NationStates Jolt Archive

the whole fire and brimestone thing is a tough one, I don't seem to find any evidence of it.......I mean there is mention in Revelation, but there is mention of a lot of weird stuff there, most of it I find to be metaphor.

There is the parable of the beggar and the rich man, but it's again metaphor.

Hell to me is eternal seperation from God, any other fluff added is just fluff, eternally being without His presence would be torment enough.

It's like my pastor used to say "this world is the closest sinners get to heaven, and the closest believers get to hell."

A chaplain at my school once said that Heaven and Hell are like two different dinner tables, only each guest has a pair of long chopsticks that they can't reach to their own mouths. The people in Heaven can eat, because they feed each other, while those in Hell starve because they try to feed themselves alone. I've always liked that metaphor.

I most certianly am not. You assume that to "hear about Christianity" there has to be a missionary that comes and smacks you over the head with the good book until you submit.

Romans 1:20 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.

Am I the only one confused by that? :confused:

the whole fire and brimestone thing is a tough one, I don't seem to find any evidence of it.......I mean there is mention in Revelation, but there is mention of a lot of weird stuff there, most of it I find to be metaphor.

There is the parable of the beggar and the rich man, but it's again metaphor.

Hell to me is eternal seperation from God, any other fluff added is just fluff, eternally being without His presence would be torment enough.

It's like my pastor used to say "this world is the closest sinners get to heaven, and the closest believers get to hell."

while im not a jehovas witness and never would be i find their stance on hell very persuasive. hell/hades is greek notion more than a hebrew one. outside of the parable of lazarus that you mentioned i find there to be few references to hell outside of that place where satan and his minions live. (and im having doubts about those right now)

if the wages of sin are death, what the fuck is this eternal life of torment all about?

now youre being facile.

the vast majority of hindus will never hear any true thing about christianity. the vast majority of moslems will never hear any true thing about christianity
the vast majority of chinese communists will never hear any true thing about christianity
most of them will never hear about christianity at all.

why do you think we have missionaries, a guy at my old church used to run bibles across the Chinese border.

A chaplain at my school once said that Heaven and Hell are like two different dinner tables, only each guest has a pair of long chopsticks that they can't reach to their own mouths. The people in Heaven can eat, because they feed each other, while those in Hell starve because they try to feed themselves alone. I've always liked that metaphor.

My RE teacher told me that when I was 11. I just asked why they didn't use their fingers.

while im not a jehovas witness and never would be i find their stance on hell very persuasive. hell/hades is greek notion more than a hebrew one. outside of the parable of lazarus that you mentioned i find there to be few references to hell outside of that place where satan and his minions live. (and im having doubts about those right now)
I tend not to focus on Satan.......I leave him alone, he leaves me alone (mostly)

if the wages of sin are death, what the fuck is this eternal life of torment all about?
spiritual death. That's how Satan got into tricking Eve in the garden, God said "don't eat this or you will die" and she said "maybe I won't drop dead" and Satan said "of couse you won't"

I most certianly am not. You assume that to "hear about Christianity" there has to be a missionary that comes and smacks you over the head with the good book until you submit.

Romans 1:20 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.
thats why there are devout hindus. they see the eternal power and divine nature of god and interpret it within their own culture as the multiple gods of hinduism.

unless jesus starts walking around newdelhi preaching christianity, they arent going to suddenly be converted perfectly to a religion they have never heard of.

thats why there are devout hindus. they see the eternal power and divine nature of god and interpret it within their own culture as the multiple gods of hinduism.

unless jesus starts walking around newdelhi preaching christianity, they arent going to suddenly be converted perfectly to a religion they have never heard of.
what do you think counts as conversion?

My RE teacher told me that when I was 11. I just asked why they didn't use their fingers.

Nice one. I've got to ask him that if I ever see him again.

did you know that there are more than a billion chinese people and a million cities, towns and villages? do you think that your missionary's dozen bibles reached all of them?
I don't know Ash, Paul wrote a few measly letters and they are still being passed around.....far away in both time and distance from where they were sent originally.

why do you think we have missionaries, a guy at my old church used to run bibles across the Chinese border.
did you know that there are more than a billion chinese people and a million cities, towns and villages? do you think that your missionary's dozen bibles reached all of them?

Am I the only one confused by that? :confused:
no. ;)

while im not a jehovas witness and never would be i find their stance on hell very persuasive. hell/hades is greek notion more than a hebrew one. outside of the parable of lazarus that you mentioned i find there to be few references to hell outside of that place where satan and his minions live. (and im having doubts about those right now)

if the wages of sin are death, what the fuck is this eternal life of torment all about?


it has to do with the seccond death.

theres torment, but its not eternal. Hell according to Jesus is a dark place full of pain.

"Revelation 20: the sea gave up their dead, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

did you know that there are more than a billion chinese people and a million cities, towns and villages? do you think that your missionary's dozen bibles reached all of them?


well when his efferts are combined with millions of missionaries who all do the same thing, maybe. sorry our meager efforts dont live up to your standards. you manage the AIR DROP of billions of bibles see how that works out.

I don't think you have even read it.


Well, so since through study, discussion with 7 pastors 5 guess speakers, all of which belong to the SBC, and personal experiance, just because you can quote bible verses makes you better than me. hmm i find that intresting....



see i dont just look at a passage and say well it means it word for word. That leads for a confusing message if you ask me. I actually think, pray, and discuss with others what this might mean.

Well, so since through study, discussion with 7 pastors 5 guess speakers, all of which belong to the SBC, and personal experiance, just because you can quote bible verses makes you better than me. hmm i find that intresting....
I am not better than anyone. However, I am possibly better equiped to answer questions than you are, being that I have source for my answers and have studied more than you claim to have.

It's the same thing like I took a biology class in highschool and one in college and yet, I am not as equipped to answer biology questions as someone who has a masters in biology. In fact I don't even think Demipublicents has a masters but she kicks my butt in biology. I don't think she is better than me, and it doesn't stop me from talking about biology or even studying to be better.

My main issue is that you seem to (through out this thred) be pulling doctrine out of your butt, and slapping the SBC label on it. If you don't have some sort of scriptural backing I am going to have to assume that either you

a) are making it up
or
b) heard it from someone else and are parroting the idea.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Eph 6:12-18

in the entire metaphor of the armor of God we have 1 offensive weapon, just one and it's the word of God, I don't understand why you would put yourself into any kind of spiritual warfare without it. I question you because I am concerned.

so because i cant come up with the Verse number, im pulling it out of my butt, well fine think what you want, personally i dont think your concerned, i just think your trying to make yourself out to look like a know it all and me to be a fool.

so because i cant come up with the Verse number, im pulling it out of my butt, well fine think what you want, personally i dont think your concerned, i just think your trying to make yourself out to look like a know it all and me to be a fool.
I am sorry you feel that way, I really am. If you state a belief though you should be able to back it up with something.

Yeah, it seems like a stretch. But read up on John Hick and a few other theistic writers; they address that problem pretty well. (Just to show that I'm not closed-minded, I also think Bertrand Russell makes good arguments. So there!)
Invariably, the apologists simply say "there is no problem", and that's it.


If God does exist, he would have to be totally just. It comes with the package - all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good.
Then it certainly can't be the abrahamic god.

spiritual death.
No such thing.


That's how Satan got into tricking Eve in the garden, God said "don't eat this or you will die" and she said "maybe I won't drop dead" and Satan said "of couse you won't"
Ummmm...I don't recall the word "satan" being used in Genesis 3. It's only a VERY LATER xer belief that the snake is satan. But it is not stated in the text. Please stop continuing the myth that the snake is satan.

Invariably, the apologists simply say "there is no problem", and that's it.


If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand the other side of the argument, I can't do anything about that. I've read Bertrand Russell and other atheists' works; why can't you read the works of theists? If anything, you can strengthen your own argument by knowing the views of your opponents.

No such thing.
prove it.



Ummmm...I don't recall the word "satan" being used in Genesis 3. It's only a VERY LATER xer belief that the snake is satan. But it is not stated in the text. Please stop continuing the myth that the snake is satan.

Satan means adversary, and the snake obviously was, it did not have Eve's best interest at heart, and was in fact trying to get her to rebel against God.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand the other side of the argument, I can't do anything about that.
I have. That's why I said what I said. I've read McDowell and Lewis and Zacharaias and Craig and more.

Invariably, they just say "there is no problem" and that's that. They blame the nonbeliever for not being "spiritual" or for "foolishly rejecting the word", which is the cause of the issue.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand the other side of the argument, I can't do anything about that. I've read Bertrand Russell and other atheists' works; why can't you read the works of theists? If anything, you can strengthen your own argument by knowing the views of your opponents.
because BAAWAKnights (formerly BAAWA) has the debating style of "I don't think so, so it's wrong" and if you come back with anything he says "nuh-uh" like a child, until you get frustrated and flame him when he will say "see I told you, that you were inferior"

prove it.
The text does not indicate it. If it does, please show me.



Satan means adversary, and the snake obviously was,
No, the snake was just stating something true. And if it was supposed to be a satan, the word satan would have been used, just like in the later part of Numbers, Chapter 22.

So please--stop continuing to spread the myth that the snake is satan. The text in no way supports it.

because BAAWAKnights (formerly BAAWA) has the debating style of "I don't think so, so it's wrong" and if you come back with anything he says "nuh-uh" like a child, until you get frustrated and flame him when he will say "see I told you, that you were inferior"
Only because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

I do love it when people whine about me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the idiots have realized just how stupid they are.

Only because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

I do love it when people whine about me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the idiots have realized just how stupid they are.
yeah, if it makes you feel good to think that you go right ahead and think that. I doubt there is anything else good in your life aside from your delusions.

The text does not indicate it. If it does, please show me.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom006.html




No, the snake was just stating something true. And if it was supposed to be a satan, the word satan would have been used, just like in the later part of Numbers, Chapter 22.
the snake was lying. his purpose was to trick her.

So please--stop continuing to spread the myth that the snake is satan. The text in no way supports it.
why do you even care?

Only because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

I do love it when people whine about me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the idiots have realized just how stupid they are.

Have you been in a college political/religious philosophy class? Every person I've seen with your "I know I'm right and the rest of you cretins can go to hell" attitude has gotten a new one ripped by their professor - even if the professor happens to agree with their views.

As for your other comment, I can only point you towards John Hick, who doesn't dismiss the atheist argument so easily as "they're a bunch of unbelievers". In my mind, honestly, there hasn't been a totally convincing argument for or against the existence of God, but some people have made better arguments than others.

yeah, if it makes you feel good to think that you go right ahead and think that. I doubt there is anything else good in your life aside from your delusions.
I feel neither good nor bad when I think of that. It is a fact, and requires neither good nor bad feelings.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom006.html
That's the book of Romans, not Genesis, Chapter 3.

This is what you're wanting:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+3&t=str&st=1&new=1&l=en


the snake was lying.
But he didn't lie, did he? Neither Adam nor Eve died that day. Yet god said they would--and no, it does not say "spiritually die".


why do you even care?
I'd just like you to get the story correct. Silly me for desiring that, right?

Have you been in a college political/religious philosophy class?
Yes.


Every person I've seen with your "I know I'm right and the rest of you cretins can go to hell" attitude has gotten a new one ripped by their professor - even if the professor happens to agree with their views.
Didn't happen to me--I'm just that good.


As for your other comment, I can only point you towards John Hick, who doesn't dismiss the atheist argument so easily as "they're a bunch of unbelievers".
They all ultimately do. They may hide behind verbosity or being prolix, but the upshot is what I said.

I feel neither good nor bad when I think of that. It is a fact, and requires neither good nor bad feelings.

so when you said


Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the idiots have realized just how stupid they are.
then you were lying?

Yes.



Didn't happen to me--I'm just that good.



They all ultimately do. They may hide behind verbosity or being prolix, but the upshot is what I said.
I don't think it's that you're that good but rather that no one likes your whiney, fallacious arguments, so they don't bother responding to you at all.

But he didn't lie, did he? Neither Adam nor Eve died that day. Yet god said they would--and no, it does not say "spiritually die".

so you are a Bible literalist then?


I'd just like you to get the story correct. Silly me for desiring that, right?
yes, but why do you care?

If I say that there were 4 pigs instead of 3 and that the wolf was a hampster, that wouldn't make any difference to you.

But he didn't lie, did he? Neither Adam nor Eve died that day. Yet god said they would--and no, it does not say "spiritually die".
I assume you're translating it yourself from the original text? And that you understand the nuances and subtleties of translating from ancient Hebrew into modern English? And also that the term "death" doesn't necessarily mean a literal one? That sometimes writers embellish things with symbolism and ambiguity? You can't take everything at face value. It just isn't there.

so when you said

then you were lying?
No.

I don't think it's that you're that good but rather that no one likes your whiney, fallacious arguments, so they don't bother responding to you at all.
Awwwww....poor baby.

Way to whine.

Awwwww....poor baby.

Way to whine.
Haha! And here I thought you had no sense of humor!:p

No.
they can't both be true. explain yourself or admit that you are the idiot.

so you are a Bible literalist then?
No. But it doesn't say "spiritually die", does it? I mean, if you want to add words to the text--be my guest. You'll be wrong because the text doesn't have those words in there, but you can do it.


yes, but why do you care?
So that I don't have to educate you and the others you share your little story with.

I assume you're translating it yourself from the original text?
Does that matter? No.

[snip the rest of the rambling that doesn't matter]

they can't both be true.
Of course they can.

Does that matter? No.

[snip the rest of the rambling that doesn't matter]
Yes, it does matter. There are errors in transcription and translation that can alter the very words of the text. And the rest of it matters as well. You just don't want to have to deal with it because you're an arrogant prick without a single valid statement to support yourself.

[snip the rest of the rambling that doesn't matter]

Only because you got your intellectual ass kicked.

This is the kind of thing that turns debate into personal insults and name-calling. Even if you had kicked his intellectual ass (hint: you hadn't), it's not a sign of good faith to gloat about it. Here I am, trying to be fucking civil, and you're insulting everyone?

Yes, it does matter.
No, it actually doesn't. You just don't want to deal with that fact because you want to invent problems that don't exist.

here i use the wind theory. We cant see wind? so how do we know its there, we see the effects of it. Now how do we know God exists, the effects. Im not talking about people doing things and saying their Gods will when in truth far from it. I mean like, a man i knew, who was a drug dealer, converted to christianity, and on that same night, Flushed all his drugs down the toilet and told his suppliers that he would find away to pay them back. And on top of that, the suppliers just said.....ok.
No, but as a scientist, I can postulate as to what it is that is causing the sensations that wind causes, devise experiments to test that postulation, and ultimately develop an extensive theory based on all of the observations I have made about the phenomenon. You can't do that with God because there are no experiments that can test for his existence, or whether a given effect was caused by Him, and therefore, there are no observations on which to base any theory that He exists (or for that matter, that He does not exist). The evidence you offer is not only anecdotal, but also easily explainable by a dozen hypotheses other than "God did it", and there is no way that you can prove to me that what happened was because of God.[/QUOTE]

really, cause you know he told us which religion to follow, just people dont really wanna listen.
Really, now? He spoke to you directly? Cause he sure didn't tell me to follow Christianity. In fact, one could even argue that he told me (through creating my brain which reasoned this) to be an agnostic. By "us" do you maybe mean Moses and Paul? Well, how do you know that it wasn't just the devil speaking to them, or "voices" as you claim Muhammed's prophecies to be? And why should I believe that it is the correct religion to follow just because Moses told me that God told him it was? You know, there's this guy at the bus station that frequently tells me that God tells him that there's a giant government conspiracy of some sort or other. Should I believe him? The Greeks and Romans also claimed to speak directly with their gods on many occasions. Should I believe them? What makes Moses so special that I should believe him, and why was he the only one that God spoke to? Furthermore, what makes the story of Jesus's ressurection so special? There have been dozens of similar stories throughout history, even stories of other men in ancient Rome who claimed to be descended from God, allegedly performed miracles, were crucified by the Romans, were ressurected, and later ascended. You're going to tell me that none of those stories are true, but if I don't believe those stories, what reason do I have to believe Christianity? Cults based on these figures emerged all throughout ancient Rome, and it wasn't until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and his disciples that Christianity gained prominence over the others, and that was simply because its followers happened to be more zealous and tenacious than the followers of the others. So why should I believe in the story of Jesus and not in any of the others? Because it's more popular? The story certainly doesn't have any more credibility than any of the others, and being more popular certainly doesn't make something right.

again he gave us the answers and people are turning away from it. Theyre telling God, no i can find my own way, which, sadly is not true. when your brainwashed into believing something, though i cant say for sure, im pretty sure God would understand that your unable to follow his word.
Again, God gave me the answer? When? When you told me you were right? I've also got a billion hindus, a billion atheists/agnostics, 350 million Bhuddists, and a couple of billion other people willing to tell me they're right, yet you have yet to give me one piece of evidence which supports your case.

thats what faith is mate, the belief that hes there and trust that hes got your best intrests at heart, through all the good and bad, and with out a shred of proof that he exists. but theres also no proof that he doesnt exist.

Except that if I arbitrarily choose (and you can't argue that it isn't arbitrary since you yourself just stated that there is no evidence either way) to have faith in Christianity, but Islam is right, then I go to hell. Woops! And if I arbitrarily choose to have faith in Islam, but Christianity is right, then I go to hell. Even if I am somehow able to completely erase my mind of all doubt that I am right, if I do choose the wrong one, I am going to hell, and there is no way that I can decide which is the right one, since as you just stated, there is no evidence supporting any of them. The fact that you personally have faith in it isn't enough to make me decide to have faith in it.

the correct religion is the one he gave us. The other trace their origins back to ordinary people. Islam - Muhammad, claims he heard voices. not to discredit the faith, but that kind of hurts your cause. Buddism- Buddists, Hindu, back to an Indian wisemen that i cant remember the name of.
So, again, Muhammed hears voices in his head, and you declare him to be nuts, but Moses does and you declare that he is talking to God? Where does this arbitrary decision come from, and if God spoke with Moses, how do I know he isn't speaking with the guy at the Bus stop?
And you say that Judeo-Christianity originated from God, but earlier you said it came from Moses. Which is it? And what about the ancient romans, greeks, egyptians who believed they took their orders directly from their gods, or the native americans who had a sort of religion based around spirituality and nature, or the hundreds of pagan religions in Africa?

Now we take Judeism. Goes back to the days when God spoke to you in stereo. mainly focuses on Moses, who (with Gods help) led the Jews mirraculously out of Egypt. Yeah, God spoke to you. You weren't just schizophrenic or anything like they say you are these days. It's God speaking to you.

and Christianity, basically Judeism part II. Centers around Crhrist, a guy who did many mirracles, died for YOU,and then, Rose from the dead.Like I said before, lots of other guys also claim to have died for my sins, and their disciples claim they rose from the dead, and in fact there are even very very similar stories in Roman and Greek mythology. What makes Jesus so special?


Long story short, according to you, I need to arbitrarily choose a religion, blindly believe in that religion without questioning anything, and hope that that religion is right so God doesn't send me to hell for an eternity because my completely arbitrary, baseless and random decision happened to be wrong.

This is the kind of thing that turns debate into personal insults and name-calling.
I wasn't aware that I'd asked for your opinion about it. In the future, if I want your opinion I shall simply read your entrails.

No.

seemed that way to me, I don't equate "that warm fuzzy feeling" with indifference.

Way to Whine

He wasn't whining he was describing your debate style, you could refute or correct him but if that doesn't tickle your fancy you can continue to flame and avoid the argument.

here i use the wind theory. We cant see wind? so how do we know its there, we see the effects of it.
We know what wind is. Wind is the movement of air due to differential pressures. We can measure what air is composed of. We can measure the speed of the wind. We can measure the temperature of the air. We can measure the humidity.

We have no such machinations or even a definition proper for god.

Thus, the wind analogy is a false one.

Did you not say "There is only one God"? If you did say that (and it's attributed to you) then yes you are claiming you know the number.
I say I believe there to be one, belief is not fact, one can only know facts.

seemed that way to me, I don't equate "that warm fuzzy feeling" with indifference.
You're just not grasping the subtleties.


He wasn't whining he was describing your debate style,
He was whining.

I don't pretend to know the nature of God or number for that fact.

Did you not say "There is only one God"? If you did say that (and it's attributed to you) then yes you are claiming you know the number.

I wasn't aware that I'd asked for your opinion about it. In the future, if I want your opinion I shall simply read your entrails.

=^_^=
^KITTY^ OMG KAWAII



Hey, I figure that if you have no respect for anyone else and never answer anyone's questions honestly, all the while insulting their intelligence, I might as well respond to you with crap like this because it really makes no difference what I say.

Hey, I figure that if you have no respect for anyone else and never answer anyone's questions honestly,
And your evidence for that is....?

Oh that's right: you don't have any.

Quelle suprise.

And your evidence for that is....?

Oh that's right: you don't have any.

Quelle suprise.

=^_^= =^_^= =^_^=

Anyone can click on your profile and go to "posts". They will be hit with a flood of evasive non-answers and smarmy insults. But if it's your desire to post that, why should I try to stop you?

Anyone can click on your profile and go to "posts". They will be hit with a flood of evasive non-answers and smarmy insults.
No, they won't.

But do feel free to lie. It won't help you, but feel free to lie your ass off.

Can we please not degenerate into a flame-war, and instead concentrate on the topic at hand?

BAWAAKnights is a troll. Remember kids:

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

BAWAAKnights is a troll.
*yawn*

Yeah, I'm such a troll for being correct. Damn me. I'm correct, therefore I'm a troll.

Wow.

Can we please not degenerate into a flame-war, and instead concentrate on the topic at hand?
As long as people want to whine about me for being correct--it will degenerate. That's unfortunate, but true.

BAWAAKnights is a troll. Remember kids:

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

Sorry! I repent for my sins.

You're just not grasping the subtleties.


Such as....?

you said you "loved it" and that it "gave you a warm fuzzy feeling"

Not exactly what one would call a statement of indifference if you love something/someone by definition means you care about it/them


http://www.webster.com/dictionary/love

Such as....?

you said you "loved it" and that it "gave you a warm fuzzy feeling"
Yes. It makes perfect sense.

Hint: there's something else I'm actually referring to by doing this. What do you think it might be?

*yawn*

Yeah, I'm such a troll for being correct. Damn me. I'm correct, therefore I'm a troll.

Wow.

You are mistaken sir. I agree with your points 100%.

Your method of debate and constant insultings of others makes you a troll however.

You are mistaken sir. I agree with your points 100%.

Your method of debate and constant insultings of others makes you a troll however.
Actually, it doesn't. If it does, I'm certain that you can provide me with the evidence thereto. Which, of course, I would like to see.

Actually, it doesn't. If it does, I'm certain that you can provide me with the evidence thereto. Which, of course, I would like to see.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls.

yup

yup
Nope. I don't do it to anger people.

You. Lose.

Actually, it doesn't. If it does, I'm certain that you can provide me with the evidence thereto. Which, of course, I would like to see.

Why bother? I'm sure you'd just blow it off with an 'irrelevent' or a 'so?'.

Why bother? I'm sure you'd just blow it off with an 'irrelevent' or a 'so?'.
So you haven't any.

Just as I knew.

You guys make this just way too easy.

Why bother? I'm sure you'd just blow it off with an 'irrelevent' or a 'so?'.

Fartsniffage, you are clearly an idiot who cannot grasp the true meaning of BAAWA's one-word/one-line dismissals. Only the truly enlightened will understand.

Fartsniffage, you are clearly an idiot who cannot grasp the true meaning of BAAWA's one-word/one-line dismissals. Only the truly enlightened will understand.
If only you did understand. I dismiss people's unsupported claims as they should be.

But that's just way too correct for you, isn't it?

Nope. I don't do it to anger people.

You. Lose.

once again - oh the irony

If only you did understand. I dismiss people's unsupported claims as they should be.

But that's just way too correct for you, isn't it?

BAAWA, you're completely right. I am going to log off now so I can whip myself with knotted cords and pray that one day my feeble mind will rise to understand your superior intellect.

I love how these long threads turn out. :D

So you haven't any.

Just as I knew.

You guys make this just way too easy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=584243

Just start reading dude. It's not pretty but I'm sure you're used to the shite you spew forth by now :cool:

How about we try this: Nobody respond to BAAWA from now on, and he'll eventually go away. See. Simple. Don't worry about getting the last word or proving that you're right or that he's a troll, just ignore him. And while you're ignoring him, you can respond to the big long post I made that was actually on topic about 40 minutes ago.

once again - oh the irony
Irony of people whining about me? I don't see how that's ironic.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=584243

Just start reading dude. It's not pretty but I'm sure you're used to the shite you spew forth by now :cool:
And that's supposed to do what?

How about we try this: Nobody respond to BAAWA from now on, and he'll eventually go away.
I won't, since I'm not a troll.

But it's nice of you to try to promote yourself.

BAAWA, you're completely right.
I know.

[snip the attempt at sarcasm, since it doesn't work]

How about we try this: Nobody respond to BAAWA from now on, and he'll eventually go away. See. Simple. Don't worry about getting the last word or proving that you're right or that he's a troll, just ignore him. And while you're ignoring him, you can respond to the big long post I made that was actually on topic about 40 minutes ago.

Excellent Idea! allow me to lend a visual aid-

http://ephemeron.net/photochops/FeedTroll.jpg

And that's supposed to do what?

You asked for evidence and I provided because I'm nice like that.

You asked for evidence and I provided because I'm nice like that.
Aha, and what exactly makes it evidence? You'll have to be a little less vague.

How about we try this: Nobody respond to BAAWA from now on, and he'll eventually go away. See. Simple. Don't worry about getting the last word or proving that you're right or that he's a troll, just ignore him. And while you're ignoring him, you can respond to the big long post I made that was actually on topic about 40 minutes ago.

I would but I agree with it and it would be a bit pointless for me to post a 'hell yeah'.

Aha, and what exactly makes it evidence? You'll have to be a little less vague.

You asked for evidence of your trollish behaviour and in the hope that it would help you to straighten-up and fly right I provided a link to your post history so that you may peruse it at you leisure.

You asked for evidence of your trollish behaviour and in the hope that it would help you to straighten-up and fly right I provided a link to your post history so that you may peruse it at you leisure.
Ok, but that doesn't show any trollish behavior. Thus, I am left wondering why you posted it.

Ok, but that doesn't show any trollish behavior. Thus, I am left wondering why you posted it.

Irrelevent. You poor reading comprehension is not my responsability. Oh, and I think the threat of bodily harm against Yesmusic is against the rules as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11595945&postcount=548

How about we try this: Nobody respond to BAAWA from now on, and he'll eventually go away. See. Simple. Don't worry about getting the last word or proving that you're right or that he's a troll, just ignore him. And while you're ignoring him, you can respond to the big long post I made that was actually on topic about 40 minutes ago.
He's been on my ignore list for a while now. It's surprisingly calming. I recommend it.

You asked for evidence and I provided because I'm nice like that.


Calling someone a troll, and then providing a link to a search feature, does in no way, prove your own argument.

Thats like saying that God doesnt exist, and giving the link to the Library of congress for proof.

It makes you look weak, and without actual proof of any trolling/flaming.

Do better than that, or dont make such claims.

Irrelevent.
Mmmhmmmmm.


You poor reading comprehension is not my responsability. Oh, and I think the threat of bodily harm against Yesmusic is against the rules as well.
No threats were made. It's an old tagline from back in the days of BBS'. I wouldn't expect you younglings to know about such things like QWK-based readers.

He's been on my ignore list for a while now. It's surprisingly calming. I recommend it.
Calming in the sense that you no longer have to back your claims. You get to just make wild claims and realize that no one will call you on it. YAY!

Calling someone a troll, and then providing a link to a search feature, does in no way, prove your own argument.

Thats like saying that God doesnt exist, and giving the link to the Library of congress for proof.

It makes you look weak, and without actual proof of any trolling/flaming.

Do better than that, or dont make such claims.

Read the search feature. There is no slamdunk evidence but each post builds on the last forming a picture of posting habits. If you are aware of the poster in question then you will know that this is his MO, mild flamebait after mild flamebait until the other poster just loses their temper.

I have no interest in him being banned or even repremanded by the powers that be, I would much prefer him to realise how he comes across and stop being quite such an asshat.

I have no interest in him being banned or even repremanded by the powers that be, I would much prefer him to realise how he comes across and stop being quite such an asshat.
You say that as if somehow I give a shit how I come across.

I don't.

Read the search feature. There is no slamdunk evidence but each post builds on the last forming a picture of posting habits. If you are aware of the poster in question then you will know that this is his MO, mild flamebait after mild flamebait until the other poster just loses their temper.

I have no interest in him being banned or even repremanded by the powers that be, I would much prefer him to realise how he comes across and stop being quite such an asshat.


I hear what you are saying, and you are right.

However, I can almost assure youi, he doesnt care.

You say that as if somehow I give a shit how I come across.

I don't.

Such charm and social grace :rolleyes:

I've said my part, see you around.

I. Give. Up.

Such charm and social grace
It is.

well when his efferts are combined with millions of missionaries who all do the same thing, maybe. sorry our meager efforts dont live up to your standards. you manage the AIR DROP of billions of bibles see how that works out.
dont get me wrong, im not faulting your missionaries' efforts to bring christianity to the chinese. i am pointing out that billions have lived and died without even the possibility of learning anything about christianity. i recognize that it is a huge task to bring the word of god into a communist/confucian/buddhist/taoist country.

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Explain.

No, it actually doesn't. You just don't want to deal with that fact because you want to invent problems that don't exist.
Only if by some means of witchcraft you managed to transmute them into such. :rolleyes: They do exist. You simply have no means of coping with them, so you simply say they are irrelevant. Yet you have no means to prove they are irrelevant. And that is why you fail.

Fartsniffage, you are clearly an idiot who cannot grasp the true meaning of BAAWA's one-word/one-line dismissals. Only the truly enlightened will understand.
No, even I don't understand it.:p

Well, let's see how this goes...
Wouldn't that have been easyer and more moraly acomplished by "snapping his fingers" and letting them out?like the Walls of Jericho?

Moses was sent there and he performed miricles, the "Snapping of the fingers"
so to speak, yet no one believed that those were the works of God. infact, the Pharohs own wisemen counciled the Pharoh (who was starting to believe) to reject what he saw.

it took the plagues of Egypt to make the Pharoh relent.

also, it was to show the Pharoh the might of the Christian God over thier gods.

So he had to kill and plague innocents on order to prove he exists to a few people, what a jackass
no, he had to Kill and Plague innocents to show the Pharoh that he was not "god's choosen" as he thought he was. Bascially, it was the Pharoh's stubborness that caused those deaths.

What effect? You mean achieving his goal without the slaughter of innocents?
Innocent in who's eyes... yours or God's?

Not to all of them … some poor working family lost a first born or was covered in boils or had to deal with those locusts

The plagues do not appear to be limited to just slave owners but everyone, including the innocent first born (for all we know they could have been like 2 years old) yet killed by god for a people they do not even knowand through the stubborness of a man who was supposed to be caring for his people...

I dunno, after the first couple of plagues, I would be drafting the first Egyption Emancipation Proclamation not waiting till passover.

Ok, so god gives free will, but those who exercise it are god's enemies and to be slaughtered in a jihad.

Check.
the mistake is that it's not "God's Enemies" but the "Enemies of God's Chosen People." the believers.

and yep... with free will, you can choose to believe and side with God or not.

Thank you all for filling this thread with spam, no wonder the mods are gonna lock it up, The only reason i started this thread is because im tired of people bashing christianity in the threads when what there saying isnt entirely accurate.
you should've realized this was going to happen with all the threads you saw. ;)

I was wondering where you went.

Well, let's see how this goes...
like the Walls of Jericho?

Moses was sent there and he performed miricles, the "Snapping of the fingers"
so to speak, yet no one believed that those were the works of God. infact, the Pharohs own wisemen counciled the Pharoh (who was starting to believe) to reject what he saw.

it took the plagues of Egypt to make the Pharoh relent.

also, it was to show the Pharoh the might of the Christian God over thier gods.
Umm...that's actually Bible myth. The Jews were there as mercenaries, not slaves. But the Pharaoh had ordered them to do the manual labor normally assigned to slaves, and eventually they grew tired of the poor treatment and battled their way free of Egypt.

no, he had to Kill and Plague innocents to show the Pharoh that he was not "god's choosen" as he thought he was. Bascially, it was the Pharoh's stubborness that caused those deaths.
Supposing this God is indeed real, that's still just justification. It doesn't matter why God did it, it was still done: those people still died by his will, no matter how you look at it.

You're kind of evading the question. Don't worry I'm used to that from religious sorts. That's why it's pointless to talk to you.
actually the question is easy to answer.

if God were to speak in his own voice, without any doubt as to whom that voice belongs to, then would you not have any choice but to aknowledge Him as God?

If you meet one whom is obviously above all man-made laws, who shows power and true Omnipotence, what exscuse would you give for not believing that this is God?

If such a thing were to occure, with no other proof/work/word of any other diety... would you still not believe that God exsists?

God wants a willing heart, if all those occurre, then God would've removed your ability in Choosing to believe in him. You would believe in God, not because you want to, not because you CHOOSE to, but because you know there is no one else but Him.

Umm...that's actually Bible myth. The Jews were there as mercenaries, not slaves. But the Pharaoh had ordered them to do the manual labor normally assigned to slaves, and eventually they grew tired of the poor treatment and battled their way free of Egypt.
and my point is, no matter what God did then, it would be seen as Myth, stories, even fairy tales nowdays. so what, God needs to Snap his fingers every couple of Generations?

we (the believers) do not put God to the test. you can, but then you won't like the answer. ;)

Supposing this God is indeed real, that's still just justification. It doesn't matter why God did it, it was still done: those people still died by his will, no matter how you look at it.
yes, I will not deny that. but as I said in other threads, I do not judge God, I cannot judge God. just like I cannot Judge you unless you want me to.

Another thing unjust. One can kill a million people but repent at the last minute and enter into eternal paradise. Another person can do good things all his life and not harm a single person but not believe in God, he will have to spend an etenity in darkness.
yep, sad but true.

so now the question... if it's so simple, why can't the Good but unbelieving man believe in God?

On another note,
There is a Baptist preacher who believes that everyone, reguardless of whether or not people believe in God, will enter heaven. That's it. Even Hitler, Charles Manson and others are up in heaven right now. because they were saved by the blood of Jesus. Can't remember the preacher's name at the moment, but Dateline had an interview with him.

and my point is, no matter what God did then, it would be seen as Myth, stories, even fairy tales nowdays. so what, God needs to Snap his fingers every couple of Generations?

we (the believers) do not put God to the test. you can, but then you won't like the answer. ;)
Well, you have to understand the difference between a work like the Bible and archaeological and historical evidence. At the time, the Jews were suffering terrible famine, and as was common at the time, they hired themselves out to the highest bidder for their martial services: the Egyptians. It is true one of the Pharaoh's advisors or somesuch was the Jew who offered them the entry into Egypt. He was the one who convinced the Pharaoh of their value in the first place. They [the Jews] weren't any more civilized than anyone else at the time. Nothing particularly special for supposedly being God's chosen people.

And that is what I don't like. I don't understand how you can be so sure you aren't blindly following faith without questioning it. And I have put your so-called God to the test. Guess what. God failed. And there's nothing about that I don't like. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I've never been smitten for my lack of faith. I've never experienced anything I didn't deserve of my own energies.

yep, sad but true.


True? No, this is one idea that I will never understand in my life. Jesus talked about "the narrow path"; he made it clear that the way to paradise, the content soul, is difficult and involves a lot of sacrifice. And yet, some people believe that a rich man who neglected charity throughout his life, a serial rapist or a killer can make it if he simply accepts Jesus as Savior?

I think that people can change and atone for their bad deeds, given the time, but a deathbed conversion? I'll never believe it. I also don't know where in scripture people find the evidence of this.

yes, I will not deny that. but as I said in other threads, I do not judge God, I cannot judge God. just like I cannot Judge you unless you want me to.
Unless I want you to? Isn't that still a sin? You have no grounds to judge me, no matter my desires. Nor I you. And I wasn't judging. I was simply stating that it was still murder, no matter how it is justified. I leave the judgements to fools and the cosmic balance. All forces must be held accountable to reactions. Nothing is exempt from this. And so I reserve my judgements for myself.

And I have put your so-called God to the test. Guess what. God failed. And there's nothing about that I don't like. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I've never been smitten for my lack of faith. I've never experienced anything I didn't deserve of my own energies.


So if you don't believe in God, and God hasn't smitten you for it, does that disprove his existence?

So if you don't believe in God, and God hasn't smitten you for it, does that disprove his existence?
No, I was just stressing a point. That I haven't experienced anything terrible for not believing in God and hence have no dislike for questioning God's existence. If anything, it freed my mind from the shackles of dogma and blind faith.

Well, you have to understand the difference between a work like the Bible and archaeological and historical evidence. At the time, the Jews were suffering terrible famine, and as was common at the time, they hired themselves out to the highest bidder for their martial services: the Egyptians. It is true one of the Pharaoh's advisors or somesuch was the Jew who offered them the entry into Egypt. He was the one who convinced the Pharaoh of their value in the first place. They [the Jews] weren't any more civilized than anyone else at the time. Nothing particularly special for supposedly being God's chosen people.Nice to know.. and this disproves God... how exactly? and when was this "Hiring of mercenaries" in accordence to the "Seven plagues of Egypt?"

And that is what I don't like. I don't understand how you can be so sure you aren't blindly following faith without questioning it. And I have put your so-called God to the test. Guess what. God failed. And there's nothing about that I don't like. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I've never been smitten for my lack of faith. I've never experienced anything I didn't deserve of my own energies.As I said, you can put God to the test, but you won't like the answer. and you didn't.

No, I was just stressing a point. That I haven't experienced anything terrible for not believing in God and hence have no dislike for questioning God's existence. If anything, it freed my mind from the shackles of dogma and blind faith.

Okay, I see. For me, the blind faith is a given, although I couldn't say why. I don't let it constrain my actions, though. A person can be good without a deity figure lording it over him for his whole life anyway.

Unless I want you to? Isn't that still a sin? You have no grounds to judge me, no matter my desires. Nor I you. And I wasn't judging. I was simply stating that it was still murder, no matter how it is justified. I leave the judgements to fools and the cosmic balance. All forces must be held accountable to reactions. Nothing is exempt from this. And so I reserve my judgements for myself.that's what I said, I have no right to judge you.

however, you can ask me to judge you, that is the only way I can possibly come close in judging you. and even then that judgement is more of an opinion, and nothing else.

yes, you simply stated it was still murder, and guess what. Murder is you calling judgement on God.

True? No, this is one idea that I will never understand in my life. Jesus talked about "the narrow path"; he made it clear that the way to paradise, the content soul, is difficult and involves a lot of sacrifice. And yet, some people believe that a rich man who neglected charity throughout his life, a serial rapist or a killer can make it if he simply accepts Jesus as Savior? "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

even the two criminals crucified next to him were saved.

I think that people can change and atone for their bad deeds, given the time, but a deathbed conversion? I'll never believe it. I also don't know where in scripture people find the evidence of this.
that's your interpretation. I for one would rather believe it to be true that any form of acceptance of Jesus and God, as long as it was done with a willing, repentant and truthful heart would be accepted and the sinner annointed and his/her sins forgiven.

of course, waiting till your deathbed for such a conversion is also risky... after all, if you die in a horrible and sudden act of violence... :(

and even then, if you hear about God but decied to "put it off till after you've had your fun..." you cannot say that the heart will truly be repenant and the acceptance sincere. of course, that's not up to me, but God.

!First off... I have this incredible urge to sing School House Rock's "Exclamation!" :D

I won't harp on this point, but I have to say it - there's a really serious problem here. When I read the New Testament, I see Jesus preaching charity, kindness, selflessness and so on. Moreover he says that only those who take the "narrow path", the ones who strive for justice and goodness instead of doing evil (often much easier), are the ones who will reach paradise. Matthew 7:13-14:and can you say that the narrow path does not start with "I accept you as my Lord and Savior."

and Matthew 7:21-23:and there are many who say they are Christians, yet in their heart, are not.

Only the truly good will achieve paradise - a last minute conversion after a lifetime of evil is contradicted by the words of Jesus.like the two criminals Crusified with Jesus? they accepted him and they, in turn, were annointed.

and can you say that the narrow path does not start with "I accept you as my Lord and Savior."


The big question. First of all, even if accepting Jesus as Savior is a part of the narrow path, it is only a part of the path. One still has to do good works, which I guess could be seen as a necessary part of believing in Jesus.

However, and you might not agree with me, I think that believing in Jesus or even in God is not necessarily a part of the path to paradise. If someone makes the kind of sacrifice that is involved in a good and just life, in my mind, they have earned the right to eternal life. At least, not being a Christian myself, I should hope so. My mother is Catholic and my father is Muslim, so maybe my own outlook is shaped by my "multifaith" upbringing.

The big question. First of all, even if accepting Jesus as Savior is a part of the narrow path, it is only a part of the path. One still has to do good works, which I guess could be seen as a necessary part of believing in Jesus.

However, and you might not agree with me, I think that believing in Jesus or even in God is not necessarily a part of the path to paradise. If someone makes the kind of sacrifice that is involved in a good and just life, in my mind, they have earned the right to eternal life. At least, not being a Christian myself, I should hope so. My mother is Catholic and my father is Muslim, so maybe my own outlook is shaped by my "multifaith" upbringing.John 14:6

Living a Godly (good) life is pleasing to the Lord... yes. I agree. but doing good works by itself isn't enough. or isn't in my interpretation.

and wether or not a Deathbed conversion is enough... well, for alot of people, it was/is their only hope. so I would like to be optimistic.

of course I don't recommend waiting for one's deathbed to convert... after all, while one doesn't do good deeds, one doesn't get the blessings either. ;)

so can we just say we respectfully disagree on that one point. :)

The text does not indicate it. If it does, please show me.




No, the snake was just stating something true. And if it was supposed to be a satan, the word satan would have been used, just like in the later part of Numbers, Chapter 22.

So please--stop continuing to spread the myth that the snake is satan. The text in no way supports it.



actually if you stop to ponder and think about it....the text does.

Genesis 3 14-15

So the Lord God said to the serpant, "Because you have done this,

"cursed are you above all the livestock, and all the wild animals. You will crawl on your bell and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 i will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers, he weill scrush your head and you will strike his heel."


Think about it. The off spring of the woman, striking the defeating the snake and the snake killing him. Boom we now have the first prophecy of the Coming of Christ. The son of a woman :mary: deafeating Satan :which he did by dieing: and being killed :by those who only a weak had praised him but had turned on him.:

so can we just say we respectfully disagree on that one point. :)

Yeah, I guess we can. It's one of those cases of "you believe this, I believe that, so let's let it be."

But he didn't lie, did he? Neither Adam nor Eve died that day. Yet god said they would--and no, it does not say "spiritually die".


love when atheists claim to know morea about a religion than those who practice it.

For us, death only means leaving this world. For God, death means then end of your spirit. Cause even when you die here your spirit is still alive, you still have self awarness, and you are judged. If you didnt choose to accept Gods Grace, you go to hell where you are tortured and then ultimately die. As gruesom as it sounds its a hard truth.

love when atheists claim to know morea about a religion than those who practice it.

For us, death only means leaving this world. For God, death means then end of your spirit. Cause even when you die here your spirit is still alive, you still have self awarness, and you are judged. If you didnt choose to accept Gods Grace, you go to hell where you are tortured and then ultimately die. As gruesom as it sounds its a hard truth.
It's a hard speculation, actually.
And feel lucky I didn't call it hard superstition.

Not according to Leviticus. Humans are unfit for sacrifice.

humans are unfit for sacrifice because they are not pure, they have sinned. Jesus never sinned, there for he was suitable for sacrifice.

dont get me wrong, im not faulting your missionaries' efforts to bring christianity to the chinese. i am pointing out that billions have lived and died without even the possibility of learning anything about christianity. i recognize that it is a huge task to bring the word of god into a communist/confucian/buddhist/taoist country.



as i said, those who have not heard it, still get it, while this conclusion has come from, discussion with pastors and Vocational MInisters and such, so Smunkeeville will be calling me out on that again. Sry i didnt tape record it.

If its not the case and that they dont get in, well thats why were trying to bring the word to them.

John 14:6

Living a Godly (good) life is pleasing to the Lord... yes. I agree. but doing good works by itself isn't enough. or isn't in my interpretation.

and wether or not a Deathbed conversion is enough... well, for alot of people, it was/is their only hope. so I would like to be optimistic.

of course I don't recommend waiting for one's deathbed to convert... after all, while one doesn't do good deeds, one doesn't get the blessings either. ;)

so can we just say we respectfully disagree on that one point. :)


deathbed conversions are worthless, another one of my discussion topics with fellow believers and pastors. On their death bed they make the conversion out of FEAR that they might burn in hell. not for love or trust in CHrist, thus theyre "conversion" is worthless, theyre just saying they love and follow christ, when really they dont.

humans are unfit for sacrifice because they are not pure, they have sinned. Jesus never sinned, there for he was suitable for sacrifice.
I'll call you on this.
There are two cases of human sacrifice in the Bible besides Jesus.
One of course is the whole story of Abraham.
The other is Jephethah in Judges 11, and this guy actually goes through with it.
Incidentally:
Judges 11 in the Skeptics Annotated Bible. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/11.html#29)
Obviously, this would mean that Jephethah's daughter was fit for sacrifice, and so your logic can't be right.
It also invalidates the other side too, though.
Strange.

deathbed conversions are worthless, another one of my discussion topics with fellow believers and pastors. On their death bed they make the conversion out of FEAR that they might burn in hell. not for love or trust in CHrist, thus theyre "conversion" is worthless, theyre just saying they love and follow christ, when really they dont.
so the two theives that were crusified with Christ, and was told by Jesus that they were saved... were lied to? is that what you are saying?

and if you read my posts, I said 1) it also depends on the Heart of the person converting. 2) it's also up to God and Jesus, not us.

deathbed conversions are worthless, another one of my discussion topics with fellow believers and pastors. On their death bed they make the conversion out of FEAR that they might burn in hell. not for love or trust in CHrist, thus theyre "conversion" is worthless, theyre just saying they love and follow christ, when really they dont.
Then there are about 10 christians in the world.
And the pope isn't one of them.

Well, you have to understand the difference between a work like the Bible and archaeological and historical evidence. At the time, the Jews were suffering terrible famine, and as was common at the time, they hired themselves out to the highest bidder for their martial services: the Egyptians. It is true one of the Pharaoh's advisors or somesuch was the Jew who offered them the entry into Egypt. He was the one who convinced the Pharaoh of their value in the first place. They [the Jews] weren't any more civilized than anyone else at the time. Nothing particularly special for supposedly being God's chosen people.

Yes they went to Egypt cause of teh famin, then they were hired to do manuel labor, and slowly but surely they became slaves, whips and chains and all. Pharoh before Ramises the II ordered his soldiers to go into the Slave quarters, and take all teh newborns and toss them into the nile. Moses survived this Holocaust to one day come back and save his people so you sir were the one inccorrect here.

And that is what I don't like. I don't understand how you can be so sure you aren't blindly following faith without questioning it. And I have put your so-called God to the test. Guess what. God failed. And there's nothing about that I don't like. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I've never been smitten for my lack of faith. I've never experienced anything I didn't deserve of my own energies.


Questioning your faith is not the same as putting God to the test. Putting God to the test is like saying, If your God, part this sea. Not, My whole family has died in a car accident, would God let this happen? would not a good loving God prevent this from happening? Maybe there is no God?

Now in our eyes its logical that God would prevent this. But God sees things on a whole other level then us. I've questioned my faith alot, but eventually there comes a point where u just have to let go and take a leap of faith saying "God im screwing up and im letting you take control of my life"

Then there are about 10 christians in the world.
And the pope isn't one of them.


try 2.3 billion. last rights is different than death bed conversions.

so the two theives that were crusified with Christ, and was told by Jesus that they were saved... were lied to? is that what you are saying?


no read what the thieves said, the one said You fool if you are the messiah come off the cross. HE didnt trust in Christ he didnt believe, the other thief knew that Jesus was holy, and believed in his heart, and told sayed, "Lord where ever it is that you are going, will you remember me when you get there?" And christ said "amen i say to you, we will see eachother in paradice" The thief believed him to be the messiah and for that he was saved, the other didnt and for that he wasnt.

You all talk about thats not fair that people can do horrible things and then convert. Remember what the bible says, All sins are equal in Gods eyes. From Lieing, to mass genocide, he counts them as equal. It was us that said well this ones not as bad as this.

and also, If life were fair, wed all be going to hell.

and if you read my posts, I said 1) it also depends on the Heart of the person converting. 2) it's also up to God and Jesus, not us.

God and Jesus did their parts, its up to us to accept the Gift of Grace or not.

try 2.3 billion. last rights is different than death bed conversions.
I think what he meant was that almost nobody lives as a perfect Christian. And that may be true, but a Christian is not somebody without faults-- it is somebody with faults who has let God into their heart, and is trying to become a better person.

I'll call you on this.
There are two cases of human sacrifice in the Bible besides Jesus.
One of course is the whole story of Abraham.
The other is Jephethah in Judges 11, and this guy actually goes through with it.
Incidentally:
Judges 11 in the Skeptics Annotated Bible. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/11.html#29)
Obviously, this would mean that Jephethah's daughter was fit for sacrifice, and so your logic can't be right.
It also invalidates the other side too, though.
Strange.


one, Dont read the Skeptics annotated bible, its a biased website that twists the word of the bible from what they actually are.

The sacrifice i was talking about was, the sacrifice the Jews made to attone for their sins. Sorry for confusion, this sacrifice was becasue he made a deal with God that the first thing out of his door he would sacrifice, and his daughter came out first. He made a deal and he kept it.

try 2.3 billion. last rights is different than death bed conversions.
I wasn't talking about that part.
I meant virtually every Christian is Christian because they're afraid of hell.
Heck, it's one of the major converting points of the Church, "Be Christian or go to hell".

I wasn't talking about that part.
I meant virtually every Christian is Christian because they're afraid of hell.
Heck, it's one of the major converting points of the Church, "Be Christian or go to hell".

That's maybe an oversimplification. Some of the clergy I've met have been very reasonable and learned. They're mostly Jesuits, though, so that might make a difference.

one, Dont read the Skeptics annotated bible, its a biased website that twists the word of the bible from what they actually are.

The sacrifice i was talking about was, the sacrifice the Jews made to attone for their sins. Sorry for confusion, this sacrifice was becasue he made a deal with God that the first thing out of his door he would sacrifice, and his daughter came out first. He made a deal and he kept it.
However, it was still done in the manner of a normal sacrifice, and assumedly God accepted it.
And incidentally, he really shouldn't have done that, all in all, murder is a far worse sin then not keeping your promises.

no read what the thieves said, the one said You fool if you are the messiah come off the cross. HE didnt trust in Christ he didnt believe, the other thief knew that Jesus was holy, and believed in his heart, and told sayed, "Lord where ever it is that you are going, will you remember me when you get there?" And christ said "amen i say to you, we will see eachother in paradice" The thief believed him to be the messiah and for that he was saved, the other didnt and for that he wasnt. speculation that he wasn't... the only way to find out is to see him or not see him in heaven.

You all talk about thats not fair that people can do horrible things and then convert. Remember what the bible says, All sins are equal in Gods eyes. From Lieing, to mass genocide, he counts them as equal. It was us that said well this ones not as bad as this. and it was also God who provided the blood of the Lamb to wash those sins away, so that all may be made as new. by the annointing, the first, and important step for that annointing is the acceptance of the Lamb (Jesus) as Lord and Savior. To do so, one must accept with an open, honest and repentant heart. God knows who is Repentant and who is just "going through the motions."

when you accept that Jesus died for your sins, then you are made new.

and also, If life were fair, wed all be going to hell.If life were fair, we wouldn't be held accountable to the Sin of Adam and Eve. ;)

God and Jesus did their parts, its up to us to accept the Gift of Grace or not.and it is God and Jesus who enters our hearts, if our heart isn't open, they won't enter.

so it's not for me to say who's truely repentant, or Who is the "real christian" but God and Jesus. that's what I meant. we can only be honest to ourselves, to those we interact with, and to God.

I wasn't talking about that part.
I meant virtually every Christian is Christian because they're afraid of hell.
Heck, it's one of the major converting points of the Church, "Be Christian or go to hell".


I wont lie and say that nobody converts cause of that, but overtime they actually develope a relationship with christ, those who do the deathbed conversions dont

speculation that he wasn't... the only way to find out is to see him or not see him in heaven.

well im pretty sure ill see him.

and it was also God who provided the blood of the Lamb to wash those sins away, so that all may be made as new. by the annointing, the first, and important step for that annointing is the acceptance of the Lamb (Jesus) as Lord and Savior. To do so, one must accept with an open, honest and repentant heart. God knows who is Repentant and who is just "going through the motions."

your better at this speaking thing than i am, thats basically what i was trying to say.

if life were fair, we wouldn't be held accountable to the Sin of Adam and Eve. ;) thats not true, they did it and we follow in their footsteps. the knowledge and sin from the apple passes through the generations, its very fair.

and it is God and Jesus who enters our hearts, if our heart isn't open, they won't enter.

so it's not for me to say who's truely repentant, or Who is the "real christian" but God and Jesus. that's what I meant. we can only be honest to ourselves, to those we interact with, and to God.

im trying, but people like that guy who was ticking everyone else, delight in hindering us from doing so.

However, it was still done in the manner of a normal sacrifice, and assumedly God accepted it.
And incidentally, he really shouldn't have done that, all in all, murder is a far worse sin then not keeping your promises.


um...promises to God? im not so sure about it, and she went willingly to the sacrifice alter.

I wasn't talking about that part.
I meant virtually every Christian is Christian because they're afraid of hell.
Heck, it's one of the major converting points of the Church, "Be Christian or go to hell".
Well, not one of the Christians I know is Christian because they're afraid of hell. Probably because I'm Methodist, and most of the Christians I know are too. But hey. I won't burst your little stereotype bubble.

I wont lie and say that nobody converts cause of that, but overtime they actually develope a relationship with christ, those who do the deathbed conversions dont
so you're saying,
only the saved are those that "develop" a relationship with Christ?

must suck if one honestly accepts Christ and then dies in a car accident or something... does it state how long it takes for such a relationship to form?

Usually, or the way I was taught, the relationship is made when you accept Christ into your heart. The Good deeds are because of that relationship, not to form that relationship.

um...promises to God? im not so sure about it, and she went willingly to the sacrifice alter.
Doesn't matter and still murder, both according to the Bible.

well im pretty sure ill see him. :p I'm talking about the one you say didn't make it to Heaven.

your better at this speaking thing than i am, thats basically what i was trying to say.and what I am saying is that an Honest Deathbed conversion will be accepted... as long as it's honest.

thats not true, they did it and we follow in their footsteps. the knowledge and sin from the apple passes through the generations, its very fair.I was joking... and if you look at the world today... it does look like the effects of the Tree of Knowledge is wearing off... :D (yes, another joke in an attempt to lighten the mood.)

im trying, but people like that guy who was ticking everyone else, delight in hindering us from doing so.Patience, and above all else, there is a time to say "Get thee behind me"

or in the modern language... "Don't feed the trolls" or "Don't take the flamebait."

Debating Religion on a text baised medium as this is hard to almost impossible. just remember not to post in anger and to know which posts to respond to. :)

Since nobody answered me at all the first time I posted this, I've reproduced it below. Hopefully someone will answer this time.

here i use the wind theory. We cant see wind? so how do we know its there, we see the effects of it. Now how do we know God exists, the effects. Im not talking about people doing things and saying their Gods will when in truth far from it. I mean like, a man i knew, who was a drug dealer, converted to christianity, and on that same night, Flushed all his drugs down the toilet and told his suppliers that he would find away to pay them back. And on top of that, the suppliers just said.....ok.
No, but as a scientist, I can postulate as to what it is that is causing the sensations that wind causes, devise experiments to test that postulation, and ultimately develop an extensive theory based on all of the observations I have made about the phenomenon. You can't do that with God because there are no experiments that can test for his existence, or whether a given effect was caused by Him, and therefore, there are no observations on which to base any theory that He exists (or for that matter, that He does not exist). The evidence you offer is not only anecdotal, but also easily explainable by a dozen hypotheses other than "God did it", and there is no way that you can prove to me that what happened was because of God.

really, cause you know he told us which religion to follow, just people dont really wanna listen.
Really, now? He spoke to you directly? Cause he sure didn't tell me to follow Christianity. In fact, one could even argue that he told me (through creating my brain which reasoned this) to be an agnostic. By "us" do you maybe mean Moses and Paul? Well, how do you know that it wasn't just the devil speaking to them, or "voices" as you claim Muhammed's prophecies to be? And why should I believe that it is the correct religion to follow just because Moses told me that God told him it was? You know, there's this guy at the bus station that frequently tells me that God tells him that there's a giant government conspiracy of some sort or other. Should I believe him? The Greeks and Romans also claimed to speak directly with their gods on many occasions. Should I believe them? What makes Moses so special that I should believe him, and why was he the only one that God spoke to? Furthermore, what makes the story of Jesus's ressurection so special? There have been dozens of similar stories throughout history, even stories of other men in ancient Rome who claimed to be descended from God, allegedly performed miracles, were crucified by the Romans, were ressurected, and later ascended. You're going to tell me that none of those stories are true, but if I don't believe those stories, what reason do I have to believe Christianity? Cults based on these figures emerged all throughout ancient Rome, and it wasn't until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and his disciples that Christianity gained prominence over the others, and that was simply because its followers happened to be more zealous and tenacious than the followers of the others. So why should I believe in the story of Jesus and not in any of the others? Because it's more popular? The story certainly doesn't have any more credibility than any of the others, and being more popular certainly doesn't make something right.

again he gave us the answers and people are turning away from it. Theyre telling God, no i can find my own way, which, sadly is not true. when your brainwashed into believing something, though i cant say for sure, im pretty sure God would understand that your unable to follow his word.
Again, God gave me the answer? When? When you told me you were right? I've also got a billion hindus, a billion atheists/agnostics, 350 million Bhuddists, and a couple of billion other people willing to tell me they're right, yet you have yet to give me one piece of evidence which supports your case.

thats what faith is mate, the belief that hes there and trust that hes got your best intrests at heart, through all the good and bad, and with out a shred of proof that he exists. but theres also no proof that he doesnt exist.
Except that if I arbitrarily choose (and you can't argue that it isn't arbitrary since you yourself just stated that there is no evidence either way) to have faith in Christianity, but Islam is right, then I go to hell. Woops! And if I arbitrarily choose to have faith in Islam, but Christianity is right, then I go to hell. Even if I am somehow able to completely erase my mind of all doubt that I am right, if I do choose the wrong one, I am going to hell, and there is no way that I can decide which is the right one, since as you just stated, there is no evidence supporting any of them. The fact that you personally have faith in it isn't enough to make me decide to have faith in it.

the correct religion is the one he gave us. The other trace their origins back to ordinary people. Islam - Muhammad, claims he heard voices. not to discredit the faith, but that kind of hurts your cause. Buddism- Buddists, Hindu, back to an Indian wisemen that i cant remember the name of.
So, again, Muhammed hears voices in his head, and you declare him to be nuts, but Moses does and you declare that he is talking to God? Where does this arbitrary decision come from, and if God spoke with Moses, how do I know he isn't speaking with the guy at the Bus stop?
And you say that Judeo-Christianity originated from God, but earlier you said it came from Moses. Which is it? And what about the ancient romans, greeks, egyptians who believed they took their orders directly from their gods, or the native americans who had a sort of religion based around spirituality and nature, or the hundreds of pagan religions in Africa?

Now we take Judeism. Goes back to the days when God spoke to you in stereo. mainly focuses on Moses, who (with Gods help) led the Jews mirraculously out of Egypt.
Yeah, God spoke to you. You weren't just schizophrenic or anything like they say you are these days. It's God speaking to you.

and Christianity, basically Judeism part II. Centers around Crhrist, a guy who did many mirracles, died for YOU,and then, Rose from the dead.
Like I said before, lots of other guys also claim to have died for my sins, and their disciples claim they rose from the dead, and in fact there are even very very similar stories in Roman and Greek mythology. What makes Jesus so special?


Long story short, according to you, I need to arbitrarily choose a religion, blindly believe in that religion without questioning anything, and hope that that religion is right so God doesn't send me to hell for an eternity because my completely arbitrary, baseless and random decision happened to be wrong.

Long story short, according to you, I need to arbitrarily choose a religion, blindly believe in that religion without questioning anything, and hope that that religion is right so God doesn't send me to hell for an eternity because my completely arbitrary, baseless and random decision happened to be wrong.
That sounds like Pascal's Wager...

Only if by some means of witchcraft you managed to transmute them into such. :rolleyes: They do exist.
So you claim. But it's amazing that you can't provide any evidence for their existence.

Oh well. NMFP.

no, he had to Kill and Plague innocents to show the Pharoh that he was not "god's choosen" as he thought he was. Bascially, it was the Pharoh's stubborness that caused those deaths.
Not if you read the text. It was god who hardened Pharoah's heart against letting the Israelites go. So it was god who caused all the deaths.

actually if you stop to ponder and think about it....the text does.

Genesis 3 14-15

So the Lord God said to the serpant, "Because you have done this,

"cursed are you above all the livestock, and all the wild animals. You will crawl on your bell and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 i will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers, he weill scrush your head and you will strike his heel."


Think about it. The off spring of the woman, striking the defeating the snake and the snake killing him.
Doesn't sound like what the text says.


Boom we now have the first prophecy of the Coming of Christ.
No we don't. In fact, there aren't any prophecies at all about jesus in the OT.

love when atheists claim to know morea about a religion than those who practice it.
Love it when xers think that no atheist knows about the xer death-cult.


For us, death only means leaving this world. For God, death means then end of your spirit.
Funny--the text does not support your claim.

And it's also quite funny that a religion of love would gleefully have a place of torture for the non-believers. Don't tell me it's not gleefully done, either.

humans are unfit for sacrifice because they are not pure,
What does the Levitical law state? Humans are unclean. Jesus was human (in order to die). Therefore, jesus was unclean.

I don't know how much more clear it can be made for you.

No we don't. In fact, there aren't any prophecies at all about jesus in the OT.

The point in prophesies is that they will be applied retrospectively. There are plenty of passages in the old testament can be applied to Jesus.

as i said, those who have not heard it, still get it, while this conclusion has come from, discussion with pastors and Vocational MInisters and such, so Smunkeeville will be calling me out on that again. Sry i didnt tape record it.

If its not the case and that they dont get in, well thats why were trying to bring the word to them.

actually I will most likely leave you alone after this.

do you really think it's a good idea just to believe what other people tell you? Ir doesn't require you to tape record every single conversation ever, but looking things up and critically thinking about everything someone tells you can keep you out of a lot of trouble.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

Tomorrow is Sunday here, if it's Sunday there, go to church and ask your pastor for verses where it says what you have been claiming about people getting raised up after death and given a choice.

so you're saying,
only the saved are those that "develop" a relationship with Christ?

must suck if one honestly accepts Christ and then dies in a car accident or something... does it state how long it takes for such a relationship to form?

Usually, or the way I was taught, the relationship is made when you accept Christ into your heart. The Good deeds are because of that relationship, not to form that relationship.

I think what he means is that as you grow as a Christian you develop a deeper understanding of Christ's sacrifice, not that you don't get the whole bag of goodness at conversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&version=31

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1
I think that quote is somewhat misused there. The implication is that those spirits that are "of God" should be trusted, while those that do not make that claim should not. That seems like a very dubious basis on which to pass judgement.

But I agree with your point anyway. Critical analysis is fundamental to decision making, and taking everything you're told at face value is always dangerous.

Mind you, scripture is not as valuable a tool as your request would suggest. Just because a preacher says something that is not mentioned in the Bible does not make it false, nor does its inclusion make it true. The pastor is every bit as human as the author, and both have their own interpretation of the spiritual world. It is up to the individual to decide where their allegiences lie.

Mind you, scripture is not as valuable a tool as your request would suggest. Just because a preacher says something that is not mentioned in the Bible does not make it false, nor does its inclusion make it true. The pastor is every bit as human as the author, and both have their own interpretation of the spiritual world. It is up to the individual to decide where their allegiences lie.
I understand that. What I have a problem with is

"ask me questions about Christianity"
"okay, what about this?"
"well.....uh......someone said that this was in the Bible"
"where?"
"I don't know, I didn't memorize the Bible, but it's what Christians believe"
"why?"
"I don't know, quit trying to attack me, Christians think <insert idea>"
"why do you believe that?"
"my preacher told me to"
"but why does he believe that"
"it's in the Bible"
"where?"
"I don't know he said it was"
"did you look it up?"
"no, I didn't look it up.....leave me alone"

That sounds like Pascal's Wager...

That was kind of my point.

So you claim. But it's amazing that you can't provide any evidence for their existence.

Oh well. NMFP.

Is the problem of translation not obvious with a text that was initially written in ancient languages and then run through several versions before it was published in English?

It is your problem if you're going to dispute that the problem even exists.

Is the problem of translation not obvious with a text that was initially written in ancient languages and then run through several versions before it was published in English?
Not when we have a concordance and dictionaries.

Not when we have a concordance and dictionaries.

yeah

well

when translating a language from 2 millennia ago, a language without punctuation or even spaces between words, a concordance and dictionary is helpful but hardly covers the entire problem. you have to consider context, the shift of meaning in both greek and english (even from the time that this dictionary was written to today), the different culture and understanding of different concepts at the time the particular passage was written, the rest of the chapter and book it comes from, the individual writer, its relation to the words of jesus in the gospel, the historical interpretations, the current interpretations, the reasons why different translators have chosen different translations from the one you have chosen.

im sure there are more considerations but those are the ones that popped into my head.

I think what he means is that as you grow as a Christian you develop a deeper understanding of Christ's sacrifice, not that you don't get the whole bag of goodness at conversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&version=31which goes back to my point that an Honest conversion will save you. Living a good life will happen because of that conversion, not the other way around.

actually I will most likely leave you alone after this.

do you really think it's a good idea just to believe what other people tell you? Ir doesn't require you to tape record every single conversation ever, but looking things up and critically thinking about everything someone tells you can keep you out of a lot of trouble.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

Tomorrow is Sunday here, if it's Sunday there, go to church and ask your pastor for verses where it says what you have been claiming about people getting raised up after death and given a choice.


i never said they just told me it an i believed it, alot of the concepts i talk about come from me finding a passage in the biblle going to my Pastor, 1 of the 4 i have, and then we discuss it, usually for like 3 hours. And that dude was right, on a text based medium this is nearly impossible to do effectively(talk about Christianity)

BAAWAKKnights, i think you might just become my seccond ignore, since all of your stuff is rong, i mean, There are many prophesies that predict Christ in the Old testements, two books of th OT that do, Mika, and Habbakuk

I think what he meant was that almost nobody lives as a perfect Christian. And that may be true, but a Christian is not somebody without faults-- it is somebody with faults who has let God into their heart, and is trying to become a better person.



My dad sent me a great email. Its a poem by Maya Angelou.

Christians
> By Maya Angelou
> >
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not shouting "I'm clean living'."
> > I'm whispering "I was lost,
> > Now I'm found and forgiven."
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I don't speak of this with pride.
> > I'm confessing that I stumble
> > and need Christ to be my guide.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not trying to be strong.
> > I'm professing that I'm weak
> > And need His strength to carry on.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not bragging of success.
> > I'm admitting I have failed
> > And need God to clean my mess.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not claiming to be perfect,
> > My flaws are far too visible
> > But, God believes I am worth it.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I still feel the sting of pain.
> > I have my share of heartaches
> > So I call upon His name.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not holier than thou,
> > I'm just a simple sinner
> > Who received God's good grace, somehow!

so who else loves the spiffy new forum layout?

My dad sent me a great email. Its a poem by Maya Angelou.

Christians
> By Maya Angelou
> >
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not shouting "I'm clean living'."
> > I'm whispering "I was lost,
> > Now I'm found and forgiven."
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I don't speak of this with pride.
> > I'm confessing that I stumble
> > and need Christ to be my guide.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not trying to be strong.
> > I'm professing that I'm weak
> > And need His strength to carry on.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not bragging of success.
> > I'm admitting I have failed
> > And need God to clean my mess.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not claiming to be perfect,
> > My flaws are far too visible
> > But, God believes I am worth it.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I still feel the sting of pain.
> > I have my share of heartaches
> > So I call upon His name.
> >
> > When I say... "I am a Christian"
> > I'm not holier than thou,
> > I'm just a simple sinner
> > Who received God's good grace, somehow!
I like that poem. I don't know where I've seen it before, but I definitely recognize it.

And yes, BAAWAKnights' was quite off in his assertion that you'll be able to properly understand the Bible with a concordance and a dictionary. For instance, a little-known fact that I learned from one of my theologian friends (who knows ancient Greek): In the New Testament, the word that is translated as Salvation or Saved is the Greek So, which means to be made whole. Jesus wasn't just talking about being able to go to a good place when you die, he was talking about making Earth a good place to live, and making your life complete.

For instance, a little-known fact that I learned from one of my theologian friends (who knows ancient Greek): In the New Testament, the word that is translated as Salvation or Saved is the Greek So, which means to be made whole. Jesus wasn't just talking about being able to go to a good place when you die, he was talking about making Earth a good place to live, and making your life complete.
Yeah, there are so many examples in the synoptic gospel accounts of words being taken out of their original meaning to suit the ideas of later movements within the Church. It's my understanding that Jesus' ideas of how man should relate with God were suprisingly down to earth and personal, but that a distortion on his intentions has been applied by those who heard his ideas and wished to put them to use. "Hell" is another one that comes to mind off the top of my head.

Well, since nobody wants to address my arguments, I guess I can take that as an admission of defeat and assume that I am right, since nobody seems capable of coming up with counter-arguments.

Well, since nobody wants to address my arguments, I guess I can take that as an admission of defeat and assume that I am right, since nobody seems capable of coming up with counter-arguments.

*looks at the most recent brockadia post*

you want to discuss the merits of pascall's wager? its been destroyed so many times already on this forum alone that its no fun anymore

or did you have some other argument that got lost in bawaknights hijack and needs to be restated?

Well, since nobody wants to address my arguments, I guess I can take that as an admission of defeat and assume that I am right, since nobody seems capable of coming up with counter-arguments.your aruguments were targeted to The sons of tarsonis and Sorry, I try not to get involved with other people's arguments unless I can jump in at a comprehensable point.

and since The sons of tarsonis laid this thread out... I'll let him/her answer it.

Well, since nobody wants to address my arguments, I guess I can take that as an admission of defeat and assume that I am right, since nobody seems capable of coming up with counter-arguments.

I don't know when all this turned into a I win/you lose thing, but I guess I can address a few of your points.

Except that if I arbitrarily choose (and you can't argue that it isn't arbitrary since you yourself just stated that there is no evidence either way) to have faith in Christianity, but Islam is right, then I go to hell. Woops! And if I arbitrarily choose to have faith in Islam, but Christianity is right, then I go to hell. Even if I am somehow able to completely erase my mind of all doubt that I am right, if I do choose the wrong one, I am going to hell, and there is no way that I can decide which is the right one, since as you just stated, there is no evidence supporting any of them. The fact that you personally have faith in it isn't enough to make me decide to have faith in it.


I prefer to believe that if God exists, he is completely just and would consider not a person's particular faith, but rather how he lived his life. I know Tarsonis disagrees, but I can't speak for him, of course. By the way, because of the Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam line, if you're Christian but Islam is also a true religion, you are supposed to go to Heaven anyway, but it doesn't work the other way around. It's just an effect of Islam coming after the other two and building upon them in certain ways.

I guess I should let Tarsonis and the other Christian posters answer the rest, though, because frankly I understand a lot of the problems you have with the arbitrariness of religion. It's just that I have a somewhat different idea of justice, eternal life and all that mess than they do.

One more thing; I've always liked this poem by Rumi. It describes my attitude, more or less, about how no one form of belief is the correct as many religious people seem to think. It's a bit long, so I'll just post the link.

http://www.mythfolklore.net/3043mythfolklore/reading/rumi/pages/23.htm

Well, since nobody wants to address my arguments, I guess I can take that as an admission of defeat and assume that I am right, since nobody seems capable of coming up with counter-arguments.
I used to use that one too. Often, it was true. In this case, thanks to my unique position on matters spiritual, I reckon I can at least make a bit of a discussion.

No, but as a scientist, I can postulate as to what it is that is causing the sensations that wind causes, devise experiments to test that postulation, and ultimately develop an extensive theory based on all of the observations I have made about the phenomenon. You can't do that with God because there are no experiments that can test for his existence, or whether a given effect was caused by Him, and therefore, there are no observations on which to base any theory that He exists (or for that matter, that He does not exist). The evidence you offer is not only anecdotal, but also easily explainable by a dozen hypotheses other than "God did it", and there is no way that you can prove to me that what happened was because of God.
So, the "Why can't I see God" question first. Religious people typically have two responses to this.

The first argument is the argument of incomprehensibility: We cannot demonstrate God to you until you know how to interact with it. I don't like this argument for two reasons. Firstly, it's a cop-out. "Come back when you have grown, young grasshopper". Not exactly top notch discussion material. Secondly, though, it assumes that the observer in question doesn't have the capability to understand what God is. This, to me, seems like a gross patronisation.

The second is the argument of superficiality of perception: You don't need to see God to believe in it. Again, I don't like this. It raises questions about the respondant's own understanding of God. If there is no possible perception of any sort, how then can you possibly hold faith in it? There must be some underlying reason for any given person to stand by their conviction of God.

It is my belief that someone who has a firm and real faith in God is leaning on something that has a very real existence that they have had some glimpse of, and yet that is not interacted with directly by physical means. We have all sorts of things like this in the world we inhabit; we call them Systems.

I am interacting with a Computer at the minute. What is that? It is not a single, rigid entity, but rather an abstract mesh of component parts, all feeding each other with electrical information from various sources. All I'm doing is pressing a few keys at the minute, and yet the result is that shortly, you'll receive this message. The keys I press, the computer I use, the information exchanged and the entire network through which it occurs are all varying levels of abstraction. And yet, all that is ever passed to your computer are a few electrical pulses.

The notion of Network is not unique to human design. Physics, Biology and Chemistry are full of it; from micro- and microscopic behaviour of materials, through the development of life to the structure of Ecosystems and communities. Humans have networks too. Society is filled with a constant exchange of information by physical means that holds meaning beyond the medium through which it is transferred. It is a system of systems; a complex organic structure of complex organic structures.

What sets humans apart from most other organic systems, however, is our ability to perceive and analyse the notion of system itself. We have, out of necessity, developed a way to view and critically analyse our thoughts, and with this has come a thorough understanding of both our own structure and that which is similar to it. Thus, God; an attempt to fit human understanding to the systemic nature of existence.

Now, where the problems start are where Society and God become distorted in the observer. This is the problem of Religion, and seems like a good point to move on to the next section.

Really, now? He spoke to you directly? Cause he sure didn't tell me to follow Christianity. In fact, one could even argue that he told me (through creating my brain which reasoned this) to be an agnostic. By "us" do you maybe mean Moses and Paul? Well, how do you know that it wasn't just the devil speaking to them, or "voices" as you claim Muhammed's prophecies to be? And why should I believe that it is the correct religion to follow just because Moses told me that God told him it was? You know, there's this guy at the bus station that frequently tells me that God tells him that there's a giant government conspiracy of some sort or other. Should I believe him? The Greeks and Romans also claimed to speak directly with their gods on many occasions. Should I believe them? What makes Moses so special that I should believe him, and why was he the only one that God spoke to? Furthermore, what makes the story of Jesus's ressurection so special? There have been dozens of similar stories throughout history, even stories of other men in ancient Rome who claimed to be descended from God, allegedly performed miracles, were crucified by the Romans, were ressurected, and later ascended. You're going to tell me that none of those stories are true, but if I don't believe those stories, what reason do I have to believe Christianity? Cults based on these figures emerged all throughout ancient Rome, and it wasn't until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and his disciples that Christianity gained prominence over the others, and that was simply because its followers happened to be more zealous and tenacious than the followers of the others. So why should I believe in the story of Jesus and not in any of the others? Because it's more popular? The story certainly doesn't have any more credibility than any of the others, and being more popular certainly doesn't make something right.
Religion is a completely different aspect of the problem. The stories of men claiming to be influenced by God are just that; history, myth or legend. And boy, are there a lot of them. Each culture has passed on its own tales of men and women who went on a journey of self discovery, overcame fantastic odds with the help of their guardian spirits and went on to give hope against the darkness for those who would listen. Everyone likes a good story, particularly those that give a profound meaning or good advice to the listeners; Aesop's fables are a good example. The ultimate point is that the messages, meanings and intents do not always depend on the verifiable historical accuracy of events portrayed in the tales that are told. And, if it were just about stories and their interpretation, nobody would have a problem.

Now, I personally think that the stories of Jesus's ministry and death probably have a basis in history (possibly several) that has been artistically touched up by the people who sought to flaunt his life for personal gain (I'm looking at Paul here). However, I don't ultimately think historical accuracy is that important. There are so many subtle truths underlying the Gospel of Luke that I simultaneously find it hard to believe that it is not fiction or that it is not deeply rooted in fact. This notion is even supported in the tale itself, where Jesus uses himself as the ultimate parable; the fusion of both the real and the fantastic.

Whether or not you hold them to be true, there are a great deal of insights to be gained from the tales of the Bible. The same is true of a great many religious texts; especially, in fact, the polytheistic ones. The reason I like the Gospel of Luke in particular is that, if it is indeed a story, it has been well researched and well constructed with thousands of years worth of discussion material. A little thing like whether or not it's historically factual doesn't bother me so much.

Except that if I arbitrarily choose (and you can't argue that it isn't arbitrary since you yourself just stated that there is no evidence either way) to have faith in Christianity, but Islam is right, then I go to hell. Woops! And if I arbitrarily choose to have faith in Islam, but Christianity is right, then I go to hell. Even if I am somehow able to completely erase my mind of all doubt that I am right, if I do choose the wrong one, I am going to hell, and there is no way that I can decide which is the right one, since as you just stated, there is no evidence supporting any of them. The fact that you personally have faith in it isn't enough to make me decide to have faith in it.
Afterlife; arguably the most socially damaging idea ever created.

For now, it is clear that you are not the sort of person that the current Heaven and Hell notion applies to. I have written a large amount on Afterlife as the Selfish Man's Gateway Charity in the past, and I'm sure you don't care particularly to hear it again here. Needless to say, the notion of Heaven as a place of rebirth is of secondary importance to someone who has really spent time reading and thinking about the tales and messages of Jesus, despite whatever else Paul of Tarsus has sought to do with the notion. "God's Kingdom", as consistently referred to in Luke's Gospel, is about a personal engagement with the world around you with God as your spiritual companion. And, well, that seems like a noble idea to me.

Long story short, according to you, I need to arbitrarily choose a religion, blindly believe in that religion without questioning anything, and hope that that religion is right so God doesn't send me to hell for an eternity because my completely arbitrary, baseless and random decision happened to be wrong.
I'm cutting a few points short too, since the answers would all be quite similar, and to be honest, I've written enough already.

This is where the question of "So what is Christianity then?" comes in. And it's not an easy question to answer. Is Christianity a certain collection of ideas? Is Christianity a group of people? Is it the adherence to a particular belief structure? Or what?

I think that, ultimately, Christianity and all other Religions in the modern world are a form of Social Identity. You can assign yourself a name and align yourself with a group of others with that name. A person is a Christian when they can say "I am a Christian" and mean it; nothing more or less than that.

To the end of expanding their influence, this group called Christianity has latched on to a set of ideas and claimed them for their own, using them to suck in yet more members to feed its continued existence and preserve the legacy of its membership. This group called Christian will have ultimately succeeded in its goal when everyone is either the blind follower or the blind enemy of the ideas that it has seized. And Religion is the battle of such cultural behemoths. It is a war over conceptual territory that is destined to dissolve into complete tribal opposition.

However, the behaviour of their proponents and the environment they have been placed in should not instantly turn us away from the potential value of some of the component ideas that they have forcefully taken for themselves. I feel that the best approach is to refuse to be exclusive. Do not dismiss every Christian idea, story or concept simply because some of them are blatently ridiculous. Do not allow the light of shameless promise to draw you in or the darkness of veiled threats to push you away. Explore and reflect on the ideas for yourself rather than having your opinions decided for you by some meaningless label.

The point in prophesies is that they will be applied retrospectively. There are plenty of passages in the old testament can be applied to Jesus.
Well, people try to, especially with the "dual-meaning prophecy" ad hoc bullshit that is utterly offensive to jews.

My favorites are the ones they try to apply to jesus but are taken so far out of context as to be hilarious. Example: Micah 5:2.

yeah

well

when translating a language from 2 millennia ago, a language without punctuation or even spaces between words, a concordance and dictionary is helpful but hardly covers the entire problem.
That's when we turn to people who actually speak Hebrew.

Did you know that there are a lot of jews who take the creation and exodus stories are just allegory?

BAAWAKKnights, i think you might just become my seccond ignore, since all of your stuff is rong, i mean, There are many prophesies that predict Christ in the Old testements, two books of th OT that do, Mika, and Habbakuk
Actually no-there are no prophecies at all about jesus in the OT. For you to want to ignore me for pointing out a fact like that means you then would have to ignore every jew who posts here. Every. Single. One.

Micah has no prophecies about jesus (No, Micah 5:2 is not about jesus), and I found nothing in the 3 chapters of Habbakuk about jesus. Perhaps you could be so good as to point it out. After all, Habbakuk is merely about some Israelite lamenting to god, and god giving him some assurance that the Babylonians will be defeated. In battle. Which has nothing to do with jesus. At all. Period.

Actually no-there are no prophecies at all about jesus in the OT. For you to want to ignore me for pointing out a fact like that means you then would have to ignore every jew who posts here. Every. Single. One.

Micah has no prophecies about jesus (No, Micah 5:2 is not about jesus), and I found nothing in the 3 chapters of Habbakuk about jesus. Perhaps you could be so good as to point it out. After all, Habbakuk is merely about some Israelite lamenting to god, and god giving him some assurance that the Babylonians will be defeated. In battle. Which has nothing to do with jesus. At all. Period.


Mika 5:2 has nothing to do with jesus?
"but you Bethlehem, though you are small omong the clans of Juda, out of you wil come for me one who will be ruler of Israel whose origins are from old, from ancient times.

well Jesus came from bethlehem, and Hes ruler of all of Israel. (Israel refers to Gods people, there was no actual nation called Israel at this time.)

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
I'm still waiting for an explanation.

I'm still waiting for an explanation.
Deloreans.

That's when we turn to people who actually speak Hebrew.

Did you know that there are a lot of jews who take the creation and exodus stories are just allegory?

hebrew has similar problems to koine greek. the long tradition of interpretation of the old testament by jewish scholars of the past few thousand years should make the interpretation of the OT much easier. at least apart from the insistence that certain passages are prophesies of the coming of jesus.

im pretty sure that most jews and christians take the story of genesis at least as allegory. bible literalists are few in number.

i dont know how jews feel about how literally true the book of exodus is.

Actually no-there are no prophecies at all about jesus in the OT. For you to want to ignore me for pointing out a fact like that means you then would have to ignore every jew who posts here. Every. Single. One.

Micah has no prophecies about jesus (No, Micah 5:2 is not about jesus), and I found nothing in the 3 chapters of Habbakuk about jesus. Perhaps you could be so good as to point it out. After all, Habbakuk is merely about some Israelite lamenting to god, and god giving him some assurance that the Babylonians will be defeated. In battle. Which has nothing to do with jesus. At all. Period.



sry Habbakuk was the wrong book. My mistake.

Zachariah 9:9-10
9Rejoice Greatly o daughter of Zion! Shout Daughter of Jerusalem. See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Jesus came to Jerusalem, riding on a donkey) 10I will take away the chariots from Ehpraim and the war horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. (Romans occupied Jerusalem, so they had no army anymore) He will proclaim peace to the nations (sermon on the mount anyone?) his rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earh. (Jesus though has no kingdom on this Earth, reigns in heaven.)


Zachariah 12:10 And i will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of jerusalem the spirit of Grace and supplication. They will look to me, the one they have pierced and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

(did they not pierce Jesus who was of the house of David?)


Zachariah 11: 10-13
10 Then i took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the Nations. 11It was revoked on that day so the afflicted of the flock whowere watching me knew it was the word of the lord. 12I told them, "if you think it best, give me my payLbut if not keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of sliver.13 and the lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter -the handsom price at which they priced me." So i took the thirty pieces of sliver and threw them into the hous of the Lord to the potter.

(Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.)

Mika 5:2 has nothing to do with jesus?
Absolutely.

"But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."

That bolded word is a word you didn't include. I don't know why.

What it says is that from the clan of Bethlehem, who is the son of Caleb's 2nd wife, Eph'rathah, shall come a great military leader.

Observe:

"3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And this shall be peace, when the Assyrian comes into our land and treads upon our soil, that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men; 6 they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border."

Y'might want to actually read up on what you're talking about. And NOT take verses out of context.

I used to use that one too. Often, it was true. In this case, thanks to my unique position on matters spiritual, I reckon I can at least make a bit of a discussion.
:) The intent of that statement was more to evoke a discussion out of someone than a declaration of my being right. I'm glad I succeeded.


So, the "Why can't I see God" question first. Religious people typically have two responses to this.

The first argument is the argument of incomprehensibility: We cannot demonstrate God to you until you know how to interact with it. I don't like this argument for two reasons. Firstly, it's a cop-out. "Come back when you have grown, young grasshopper". Not exactly top notch discussion material. Secondly, though, it assumes that the observer in question doesn't have the capability to understand what God is. This, to me, seems like a gross patronisation.

The second is the argument of superficiality of perception: You don't need to see God to believe in it. Again, I don't like this. It raises questions about the respondant's own understanding of God. If there is no possible perception of any sort, how then can you possibly hold faith in it? There must be some underlying reason for any given person to stand by their conviction of God.

It is my belief that someone who has a firm and real faith in God is leaning on something that has a very real existence that they have had some glimpse of, and yet that is not interacted with directly by physical means. We have all sorts of things like this in the world we inhabit; we call them Systems.

I am interacting with a Computer at the minute. What is that? It is not a single, rigid entity, but rather an abstract mesh of component parts, all feeding each other with electrical information from various sources. All I'm doing is pressing a few keys at the minute, and yet the result is that shortly, you'll receive this message. The keys I press, the computer I use, the information exchanged and the entire network through which it occurs are all varying levels of abstraction. And yet, all that is ever passed to your computer are a few electrical pulses.

The notion of Network is not unique to human design. Physics, Biology and Chemistry are full of it; from micro- and microscopic behaviour of materials, through the development of life to the structure of Ecosystems and communities. Humans have networks too. Society is filled with a constant exchange of information by physical means that holds meaning beyond the medium through which it is transferred. It is a system of systems; a complex organic structure of complex organic structures.

What sets humans apart from most other organic systems, however, is our ability to perceive and analyse the notion of system itself. We have, out of necessity, developed a way to view and critically analyse our thoughts, and with this has come a thorough understanding of both our own structure and that which is similar to it. Thus, God; an attempt to fit human understanding to the systemic nature of existence.

Now, where the problems start are where Society and God become distorted in the observer. This is the problem of Religion, and seems like a good point to move on to the next section.
While I agree with your assertions about the two arguments that are usually made, I have to disagree with the one you have come up with: most of the christians I have met see some sort of effect ("The world is so complex/The world is so beautiful/My sister recovered from Breast Cancer/My friend became sober/The drug dealer down the street got a real job/etc") and attribute the cause of it to God. They consider those effects that they see to be their evidence of God's existence despite never having bothered to delve deeper into any of them in search of causes which may have been something other than God (and which they most certainly would have found had they bothered to look.)

They never really glimpse God at all, they simply believe that they are seeing indirect evidence of His existence. It's no different than if my TV kept randomly turning on by itself and I were to automatically attribute it to a poltergeist. I could call an electrician to take a look at the TV (or look at it myself) and learn that in fact it was due to faulty wiring, or I could just assume I'm right, and ignore any evidence presented to me that contradicts that assumption. I never actually "glimpsed" the poltergeist, and neither did I see indirect evidence of its existence: I just believed that I saw evidence of its existence, because I never bothered to test the conclusions I drew from that evidence.

With regards to your "system" explanation, I'm not sure exactly how it is relevant. I'm guessing you've made some sort of connection in your head, but simply forgot to make that connection in your post, so I have no idea what that connection is.

Regardless, however, I must object to your assertion that all of these systems are simly abstractions: they are nothing of the sort, the connections are very real: a predator eats its prey, a computer sends data to others on its network through a system of wires, each of the 63 trillion cells in your body communicates with each other one via your central nervous system and endocrine system. Even within the computer at which you sit, I can describe the exact process that occurs between the time you depress a button on your keyboard and the moment the corresponding letter appears on your screen. There is not one system or network in existence that does not rely on real connections or that does rely on abstraction to function.


Religion is a completely different aspect of the problem. The stories of men claiming to be influenced by God are just that; history, myth or legend. And boy, are there a lot of them. Each culture has passed on its own tales of men and women who went on a journey of self discovery, overcame fantastic odds with the help of their guardian spirits and went on to give hope against the darkness for those who would listen. Everyone likes a good story, particularly those that give a profound meaning or good advice to the listeners; Aesop's fables are a good example. The ultimate point is that the messages, meanings and intents do not always depend on the verifiable historical accuracy of events portrayed in the tales that are told. And, if it were just about stories and their interpretation, nobody would have a problem.
The point I had been trying to make was that even if I were to decide to be theistic, choosing a religion to follow would be a ridiculous proposition. The evidence that any one of the religions offers is no more credible than that of any other. While the stories they tell may have moral value, they certainly do not offer good reason to follow their religion, as I might as well follow every religion if I'm going to start believing such stories.

Now, I personally think that the stories of Jesus's ministry and death probably have a basis in history (possibly several) that has been artistically touched up by the people who sought to flaunt his life for personal gain (I'm looking at Paul here). However, I don't ultimately think historical accuracy is that important. There are so many subtle truths underlying the Gospel of Luke that I simultaneously find it hard to believe that it is not fiction or that it is not deeply rooted in fact. This notion is even supported in the tale itself, where Jesus uses himself as the ultimate parable; the fusion of both the real and the fantastic.
But the historical accuracy of the Jesus's life and Ressurection are the foundation of the Christian religion. Without the Ressurection, Christianity is little different from Judaism, except for a few updated philosophies. But again, why should I believe the Ressurection of Christ when there are so many similar stories out there, and if I do believe that one, then why not all of the others?


Whether or not you hold them to be true, there are a great deal of insights to be gained from the tales of the Bible. The same is true of a great many religious texts; especially, in fact, the polytheistic ones. The reason I like the Gospel of Luke in particular is that, if it is indeed a story, it has been well researched and well constructed with thousands of years worth of discussion material. A little thing like whether or not it's historically factual doesn't bother me so much.
I happen to have a Bible sitting around that I bought because I was dressing as a pastor for a halloween party last year, so I might just might give that one a read. But the fact remains that the writings of some clearly biased disciples in no way constitutes evidence that the Ressurection actually took place. Historical factuality (?) is important if you're trying to sell your religion as the One True Faith.


Afterlife; arguably the most socially damaging idea ever created.
With that, I will have to agree.

For now, it is clear that you are not the sort of person that the current Heaven and Hell notion applies to. I have written a large amount on Afterlife as the Selfish Man's Gateway Charity in the past, and I'm sure you don't care particularly to hear it again here. Needless to say, the notion of Heaven as a place of rebirth is of secondary importance to someone who has really spent time reading and thinking about the tales and messages of Jesus, despite whatever else Paul of Tarsus has sought to do with the notion. "God's Kingdom", as consistently referred to in Luke's Gospel, is about a personal engagement with the world around you with God as your spiritual companion. And, well, that seems like a noble idea to me.
Then why is it that the biggest selling point of Christianity is that if you don't follow it then you burn for an eternity in hell? I imagine more people converted out of their own, personally reasoned version of Pascal's Wager than did out of love for the teachings of Christ. Furthermore, the entire idea of hell is completely contradictory to the idea that God is benevolent, all-caring and all-loving. A being would have to be pretty sadistic, cruel and megalomaniacal to condemn the majority of people to an eternity of suffering for a choice they made during their incredibly short lifetime, and which they were forced to make with absolutely no evidence whatsoever (and a choice which I, by remaining agnostic, refuse to make, precisely because of that lack of evidence).

It is because of that inherent contradiction that I will almost certainly never become a Christian, and because of that lack of evidence that I will almost certainly remain agnostic.

the bible has over 300 prophecies made about jesus, the book of isaiah is practically a big prophesy

(refering to the dude's argument on the previous page)

sry Habbakuk was the wrong book. My mistake.

Zachariah 9:9-10
Why don't we read beginning at 9:1? Oh--because that would add context. We can't do that, can we?

Well, we can.

"1 An Oracle The word of the LORD is against the land of Hadrach and will rest upon Damascus. For to the LORD belong the cities of Aram, even as all the tribes of Israel; 2 Hamath also, which borders thereon, Tyre and Sidon, though they are very wise. 3 Tyre has built herself a rampart, and heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets. 4 But lo, the Lord will strip her of her possessions and hurl her wealth into the sea, and she shall be devoured by fire. 5 Ash'kelon shall see it, and be afraid; Gaza too, and shall writhe in anguish; Ekron also, because its hopes are confounded. The king shall perish from Gaza; Ash'kelon shall be uninhabited; 6 a mongrel people shall dwell in Ashdod; and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia. 7 I will take away its blood from its mouth, and its abominations from between its teeth; it too shall be a remnant for our God; it shall be like a clan in Judah, and Ekron shall be like the Jeb'usites. 8 Then I will encamp at my house as a guard, so that none shall march to and fro; no oppressor shall again overrun them, for now I see with my own eyes. 9 Rejoice Greatly o daughter of Zion! Shout Daughter of Jerusalem. See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 I will take away the chariots from Ehpraim and the war horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations his rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.

12 Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double. 13 For I have bent Judah as my bow; I have made E'phraim its arrow. I will brandish your sons, O Zion, over your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior's sword. 14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south. 15 The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour and tread down the slingers; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar. 16 On that day the LORD their God will save them for they are the flock of his people; for like the jewels of a crown they shall shine on his land. 17 Yea, how good and how fair it shall be! Grain shall make the young men flourish, and new wine the maidens."

Hmmm...with the context it certainly loses the whole jesus-flavor, doesn't it? It's talking about the enemies of god and how they will be destroyed in war.


Zachariah 12

" 1 An Oracle The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 "Lo, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the peoples round about; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will come together against it. 4 On that day, says the LORD, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness. But upon the house of Judah I will open my eyes, when I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, 'The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God.' 6 "On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour to the right and to the left all the peoples round about, while Jerusalem shall still be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem. 7 "And the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be exalted over that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will put a shield about the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head.
9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And i will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of jerusalem the spirit of Grace and supplication. They will look to me, the one they have pierced and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadadrim'mon in the plain of Megid'do. 12 The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shim'e-ites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves."

In context, the verse loses that jesus-flavor, doesn't it? It's talking about a war against Judah (when aren't these prophecies talking about the jews being invaded?) That while a great military leader from the house of David may fall, the jews will prevail and be closer to god.

Yeah--this is going to continue....

Zachariah 11
"1 Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars! 2 Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined! Wail, oaks of Bashan, for the thick forest has been felled! 3 Hark, the wail of the shepherds, for their glory is despoiled! Hark, the roar of the lions, for the jungle of the Jordan is laid waste!

4 Thus said the LORD my God: "Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. 5 Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, 'Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich'; and their own shepherds have no pity on them. 6 For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the LORD. Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand." 7 So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep. And I took two staffs; one I named Grace, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, "I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another. 10 Then i took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the Nations. 11 It was revoked on that day so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the lord. 12 I told them, "if you think it best, give me my payLbut if not keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of sliver.13 and the lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter -the handsom price at which they priced me." So i took the thirty pieces of sliver and threw them into the hous of the Lord to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the LORD said to me, "Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd. 16 For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. 17 Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!""

When in context, the verses lose the jesus-flavor, don't they? The chapter talks about people who "sell their souls" for money, rejecting god, and that the two main houses: Judah and Israel, were to be permanently schismed.

Now then--please stop taking verses out of context.

the bible has over 300 prophecies made about jesus,
No, it has 0.


the book of isaiah is practically a big prophesy
Not about jesus. Is 7:14 is about the child born in Is 8:3, and does not read "a virgin shall give birth", but rather "a young woman shall conceive and give birth". Is 9:6 is about the same child. Is 53 (the suffering servant) refers to Israel.

Why don't we read beginning at 9:1? Oh--because that would add context. We can't do that, can we?

<SNIP>
Now then--please stop taking verses out of context.

to add some more historical context to isaiah, especially since i know nothing about the context of isaiah, i took this quote from the introduction to the book on the catholic bible webpage.

i still dont understand it but it seems that isaiah was talking about a very real situation that was happening as he was head prophet in the temple in jerusalem and that the situation was resolved at least somewhat as isaiah predicted.


The greatest of the prophets appeared at a critical moment of Israel's history. The second half of the eighth century B.C. witnessed the collapse of the northern kingdom under the hammerlike blows of Assyria (722), while Jerusalem itself saw the army of Sennacherib drawn up before its walls (701). In the year that Uzziah, king of Judah, died (742), Isaiah received his call to the prophetic office in the Temple of Jerusalem. Close attention should be given to Isa 6, where this divine summons to be the ambassador of the Most High is circumstantially described.

The vision of the Lord enthroned in glory stamps an indelible character on Isaiah's ministry and provides the key to the understanding of his message. The majesty, holiness and glory of the Lord took possession of his spirit and, conversely, he gained a new awareness of human pettiness and sinfulness. The enormous abyss between God's sovereign holiness and man's sin overwhelmed the prophet. Only the purifying coal of the seraphim could cleanse his lips and prepare him for acceptance of the call: "Here I am, send me!"

The ministry of Isaiah may be divided into three periods, covering the reigns of Jotham (742-735), Ahaz (735-715), and Hezekiah (715-687). To the first period belong, for the most part, the early oracles (Isa 1-5) which exposed the moral breakdown of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem. With the accession of Ahaz, the prophet became adviser to the king, whose throne was threatened by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. Rejecting the plea of Isaiah for faith and courage, the weak Ahaz turned to Assyria for help. From this period came the majority of messianic oracles found in the section of Immanuel prophecies (Isa 6-12).

Hezekiah succeeded his father and undertook a religious reform which Isaiah undoubtedly supported. But the old intrigues began again, and the king was soon won over to the pro-Egyptian party. Isaiah denounced this "covenant with death" and again summoned Judah to faith in Yahweh as her only hope. But it was too late; the revolt had already begun. Assyria acted quickly and her army, after ravaging Judah, laid siege to Jerusalem (701). "I shut up Hezekiah like a bird in his cage," boasts the famous inscription of Sennacherib. But Yahweh delivered the city, as Isaiah had promised: God is the Lord of history, and Assyria but an instrument in his hands.

Little is known about the last days of this great religious leader, whose oracles, of singular poetic beauty and power, constantly reminded his wayward people of their destiny and the fidelity of Yahweh to his promises


there is more in the introduction if you would like to take a look at it http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

you may have to scroll down and click on the introduction to isaiah link.

Why don't we read beginning at 9:1? Oh--because that would add context. We can't do that, can we?

Well, we can.

"1 An Oracle The word of the LORD is against the land of Hadrach and will rest upon Damascus. For to the LORD belong the cities of Aram, even as all the tribes of Israel; 2 Hamath also, which borders thereon, Tyre and Sidon, though they are very wise. 3 Tyre has built herself a rampart, and heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets. 4 But lo, the Lord will strip her of her possessions and hurl her wealth into the sea, and she shall be devoured by fire. 5 Ash'kelon shall see it, and be afraid; Gaza too, and shall writhe in anguish; Ekron also, because its hopes are confounded. The king shall perish from Gaza; Ash'kelon shall be uninhabited; 6 a mongrel people shall dwell in Ashdod; and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia. 7 I will take away its blood from its mouth, and its abominations from between its teeth; it too shall be a remnant for our God; it shall be like a clan in Judah, and Ekron shall be like the Jeb'usites. 8 Then I will encamp at my house as a guard, so that none shall march to and fro; no oppressor shall again overrun them, for now I see with my own eyes. 9 Rejoice Greatly o daughter of Zion! Shout Daughter of Jerusalem. See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 I will take away the chariots from Ehpraim and the war horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations his rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.

12 Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double. 13 For I have bent Judah as my bow; I have made E'phraim its arrow. I will brandish your sons, O Zion, over your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior's sword. 14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south. 15 The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour and tread down the slingers; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar. 16 On that day the LORD their God will save them for they are the flock of his people; for like the jewels of a crown they shall shine on his land. 17 Yea, how good and how fair it shall be! Grain shall make the young men flourish, and new wine the maidens."

Hmmm...with the context it certainly loses the whole jesus-flavor, doesn't it? It's talking about the enemies of god and how they will be destroyed in war.


Zachariah 12

" 1 An Oracle The word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 "Lo, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the peoples round about; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will come together against it. 4 On that day, says the LORD, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness. But upon the house of Judah I will open my eyes, when I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, 'The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God.' 6 "On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour to the right and to the left all the peoples round about, while Jerusalem shall still be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem. 7 "And the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be exalted over that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will put a shield about the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head.
9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And i will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of jerusalem the spirit of Grace and supplication. They will look to me, the one they have pierced and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadadrim'mon in the plain of Megid'do. 12 The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shim'e-ites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves."

In context, the verse loses that jesus-flavor, doesn't it? It's talking about a war against Judah (when aren't these prophecies talking about the jews being invaded?) That while a great military leader from the house of David may fall, the jews will prevail and be closer to god.

Yeah--this is going to continue....

Zachariah 11
"1 Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars! 2 Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined! Wail, oaks of Bashan, for the thick forest has been felled! 3 Hark, the wail of the shepherds, for their glory is despoiled! Hark, the roar of the lions, for the jungle of the Jordan is laid waste!

4 Thus said the LORD my God: "Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. 5 Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, 'Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich'; and their own shepherds have no pity on them. 6 For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the LORD. Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand." 7 So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep. And I took two staffs; one I named Grace, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, "I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another. 10 Then i took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the Nations. 11 It was revoked on that day so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the lord. 12 I told them, "if you think it best, give me my payLbut if not keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of sliver.13 and the lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter -the handsom price at which they priced me." So i took the thirty pieces of sliver and threw them into the hous of the Lord to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the LORD said to me, "Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd. 16 For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. 17 Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!""

When in context, the verses lose the jesus-flavor, don't they? The chapter talks about people who "sell their souls" for money, rejecting god, and that the two main houses: Judah and Israel, were to be permanently schismed.

Now then--please stop taking verses out of context.

you dont understand the art of phrophesizing much do you, the bible has 300 prophesies about Christ and he fulfilled all of them. in 9 hes telling people to hold hope that even though the enemies will come, their King will come to deliver him, it was this chapter that caused the Jews to turn on Christ, because they viewed it as Jesus would save them from the Romans, when really he was saving them from themselves.

He also uses the money thing to say that they would do anything for money, even sell out their own God. which Jusas Iscariot Did

you dont understand the art of phrophesizing much do you,
Oh, I do. You clearly don't understand that taking verses out of context and trying to make prophecies out of them is quite dishonest. But then, your silly little death-cult made a religion around fake prophecies.


the bible has 300 prophesies about Christ
No, it has 0.


in 9 hes telling people to hold hope that even though the enemies will come,
The enemies at that time. When the verse was written. It's QUITE specific, isn't it? Doesn't say Rome, does it? Doesn't say Romans, does it?


He also uses the money thing to say that they would do anything for money, even sell out their own God. which Jusas Iscariot Did
Yet, as the chapter shows, it's got nothing to do with jesus.

Now please--stop taking verses out of context! Don't make me slap you with the bible again.

Oh, I do. You clearly don't understand that taking verses out of context and trying to make prophecies out of them is quite dishonest. But then, your silly little death-cult made a religion around fake prophecies.



No, it has 0.



The enemies at that time. When the verse was written. It's QUITE specific, isn't it? Doesn't say Rome, does it? Doesn't say Romans, does it?



Yet, as the chapter shows, it's got nothing to do with jesus.

Now please--stop taking verses out of context! Don't make me slap you with the bible again.



sigh i cant drill through the wood,

sigh i cant drill through the wood,
Irony-o-meter. Blown.

Isaiah 11 is a prophesy if i ever saw one, read it (but please dont quote the whole thing to us its making this forum to long to read) 11:10 "In that day the heir to David's throne will be a banner of salvation to all the world. The nations will rally to him, for the land where he lives will be a glorious place"

11:8 babies will crawl safely among poisonous snakes. yes a litlle child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes and pull it out unharmed

yeah jesus did that later
but your right there are 0 prophecies???

Isaiah 11 is a prophesy if i ever saw one,
Let's see what it's about, shall we?


read it (but please dont quote the whole thing to us its making this forum to long to read)
Just for that, I will. We need the context.

"1There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

10 In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious. 11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. 12 He will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 13 The jealousy of E'phraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be cut off; E'phraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass E'phraim. 14 But they shall swoop down upon the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them. 15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt; and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it into seven channels that men may cross dryshod. 16 And there will be a highway from Assyria for the remnant which is left of his people, as there was for Israel when they came up from the land of Egypt."

It's talking about the Davidic messiah, who is supposed to gather the diaspora (the "dispersed of Judah") and usher in the age of peace and knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong--and I know I'm not--but jesus didn't do that.

Now, I personally think that the stories of Jesus's ministry and death probably have a basis in history (possibly several) that has been artistically touched up by the people who sought to flaunt his life for personal gain (I'm looking at Paul here).
wow paul got repeatedly jailed lived completely poor and eventually died for jesus, yet u say he did it for personal gain...confused


To the end of expanding their influence, this group called Christianity has latched on to a set of ideas and claimed them for their own, using them to suck in yet more members to feed its continued existence and preserve the legacy of its membership. This group called Christian will have ultimately succeeded in its goal when everyone is either the blind follower or the blind enemy of the ideas that it has seized. And Religion is the battle of such cultural behemoths. It is a war over conceptual territory that is destined to dissolve into complete tribal opposition

no thats definately not the reason we witness... we do it bc we love the ppl we witness to and dont want them to go to hell, and as agravating and anoying as that is to everyone else, they have to admit its a loyal cause, especially since (unlike mormons) god sais we dont gain much from ministerying except for persecution (mormons get rewarded in heaven hence they witness to gain a better stance with god, not out of love for the other person)

sigh i cant drill through the wood,

isaiah is talking about israel being saved from the invasion of the assyrians. wihtout historical context how can you judge anything of what is being said? you cant just take a few verses and claim that they are about jesus.

Isaiah 11 is a prophesy if i ever saw one, read it (but please dont quote the whole thing to us its making this forum to long to read) 11:10 "In that day the heir to David's throne will be a banner of salvation to all the world. The nations will rally to him, for the land where he lives will be a glorious place"

11:8 babies will crawl safely among poisonous snakes. yes a litlle child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes and pull it out unharmed

yeah jesus did that later
but your right there are 0 prophecies???

Firstly, how is Jesus David's heir? Descent to David is always traced through Joseph, but Joseph wasn't Jesus's father. Maybe if Mary was of some relation it would apply, but the Bible never covered her lineage, so we have no way of knowing.

Second, at what point did the nations rally to Jesus? He was always a fringe religious teacher with no support of any kind of nation. He never made his land a glorious place, either, he simply taught those who dwelled within it.

Third, where does it say that Jesus did that snake trick? I've read the Gospels, and there is mention of several miracles, but nothing about snake handling, IIRC.

It's talking about the Davidic messiah, who is supposed to gather the diaspora (the "dispersed of Judah") and usher in the age of peace and knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong--and I know I'm not--but jesus didn't do that.

that guy never came, sounds like a scape goat, and when he does come and collect the ppl, will he come with a banner of salvation??? i doubt thats who isaiah was refering to

Let's see what it's about, shall we?



Just for that, I will. We need the context.

"1There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

10 In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious. 11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. 12 He will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 13 The jealousy of E'phraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be cut off; E'phraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass E'phraim. 14 But they shall swoop down upon the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them. 15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt; and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it into seven channels that men may cross dryshod. 16 And there will be a highway from Assyria for the remnant which is left of his people, as there was for Israel when they came up from the land of Egypt."

It's talking about the Davidic messiah, who is supposed to gather the diaspora (the "dispersed of Judah") and usher in the age of peace and knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong--and I know I'm not--but jesus didn't do that.

Mathew 11 32

32 Whoever acknwleged me before men I will aslo acknowldge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men i will siwon him before my Father in heaven.
34 Do not suppose that i have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For i have come to turn,

a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother in law, a mans enemies will be the members of his own household."

37. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; aanyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 whoever fins his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40 he who receives you recieves me and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. anyone who recieves a prphet because he is a prophet will receive a prophets reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man wil receive a righteous mans reward and if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones becasue he is my disciole i tell you the truth he will certainly not lose his reward.



You = wrong

isaiah is talking about israel being saved from the invasion of the assyrians. wihtout historical context how can you judge anything of what is being said? you cant just take a few verses and claim that they are about jesus.
But that is precisely what all prophecies supposedly about jesus are: out-of-context proof-texting nonsense.

Mathew 11 32
Has nothing to do with this, since jesus did not gather the diaspora.

You = horribly, totally, utterly, incontrovertably wrong.

Firstly, how is Jesus David's heir? Descent to David is always traced through Joseph, but Joseph wasn't Jesus's father. Maybe if Mary was of some relation it would apply, but the Bible never covered her lineage, so we have no way of knowing.

let me find out and ill get back to you. Sunday is tomorrow ill ask my pastor. maybe he knows.

Second, at what point did the nations rally to Jesus? He was always a fringe religious teacher with no support of any kind of nation. He never made his land a glorious place, either, he simply taught those who dwelled within it.
um theres entire countries devoted to christianity. hell Rome became devoted to christianity.

Third, where does it say that Jesus did that snake trick? I've read the Gospels, and there is mention of several miracles, but nothing about snake handling, IIRC.

eh.......i havent either.....

Has nothing to do with this, since jesus did not gather the diaspora.

You = horribly, totally, utterly, incontrovertably wrong.

has everything to do with it, read what it says.

"Do not suppose that i have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

But that is precisely what all prophecies supposedly about jesus are: out-of-context proof-texting nonsense.

are you so used to being railed against that you havent noticed that ive been agreeing with you?

there are jewish prophesies about a messiah (i think) but they are about a warrior who delivers israel from her enemies in a very real world kinda way.

that guy never came, sounds like a scape goat, and when he does come and collect the ppl, will he come with a banner of salvation??? i doubt thats who isaiah was refering to
1. Please use real English.

2. It is to whom Isaiah was referring.

Look--your average xer (of which you are an example) hasn't got the first clue as to what the Davidic messiah is.

Please read this (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_messiah.html) so that you might know what the messiah really is supposed to do and be.

Also, read this (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq108.html) for further education about Isaiah 11.

Jesus never led entire nations while he lived. It was only long after his death that state like Rome began adopting Christianity as an official religion.

Moses pulled the snake trick.

are you so used to being railed against that you havent noticed that ive been agreeing with you?
I was agreeing with you and giving an exposition/explanation.

has everything to do with it,
Sorry, but it doesn't.

This (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq108.html) will help.

I was agreeing with you and giving an exposition/explanation.

ah good, then we are on the same page.

um theres entire countries devoted to christianity. hell Rome became devoted to christianity.

Only after Jesus died did states begin to become Christian. Unless the tense if the Isaiah quote was wrong, I assume it meant that the Messiah would rally the nations to him while he was alive. He is referred to as living in a land he made into a glorious place, inplying that he serves as a living leader, not a martyred teacher.

Only after Jesus died did states begin to become Christian. Unless the tense if the Isaiah quote was wrong, I assume it meant that the Messiah would rally the nations to him while he was alive. He is referred to as living in a land he made into a glorious place, inplying that he serves as a living leader, not a martyred teacher.
Quite so. The messiah does what he does while alive--and doesn't rise from the dead. There is no second coming of the messiah.

With regards to your "system" explanation, I'm not sure exactly how it is relevant. I'm guessing you've made some sort of connection in your head, but simply forgot to make that connection in your post, so I have no idea what that connection is...
Heh... sorry about that. I keep glossing over the fact that people don't have psychic powers.

The system explanation is (shortened for clarity's sake) to basically say that little effects create big pictures. The connection people make with divinity is based on a perception of the whole based on the interconnectivity of people, events and tales. People find God in their relationships with the greater picture, be it simply through playing games with a bunch of less well off kids, be it through helping out their sick relatives, be it through battle and conflict or be it through mass congregations at new christian youth festivals. The reason for this is that, well, they see God as the big picture, and to all intents and purposes, it is. The other explanations are derived from this single understanding.

The point I had been trying to make was that even if I were to decide to be theistic, choosing a religion to follow would be a ridiculous proposition. The evidence that any one of the religions offers is no more credible than that of any other. While the stories they tell may have moral value, they certainly do not offer good reason to follow their religion, as I might as well follow every religion if I'm going to start believing such stories.
I'm just discouraging you from throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to reuse that overabused phrase. There are some ideas that seem repulsive, but that shouldn't deter anyone from the more genuinely meaningful and helpful aspects of the stories.

But the historical accuracy of the Jesus's life and Ressurection are the foundation of the Christian religion. Without the Ressurection, Christianity is little different from Judaism, except for a few updated philosophies. But again, why should I believe the Ressurection of Christ when there are so many similar stories out there, and if I do believe that one, then why not all of the others?
Christianity is little different from Judaism. They're just names. But if you want to look at the ideas underlying them, there is a world apart from the God Jesus talks about to the God mentioned in the Old Testament.

The Philosophy is Everything here. Jesus espouses a way of thinking about spirituality that is worth serious re-analysis. The intrinsic symmetry between the human, the divine and society he personified within himself was something he bore in a way that no other Theology would dare to consider for fear of the wrath of the organisation. His ideas would still be radical today if people ever actually looked at them past the wall of meticulous ceremony.

The value of this does not depend on whether or not he actually was the Son of God, or even whether or not he actually existed. The theological notions are still worldshattering when you try to encompass the possibility of what he referred to.

I happen to have a Bible sitting around that I bought because I was dressing as a pastor for a halloween party last year, so I might just might give that one a read. But the fact remains that the writings of some clearly biased disciples in no way constitutes evidence that the Ressurection actually took place. Historical factuality (?) is important if you're trying to sell your religion as the One True Faith.
Not in the slightest. Selling one's religion as the One True Faith depends entirely on political opportunism and charisma. Told in the right way at the right time, anyone can be duped into fanatical devotion by telling them what they want to hear rather than factual validity.

Incidentally, if you ever do read Luke, bear in mind that he has assembled a collection of accounts, none of which are his own. I personally find this external approach rather refreshing. If you bear certain facts in mind (for instance, "Kingdom of God" and "Heaven" are two distinct ideas, and Hell does not refer to an afterlife; with the right bible, things like these should be pointed out anyway) it comes across as a very strong insight into a Jesus unifying both Eastern and "Western" (ie; Judaism) ways of thinking of spirituality.

Then why is it that the biggest selling point of Christianity is that if you don't follow it then you burn for an eternity in hell? I imagine more people converted out of their own, personally reasoned version of Pascal's Wager than did out of love for the teachings of Christ. Furthermore, the entire idea of hell is completely contradictory to the idea that God is benevolent, all-caring and all-loving. A being would have to be pretty sadistic, cruel and megalomaniacal to condemn the majority of people to an eternity of suffering for a choice they made during their incredibly short lifetime, and which they were forced to make with absolutely no evidence whatsoever (and a choice which I, by remaining agnostic, refuse to make, precisely because of that lack of evidence).
The Afterlife, in both its good and bad incarnations, are misconstruations by the early church and have no basis in Jesus (save in their belief that he was himself brought back to life). The references to Heaven (certainly in Luke, anyway) are always to the supposed physical location of God, and Jesus makes no promise that humans will ever go there. The Kingdom of God is something completely different, and is more like an earthly harmony with God rather than a physical coexistence. Similarly, the references to Hell are to a physical location just south of Jerusalem that was a common dumping ground for the city, and was often used for the refuse of human sacrifices.

Heaven and Hell as you know them have always been a work of the organisation. They are not a part of the original ideas.

It is because of that inherent contradiction that I will almost certainly never become a Christian, and because of that lack of evidence that I will almost certainly remain agnostic.
I'm not encouraging you to "become" anything. Active conversion always reeks of a perceived inadequacy in reasoning; as though you have some need to verify and remind yourself what it is you're thinking. I neither know nor care what happens to me after I am dead, I do not flaunt the name of any religious movement and I see no reason to suggest you do otherwise. All I'm saying is that the legend of Jesus presents a challenge of thought that would not be fair to so easily throw aside.

let me find out and ill get back to you. Sunday is tomorrow ill ask my pastor. maybe he knows.
And we'll find out what sort of ad hoc crap he'll come up with.

wow paul got repeatedly jailed lived completely poor and eventually died for jesus, yet u say he did it for personal gain...confused
Sure. Paul was always out for personal power and authority over first the Temples, then the Church. He was a man driven by the need to stamp his mark on society; actively promoting and engaging in a massive crusade against the Christian people, then switching sides when he realised just how much more respect he would get from the poor suckers he once oppressed. He split the church from the disciples to establish himself as the leader of his own side, fiercely promoted the spread of his own church throughout the mediterranean and even went so far as to try to usurp the Romans.

The man was a megalomaniac who took Jesus's words and used them as a cover for his own agenda, even going so far as to hide the interesting parts with his own theology, social views and the scapegoating of the Jewish people - his former comrades.

no thats definately not the reason we witness...
I'm not talking about you, or indeed Christians of any sort. I'm talking about the name of Christianity. Did Jesus ever say "Go ye forth and call yourself Christian"? No, of course not. Did Jesus ever say "If you do not openly proclaim yourself a Christian, you are going to suffer eternally", or even anything vaguely resembling that? No, he didn't. The name is something applied after the fact, as is the identity to which it is applied.

A rose by any other name is still a sweet bright flower. If I live the life put forward by Jesus, what does it matter to what name I assign myself or to what sect I wish to identify with?

The call is to go out and teach people about Jesus; not to go and assign names to them.

Please read this (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_messiah.html) so that you might know what the messiah really is supposed to do and be.



okay hers part of your thing u posted.

1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy 17:15, Numbers 24:17)
lets list the verses.

Deut 17:15 "Be sure to appoint over you the king the lord your God chooses. He must be from among you own borther. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Isreaelite."

Numb. 24:17 " I see him, but not now; I behold him bnut not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. he will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of SHeth."



jesus was a jew. so no argument there.


2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

Gen 49:10 " the scepter willnot depart from Judah, nore the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and the obedience of the nations is his."

Jesus is of the tribe of juda okay.

1st Chron 17:11, " When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers i will rasie up our offspringe to succeed you, one of your own sons, and i will establish his kingdom."

okay see that, BUT WAIT! we use your own complaints against you. WE READ FUTHER

12: He is the one who will build a house for me, and i will establish his kingdom.

Wait here it comes.

13:I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecesor.

Hmmmm, something tells me that i just blew the geneology part out of the water?


Psalms 89:29-38, um this doesnt talk about a messiah, id type it but its long.

Jeramiah 33:17: For this is what the lord says, David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of Israel.

UM where does that say decendant, just says a man. Well i havent failed to have a man to be president, I voted for Bushy, and hes in. THis doesnt support your claim.

IIsamuel 7:12-16: "When our days are over and you rest with your fathers i will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and i will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my name, and i will establish the throne of his kindgom forever,

Again.14I will be his father, and he will be my son
When he does wrong I will punish him with the Rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 Buy my love will never be taken away from him asI took it away from saul whom I removed from before you. 16 your house and your kindgdom will endure forever before me, you throne will be established forever."


NOW for the solomon part.

1st Chron 22:10: He is one who will build a house for my name He will be my son and i will be his father and I will establish the throne of his Kindgom over Israel forever.


OKAY HOld up take it back some


to. 1st Chron 22:6 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LOrd, the God of Israel 7David said to Solomon :my son i had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God 8but this word of the Lord came to me: 'you have shed much blood and have fought many wayrs. you are not to build a house for my name becasue you have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my name becasue you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. 9.But you will have a son who will be a man of Peace and rest and i will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. HIs name will be Solomon and i will grant Israel Peace and quiet during his reighn. 10 see above.


Now to me that sounds like hes saying Solomon is the messiah?


II chron 7:18, I will establish your Royal Throne as i covenented with David your Father when i said You shall never fail to have a man to rule ver isreal.


but however God said this

7:17 As for you If ou walk before me as your father did, and do all i command adnd observe my decrees and laws18:

So im guessing Solomon didnt? i must read more



3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)



27:12-13: 12In that day the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt and you Israelites will be gathered up one b one. And in that day a great trumpet will sound. Those who were perishing in Assyrua and those who ere exiled in Eqypt will come and worshio the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.


Well of what holy mountain do they speak. I know of only one holy mountain, and at the top was where Jesus was crucified. to me this sounds alot like revelations where all people will bow before christ and will worship on Gulgotha where he was crucified.

11:12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel: he will assmble the scatterd people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.


He did raise a banner. Himself, he raised himself up on the cross so that all may live All people of every nations, and it doesnt say where he was gathering them to. Could it mean he left them where they were but assembled them to serve God where they were?

who knows its a little vauge. an i know im putting the "Christian spin" on the banner thing but hey, im not lieing.


4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

4:1 In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains and will be raised above the hills and people will stream to it.

"where does it say he will rebuild the temple, all it says was the mountin will be named greater than all other mountains" but i noticed it says., In the last days. well the end of the world hasnt happened yet. first theyre must be peace in the middle east, and hey Jesus is comming back.



5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. they will beat their swords into plow shars and their spears into pruning hooks, nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Okay, but 2:2 starts out. "In the last days" again with the whole end of the world thing.

11:6 The wolf will live with the lamn the leoped will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together and ta little child will lead them.

So animals will live together, or is this metaphorically, meaning the powerful and the weak will live together, and someone will lead them? like maybe Jesus lead them.

Micah 4:3 He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. they will beat their swords into plow shars and their spears into pruning hooks, nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

well it says the same as the Isiah 2:4 and i already commented on that

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

11:9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain for the earth will be full of knoewledge of the lord as the waters cover the sea.

Influence, NOT FORCE, cause we have free will, so he can influence, but doesnt mean they all will.


40:5 And the Glory of the lord will be revealed and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Where does it say theyll acknowledge the one God, it says theyll all see his power. Well the Egyptians saw his power and still didnt acknowladge him.

But it says in revelations, All will see the power of God and every tounge will confess and every knee will bow that Christ is God.

Zephaniah 3:9 Then i will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the nname of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

where does this talk about the messiah, it says hell judge all and punish all those who oppose him.



Respond.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

This (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq108.html) will help.




Specific mention must also be made of the Christian contention that the statement in verse 2 that "The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" was fulfilled at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22). This is a claim which is, at best, selective fulfillment, and which, upon closer analysis, is devoid of any validity. They must assume that Jesus, part of a triune deity, needed the "Spirit of God," another one-third of the deity, to descend upon him by permission of still another one-third of this godhead: "God anointed him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38; see also John 3:34). The author of Acts indicates that Jesus' ability to do wonders stemmed from God's anointing and that "God was with him." However, if Jesus were God, he would not need to be anointed by God and have God be with him in order to perform miracles. Moreover, if Jesus was God, he could stand in no relationship with God.




This was to signify the Start of Jesus's journey to the Cross

Sorry, but it doesn't.

This (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq108.html) will help.

also just to add this has nothing to do with what im talking about, im talking about how it says he will bring peace to the world and jesus said that he wasnt but was bringing a sword.

Sure. Paul was always out for personal power and authority over first the Temples, then the Church. He was a man driven by the need to stamp his mark on society; actively promoting and engaging in a massive crusade against the Christian people, then switching sides when he realised just how much more respect he would get from the poor suckers he once oppressed. He split the church from the disciples to establish himself as the leader of his own side, fiercely promoted the spread of his own church throughout the mediterranean and even went so far as to try to usurp the Romans.

UMMMMMMMMMMMMM so the fact that Jesus appeared to him, and told him what he was doing was wrong and then used paul as a witness for God.


The man was a megalomaniac who took Jesus's words and used them as a cover for his own agenda, even going so far as to hide the interesting parts with his own theology, social views and the scapegoating of the Jewish people - his former comrades.

well your own opinion is your own opinion, but personally i think i your wrong.


I'm not talking about you, or indeed Christians of any sort. I'm talking about the name of Christianity. Did Jesus ever say "Go ye forth and call yourself Christian"? No, of course not. Did Jesus ever say "If you do not openly proclaim yourself a Christian, you are going to suffer eternally", or even anything vaguely resembling that? No, he didn't. The name is something applied after the fact, as is the identity to which it is applied.

Mathew 11 32

32 Whoever acknwleged me before men I will aslo acknowldge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men i will siwon him before my Father in heaven.

Thats a little less than vauge more like RIGHT ON.

A rose by any other name is still a sweet bright flower. If I live the life put forward by Jesus, what does it matter to what name I assign myself or to what sect I wish to identify with?

The call is to go out and teach people about Jesus; not to go and assign names to them.

the name has nothing to do with it. We go out to convert people to Christianity, Thats just a quicker way of saying, We go out to try to teach and show people why they need to follow the teachings of christ.

And we'll find out what sort of ad hoc crap he'll come up with.



this again fits into your Im right your wrong MO. Youve basically convinced yourself that were all liers and really theres no point arguing with you, cause no matter how much evidence we show you that says your wrong, youll still say your right. Your what we call "a hopeless case"

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

Gen 49:10 " the scepter willnot depart from Judah, nore the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and the obedience of the nations is his."

Jesus is of the tribe of juda okay.
Evidence?


1st Chron 17:11, " When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers i will rasie up our offspringe to succeed you, one of your own sons, and i will establish his kingdom."

okay see that, BUT WAIT! we use your own complaints against you.
You can try. Unfortunately, the jews know their book better than you do.


WE READ FUTHER

12: He is the one who will build a house for me, and i will establish his kingdom.

Wait here it comes.

13:I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecesor.
And that means.....?

Nothing, as we shall see later. However, I can assure you that it doesn't mean a literal father.


Hmmmm, something tells me that i just blew the geneology part out of the water?
You didn't.


Psalms 89:29-38, um this doesnt talk about a messiah, id type it but its long.
*boggle*

You're telling me that you've never heard of online bibles? That you don't know how to copy-and-paste?

"15Blessed are the people who know the festal shout, who walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance, 16 who exult in thy name all the day, and extol thy righteousness. 17 For thou art the glory of their strength; by thy favor our horn is exalted. 18 For our shield belongs to the LORD, our king to the Holy One of Israel.

19 Of old thou didst speak in a vision to thy faithful one, and say: "I have set the crown upon one who is mighty, I have exalted one chosen from the people. 20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him; 21 so that my hand shall ever abide with him, my arm also shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shall not outwit him, the wicked shall not humble him. 23 I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him. 24 My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. 25 I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. 26 He shall cry to me, 'Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' 27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens. 30 If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my ordinances, 31 if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, 32 then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with scourges; 33 but I will not remove from him my steadfast love, or be false to my faithfulness. 34 I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips. 35 Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. 36 His line shall endure for ever, his throne as long as the sun before me. 37 Like the moon it shall be established for ever; it shall stand firm while the skies endure." [Selah]"


Jeramiah 33:17: For this is what the lord says, David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of Israel.

UM where does that say decendant,
David will never fail. The house of David. Decendent.


IIsamuel 7:12-16: "When our days are over and you rest with your fathers i will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and i will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my name, and i will establish the throne of his kindgom forever,

Again.14 I will be his father, and he will be my son
It's not literal.



NOW for the solomon part.

1st Chron 22:10: He is one who will build a house for my name He will be my son and i will be his father and I will establish the throne of his Kindgom over Israel forever.


OKAY HOld up take it back some


to. 1st Chron 22:6 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LOrd, the God of Israel 7David said to Solomon :my son i had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God 8but this word of the Lord came to me: 'you have shed much blood and have fought many wayrs. you are not to build a house for my name becasue you have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my name becasue you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. 9.But you will have a son who will be a man of Peace and rest and i will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. HIs name will be Solomon and i will grant Israel Peace and quiet during his reighn. 10 see above.


Now to me that sounds like hes saying Solomon is the messiah?
No. Solomon just lays the foundation.



II chron 7:18, I will establish your Royal Throne as i covenented with David your Father when i said You shall never fail to have a man to rule ver isreal.


but however God said this

7:17 As for you If ou walk before me as your father did, and do all i command adnd observe my decrees and laws18:

So im guessing Solomon didnt? i must read more
Good thinking.


3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)



27:12-13: 12In that day the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt and you Israelites will be gathered up one b one. And in that day a great trumpet will sound. Those who were perishing in Assyrua and those who ere exiled in Eqypt will come and worshio the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.
Y'know, I'm going to give you some help here and give you a site so that you don't have to type: www.studylight.org



Well of what holy mountain do they speak.
The temple mount, of course. Don't you know ANYTHING about judaism? Are you seriously that uneducated?


11:12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel: he will assmble the scatterd people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.


He did raise a banner.
Not to gather the diaspora.


4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

4:1 In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains and will be raised above the hills and people will stream to it.

"where does it say he will rebuild the temple, all it says was the mountin will be named greater than all other mountains" but i noticed it says., In the last days. well the end of the world hasnt happened yet. first theyre must be peace in the middle east, and hey Jesus is comming back.
Sorry, but the messiah comes only once.


5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. they will beat their swords into plow shars and their spears into pruning hooks, nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Okay, but 2:2 starts out. "In the last days" again with the whole end of the world thing.
And?


11:6 The wolf will live with the lamn the leoped will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together and ta little child will lead them.

So animals will live together, or is this metaphorically, meaning the powerful and the weak will live together, and someone will lead them? like maybe Jesus lead them.
No, jesus didn't lead anyone anywhere. And he certainly didn't bring peace.


6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

11:9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain for the earth will be full of knoewledge of the lord as the waters cover the sea.

Influence, NOT FORCE, cause we have free will, so he can influence, but doesnt mean they all will.
Well, while we don't actually have free will, given the omniscient creator being, I don't see what you're objecting to.


40:5 And the Glory of the lord will be revealed and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Where does it say theyll acknowledge the one God,
And the Glory of the lord will be revealed and all mankind together will see it.


But it says in revelations,
Revelation. No "s".


Zephaniah 3:9 Then i will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the nname of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

where does this talk about the messiah, it says hell judge all and punish all those who oppose him.
All people will know god.

Specific mention must also be made of the Christian contention that the statement in verse 2 that "The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" was fulfilled at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22). This is a claim which is, at best, selective fulfillment, and which, upon closer analysis, is devoid of any validity. They must assume that Jesus, part of a triune deity, needed the "Spirit of God," another one-third of the deity, to descend upon him by permission of still another one-third of this godhead: "God anointed him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38; see also John 3:34). The author of Acts indicates that Jesus' ability to do wonders stemmed from God's anointing and that "God was with him." However, if Jesus were God, he would not need to be anointed by God and have God be with him in order to perform miracles. Moreover, if Jesus was God, he could stand in no relationship with God.




This was to signify the Start of Jesus's journey to the Cross
Ad hoc.

UMMMMMMMMMMMMM so the fact that Jesus appeared to him, and told him what he was doing was wrong and then used paul as a witness for God.
Yes, convenient that, isn't it? That a sudden decision to switch sides might coincidentally be accompanied by divine revelation?

I would expect to see more from a genuine change of heart than just a new identity. As far as I can see, Paul's all-encompassing attitudes towards his own role in the world don't change, thus I see no reason to believe he was anything other than opportunistic in his side swap.

Mathew 11 32

32 Whoever acknwleged me before men I will aslo acknowldge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men i will siwon him before my Father in heaven.

Thats a little less than vauge more like RIGHT ON.
The political label of "Christian" is something the Church, not Jesus, came up with. That says "Acknowledged me", not "Called themself Christian".

the name has nothing to do with it. We go out to convert people to Christianity, Thats just a quicker way of saying, We go out to try to teach and show people why they need to follow the teachings of christ.
I do wonder about that. What would you honestly think if they said "Yeah, Jesus had some neat ideas that I think I'll stick to, but I'm not going to call myself a Christian if that's just fine with you"?

Youve basically convinced yourself that were all liers and really theres no point arguing with you, cause no matter how much evidence we show you that says your wrong, youll still say your right.

Have you actually shown any evidence? It's important to know that the way Jews and Christians read the texts that they do have in common is significantly different. It's also important to consider that the two religions do not share all of their texts. Christianity added the Gospels and the Epistles, but Judaism also has the Talmud, Midrash and other Rabbinic literature.

The only legitimate way to debate matters of interfaith interpretations of scripture wouild be to base it on the Tanakh, as citing out of Christian Scripture or later Jewish Scripture does not make any rational sense.

Evidence?

It might be fair to concede that Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah. The only real distinction being made at that time was whether the person was a Levi or a Judah. Benjamin and Simeon had been absorbed into Judah and the other ten Tribes had been carried away and assimilated by that point.

Nothing, as we shall see later. However, I can assure you that it doesn't mean a literal father.
oh so the literal translation only applies when you want it too? i mean well Isiah was only a literal thing not about the future, but oh God means metaphoircally. Your so full of crap its ammusing.


You didn't.
um yes i pretty much did.



*boggle*

You're telling me that you've never heard of online bibles? That you don't know how to copy-and-paste?


im lazy sue me.

David will never fail. The house of David. Decendent.
well which is it. David, or the House of David rhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm the Bible says David will never fail, where does it say house?



It's not literal. again with the whole only literal when you want it to be.




No. Solomon just lays the foundation. but thats not what it says, it says SOLOMON would build the house, and solomon would be the son that God promised him. But he wasnt?




Good thinking.

well i dont the story of Solomon that well.


Y'know, I'm going to give you some help here and give you a site so that you don't have to type: www.studylight.org ...um okay thanks.



The temple mount, of course. Don't you know ANYTHING about judaism? Are you seriously that uneducated?

oh cant i just turn around and say Ad hoc to you? though please further on what that means, but im guessing your just meaning to say BS



Not to gather the diaspora.
ure right and wrong at the same time. It was to gather everyone. Diaspora included.



Sorry, but the messiah comes only once. says who?



No, jesus didn't lead anyone anywhere. And he certainly didn't bring peace.

He said he wasnt here to bring peace, but to bring a sword.

And he led me to a better life. that counts for something.


Well, while we don't actually have free will, given the omniscient creator being, I don't see what you're objecting to.

if we we dont have free will, how can i say that Jews are wrong?



And the Glory of the lord will be revealed and all mankind together will see it.
Yes we will, when Revelation is fulfilled


Revelation. No "s".

sry was in a hurry didnt want the thread to leave me behind.

All people will know god.


again with the revelation all people bowing before Christ and confessing he is Lord.

Have you actually shown any evidence? It's important to know that the way Jews and Christians read the texts that they do have in common is significantly different. It's also important to consider that the two religions do not share all of their texts. Christianity added the Gospels and the Epistles, but Judaism also has the Talmud, Midrash and other Rabbinic literature.

The only legitimate way to debate matters of interfaith interpretations of scripture wouild be to base it on the Tanakh, as citing out of Christian Scripture or later Jewish Scripture does not make any rational sense.



Jews do interpret things differently i understand that. My best Friend is jewish and we once cleaned out a caffeteria cause we were debating. (this was done on purpose so the line would get much shorter) But hes saying all Christian Doctrine is "ad Hoc" and its really not.

But hes saying all Christian Doctrine is "ad Hoc" and its really not.

I don't really see how Christian doctrine isn't ad hoc... It's designed a specific way in order to get the believer to believe a specific set of things and behave a certain set of ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

oh so the literal translation only applies when you want it too?
No.


um yes i pretty much did.
No, you really didn't.



well which is it. David, or the House of David
The house of David.



again with the whole only literal when you want it to be.
Again with the lie.


but thats not what it says, it says SOLOMON would build the house, and solomon would be the son that God promised him. But he wasnt?
No. He failed god. Much like Ahaz was supposed to win the battle over Pekah and Rezin (that's why Isaiah asks for a sign in Is 7). We find out later that while this child of whom was prophesied was born, Ahaz was in fact defeated.

I don't write the rules or prophecy; I just let you know what happened.



oh cant i just turn around and say Ad hoc to you?
No, since I'm not just making it up as I go alone.


ure
What. The. Fuck. Is. That?


right and wrong at the same time. It was to gather everyone. Diaspora included.
The messiah is to gather the diaspora to Judea/Judah/Israel. Did jesus do that?


says who?
The writers of the TANACH.


He said he wasnt here to bring peace, but to bring a sword.
Then he clearly couldn't have been the messiah.


And he led me to a better life.
Oh sheesh--will you take credit for what happens in your own life? Don't be such a coward.


if we we dont have free will, how can i say that Jews are wrong?
That's the way god made you.

I don't write the rules--I just let you know of the consequences of your beliefs.


Yes we will, when Revelation is fulfilled
You realize that the Apocalypse of John was hotly contested, right? That apocalyptic literature was the romance novel of the age (in other words: there were hundreds of pieces cranked out every year). The Apocalypse of John barely made it into the canon, and it's still debated as to whether or not it should still be there.

No.



No, you really didn't.




The house of David.




Again with the lie.



No. He failed god. Much like Ahaz was supposed to win the battle over Pekah and Rezin (that's why Isaiah asks for a sign in Is 7). We find out later that while this child of whom was prophesied was born, Ahaz was in fact defeated.

I don't write the rules or prophecy; I just let you know what happened.




No, since I'm not just making it up as I go alone.



What. The. Fuck. Is. That?



The messiah is to gather the diaspora to Judea/Judah/Israel. Did jesus do that?



The writers of the TANACH.



Then he clearly couldn't have been the messiah.



Oh sheesh--will you take credit for what happens in your own life? Don't be such a coward.



That's the way god made you.

I don't write the rules--I just let you know of the consequences of your beliefs.



You realize that the Apocalypse of John was hotly contested, right? That apocalyptic literature was the romance novel of the age (in other words: there were hundreds of pieces cranked out every year). The Apocalypse of John barely made it into the canon, and it's still debated as to whether or not it should still be there.


sigh, you realize this isnt gonna go one way or the other, right? neither of us is gonna concede anything, and personally im getting tired of it,so i give up, im not conceding but im calling this a draw cause it wont go either way, if you wanna think you won, go ahead if you need to to feel better baout ureself.

I don't really see how Christian doctrine isn't ad hoc... It's designed a specific way in order to get the believer to believe a specific set of things and behave a certain set of ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

so is alll religion

I don't write the rules--I just let you know of the consequences of your beliefs. and ive been doing the same

sigh, you realize this isnt gonna go one way or the other, right? neither of us is gonna concede anything, and personally im getting tired of it,so i give up, im not conceding but im calling this a draw cause it wont go either way, if you wanna think you won, go ahead if you need to to feel better baout ureself.

Awww.
If you'd argued I was all prepared to point out how when he takes it as a metaphore it's to avoid a contradiction with other parts of it, whereas where you take it as a metaphore you don't have other text to justify your metaphore.

so is alll religion

Judaism isn't... If anything, it's almost the opposite. It's doctrines are engineered to not give you an answer, but to give you ways to find one for yourself.

sigh, you realize this isnt gonna go one way or the other, right?
I don't realize that at all. In fact, I know that it can go one way or the other.

Don't cop-out on me. That's just cowardly.

and ive been doing the same
Actually, you haven't.

If I could beseech upon you, though: please learn how to correctly punctuate sentences and spell correctly. You will have a better chance of being taken seriously if you do.

Actually, you haven't.

If I could beseech upon you, though: please learn how to correctly punctuate sentences and spell correctly. You will have a better chance of being taken seriously if you do.


It's because I go so fast when i type. Sorry.

I have a question about christianity, or, more specifically, the devil.

As far as I know Satan, as depicted in christian mythology, isn't dumb but highly intelligent.
Since it is clear to christians what will happen to him and all his minions when the youngest judgement comes upon them(you know, eternal suffering in the lake of fire etc., etc.) and that there is no way he could win his war against god, shouldn't he have developed a "Plan B" or something like that, by now? I mean, everybody knows what the Apocalypse of John says about Armageddon. That's common knowledge for over 2000 years now. Would't that be enough time for him to search for some escape routes?

I have a question about christianity, or, more specifically, the devil.

As far as I know Satan, as depicted in christian mythology, isn't dumb but highly intelligent.
Since it is clear to christians what will happen to him and all his minions when the youngest judgement comes upon them(you know, eternal suffering in the lake of fire etc., etc.) and that there is no way he could win his war against god, shouldn't he have developed a "Plan B" or something like that, by now? I mean, everybody knows what the Apocalypse of John says about Armageddon. That's common knowledge for over 2000 years now. Would't that be enough time for him to search for some escape routes?

No, because he doesn't exist.

No catholics here, or others who believe in the devil's existence?

I have a question about christianity, or, more specifically, the devil.

As far as I know Satan, as depicted in christian mythology, isn't dumb but highly intelligent.
Since it is clear to christians what will happen to him and all his minions when the youngest judgement comes upon them(you know, eternal suffering in the lake of fire etc., etc.) and that there is no way he could win his war against god, shouldn't he have developed a "Plan B" or something like that, by now? I mean, everybody knows what the Apocalypse of John says about Armageddon. That's common knowledge for over 2000 years now. Would't that be enough time for him to search for some escape routes?
It has always been my opinion that, in the event of both the existence of Jesus and Satan, plan B has already been successfully implemented in the creation of the Church. After all, isn't that the ultimate retort? "Jesus came to save these humans through faith in him, so let's create a big convoluted organisation with specific social beliefs and rituals that takes his name and shuns anyone who doesn't join it as non-believers, thereby drowning out any hope of this faith ever actually materialising". Sounds like a pretty good comeback to me.

It has always been my opinion that, in the event of both the existence of Jesus and Satan, plan B has already been successfully implemented in the creation of the Church. After all, isn't that the ultimate retort? "Jesus came to save these humans through faith in him, so let's create a big convoluted organisation with specific social beliefs and rituals that takes his name and shuns anyone who doesn't join it as non-believers, thereby drowning out any hope of this faith ever actually materialising". Sounds like a pretty good comeback to me.

oooo ouch!

it works well with the whole "false prophets" discussion in the gospels. except that in your scenario EVERY church is a false prophet because they divide instead of unite and get all obsessive about the small bits instead of going with the big picture.

i like it.

I have a question about christianity, or, more specifically, the devil.

As far as I know Satan, as depicted in christian mythology, isn't dumb but highly intelligent.
Since it is clear to christians what will happen to him and all his minions when the youngest judgement comes upon them(you know, eternal suffering in the lake of fire etc., etc.) and that there is no way he could win his war against god, shouldn't he have developed a "Plan B" or something like that, by now? I mean, everybody knows what the Apocalypse of John says about Armageddon. That's common knowledge for over 2000 years now. Would't that be enough time for him to search for some escape routes?



The Devil knows he is gonna lose, and he doesnt have plan B so to speak, because he doesnt have free will. Lucifer, is an angel. God created him with the purpose of being the ultimate evil. Lucifer knows he cant win, so his "plan b" is to take everyone he can down with him.

The Devil knows he is gonna lose, and he doesnt have plan B so to speak, because he doesnt have free will. Lucifer, is an angel. God created him with the purpose of being the ultimate evil. Lucifer knows he cant win, so his "plan b" is to take everyone he can down with him.

if Satan doesn't have freewill then isn't God just evil for making him do stuff and isn't God really sending us to hell for fun?

I have a question about christianity, or, more specifically, the devil.

As far as I know Satan, as depicted in christian mythology, isn't dumb but highly intelligent.
Since it is clear to christians what will happen to him and all his minions when the youngest judgement comes upon them(you know, eternal suffering in the lake of fire etc., etc.) and that there is no way he could win his war against god, shouldn't he have developed a "Plan B" or something like that, by now? I mean, everybody knows what the Apocalypse of John says about Armageddon. That's common knowledge for over 2000 years now. Would't that be enough time for him to search for some escape routes?

There are two theories that I know of. The first is held by Arminians (anti-Calvinists) who say that Satan doesn't want to be lonely in the Lake of Fire and so he is going to seduce as many people as he can. Misery desires company.

The second theory is generally held by Calvinists who say that because Satan is so intelligent, he obviously knows about election and is continuing simply to spite God. He doesn't know who is chosen and who isn't, so he will try to turn everyone away, knowing there are some that he will not be able to. The others he just keeps in their rebellion and tempts Christians to spite God, because he hates Him so much (he is utterly depraved, he cannot be more evil than he is). I favor this theory.