "quibble." a person who wears a cotton-poly blend is, according to you, as Hell-worthy as a serial killer. if that strikes you as just, then i supposed you've picked the right God to worship...personally, if i were going to worship something, i would worship a being with a better set of priorities.


i don't sin, because i don't believe in sin. i do not quazblot, because i do not believe in quazblot. unless you can objectively prove the existence of quazblot, and can objectively establish that your standards of quazblot are the ones that must be applied to all persons, any claim that i quazblot is nothing more than hot air; the same applies to sin.


how not? your God sends people to eternal torture for each shellfish, if your holy book is to be believed, so why would it be such a stretch for him also to torment infants for the "sin" of not maturing enough to worship Him before they die?

besides, i thought your God was all-powerful...is He really limited by YOUR comprehension of His acts? must He restrict himself to only passing judgment in ways that you personally understand? your failure to understand His reasoning in sending infants to Hell has no bearing on whether or not He does so, after all, and certainly has no bearing on whether that decision is "right."

"thy will be done," remember?


Thank you... I have argued most of these points before but :) always good to see people think the same way I do :)

Actually (and I know this is technical), in the New Testament Peter was shown a dream where God let down a blanket and told to eat the creatures on it (including seafood.) Peter said "Not so, this is unclean." And God said, "What I have ALLOWED you shall not DISALLOW." (paraphrased)

It seems to me like Jesus established new practices because the established Pharisees were abusing the law and holding people under foot. God allowing you to do MORE today without sinning, it seems like you are angry at Him for having any laws whatsoever.

As for your sin, I could guess and probably identify something you've said or done that was sin. But that's not my job - I'm not there. You ought to know when something is wrong - I'm not there. If you feel that something is wrong, it's probably a sin. This of course assumes that you don't have a twisted view of right and wrong, which a lot of people do.

I am not 'angry at' your 'god' for having 'his' laws.. because I do not believe he exists.

As far as I can see, Jesus actually said that people paid to much attention to what supposedly holy-men wrote, and what they said.

To MY reckoning, Jesus preached a personal relationship - about NOT letting other people decide your spirituality for you, or explain to you how you should be feeling/believing.

And - just because 'christians' feel that they have been absolved of one or two of the restrictions... doesn't make it true, or excuse what was there before, or remove damnation from those who ALREADY sinned, or even - absolve the sinful nature from OTHER petty sins - such as wearing animal fibres and vegetable fibres together.

um...read my post again, sweetie. Graves doesn't believe your God exists, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to be angry at your God.

also, belief in God does not in any way make it illogical to be angry at God.


according to the Bible, Jesus was an undead being who performed magic tricks. that qualifies him as a magic zombie, in my book :).

There are a couple of stories of Jesus re-animating dead flesh, I seem to recall. And then, he administers his finishing move, by re-animating his OWN dead flesh.

You are right, though - I have the same pent-up aggression against 'god', that I have towards the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.

The only difference is - people don't stop me in the street, and tell me I'm going to burn for all eternity, just because I don't accept the 'message' of the Easter Bunny...

So god created flawed origional laws and had to change them (not a good track record for an omni potent god)

Not out of character, though...

First Chronicles 21:15 "And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite".

God 'regrets' his 'evil' acts against Jerusalem, and calls the angels to reverse his decision.

or Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".

God 'regrets' his decision to create such a flawed creture as man.

Unfortunately, 'he' kind of has a history of making bad choices, and rash impulsive decisions that 'he' later regrets....

GraveNIdle is very open for an atheist, he actually talks about God. The perception he has of my faith apparently makes him angry/injusticed at the rules I believe in.

Essentially we act as lawyers, arguing our respective cases, and my impression is that GraveNIdle has nobly decided to be the advocate for all who might not have gotten a "fair shake" from the system. In the process he has staked his own spiritual well-being on an abstract of justice which he feels is not being met.

While I respect that, I am not going to put myself in diametric opposition to God simply for the sake of things that have already happened that I don't like / can't change.

I disagree with your zombie analogy... I know there is a quantifiable difference between the re-animation of dead flesh and the resurrection back to a full life.

I also obviously need to learn to spell better since I had to edit this post.

I AM a very open Atheist. I am ONLY an Atheist, because it has become obvious to ME, that 'god' is not real... at least - not in any way quantified in any 'holy books' of any of the world's many religions.

I have no perception of 'your faith', except that you seem to argue against my view of some scripture, and yet don't seem to have read it even as thoroughly as I have - otherwise you would (surely) never have questioned the 'sin' of eating shellfish?

My perception of Christianity, and of 'christianity', are two very different things. I see very little evidence that there are many Christians at all, in this world - but a whole lot of 'christians'.

I DO think that the 'scriptural' version of salvation is flawed, but I also don't believe that it is what a benevolent god intended... or that it was even a fair representation of what Jesus taught.

The Old Testament basically says that ALL die - and that is 'fair' - that is the hand of a FAIR god, since ALL get access to life, and there is no 'afterlife'.

The New Testament says that ALL die, but SOME get punished eternally (for not hearing the name of Jesus) and SOME get rewarded eternally - for the entirely arbitrary reason of deciding that Jesus was a persuasive speaker.

New Testament salvation shows no evidence of a 'benevolent' or loving 'god' - and also, loses the Old Testament claim of AT LEAST being 'fair'.

There are a couple of stories of Jesus re-animating dead flesh, I seem to recall. And then, he administers his finishing move, by re-animating his OWN dead flesh.

hmm, you're right, in which case we run into a significant theological question: should Jesus be classified as a zombie, or a zombie master?


You are right, though - I have the same pent-up aggression against 'god', that I have towards the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.

The only difference is - people don't stop me in the street, and tell me I'm going to burn for all eternity, just because I don't accept the 'message' of the Easter Bunny...
i've been surprised at the derth of people informing me that i am "close minded" for failing to believe in pixies, as well...there are so many who make that claim about my attitudes toward the Christian God, and who insist that only by accepting their theological perspective (to the exclusion of all others) can i prove my "open mindedness."

curious.

God is just and merciful. He condemns the wrongdoing, but he gives all a chance to repent. He wont condemn anyone for things that are out obviously out of thier control.
Yeah, except for that whole itchy scenario you and i already argued about from Genesis ... AND except for being born into "original sin" w/out a conscious choice and therefore by definition not qualifying as sin.

Another hole-proof argument! Hallelujah! :rolleyes:

Thank you :) (dunno if I thanked you for similiar compliments earlier, so thought I'd take the opportunity to do so now. You're pretty cool yourself.)



I dunno if Heikoku even frequents the board these days... the thread may have outlived him ^_^
Thanks :)
I hope i never run afoul of an argument with you!

I

I can't wait to see this.... I've never yet seen proof that heaven actually even EXISTS, let alone WHO is getting in.
....you, you mean ... Dante Aligheri MIGHT HAVE BEEN USING CREATIVE LICENSE TECHNIQUES?
I thought he had a place for everyone! Waah! Now my appreciation of "literature" took YET ANOTHER stumble *sob*

:confused:
Did it say anywhere that Dante saw it all as a work of fiction? I can't remember reading that anywhere. I suppose i'd have remembered if he gave the same caveat at the end like John did at the end of that putrid "Revelation" farce. Bleah.

But being Christian doesn't make other religious texts go away. Honestly, I find the Baghavad Gita (a portion of the epic poem Mahabharata which conveys some central Hindu ideas) to be poetically more powerful, more succinct and cohesive in its message, and generally more effective as a religious text than the Bible. And I read it first while I was still a good little Christian (although I can't claim any particular pedigree there; I was about 11 years old :))


Bravo!
Totally agreed.
How does that passage go (please forgive me) ...
"He who is beyond good and evil is dearest to me."
?

How is god evident? By appealing to beauty or structure? That doesn't prove god, that simply proves beauty and structure. We have no way of knowing how that came about. Maybe it was created, but we don't know that for a fact. If god is a fact, then why doesn't he reveal himself to everyone like he used to do all the time in the OT?
Maybe it's too caught up in production of classic television series like "Survivor", or maybe in obscure poetry readings on Tuesday nights.

Indeed - they wear graven images, and they put another 'god' before YHWH - two commandments broken straight away in the name of 'christianity'.
Exactly.


Does this mean I did a good thing, or a bad thing? :)
"Come, come, Mr. Lee, don't play dumb with me." - talking typewriter/bug on Naked Lunch
;)

AS FOR THE NAME, i don't think i can make a good or bad issue of it since i don't know why you did it. I just felt it strange that this far along in this thread no one else has mentioned it.
As for your kindly reply, i posit that it shows maturity and respect for the integrity of the subject matter. I appreciate it, but then, i'm obviously biased.

I knew it! Size does matter...


That's very altruistic of you.


And yet, the human who kills another human has their "worth" reduced to the equivalent of a goldfish, at least in Texas. Go figure.


That makes no sense at all. Now the "worth" of the sinner is dependent on God's size?


Why then does a human who sins against another human not break even?


Um, isn't that what Jesus is for?


Okay, if god has paid the penalty, then we can all sin as we please.
You ROCK.
....and, you kinda scare me. ;)
Good ref to TX, BTW.

As for your sin, I could guess and probably identify something you've said or done that was sin. But that's not my job - I'm not there. You ought to know when something is wrong - I'm not there. If you feel that something is wrong, it's probably a sin. This of course assumes that you don't have a twisted view of right and wrong, which a lot of people do.
I feel, at the very core of my being, that supporting the agenda of a bunch of rightwing miseducated revenge-oriented ego-disproportionate zealots is one of the, if not THE, wrongest thing i can ever do, even more to supplement "scripture" in a fashion that disavows them of responsibility to EVEN READ IT to say nothing of attempting wisdom and understanding - at least in the sense of my place in the "universe" in the same suffering and accomplishment of my fellow humans, regardless of most personally-oriented shortcomings they may possess (at the parameters of personal responsibility of course). I feel that it's wrong to assume god has the parameters of only one of myriad species and that we have to cater to it based on faltering human principles and psycho/emotional security dilemma.
Does that mean that i would have a twisted view of right and wrong as well? Just checkin'.

GraveNIdle is very open for an atheist, he actually talks about God. The perception he has of my faith apparently makes him angry/injusticed at the rules I believe in.

Essentially we act as lawyers, arguing our respective cases, and my impression is that GraveNIdle has nobly decided to be the advocate for all who might not have gotten a "fair shake" from the system. In the process he has staked his own spiritual well-being on an abstract of justice which he feels is not being met.

While I respect that, I am not going to put myself in diametric opposition to God simply for the sake of things that have already happened that I don't like / can't change.

I disagree with your zombie analogy... I know there is a quantifiable difference between the re-animation of dead flesh and the resurrection back to a full life.

I also obviously need to learn to spell better since I had to edit this post.
To be fair, it's been said quite a few times that the parameters of "god" that we're arguing about were put forth by MEN. "Inspired by" or "plagerized by" or whatever, it is still an active function of men, judiciously and surrepetitiously. One could say my argument (and many others here) and intent to do so is an active participation/function of the spirit. Of course, the catch-all is where it doesn't agree with a "devout" or "zealot" that i, simply, am deceived, and then the whole argument goes out the window without any logical rigmarole. It could be the integrity of this thread isn't about arguing so much semantics as it is reviewing and determining the material required to define the topic of the thread in the first place. That's why i'm doing it, at least. On my part, maybe Grave's, the anger would lie in the manipulation and propegation of self-serving interests, maintaining principles of fear to manipulate the populace into subservience without scrutiny. That is, again, wrong to me.
And as for the "resurrection" part, back to full life, i suppose you're talking about frogs after you freeze 'em a while, or are you talking about the chemical compromise of some folk in Haiti (which they made "The Serpent and the Rainbow" about) that has enough evidence about it to argue here? Or you just mean that dead = dead until brought back to life, with many, many cases to supplement that assertion?

I feel, at the very core of my being, that supporting the agenda of a bunch of rightwing miseducated revenge-oriented ego-disproportionate zealots is one of the, if not THE, wrongest thing i can ever do, even more to supplement "scripture" in a fashion that disavows them of responsibility to EVEN READ IT to say nothing of attempting wisdom and understanding - at least in the sense of my place in the "universe" in the same suffering and accomplishment of my fellow humans, regardless of most personally-oriented shortcomings they may possess (at the parameters of personal responsibility of course).
WOW! That's a fantastically long runon sentence. ;)

Come on, almost 100 pages!

Come on, almost 100 pages!
I've got 129. How does one change how many posts appear on each page?

I've got 129. How does one change how many posts appear on each page?

Oh yeah, I forgot that I had mine set to 20 posts per page. Go into your profile [Link is just under the NationStates logo at the top]. On the left hand side click the 'Edit Options' link [4th one down]. Then go down to 'Thread Display Options' and it's in one of the drop down menus. Enjoy.

Oh yeah, I forgot that I had mine set to 20 posts per page. Go into your profile [Link is just under the NationStates logo at the top]. On the left hand side click the 'Edit Options' link [4th one down]. Then go down to 'Thread Display Options' and it's in one of the drop down menus. Enjoy.
Sweet, thanks! :cool:

hmm, you're right, in which case we run into a significant theological question: should Jesus be classified as a zombie, or a zombie master?

i've been surprised at the derth of people informing me that i am "close minded" for failing to believe in pixies, as well...there are so many who make that claim about my attitudes toward the Christian God, and who insist that only by accepting their theological perspective (to the exclusion of all others) can i prove my "open mindedness."

curious.

A zombie zombie-master, perhaps?

It IS curious... I have also been called closed-minded by 'christians', for not accepting Jesus on faith.

I doubt they would feel the same way about me not accepting Shiva on faith.

A zombie zombie-master, perhaps?

It IS curious... I have also been called closed-minded by 'christians', for not accepting Jesus on faith.

I doubt they would feel the same way about me not accepting Shiva on faith.
*tries to open gravies mind*
*it falls on floor*
*tries to find wetnap to clean it off*

"Come, come, Mr. Lee, don't play dumb with me." - talking typewriter/bug on Naked Lunch
;)

AS FOR THE NAME, i don't think i can make a good or bad issue of it since i don't know why you did it. I just felt it strange that this far along in this thread no one else has mentioned it.
As for your kindly reply, i posit that it shows maturity and respect for the integrity of the subject matter. I appreciate it, but then, i'm obviously biased.

+1 Cool Points for Naked Lunch reference. :)

I am USUALLY respectful on the forum, even when others aren't.

To be honest - I don't think most people even GET the nickname....

*tries to open gravies mind*
*it falls on floor*
*tries to find wetnap to clean it off*

Ah man... I can't believe you did that...

That's the second time TODAY!

:)

Ah man... I can't believe you did that...

That's the second time TODAY!

:)
Well we all knew we had a dirty mind :p

Well we all knew we had a dirty mind :p

Yeah - but now there's evidence... brain-prints on the floorboards... :)

Take it a step further, yell it at the Pope.

But do it in Italian or Latin or he won't understand a word of it.

If you expect some grand and glorious action to occur to you because you mocked us, such as a flash of lightning, then you're wrong. Won't happen.

I take that entire thing as a compliment, though. It shows that we're doing something right, to get your panties in all worked up in a wad. And thank you for posting, also, because, as our God tells us...

James 1:3 - for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

It's not a matter of just saying "I believe in God," because even Satan believes in God. If you believe in the two, then Satan would have to believe in God. It's his arch-nemesis.

Here's the rundown on your "ticket to heaven."
0) (before time itself) God can't have evil around him- that's why he's holy.
1) God made Adam and Eve (however you choose to believe he did- creationism or evolutionism, it don't matter. They're here).
2) Adam and Eve sinned. Punishment: Physical death. Not immediate, but they will die.
3) To have God forgive your sins, you must sacrifice a portion of your profits (then, it was a bull, or a sheep, or some grain from your fields, etc.)
4) Yeshua bar Joseph of Nazareth was born, as the Son of God.
5) Jesus lived a blameless life, never sinned.
6) Jesus was crucified. He became a substitutionary atonement* for us.
7) He died, we don't have to. Place your faith that he lived and died for you, not just say it, but truely believe that it happened, and you will live with Him in heaven for all eternity.

That's how a child molester can get into heaven. That's how you can get into heaven. Of course, I can't make you, it's a choice on your own. As for now, you seem to have chosen to disbelieve and mock all that do. Fair enough, you're angry. Go ahead. It's your right as a living being capable of free will to do so.

*Substitutionary atonement: We had to kill things in order for our sins to be forgiven. Since God can't have sin in his presence, we, as sinners, can't get into heaven. So, a bull is killed in place of us dying, which in turn removed the sin. Sounds stupid, but that's how it was. Christ was blameless, sinless, perfect. He died so we don't have to. Simple as that.

Substution: to put in ones place
Atonement: to reconcile, as for sin.

If a Child molester doesn't repent, he's gonna fry. Same for any normal dude, atheist or otherwise. You've gotta roll down your personal list of crimes and repent for each one, or you ain't going nowhere come the day.

And the whole atheists issue isn't exactly worrying. 2nd coming is going to make God's reappearance unmistakable, so it's only those who genuinely reject God who are in trouble.

A zombie zombie-master, perhaps? The term you are looking for is "liche" this being an undead necromancer.

Wow... I have to get out more.

If you expect some grand and glorious action to occur to you because you mocked us, such as a flash of lightning, then you're wrong. Won't happen.

I take that entire thing as a compliment, though. It shows that we're doing something right, to get your panties in all worked up in a wad. And thank you for posting, also, because, as our God tells us...

James 1:3 - for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

It's not a matter of just saying "I believe in God," because even Satan believes in God. If you believe in the two, then Satan would have to believe in God. It's his arch-nemesis.

Here's the rundown on your "ticket to heaven."
0) (before time itself) God can't have evil around him- that's why he's holy.
1) God made Adam and Eve (however you choose to believe he did- creationism or evolutionism, it don't matter. They're here).
2) Adam and Eve sinned. Punishment: Physical death. Not immediate, but they will die.
3) To have God forgive your sins, you must sacrifice a portion of your profits (then, it was a bull, or a sheep, or some grain from your fields, etc.)
4) Yeshua bar Joseph of Nazareth was born, as the Son of God.
5) Jesus lived a blameless life, never sinned.
6) Jesus was crucified. He became a substitutionary atonement* for us.
7) He died, we don't have to. Place your faith that he lived and died for you, not just say it, but truely believe that it happened, and you will live with Him in heaven for all eternity.

That's how a child molester can get into heaven. That's how you can get into heaven. Of course, I can't make you, it's a choice on your own. As for now, you seem to have chosen to disbelieve and mock all that do. Fair enough, you're angry. Go ahead. It's your right as a living being capable of free will to do so.

*Substitutionary atonement: We had to kill things in order for our sins to be forgiven. Since God can't have sin in his presence, we, as sinners, can't get into heaven. So, a bull is killed in place of us dying, which in turn removed the sin. Sounds stupid, but that's how it was. Christ was blameless, sinless, perfect. He died so we don't have to. Simple as that.

Substution: to put in ones place
Atonement: to reconcile, as for sin.


So why the transition between the old and new method of salvation?

If you expect some grand and glorious action to occur to you because you mocked us, such as a flash of lightning, then you're wrong. Won't happen.

I take that entire thing as a compliment, though. It shows that we're doing something right, to get your panties in all worked up in a wad. And thank you for posting, also, because, as our God tells us...

James 1:3 - for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

It's not a matter of just saying "I believe in God," because even Satan believes in God. If you believe in the two, then Satan would have to believe in God. It's his arch-nemesis.

Here's the rundown on your "ticket to heaven."
0) (before time itself) God can't have evil around him- that's why he's holy.
1) God made Adam and Eve (however you choose to believe he did- creationism or evolutionism, it don't matter. They're here).
2) Adam and Eve sinned. Punishment: Physical death. Not immediate, but they will die.
3) To have God forgive your sins, you must sacrifice a portion of your profits (then, it was a bull, or a sheep, or some grain from your fields, etc.)
4) Yeshua bar Joseph of Nazareth was born, as the Son of God.
5) Jesus lived a blameless life, never sinned.
6) Jesus was crucified. He became a substitutionary atonement* for us.
7) He died, we don't have to. Place your faith that he lived and died for you, not just say it, but truely believe that it happened, and you will live with Him in heaven for all eternity.

That's how a child molester can get into heaven. That's how you can get into heaven. Of course, I can't make you, it's a choice on your own. As for now, you seem to have chosen to disbelieve and mock all that do. Fair enough, you're angry. Go ahead. It's your right as a living being capable of free will to do so.

*Substitutionary atonement: We had to kill things in order for our sins to be forgiven. Since God can't have sin in his presence, we, as sinners, can't get into heaven. So, a bull is killed in place of us dying, which in turn removed the sin. Sounds stupid, but that's how it was. Christ was blameless, sinless, perfect. He died so we don't have to. Simple as that.

Substution: to put in ones place
Atonement: to reconcile, as for sin.

Must be comforting to just be able to ignore anything anyone says.. and write it off as 'anger' or 'mockery'.

I envy you your blind faith.

Must be comforting to just be able to ignore anything anyone says.. and write it off as 'anger' or 'mockery'.

I envy you your blind faith.
People have a tendancy to do whats easier for them ... and its easier for them to put off what people say about what they believe then to take a look at it (not talking one specific religion ... nor religion nessisarly at all) we all know a few diehard athiests that aret he same way

hmm, you're right, in which case we run into a significant theological question: should Jesus be classified as a zombie, or a zombie master?

He's obviously a lich then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich

Jesus is co-equal with the God of the Universe. That puts Him way above a weak zombie master.

Jesus is co-equal with the God of the Universe. That puts Him way above a weak zombie master.
Cant have two omnipotent powers in the same universe

Same reason you can not have an immovable object and an irresistable force in the same reality ;)

Cant have two omnipotent powers in the same universe

Same reason you can not have an immovable object and an irresistable force in the same reality ;)

You can if they're in perfect agreement.

But my real point is that Jesus would have way more HP.

You can if they're in perfect agreement.

But my real point is that Jesus would have way more HP.
Nope still does not make it true ... by deffinition not contention :p

If a Child molester doesn't repent, he's gonna fry. Same for any normal dude, atheist or otherwise. You've gotta roll down your personal list of crimes and repent for each one, or you ain't going nowhere come the day.

And the whole atheists issue isn't exactly worrying. 2nd coming is going to make God's reappearance unmistakable, so it's only those who genuinely reject God who are in trouble.

The term you are looking for is "liche" this being an undead necromancer.

Wow... I have to get out more.

Just reminded me of something, actually...

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works".

So - even those who 'die' will not be sent straight to hell, but will dwell in the earth, for a thousand years further, after the 'end comes'. And, after THAT thousand years - THEY shall then be resurrected, and judged on their WORKS.

SO - theoretically - Christians get straight in, for believing on Jesus...

BUT: Even the Atheist can get in, one thousand years LATER, through judgment of their good works.

Cant have two omnipotent powers in the same universe

Same reason you can not have an immovable object and an irresistable force in the same reality ;)

Don't you ever get bored with being so right? :)

Just reminded me of something, actually...

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works".

So - even those who 'die' will not be sent straight to hell, but will dwell in the earth, for a thousand years further, after the 'end comes'. And, after THAT thousand years - THEY shall then be resurrected, and judged on their WORKS.

SO - theoretically - Christians get straight in, for believing on Jesus...

BUT: Even the Atheist can get in, one thousand years LATER, through judgment of their good works.


Intresting :p salvation by works

Yes, if you're an atheist and you somehow survive all the way through the Tribulation without taking the mark of the beast, you could theoretically believe in God when he makes His appearance known and ask His forgiveness. But why chance it?

WOW! That's a fantastically long runon sentence. ;)
Is that ... wrong? *shrieks*
I figured if i used any ending punctuation i may stray off topic and start talking about what i was eating at the time, kinda like Mike Savage. ;)

Yes, if you're an atheist and you somehow survive all the way through the Tribulation without taking the mark of the beast, you could theoretically believe in God when he makes His appearance known and ask His forgiveness. But why chance it?

Because I don't believe in god.

The tribulation, the 1000 years, and the resurrection would be the evidence I have never yet seen.

I don't believe NOW, because there is no evidence... and I don't believe just anything someone tells me.

+1 Cool Points for Naked Lunch reference. :)

I am USUALLY respectful on the forum, even when others aren't.

To be honest - I don't think most people even GET the nickname....
Hey, thanks! Can i cash in my points for Starbucks coffee, or should i just reinvest and hope for the best? ;)
I agree, you do seem quite respectful most of the time. Probably more than myself.

EDIT- i think my favorite parts of that flick is actually the *cough cough*"sexual ambulance" part, and the part where Fidela comes in through the door and strict-whips the typewriter until it scrambles out the window, and their dubious explanation to the event. Of course, a good way to drive people off uncomfortably is to spout off either of Lee's diatribes about "Bobo" or the guy who taught his arsehole to talk. Sometimes stunned silence is as good as laughter. But, what do i know?

Is that ... wrong? *shrieks*
I figured if i used any ending punctuation i may stray off topic and start talking about what i was eating at the time, kinda like Mike Savage. ;)

You are EATING Mike Savage?

Must be comforting to just be able to ignore anything anyone says.. and write it off as 'anger' or 'mockery'.

I envy you your blind faith.
*gasp*
...isn't ENVY one of the SEVEN deadly (personal) sins? ...
*gasp*

EDIT - Brad Pitt movies taught me most of my interpersonal ethics.
;)
Case in point - Meet Joe Black, Fight Club, Kalifornia

Hey, thanks! Can i cash in my points for Starbucks coffee, or should i just reinvest and hope for the best? ;)
I agree, you do seem quite respectful most of the time. Probably more than myself.

EDIT- i think my favorite parts of that flick is actually the *cough cough*"sexual ambulance" part, and the part where Fidela comes in through the door and strict-whips the typewriter until it scrambles out the window, and their dubious explanation to the event. Of course, a good way to drive people off uncomfortably is to spout off either of Lee's diatribes about "Bobo" or the guy who taught his arsehole to talk. Sometimes stunned silence is as good as laughter. But, what do i know?

I believe you can trade them in for Starbucks... but only at the one nearest my house. :)

Yes - Naked Lunch is such an awesome film. Disturbing in places, but oh-so-cool.

*gasp*
...isn't ENVY one of the SEVEN deadly (personal) sins? ...
*gasp*

EDIT - Brad Pitt movies taught me most of my interpersonal ethics.
;)
Case in point - Meet Joe Black, Fight Club, Kalifornia

There are four more good movies.

Curse you Brad, for making good movies.

You are EATING Mike Savage?
Blah! I'd never get finished! Besides, he's too spicy.
No, he always seems to meander his monologues back towards something he:
ate, was planning on eating, what he wasn't going to eat again, and what people should or shouldn't eat. Could be correlated to his degree. Personally i think he was out skippin' around the isles to avoid certain civic responsibilities at the time, and probably to find good drugs.

There are four more good movies.

Curse you Brad, for making good movies.
To be fair, i didn't like his dress style in the Oceans', also that it i find people smack me if i'm eating something while they talk to me so i've toned that one down. As Troy goes, i was a bigger fan of Hector. Too bad they took out almost ALL of the meddling-gods issues (NOTE: somewhat pertinent to this thread) - BUT he sure could fight well, whereas an average bar of soap might hurt me! ;)
I don't remember the other ones yet. Could be since i haven't cashed in my point yet. *sigh*
Where the hades would i have to go to cash that?

Blah! I'd never get finished! Besides, he's too spicy.
No, he always seems to meander his monologues back towards something he:
ate, was planning on eating, what he wasn't going to eat again, and what people should or shouldn't eat. Could be correlated to his degree. Personally i think he was out skippin' around the isles to avoid certain civic responsibilities at the time, and probably to find good drugs.

Sort of like... Garrison Keillor (spelling?), but on Acid?

I believe you can trade them in for Starbucks... but only at the one nearest my house. :)

Yes - Naked Lunch is such an awesome film. Disturbing in places, but oh-so-cool.
It's not exactly my responsibility, but i'll post it anyway:

The whole "William Tell" thing was because Burroughs did that on the back of a boat when he was exiled in Mexico. That was the one piece that didn't fit. Although i watched that 3 or 4 times i couldn't get it until i looked it up.
Also, Cronenberg (sp?) makes AWESOME sets/props. Like Existenz (though i didn't like the movie much) and Videodrome (loved it).
I hope that helps, if you didn't already know.

Sort of like... Garrison Keillor (spelling?), but on Acid?
Well, to be honest, I've never heard Savage going on about life in the midwest and being a Lutheran. ;)
But then i can only handle so much of his vitriol. He gets a few hits right but his own belligerence ends up obscuring any reason, in time. Of course, his next book is entitled "Liberalism is a mental disorder" or some other hypocritical bullsh*t.
I'm serious though, every SINGLE week i hear him at some point he talks about eating. Not in a Dali-esque way, either, so the amusement rating is LOW.

But do it in Italian or Latin or he won't understand a word of it.
i thought i heard/read somewhere he knows 3 or four DIFFERENT languages.
....?

It's not exactly my responsibility, but i'll post it anyway:

The whole "William Tell" thing was because Burroughs did that on the back of a boat when he was exiled in Mexico. That was the one piece that didn't fit. Although i watched that 3 or 4 times i couldn't get it until i looked it up.
Also, Cronenberg (sp?) makes AWESOME sets/props. Like Existenz (though i didn't like the movie much) and Videodrome (loved it).
I hope that helps, if you didn't already know.

Yes... wasn't it his wife he shot? I had heard the story before, but he is a man surrounded by myth...

Yes - Cronenberg is good on props... although there were much better reasons to watch existenz than the accessories. Existenz suffered in comparison to some of his other work, but had a wonderful cast.

I'm more of a Fincher fan (Seven and Fight Club, off the list already discussed), or Lynch (Mulholland Drive)... or Gilliam, of course (Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, Fear and Loathing...).

Well, to be honest, I've never heard Savage going on about life in the midwest and being a Lutheran. ;)
But then i can only handle so much of his vitriol. He gets a few hits right but his own belligerence ends up obscuring any reason, in time. Of course, his next book is entitled "Liberalism is a mental disorder" or some other hypocritical bullsh*t.
I'm serious though, every SINGLE week i hear him at some point he talks about eating. Not in a Dali-esque way, either, so the amusement rating is LOW.

Hey - I said like Keillor on Acid... I didn't say it was GOOD Acid... :)

If you expect some grand and glorious action to occur to you because you mocked us, such as a flash of lightning, then you're wrong. Won't happen.

Yeah, never mind Job or any of the other pleasant experiences of nonbelievers described in lurid, gory detail in that book. :rolleyes:
God's apparently given up and doesn't have the cajones to show anyone anything anymore. Good of it to obscure itself even more, helps supplement the whole "god-fearing" principle.


James 1:3 - for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

It's not a matter of just saying "I believe in God," because even Satan believes in God. If you believe in the two, then Satan would have to believe in God. It's his arch-nemesis.


Substution: to put in ones place
Atonement: to reconcile, as for sin.
Well, at least you bother with a definition or two, cool - sorta.
Substitution: person or thing serving IN PLACE OF ANOTHER. (OED)

And yes, given the literature, Satan would have to believe in God in order to consciously rebel against it. Really, the book would have even LESS merit if it hadn't already pointed that out fairly clearly.
As far as arch-nemesis, though, that's not a really keen estimation, since "god" at any time could merely repeal the rights of Satan to have influence of any kind. Remember in Job where Satan actually communicated with God on a relatively level ground, speaking of tempting Job into proving himself unworthy of God's love (or at least proving that Satan had enough sway to draw Job's faith), and God approved of the venture, playing out the emotions and tribulations as a co-spectator with Satan. Read it.
Again, this all happens at the behest of "god". Not really a nemesis to "god", just a nemesis to us as humans. Really, which does god have a bigger problem with, Satan or specifically not following the rule of law? That would make SIN "god"'s arch-nemesis.
nemesis (OED): 3 Something that one cannot conquer, achieve

Yes... wasn't it his wife he shot? I had heard the story before, but he is a man surrounded by myth...

Yes - Cronenberg is good on props... although there were much better reasons to watch existenz than the accessories. Existenz suffered in comparison to some of his other work, but had a wonderful cast.

I'm more of a Fincher fan (Seven and Fight Club, off the list already discussed), or Lynch (Mulholland Drive)... or Gilliam, of course (Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, Fear and Loathing...).
Yep it was his wife. He was a paranoid mofo. Wrote good, though, even if very disturbing at times.
True about the cast and possibilities of Existenz, i think i've simply been spoiled. In a different order of release, i probably would see it differently.
As Lynch goes, gimme your idea of Lost Highway, if you would ...? I think i liked Blue Velvet better. Until the rape - don't like rape. BTW I have The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer. Pretty disturbing. Picked it up in a yard sale. Read it and THEN watched "Fire Walk With Me". Oh, i said. Then i ate a slice of potato pie.
Gilliam rocks. Totally. Did you see Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen (sp)?

Hey - I said like Keillor on Acid... I didn't say it was GOOD Acid... :)
Well, if i had to compare the two, Savage's humour is somewhat sophomoric, i like Keillor's style better. If you gave either of them acid (at this point) my money would be on Keillor walking away alright. Savage is unstable sober. I bet the regressive dialogue would be amusing as hell until it became pitiful, though, for Savage. Now i feel though like i should look around to see if anyone has any footage of Keillor on something (other than what seems like mild/moderate painkillers). ;)
Good acid these days .... hmmm ....

Jesus is co-equal with the God of the Universe. That puts Him way above a weak zombie master.
That completely disintegrates the integrity of the ascension argument through the cross. Think about it - it was a big ploy, a play on emotions to get people to kill themselves. What a merciful "god."
With nothing to risk, nothing to gain - no better than playing with the lessers.
Unless you would submit that Jesus, by actually dying on the cross, also was the death of god ....? Everything just stopped? Don't give me the Mel Gibson version, either, what does the scripture actually say?
Jesus being co-equal (what?) with "god" would mean that Jesus knew there would be no death for it, thus no risk, only the misrepresentation of the case. Instead leading faithful and hopeful people to think that they had to die to truly be appreciated, or at the very least, to equate the consummation of the spirit in dying (killing?) flesh. What truly a loving creature indeed.

Just reminded me of something, actually...

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works".

So - even those who 'die' will not be sent straight to hell, but will dwell in the earth, for a thousand years further, after the 'end comes'. And, after THAT thousand years - THEY shall then be resurrected, and judged on their WORKS.

SO - theoretically - Christians get straight in, for believing on Jesus...

BUT: Even the Atheist can get in, one thousand years LATER, through judgment of their good works.
Right on.

That completely disintegrates the integrity of the ascension argument through the cross. Think about it - it was a big ploy, a play on emotions to get people to kill themselves. What a merciful "god."
With nothing to risk, nothing to gain - no better than playing with the lessers.
Unless you would submit that Jesus, by actually dying on the cross, also was the death of god ....? Everything just stopped? Don't give me the Mel Gibson version, either, what does the scripture actually say?
Jesus being co-equal (what?) with "god" would mean that Jesus knew there would be no death for it, thus no risk, only the misrepresentation of the case. Instead leading faithful and hopeful people to think that they had to die to truly be appreciated, or at the very least, to equate the consummation of the spirit in dying (killing?) flesh. What truly a loving creature indeed.

Well, that's the holy trinity deal, right? Jesus was God, albeit in mortal form. Not that this explains why some Christians refer to Jesus' death as a sacrifice, while simutaneously expounding upon the active role he plays in day-to-day affairs on earth. Pretty active for a dead guy.

Pain and suffering as sacrifice on his part I can sorta see, although I question the meaningfulness of such to an infinite, transcendent etc. divinity. But physical death's gotta be pretty meaningless to someone who goes straight up to Heaven, hangs a bit with Dad, and is back in the game before the dust has a chance to clear.

Although if we were to treat Jesus in a strictly human fashion (ignoring that he's allegedly part of God), at the very least his quality of life must've gone up after his death. Maybe that's why there were a few days before the ressurection; J needed a few days to cool down, relax, listen to some hossanahs (sp?) and so on before diving back into the rather unpleasant realities of 33 CE and eating poorly prepared, likely disease-ridden food.

("I can be three people at once," Jesus points out. "One of them is omnipotent." http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000233.php)

Well, that's the holy trinity deal, right? Jesus was God, albeit in mortal form. Not that this explains why some Christians refer to Jesus' death as a sacrifice, while simutaneously expounding upon the active role he plays in day-to-day affairs on earth. Pretty active for a dead guy.

Pain and suffering as sacrifice on his part I can sorta see, although I question the meaningfulness of such to an infinite, transcendent etc. divinity. But physical death's gotta be pretty meaningless to someone who goes straight up to Heaven, hangs a bit with Dad, and is back in the game before the dust has a chance to clear.

Although if we were to treat Jesus in a strictly human fashion (ignoring that he's allegedly part of God), at the very least his quality of life must've gone up after his death. Maybe that's why there were a few days before the ressurection; J needed a few days to cool down, relax, listen to some hossanahs (sp?) and so on before diving back into the rather unpleasant realities of 33 CE and eating poorly prepared, likely disease-ridden food.

("I can be three people at once," Jesus points out. "One of them is omnipotent." http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000233.php)

Actually the three days in between the death and resurrection were spent fighting huge battles in Hell betwen Jesus and Satan. Jesus also took time out to preach to the dead who had never had the chance to be saved by God in their life prior to the coming of the Messiah.

And yes, Jesus' quality of life probably went up a lot after the resurrection as He was placed on His rightful throne forever and ever.

Actually the three days in between the death and resurrection were spent fighting huge battles in Hell betwen Jesus and Satan. Jesus also took time out to preach to the dead who had never had the chance to be saved by God in their life prior to the coming of the Messiah.

And yes, Jesus' quality of life probably went up a lot after the resurrection as He was placed on His rightful throne forever and ever.

So God's "incredible sacrifice of his only son" was actually just three decades apart, and a few days of pain?

Don't get me wrong, pain sucks (most of the time), and Jesus suffered horribly. And going to Hell must've sucked (are you sure he's documented as having battled Satan, though? Could be my imperfect knowledge of scripture, but I think I've forgotten that bit). But isn't it a bit hyperbolic to claim that he sacrificed his life, if you're also alleging that he's up there on his throne watching us while we masturbate and so forth?

Did he sacrifice his life, or didn't he? Some of the martyrs suffered far more and for longer than Jesus did; was their sacrifice greater than his?

Cant have two omnipotent powers in the same universe

Same reason you can not have an immovable object and an irresistable force in the same reality ;)
It is logically impossible to have ONE omnipotent being in the universe.

Yes, if you're an atheist and you somehow survive all the way through the Tribulation without taking the mark of the beast, you could theoretically believe in God when he makes His appearance known and ask His forgiveness. But why chance it?
This was an appeal to force. Sorry, but you can't bully me into believing something.

You are EATING Mike Savage?
Good plan. That'll make one less biggot in this world. I'll assign double points for eating him since he is part of the media and thus has his racist, sexist, religionist, xenophobic opinions spewed all over the air waves.

i thought i heard/read somewhere he knows 3 or four DIFFERENT languages.
....?
What's so impressive about speaking 3 or 4 different languages? My stepmother speaks 6 and is working on her 7th.

So God's "incredible sacrifice of his only son" was actually just three decades apart, and a few days of pain?

Don't get me wrong, pain sucks (most of the time), and Jesus suffered horribly. And going to Hell must've sucked (are you sure he's documented as having battled Satan, though? Could be my imperfect knowledge of scripture, but I think I've forgotten that bit). But isn't it a bit hyperbolic to claim that he sacrificed his life, if you're also alleging that he's up there on his throne watching us while we masturbate and so forth?

Did he sacrifice his life, or didn't he? Some of the martyrs suffered far more and for longer than Jesus did; was their sacrifice greater than his?

He sacrified his life, yes, but just like the rest of us when he died he came to heaven :D.

And no, I don't think their sacrifices were greater because they died for a cause, for a certain group of humans or for their own beliefs. Jesus died for EVERYONE.

It is logically impossible to have ONE omnipotent being in the universe.

Yeah, well God doesn't follow logic. God is kinda, above logic.

Yeah, well God doesn't follow logic. God is kinda, above logic.
Riiiiiiight, and I can bend spoons with the power of my mind. :rolleyes:

Riiiiiiight, and I can bend spoons with the power of my mind. :rolleyes:

That, on the other hand, makes no sense. It does make sense that God doesn't follow logic, since God created everything. Including logic, and sense.

And no, I don't think their sacrifices were greater because they died for a cause, for a certain group of humans or for their own beliefs. Jesus died for EVERYONE.

Except for skeptics. And followers of other religions. And people who simply haven't heard of him.

...

Or, if you haven't been following the thread: What's your take on exclusive salvation? Can non-Christians get into Heaven? If not, why not? Do you consider it fair if God punishes finite sin (anything done on earth in a single lifetime) infinitely (eternity in Hell)?

Those're some of the key questions being discussed, anyhow. Or at least the ones I personally am most concerned with :)

That, on the other hand, makes no sense. It does make sense that God doesn't follow logic, since God created everything. Including logic, and sense.
Prove that god created logic and that he can break it. Can he create a square circle? The logical law of noncontradiction says you cannot, but if you say god is beyond logic, then he ought to be able to do it.

Can god create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? No matter how you answer that, god is incapable of doing something, therefore omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute and CANNOT exist.

Except for skeptics. And followers of other religions. And people who simply haven't heard of him.

...

Or, if you haven't been following the thread: What's your take on exclusive salvation? Can non-Christians get into Heaven? If not, why not? Do you consider it fair if God punishes finite sin (anything done on earth in a single lifetime) infinitely (eternity in Hell)?

Those're some of the key questions being discussed, anyhow. Or at least the ones I personally am most concerned with :)

I don't know the answer to that question, God does though. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

Or you can look at it this way. Is it far that Jesus had to die for your sins, only for you to go shit on him and say he never even existed?

Except for skeptics. And followers of other religions. And people who simply haven't heard of him.

...

Or, if you haven't been following the thread: What's your take on exclusive salvation? Can non-Christians get into Heaven? If not, why not? Do you consider it fair if God punishes finite sin (anything done on earth in a single lifetime) infinitely (eternity in Hell)?

Those're some of the key questions being discussed, anyhow. Or at least the ones I personally am most concerned with :)
I find it interesting that there have been many different brands of christians, all with a different version of salvation. One said that ONLY the few people predestined to get into heaven will get in. Another said, that ALL christians, and ONLY christians will get into heaven. Another said, all christians and good religious people who have never heard of Jesus will get into heaven. Another said, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you are a good person. Which one is it?

I don't know the answer to that question, God does though. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

Or you can look at it this way. Is it far that Jesus had to die for your sins, only for you to go shit on him and say he never even existed?
Here you go "wagering" your eternal soul. Do you think religion is like Vegas, where you can put one on the red and HOPE you come up a winner? If you're just feining belief and you don't truly believe, then wouldn't god know that you're faking it and cast you into hell anyways? Wouldn't you be living a lie?

Also, why doesn't your version of Pascal's Wager include other religions? How do you know the Hindus are not correct and you are wrong? How about the Mythriasts, Zoastorians, Muslims, or any other religion you can imagine? How do you know you're not betting on the wrong god? Heck, why are you betting at all?

Prove that god created logic and that he can break it. Can he create a square circle? The logical law of noncontradiction says you cannot, but if you say god is beyond logic, then he ought to be able to do it.

Can god create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? No matter how you answer that, god is incapable of doing something, therefore omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute and CANNOT exist.

Oh how cute. Bringing up the same, age-old thing. "Can god create a rock so large he cannot lift it"?

The answer is yes, he could. He would still be omni-potent, because he is just that, omni-potent.

The real break against logic is the belief you could prove that God was omni-potent using HUMAN logic.

I can't prove that God created logic, and I can't prove to you that it he can break it. Its all a matter of belief.

Though, on the other hand, can you really prove to me that the world is round? No, you can't. Nothing can be proven, but most of us choose to belief things that we belive can be accurately explained. While some people, like the flat-earth society, belive other things.

Here you go "wagering" your eternal soul. Do you think religion is like Vegas, where you can put one on the red and HOPE you come up a winner? If you're just feining belief and you don't truly believe, then wouldn't god know that you're faking it and cast you into hell anyways? Wouldn't you be living a lie?

Also, why doesn't your version of Pascal's Wager include other religions? How do you know the Hindus are not correct and you are wrong? How about the Mythriasts, Zoastorians, Muslims, or any other religion you can imagine? How do you know you're not betting on the wrong god? Heck, why are you betting at all?

Yes, I would be living a lie, but I'm not living a lie since I belive in God and I belive I'm doing the best I can to follow His plan for me.

But first, since you seem like on of those nice hypothetical guys, define "knowledge" for me.

I find it interesting that there have been many different brands of christians, all with a different version of salvation. One said that ONLY the few people predestined to get into heaven will get in. Another said, that ALL christians, and ONLY christians will get into heaven. Another said, all christians and good religious people who have never heard of Jesus will get into heaven. Another said, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you are a good person. Which one is it?

According to the bible, people who belive in God and accept Jesus as their savior comes into heaven.

I don't know the answer to that question, God does though. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

Or you can look at it this way. Is it far that Jesus had to die for your sins, only for you to go shit on him and say he never even existed?


Or you can look at it this way: is it fair that mohammad lived to bring you the message of god, given him by the archangel gabriel, only for you to go shit on him and say he was wrong?

I am quite sure jesus didn"t die for my sins.

Can god create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? No matter how you answer that, god is incapable of doing something, therefore omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute and CANNOT exist.

Neo and myself have responded to that question a number of times and still you use it. So you didnt like our answers? Lets make a different argument then. God is all powerful. Lets say something like this, If someone is all powerful they have the ability to become not all powerful. God can create a rock, limit his power, he is unable to lift the rock, brings back his power, he lifts the rock. There.

People skew the definition of omnipotence to prove God doesnt exist. Its like saying omnipotence includes the ability to fail. Someone who is omnipotent cannot fail. So does Gods omnipotence prove he is not omnipotent?

Neo and myself have responded to that question a number of times and still you use it. So you didnt like our answers? Lets make a different argument then. God is all powerful. Lets say something like this, If someone is all powerful they have the ability to become not all powerful. God can create a rock, limit his power, he is unable to lift the rock, brings back his power, he lifts the rock. There.

People skew the definition of omnipotence to prove God doesnt exist. Its like saying omnipotence includes the ability to fail. Someone who is omnipotent cannot fail. So does Gods omnipotence prove he is not omnipotent?
But if he recents omnipotentce you would assume he could not bring it back

if he could bring it back and chooses to not in order to not lift the rock he is not TRYING with all his power which violates the test


(though I find this test flawed as to if he is truly omnipotentent he could just create a reality without lets say gravity)

What the hell is the point of the rock argument. It's entirely theoretical. It can't happen - because God really doesn't care about your desire to know if He could make a rock too big for Him to move.

I don't know the answer to that question, God does though. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

Is it really fair for God to force you to take that chance, make that bet? Would it be fair to flip a coin to determine who gets into Heaven and who suffers for all eternity in Hell?

Or you can look at it this way. Is it far that Jesus had to die for your sins, only for you to go shit on him and say he never even existed?

I can say, in all honesty, that I've never once defecated on Jesus. Even figuratively: I don't believe that God (Jesus), if he exists as you believe he does, is in any way harmed by my decision not to believe in him. I'd also like to think that in the event of an actually loving God, he would understand the situation sufficiently to accept those too rational, cynical, or selfish to believe in him.

Woot! 2000!