Title: If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say? (Parts VIII & I) Source:
The Potters Clay URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6ulv9aQno Published:Oct 10, 2018 Author:The Potters Clay Post Date:2019-10-07 12:02:10 by Liberator Keywords:Truth, Memes, Hmmm Views:46010 Comments:340
A little Meme action... If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
Get bored easily? No time to watch long videos? MEMES TO THE RESCUE! Short & Sweet.
These are found at a Christian You Tube called, 'The Potters Clay'...
These are REALLY good. Fun stuff. I promise. Spectacular AND clever. It doesn't matter what your core belief is; you will come upon several memes that will stop you dead in your tracks and challenge you.
(STRONG SUGGESTION: To adjust and slow these memes down, go to your YouTube 'Settings', then adjust 'Playback Speed to .75. It will give you more time to contemplate the meme, since they move along pretty fast.)
When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
Don’t kill is an absolute, except for self defense (in which case it’s enforcing don’t kill on the would- be killers. All of those other cases under the Jewish law are specific exceptions for Israel, for God ruled Israel directly. Ancient Israel is gone, but Jesus says that killers today go into the lake of fire. So, trying to drag in Jewish Law that allowed killing is Judaizing.
Look on the last couple of pages of the Bible. In Revelation, Jesus gives two similar (not identical) lists of mortal sins - sins for which people are cast into the lake of fire: liars, killers, the sexually immoral, etc. Killers appear on both lists. Sabbath breakers, the covetous and thieves appear on neither. Idolators do, and, curiously, curs and are he filthy appear on at least one list, but the uncircumcised and shrimp eaters appear on neither (unless one interprets “filthy” as being “unclean”.
That Sword Bible with the direct words of God in Red certainly is a useful addition.
I had to do that work myself, with a highlighter, and it bled through the page a lot.
Also, in the NT, distinguishing who is speaking - the Father, Jesus, angels, YHWH from the OT, Jesus quoting the OT - it took a lot of different color fonts. Having had someone already do that is a good thing.
The nice thing about the KJV is that it is from ONE main manuscript, of Bysantine Orthodox text type, the original version has all of the books later excluded by some Protestants, and it has such a rich research apparatus supporting it (of concordances, word-counts, "Strongs", etc. that one can really delve down into many aspects of it better than in any other version.
The translation also has the virtue of "thee" and "you", so one can see the distinction between second person singular and plural, which no longer exists in contemporary English.
So, I'll be pleased to get myself a "Sword Bible" as it will make my task easier.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether they will properly put the words of Jesus in Revelation.
(And no, every word in the Bible did not "proceed forth from the mouth of God". The writers did a good job of pointing THOSE words out, and they're important because of who said them.
If you want to believe that EVERY word proceeded forth out of the mouth again, you can follow your tradition and believe that, but the original writers were inspired by God to make the distinction, so God apparently intended for there to be such a distinction.
Of course, what one DOES with the information is more important than sitting around thinking about it, in any case.
I also notice he is adding to scripture adding the word mortal.
Well, Jesus gives a list of sins that earn the lake of fire at final judgment. He gives two overlapping lists.
ALL sins are not on that list. Indeed, a great number of sins pointed out by God are not on the list. Half of the Ten Commandments are not on the list, while things not among the Ten Commandments are on that list.
So, how shall I describe the list of specific sins that earn one the lake of fire? I need a word. "Mortal" seems reasonable enough. These are the sins that result in the second death. Sounds pretty "mortal" to me.
By contrast, sins such as theft or dishonoring your father, or breaking the Sabbath, or coveting, are NOT on the list of "Lake of Fire" - second death - sins. "Mortal" is a nice short word that distinguishes between the lists of sin that earn one the fire, versus the ones that don't.
James says "Break one, break them all", but Jesus obviously disagrees.
Thank goodness, then, that James' ideas on the matter are not printed in red like Jesus's words are. In this way, given the conflict between two different parts of the Bible, we can decide whether we think that James is the final authority, or Jesus.
Likewise, we have Jesus sayin over and over again at the end of revelation that all of the souls will be called forth from Hades and Death, resurrected, and judged by their works. And of course we've got Paul disagreeing with that. Once again we've got red-letters conflicting with black-letters. "Bible" contains both, and the conflict. How does one resolve the conflict?
You resolve it by denying there is a conflict, even though there clearly is.
I resolve it by looking to the highest authority, which - to a Christian - is Jesus's Father, followed by Jesus himself.
All Jesus' father said that was pertinent to this was "listen to him" (Jesus). So what Jesus says, goes. Where James and Paul and John disagree with Jesus, Jesus trumps, obviously.
"But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Jesus
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
You are pulling Matt 5:22 out of context, thereby missing the whole point Jesus is making...that (Matt 5:20) unless your righteousness EXCEEDS that of the most righteous scribes and Pharisees, you not qualified for heaven .
In other words, there is no one righteous, not even one (Rom 3:10). There is no one who at one point or another doesn't break The Law. You don't have to murder someone to break The Law, all you have to do is call them a fool and you are as deserving of hell as any murderer.
Backing up to Matt 5:17 we see the explanation of 5:22, and the reason Christ came into this world...to fulfill The Law (that we cannot keep!) He fulfills it for us. He keeps The Law that we cannot keep. And our faith in Him credits us with righteousness.
You're a good man, Vic. You have never murdered anyone. But if you have ever been the least bit angry, or told even a white lie, you are as guilty of hell as any killer.
You will either be judged by your works (leading you to the Lake of Fire), or you will be judged by your faith in the atoning work of Christ (which will lead to eternal life with Christ). Still wanna go with your works, which are as filthy rags?
But if you have ever been the least bit angry, or told even a white lie, you are as guilty of hell as any killer.
So Jesus was a sinner? He was known to be angry.
So was God. Right?
I know, I know.... That was "righteous" anger. That's somehow different from ordinary anger.
I'm saying it does not add up. Anger is a response to insecurity, whether "righteous" or not, therefore it does not have a place anywhere in God's resume. All this theology has been constructed around the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. It's quite reasonable in my view that much of it is simply man made. God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people. It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.
Submit or terrible things will happen to you. Same story, different millennium.
I'm saying it does not add up. Anger is a response to insecurity, whether "righteous" or not, therefore it does not have a place anywhere in God's resume.
Uh you don't know God or his mind. You follow a suggestor hypnotist who is not God and knows nothing of God. Sorry I am not going to be PC and pretend I respect your beliefs. I don't just like I don't respect Muslims beliefs. Why would I they are wrong just like you. I'm not PC and I wont sugar coat.
It is not a sin to be angry at injustice. Say someone raped your daughter. Every normal person would be angry at that. It is not a sin and it is a natural human emotion. If you are angry at someone without just cause. Like say your angry at your mother because she didn't buy you an xbox for Christmas. That is not righteous anger.
You try to pretend you ar better than God because he got angry. That is a silly notion.
No it is not. How is someone whos daughter was raped getting angry insecure? That's just dumb.
Oh in your hypnotist model the rapist is really a good person who just had a moment of weakness. They need not ask forgiveness according to you. Well if they listen to your suggestor they end up in hell and think they are good and don't have to ask forgiveness. It's nonsense.
It is sad you abandoned your Christian faith that you don't seem able to explain how you were ever a Christian or why you rejected your previous beliefs.
e. God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people. It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.
(Ping): "I know, I know.... That [God's justification] was "righteous" anger. That's somehow different from ordinary anger.
I'm saying it does not add up.
(Stone): "It is not a sin to be angry at injustice. Say someone raped your daughter. Every normal person would be angry at that."
Yes Ping -- There is such a proper or divinely justifiable emotion as "righteous" anger. Stone articulated it as "anger" over "injustice"; His was an extreme but good example of "righteous anger (reaction to "rape.") In God's eyes, when The Godly or our "innocence" is violated, God reaction and anger is indeed "Righteous."
"Righteous anger" may be justified in cases of any malicious violations of the person -- be it physical, mental or emotional.
The "normal anger" you alluded to; Might examples of it include un-justifiableanger -- like, Jealousy, Hate of Self/Others, Contempt, etc.?
P.S.: Yes, God's righteous "anger" and justification for it *does* "add-up." Perfectly.
What absolutely does not "add up" is the claim (or theory) that there is some un-named, self-governing Universal Law and Authority independent of The Almighty, capable of bypassing, ignoring, thereby escaping God-the-Creator's Laws & Final Judgement.
This notion is not only irrational and illogical, but runs counter to man's hard-wired innate sense and knowledge within his heart.
That's like saying the same of the process of Salvation.
If you consider yourself a Christian, BOTH those subjects are worthy of debate AND of strong consideration. (Especially because you may help someone else avoid a rather warm Eternity.)
God has been ascribed being capable of anger just being a way for the leaders of the ancient world to control, through fear, the people.
It's the same thing that goes on today in our modern world. Surrender your rights or else everyone in the USA will be killed in a mass shooting or by some Islamic jihadist suicide bomber.
Submit or terrible things will happen to you. Same story, different millennium.
Fear AND Love. (Just like any good parent.)
"DON'T TOUCH THE STOVE!!" "DON'T RUN IN THE STREET!!" "DON'T GET IN THE VAN!!"
Has the child "surrendered his rights" in these respective cases? Is the child "submitting" in these cases when he heeds the warnings of Daddy?
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~ Proverbs 9:10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph. 2:8,9
How convenient that you have tossed out the Pauline epistles. Now you will tell me this verse from Ephesians is not the Word of God.
Question: are you trying to get into heaven by your works? So you can boast?
Yes Ping -- There is such a proper or divinely justifiable emotion as "righteous" anger. Stone articulated it as "anger" over "injustice"; His was an extreme but good example of "righteous anger (reaction to "rape.")
I disagree. We'll have to put this in the same disagree category as flat earth theory.
While Stone's example may very well be about the best example one could come up with, it still doesn't cut it for explaining God getting angry. As bad as it is, the rape of a parent's daughter invokes anger primarily for human, carnal reasons. It's a violation of sovereignty of the human body and runs the extreme risk of pro-creation which has an everlasting impact on the woman. Parent's would quite naturally... naturally... be inflamed at such a thing.
But God isn't human. We *think* God would be justly angered simply because we imagine God wearing our own shoes. We think that because we are rightly offended, and we are, that our reaction to being rightly offended is always justified, and so we bring God down to our level and decide that He, like us, can get angry and it's okay.
But God is better than that, and there is nothing that one many can take away from another man -- or woman -- that God cannot completely undo. Am I saying I'm that good? Absolutely not. But God is.
Our tendency is to make God like us, ascribing to him many human attributes. And so it is with anger, and jealousy.
I disagree. We'll have to put this in the same disagree category as flat earth theory.
You're entitled to disagree, but why mention Flat Earth? I didn't mention Newton, or his unverifiable, un-authorized, impossible theory ;-)
While Stone's example may very well be about the best example one could come up with, it still doesn't cut it for explaining God getting angry.
As bad as it is, the rape of a parent's daughter invokes anger primarily for human, carnal reasons. It's a violation of sovereignty of the human body and runs the extreme risk of pro-creation which has an everlasting impact on the woman. Parent's would quite naturally... naturally... be inflamed at such a thing.
You've touched on a few separate, overlapping issues.
1) YES, Stone's rape example absolutely helps articulates God's justifiable anger; You even help explain HIS reasons for justifiable anger: "violation of sovereignty of the human body" (by which can be claimed are in extreme "violation" of both God's Creationand a number of His Laws/Commandments.)
2) Yes, the Parents' anger is "natural," ergo justifiable; That is IF they and their sense of morality and paternal/maternal instinct (aka "hard-wire") is operating within the "normal" range, set by God Himself.
But God isn't human.
We *think* God would be justly angered simply because we imagine God wearing our own shoes. We think that because we are rightly offended, and we are, that our reaction to being rightly offended is always justified, and so we bring God down to our level and decide that He, like us, can get angry and it's okay.
Firstly, God-the-Creator made the Laws, hard-wired "good/bad & divine/evil" in our spirit. Can it be noted that to different degree we heed our hard-wired "default"? And beyond that, even attempt to "adjust" or tune it to "Human Standards"?
The issue of God's Anger vs. Man's Anger isn't a matter of divine standards being above that of mere human standards; Evil is evil at either level, by either standard. Reaction to rape is NOT in the "I'm-offended" range; It angers BOTH the Lord AND Man.
Why should any notion of "Divine" Anger be un-justifiable? ALL of the divine attributes and virtues ARE of God. They includes "anger" over "Evils," "Abominations," and Violations of God's Nature.
God is better than that, and there is nothing that one many can take away from another man -- or woman -- that God cannot completely undo. Am I saying I'm that good? Absolutely not. But God is....Our tendency is to make God like us, ascribing to him many human attributes. And so it is with anger, and jealousy.
I believe I am understanding your point (correct me if I'm wrong on your tangent) -- are you ascribing Divine Virtue as exclusive?; that you and I and Man are incapable of acting "Divinely?...because that conveys an "equality" of sorts with God?
What I really don't understand about such a position: That God is "better" than WHAT?? Would that be, demonstrating anger at Evil, -- at which must be noted is NOT "anger" based on vanity, on greed, on malice, or on hate. Now THAT again is a different anger altogether.
Question: are you trying to get into heaven by your works? So you can boast?
Why are you ignoring the direct and repeated words of Jesus, whom you claim to be your savior?
Obviously you don't believe HIM, or don't like what he said, so you go casting around to find somebody else who said something you like better.
You do not seem to even recognise how often Jesus said that at the resurrection men will be judged by their works. It's as though all those words he said were of no account, and only the words you like are. The difference between me and you is stark. There is a CLEAR dichotomy between the words of Paul, which you quote, and the words of Jesus regarding judgment by your works, which you don't seem to be familiar with (!). Faced with this dichotomy, you throw out Jesus and cling to Paul. I read BOTH, which is why I see the clear dichotomy (you don't seem to even KNOW that Jesus said men will be judged by their works, because the confected theology that some men will be while others are not is nowhere to be found in the Bible). And, faced with the clear contradiction, I - very reasonably - decide that Jesus is the highest authority. You don't even recognise what he said, but you are so desperate to lecture me about religion, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper. And you don't actually ANSWER what I say. I point out what Jesus SAID, and you simply sidestep it, ignore it, and challenge me about Paul. I will answer your challenge about Paul: Paul appears here to contradict Jesus. Therefore, Paul is wrong here, at least on the strong sense of what he seems to say, which you seem to believe. Faced with a clear conflict, I follow Jesus. I don't "throw out" the Pauline epistles, I simply recognise that Jesus outranks Paul in every way. It's YOUR tradition that elevated every word in the Bible to being the equal of every other word - thus when God speaks that's of the same strength as when a demon argues with Jesus (if you were consistent in your application, but you are not: your tradition cherry picks to find something comfortable). I don't do that. I read Jesus, first, and place him, first, and he's clear. Where Paul, John, James, etc. agree with him, that's great. Where they depart from what he said because of some belief of their own, I follow Jesus, which is the only rational thing to do if one believes that Jesus is the Son of God. You and your tradition don't do that. You follow your preachers and your preferences. That's fine, for you. I don't go out of my way to criticise the obviously unsound and really quite ridiculous decision to follow some man over the Son of God - but I also recognise that people are not going to change their minds about things they've become stubborn about. So I leave it be. Your type actually feels superior to Catholics, and you cannot restrain your tongues, and go into full-blown judgment mode. This, of course, severs any real communications, because the cut-and-paste religion you believe doesn't even hold together logically. You believe Paul over Jesus. That's your right, but it's such a fundamentally flawed way to look at God that there's really nothing more to say. But your ilk will not leave it alone. Like Jehovah's Witnesses you have to keep pounding on the door, spouting your sacrilegious nonsense. Jesus is King. Jesus is Lord. That means that the words of Jesus stand ABOVE the rest of the words in the New Testament and are the norms. God said that: This is my beloved son, listen to HIM." Pretty simple. He said you're judged by your works. Paul said you're not. Jesus trumps. End of discussion. But you're still arguing it. All I can do is shake my head and walk away from such bibliolatry.
I - very reasonably - decide that Jesus is the highest authority.
Listen to you, going on and on.
You accept the authority of Jesus? Hear Him...Jesus speaking to Ananias about Paul...
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel... Acts 9:15
Paul appears here to contradict Jesus.
Show me some exact verses you are talking about. Then we can discuss it. Only one or two examples please. I don't have all day, you know.
Your type actually feels superior to Catholics, and you cannot restrain your tongues, and go into full-blown judgment mode.
Oh, you better believe I do. I've watched a multitude of friends struggle with that catholic stuff. Even after they have been reborn they continue to suffer from the insidious, ingrained stronghold of their catholic upbringing. I won't hold back any longer. Speaking of Jehovah Witnesses, have you ever tried to win them to Christ...it's impossible. Not so with catholics. I have led many catholics to Christ, even though they struggle as I mentioned. (Just like you are struggling right now, Vic)
I also recognise that people are not going to change their minds about things they've become stubborn about.
I'm as stubborn as a mule and kick like one, too.
But your ilk will not leave it alone.
That's right. But this is all I have time for right now. I'll be back soon to see what verses you have come up with as to those contradictions you speak of.
Oh, you better believe I do. I've watched a multitude of friends struggle with that catholic stuff. Even after they have been reborn they continue to suffer from the insidious, ingrained stronghold of their catholic upbringing. I won't hold back any longer. Speaking of Jehovah Witnesses, have you ever tried to win them to Christ...it's impossible. Not so with catholics. I have led many catholics to Christ, even though they struggle as I mentioned. (Just like you are struggling right now, Vic)
I'm not struggling with God. At all.
I'm struggling to remain polite with you.
You should already know every word Jesus said, practically by heart, before you presume to preach to anybody.
But you don't. You don't know the passages in which Jesus says, to Churches, and to people in general, that in the resurrection men are judged by their works. You don't know - and you should, because you presume to teach.
But you don't, so that's that. You're flailing around in ignorance, espousing an inferior religion. I'm uninterested.
I'll be back soon to see what verses you have come up with as to those contradictions you speak of.
I'll not be engaging in that game. You want to lecture me. If you don't know what Jesus said, front and back, then you have nothing to teach me. I'll stick with him.
