Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
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: 45711
Comments: 340
A little Meme action... Poster Comment: 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.
If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part I
https://youtu.be/ptar5YtS_Sk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth A Thousand Words - Part II
https://youtu.be/FchgUVA4SxE
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part III
https://youtu.be/Kth6X1g7bWk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IV
https://youtu.be/eVk3DIwf66c
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part V
https://youtu.be/qJAsGkP99rg
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VI
https://youtu.be/z2a6g-nfQRU
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VII
https://youtu.be/9Xsh2LJ1SvY
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IX
https://youtu.be/X-D54GbpPjQ
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Liberator (#0)
That you are a science and math retard. And here we have CoolHardLogic, asking pointed questions for the Flattards to answer. Faithful Word Baptist Church is an "independent, fundamental, King James Bible Only Baptist" church.
Here's a question: Are you capable of NOT being a puerile Jackass? Spamming is for children. Rest easy. You can leave your sentry position. No body will steal your globe or "official report." I'll even give you a cookie.
It's obvious that you can't bear to have your ignorance exposed. That won't stop me from continuing to do so. Here is ABC's coverage of the first global Flat Earth convention, held in 2017.
That's NOT your actual mission here, so stop BS'ing. (IF you can help it.) You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Here's an idea: Why don't you create your OWN thread with your SPAM instead of trying to de-rail mine? Do you fear others gaining information and knowledge that badly? Is THIS what this has come to? Forum infants toss their Gerbers from their high chair and spam threads of subjects? Lol...man...
I know. Waaaahh!!!!! (Goo-Goo) Oh wait. Let me get you a new Pampers....
Oft times the source of information is as important as the information itself that's being shared. For what it's worth, the above (as well as all the memes) were created by, 'The Potters Clay.' As can be noted, he is a Christian. Many times it is worth knowing where someone stands, with whom they stand, and why. AND WHO OPPOSES THEM. (and why.)
It's entertaining.
Spreading lies and bullshit to people is a sin. I have zero respect for this flat earth bullshit. It is retarded. Was Ferdinand Magellan in on the conspiracy too?
Your response is telling; I read your four statements. All I can do is shake my head. The truth is the truth. Remaining an ignorant ostrich and zombie isn't a reaction I respect. If there's any "bullshit" that's been swallowed, it has been the daily Lie-after-Lie, Year-After-Year that been foisted upon you and everyone else. At this point only the indifferent, fearful, and stubborn continue to remain indoctrinated, duped and ignorant. Oh. And then of course there are the "The Gate Keepers", Dis-Info Specialists, and Block-Watchers. (Watch your back) Come on, man! There's no excuse to buy any of the Big Lie(s) any more. Especially none whatsoever with an internet teeming with info and data that's just come into the light within the last 10 years or so... Acknowledgement of above is indeed the case. Given the past 10 years of headlines and insanity and agenda enforced by the elites, tell me -- just HOW do you believe any thing they say anymore?? But SOMEHOW you and many will STILL go out of your way to believe and remain so easily fooled by lab-coats, 'NASA' emblems, University "degrees," "Official Reports," CGI, fake history and science, and..."The Authoritahs"?? Even when they've been caught red-handed? Now THAT is bizarre. Documented: Countless NASA lies and hoaxes. (if any have watched) I have posted vids on NASA engineers and reps who have admitted they don't have the "technology" that allegedly enabled them to land men ON The Moon NOT ONCE, but FIVE TIMES!"; The same NASA officials who admit they can't "leave Low Earth Orbit"; Who admit they can't expose astronauts to the "Van Allen Radiation Belt". I've documented and posted videos of 50 years of sloppy NASA hoaxes, CGI screw-ups and theater; Of NASA's actual method of "Satellite" propulsion and transport (BALLOONS); Of the Antarctica Restrictions. And on and on and on ad infinitum. There are none so blind as those who simply refuse to see. I have also often cited as THE PTB motive specifically for hiding Our realm -- A FLAT EARTH -- it has always been to advance a satanic/humanistic narrative that "Hides God", His Truth, and His Glory. The evidence proves Flat Earth via God's own word, Science and Observation is absolutely OVERWHELMING. Look -- if you and others just can't handle this stuff, it's ok. But to be intellectually lazy or dishonest; refuse to actually examine reality; refuse to scrutinize the overwhelming evidence that exposes a political, scientific, and social conspiracy (yeah, THAT word) to subvert truth -- there's really no excuse for that. (Isn't this exactly why Conservatives laugh at Liberals and Democrats? Because they won't think logically? That that willfully remain "zombies"?) Facts are facts. Whether you like them or not. I notice you won't refute anything when challenged. Was Ferdinand Magellan in on the conspiracy too? "Conspiracy" to do...what?? Sail west? I'd follow up your challenge but you aren't interested in that conversation either. Bread & Circuses. Dust it all off. *TO ALL*: WHERE AND WHAT "THEY" DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW: If YOU are interested in Truth, the following important sources and sites are highly suggested. (by which you should also check out the You Tube channels these sources link to.) These sites and info are especially ticketed for ultimate take-down, burial and erasure by G00gle, You Tube, etc every day. Many are gone. Many have been hidden. But not anymore: 1) ThePottersClay YOU ARE NOW LOCKED AND LOADED.
At least you checked it out. Thanks.
I found the rebuttal stuff to be insulting and mean-spirited. So, I'll give credit to the flat earthers for producing more enjoyable videos. The other guys' videos are insulting to the point of being disagreeable. (After all, what real DIFFERENCE does it make TO ME if the earth is round or flat? None at all.)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed. I'm not willing to rehash the science, at least right now. But setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. And the number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth.
"Conspiracy" to do...what?? Sail west? You're a retard.
I just wondered if you would also waste your time watching a video about the fact tat 8 + 7 = 9?
If I wanted to understand **why** someone honestly thought 8 + 7 = 9, then yes, I would, as watching it could be educational. It's part of that listening thing I told you about yesterday.
Sure, if the subject of 8+7 =9 caused people to come out of their chair with fury fury th fury fury the way "flat earth" does. Essentially, people who are angry and overwrought about silly things are an annoying, but pulling their chain and watching them flip out is fun. I don't personally care if the world is flat or not. What difference does it make to me? None whatsoever. That mouthing some obvious platitude is SO important to some people - that their very essence is threatened by a silly challenge to a worldview such that they will become belligerently angry and indignant - well, then I want to provoke said overwrought soul, because w watching people get the vapors over nonsense warms the cockles of my wicked l little heart.
"Globe" Realm supports foundation of and for: 1) Big Bang/Random creation out of chaos "Flat/Plane" Realm Earth supports foundation of and for: 1) Validates God's Word in Bible as truth of His Creation, it's sequence, and description
You can't just post ascertains without backing them up. Your list is bullshit. People who listen to you get dumber.
CHALLENGE: Pick any assertion, and I will back it up.
Thanks for checking them out. Some of the memes aren't going to be A+. But some of them are. (Which meme or memes did you find "flawed" btw?) ...Setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. I think we can both agree that acceptance of Globe Earth was first making headway near the time of Galileo and Copernicus, which would have been @ the 1500s. It was not fully accepted by a consensus until the mid-1800s -- at coincidentally the same time "institutional Science" (controlled by certain Elites with an agenda) was insisting that "Evolution" was fact AND that Dinosaurs were older than Man. By the late 1800s and early 1900s Globe Earth was still being challenged strongly, believe it or not... The is is now a Publisher called, 'Dead Authors Society' that enables one to purchase a plethora of re-released old books. I'd read, 'Terra Firma: The Earth Not A Plane, Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact' (Author: David Wardlaw Scott). It was published in 1903. What especially fascinating about the book and perspective as written is the degree of knowledge about our realm -- even in 1903 -- style of writing, ideological and scientific battles at that time being waged over how our world should be perceived. (I think you and others would find it a great read.) Regarding any difficulty in catapulting any so-called, "Conspiracies" -- well, it's been quite easy. Institutional Science via schools were co-opted, where they *still* manage to convince the public via these secular humanist schools that 'Evolution' and 'Stone Age Man' is indeed a "Fact" -- even though it's been proven impossible. Regarding our realm, Institutional Science and its cabal have simply rigged the system and what they insist are "natural laws" like "gravity", formulas like "the theory of relativity" and one that explains earth "curvature" -- ALL of which not only remain 'theories' but are proven false. The number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Right. And many *would* tell you they already *know* the truth of the matter (or risk ostracization and unemployment. *I* can't believe even how much *I* assumed and denied of my own eyes.) Many of those memes can't be denied, btw. There are 8 more Meme Vids that provide further food for thought and additional "scientific" and observational contradictions FWIW. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. True. And Globe Earth remain the biggest, clearest case of adulthood Easter Bunny and Santa Claus (besides, 'Evolution, 'Big Bang', and "We from the Gummint and here to help.") If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. Aye-aye on all the above. (Except your last statement; The reason the PTB are freaking out about Flat Earth/NASA is...Knowledge of the truth is growing exponentially...And collapsing like many other things we've been told is "the truth.") And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. (The Big Picture: please see my Post #17) If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth. FWIW, besides Genesis, the shape of the Earth is also discussed in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it. I didn't make that up; That's a fact. Again, "Globe/Ball" earth has only been advanced as a theory since the 1500s, and "fact" only since the mid-1800s.
This is all I see fit to respond to, with I'll do with a simple "of course". Anyone looking over long distances will have the impression the land is flat, with the exception of ships sailing over the horizon which might be mistaken for disappearing in the distant mist. There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth?
....and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth? Several separate civilizations (or "authorities" of the day) ALL conceptualized similar configurations of our earthly realm as can be seen below. What are the odds?? NONE conceptualized any realm that was remotely a "ball" or globular. These concepts were more accepted even as recently as the 16th century. The elements of the earth are a whole different category. Why should the previous 5,000 years of mankind's knowledge of nature and science be invalidated? They weren't scientifically uneducated and ignorant of technology. In many ways it could be said that they were more advanced and regressed after the Fall of the Roman Empire. What of the Pyramids the world over? All the Chinese and folk herbal remedies and treatment? Roman sewer systems and aqueducts? And so forth. It really wasn't until the mid-19th century and beyond that man began harnessing "high tech" and discoveries on a macro level. Much of the biological by the mid-20th century. Why dismiss and invalidate all past civilizations' scientific credibility, discoveries and truth on the basis of realm concepts? Moreover, hasn't "modern science and tech" had to build on past tested scientific evidence, truths and technologies? "Science" has claimed a "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are "FACT"; Based on what? At the World's museums "Science" claims a "Prehistoric Man" -- that he indeed evolved from Apes. Based on what? Same of the age of fossils and dinosaur bones. Same of both the age of the Universe and alleged near-infinite size. By what criteria does "Science" claim "empirical evidence" in any of these cases? (HAVE those theories been supported by any evidence -- as per "Scientific protocols"? With respect to the actual shape of this earthly realm, I'd mentioned in a prior post that by the turn of the 20th century there was still a big battle raging over the actual shape of the earth. Serious question to you or anyone else: By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. If it's flight, the horizon is proven to rise as flat -- whether the horizon at ocean level, the horizon at cloud-level, "space" at low-altitude balloon level.
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics. I really don't have the time or inclination to continue on this. Not now. You are wrong on this. I am satisfied that you have chosen to believe the earth is flat, and that the power of that belief overwhelms the physical evidence of a spherical earth that is all around us. So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. TC posted this vid about the psychological term for describing an inability to accurately understand or comprehend certain subjects. I forget the term. I know I'm terrible at some subjects and good at others. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. If you are not good at spacial comprehension, and it seems you are not, then that's okay. But I can, with full confidence and respect, say to you that you are so very, very wrong in believing the earth is flat. Every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One. The power we have to believe things that are not true is one of the most underrated powers known to man. Almost no one appreciates how true that is. And that truism is one reason why I cannot believe that God would judge us on what we believe, rather, what we do with what we believe. Best to you...
I am. But aren't you as well? After all, on who or what source shall we base "truth"? (or credibility?) You are wrong on this... I could accept your premise -- IF it were based on refutations. But all I ever see is THIS one by you: ...So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. It does no such thing. It's been this very same citation of flight times from Chile to New Zealand I keep seeing as THE prima facia "evidence" and a guarantee by you as well as Flat Earth opponents by search engines that our realm is a "Globe." Strange.) It is on this one basis ALL other evidence to the contrary should be dismissed?? Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE," and still you claim, "every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One." Why engage in cognitive absolutism without examining the tangible, provable data, science, observations, and facts? Please refute ANY of the memes. Just one. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. Alrighty then. Great! Then explain the following geometric out- of-the-way paths this (below). It is said that Santiago-Sydney flights (close to your examples of Chile to New Zealand, right?) go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map. Curious geometry: (200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball)
You haven't proved shit. You just proved you are gullible and easily manipulated. I will most likely be deleting flatard articles. I will not participate in making people stupid. From this point it is delete. I may even go back and delete. Blatant lies have no place here. Even if you think lies are the truth.
You have proven to me that like a child, you "la-la-la!" and cover your ears. You can't handle the truth. From this point it is delete. I may even go back and delete. Am I supposed to cry? This is your ball, your toy, isn't it? If you want to be an A-Hole with these kinds of threats, go right ahead. It's *your* integrity and honor on the line.
PROVE THE LIES. Just one. Put up or shut up.
Waste of time. You will just say CGI, fake, nasa is making it up etc. Mission accomplished for the flatards they have made you look like a fool. So we now have another christian looking like a fool. They are thinking if this goofball thinks the earth is flat and the Bible teaches that...well no need for the Bible is if is full of lies. I don't think you are a bad person. I've always liked you. Always. I just think you are gullible.
Hasn't God given us logical thinking ability? If he has, we should use it. If he hasn't then nothing we conclude can be held against us. I've refuted other arguments and even suggested an photo experiment of the moon from our respective geographic locations. The degree of conclusiveness of counterarguments vary. A difference in rotation of the moon is somewhat less than easy understand. A ship disappearing over the horizon depends on a consensus of perception. Navigation discrepancies requiries some knowledge of the art. But the flight mentioned would simply be impossible. It's easy to understand and doesn't depend on exact calculations of time and distance. It doesn't depend on info provided by NASA. It's a flight done directly from South America to NZ &/or Australia. So yes, it's my favorite for all those reasons. Seeing how arguments about how the sun would change its apparent size drastically on a daily basis, the sun would never be seen going below the horizon (according to the model you've subscribed to) doesn't put a dent in things, then yes. At least half of the "hundreds" of pieces of evidence is not evidence at all. It's merely arguments in favor of flat earth theory -- a big difference. And evidence is not proof. A footprint of someone's shoe at a crime scene is not proof the shoe owner was there. But it is evidence in support. An apparent straight line of sight for many miles from one end of a canal to the other is evidence of flat earth. But it is not proof, if the flatness of the canal can be attirbuted to one end being at a higher altitude than the other. You won't listen. Your mind is made up. But flipping the first vid randomly to 3:50, 6 photos are shown of a guy in some kind of vessel with various images visible out a window. Obviously fake, but who made them? A flat earther? It's not proof of flat earth, or proof of earth being any particular shape at all, whether it be shaped like a globe, pyramid, hour glass, a donut, a beer can, a bull horn, a car piston or any other shape you can imagine. Even if NASA made these, it still wouldn't prove anything about the earth's shape There, you have one. Simple. They have little to do with geometry, and everything to do with the fact that a lot of people boarding in Chile are going to both the east and west coast of the USA. And there are people boarding on the East coast going to the west coast and to Australia. And people boarding on the West coast going to Australia. So it has little to do with geometry and everything to do with running an airline business. If the vast majority of people boarding in Chile are not going to Australia, then going straight there would pretty much upset most of the passengers. Your own map shows a distance of 25,400 km between Chile and Australia. That's 15,783 miles. Flown in 13 hours would be 1214 MPH. Speed of sound, some 700 MPH and change. So not stop flights would have to be near mach 2 in planes not designed to even exceed mach 1, much less sustain it for 13 hours, which I'm guessing no mach 2 aircraft can do due to the increased fuel consumption rate, as drag increases by the square of an aircraft's speed. But.... Doesn't matter, does it? But you will not accept this, or even if you do, it won't change your mind about the earth being flat. So it's all really a waste of time.
I think Liberator knows the great Christopher Columbus sailed West and discovered the New world. I wonder if Liberator knows about Marco Polo traveling from Italy to China. i wonder if Liberator thinks if you go West from California you will fall off the edge of the earth. I wonder if Liberator is curious how the Chinese got to California to work on the rail roads. Did they sail west and go around South America to get there. I guess all the Airliners and all their pilots are in on the hoax too. waste of time trying to convince someone who brainwashed themselves watching stupid youtube videos.
A cruise to the end of the earth by the great ice wall that keeps the wildings out and keeps the sharks from falling off the edge of the earth is taking reservations. Kook ship of fools.
I hate to admit it but I would love to go on this cruise, just to document all the kookeries. Reminds me a bit of the old Freeper cruises. They organized a couple of them. They had a group back then called Clown Posse that existed mostly just to ridicule the freeper antics. And they never had such a bonanza as the photos and posts about the freeper cruises, especially the second and third freeper cruises. BobJ and Diotima in very unsexy and too-revealing photos. The Clowns actually had people at various ports of call for the cruise, taking photos of the sad-ass freepers. And at least one Clown was undercover, actually on the cruise ship with the freepers. It was wildly funny stuff, really mean-spirited. I have regretted over the years that I didn't keep an archive of the antifreeper Clown Posse stuff. It seems that RimJob threatened them with lawsuits and they folded up and disappeared entirely.
The nearest airport to Sydney is Kingsford Smith Airport (SYD) and the nearest airport to Santiago is Arturo Merino Benitez Airport (SCL). Your flat earth map says Sydney to Santiago is 25,400km (15,782 nautical miles or 18149 statutory miles). According to round earth maps, the distance is 11,340km (6,250 nautical miles or 7053 statutory miles). According to this page, Quantas and LAN Airlines both declare the flight time is 12.5 hours duration. You can find other sites that go as high as 14 hours but the general range is established. Typical estimates for modern intercontinental airlines is 500mph with some a little faster or slower. The regularly scheduled non-stop Qantas flights are QF27 and QF28 (eastbound and westbound) and these are daily flights advertised as 12.5 hours flight time. You can verify flight prices and times and duration and live flight status of Qantas QF27 and QF28 flights by referring to these flight route numbers in any search engine. So a trip from Santiago to Sydney on Flat Earth Airlines (15,782 miles) would normally require the airliner to fly for 31.5 hours @ 500mph, in keeping with your Flat estimate . For Flat Earth Airlines plane to make that trip in just 12.5 hours, it would have to fly almost 1300mph. However, if you fly on Round Earth Airlines between those two cities - a distance of 6,250 miles - it will take you . . . exactly 12.5 hours. Just as the airlines have advertised for years. Keep in mind that airlines advertise 14 hours but they include at least a half-hour at both departure and arrival for airport delays, boarding, etc. The flight time is always less than what the airlines advertise. Also, some of these sites confuse nautical miles for statute miles so keep that in mind when you make calculations and make sure you know which number the airline is using. Airlines also have extra prep time for very long flights over the oceans and crew layover times that can affect the advertised flight time. Expedia: Santiago to Sydney non-stop flights Well, I'm kinda meandering here a bit. Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight. Aerospace-Technology.com: The top 10 longest range airliners in the world I could go on at length but I really don't want to contribute to making the world a stupider place.
The question of proof to the skeptic fascinates me, whatever the subject. So, let me ask you something. If I put you in the cockpit of a long-range airc aircraft. Say, flying due north from New York. So you could look out the fron front window the whole time and see the instruments, and gave you detailed flig flight map so you could follow along the route with your finger. Every few hour hours we would land to let you rest/sleep, etc., so that you always knew where you you w you you were in fixed reference to the ground. Then we took back off and continued the the the the route, flying over the north pole, then across through Russia, and down the othe oth othe other side of the world, map in hand, stopping to sleep. Then up again, over the th the the South Pole, and back up this side of the world to New York, would you then beli b beli believe that the world was round? What about if we went up further, into space, and you watched the world turn be below you, would you believe it then? What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
I always wonder if kooks would abandon their multiple kook theories if you thoroughly disproved their major kook theory. I think they wouldn't. Being a CT nutjob or full-blown multi-kook is a mental habit and deep-set personality characteristic. If you disprove one kookery, they'll just find another one. But then, I've never been able to put it to the test thoroughly. Which is what you are proposing.
I don't care about the "kook" label. I've heard many epithets hurled at me be because of things that I know that I cannot prove to others because I have no me means to do so. I am fascinated by adamant deniers - of God, for example - or, in this case, of the the spheroidal nature o the the spheroidal nature of the Earth. It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Ea Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Ea Earth is, in fact, a spheroid. I'm pretty sure that no amount of book waving for finger-wagging would do it, just a just as no amo just a just as no amount of that has ever been able to convince me of a single thing concer concerning Go concer concerning God and his existence. I required independent, empirical evidence of the of the sort of the of the sort that I would accept. Nobody provided me that, or tried, but God did. did. So I did. did. So I know there's God, because I know God. Since that time, others have vehemently wagged fingers and books at me telling me t me that I me t me that I DON'T know God, that I am delusional, etc., but I just laugh inside at t at them a at t at them and feel a little bit sorry for them, for reasons I needn't further elab elaborate. I've thought about it. I think the world is round because I don't see any pa particular reason to question it. I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what lo looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon and sink into the sea on the other. That this is because the earth is cu cur cu curved makes sense to me. The notion that there is a giant conspiracy...about AN AN AN ANYTHING...always sounds nutty to me, and makes me wonder why the person ch chooses to reject things that they reject. Still, it doesn't BOTHER me that people think the earth is flat. Heresy doesn't provoke any ire in me.
That's a good point. I didn't even think of that. There's only one plane that has ever been built capable of a non-stop flight of that distance, and it was the Rutan's "Voyager" aircraft specifically built for the task. 2 crew, 2 prop engines, one of which was switched off a couple days into the flight. It purported ly flew 28,000 miles and took 9 days to do it back in 1986.
I presume this stuttering issue has never appeared for you during preview of your post, only after final posting? I've never seen this happen to any of my posts. However, there is some preprocessing of comments before they are written to the DB.
It happens on one compjuter - the other one - that I use during the day.
This sounds eerily familiar...like something I might have said. Do you laugh inside and feel sorry for me? Now I feel a sorry for myself...that I didn't get to have a cool experience like this! Were you Navy, Vic, or did you have your own boat? BTW, do you really know God? (I hope so. That is the very reason for our existence) If you know God, tell Ping about Him, because I'm pretty sure Ping doesn't know Him...
Yes, I spend six full years at sea. North Atlantic, North and South Pacific, Indian, Mediterranean, the China seas, Persian Gulf, Caribbean, 6 of the 7 continents and islands near and far. Joined the Navy, saw the world, saw the girls, saw the stars, and saw lots and lots of the sea. Yes, I've talked to God a few times, had my life saved by him and a couple of other miracles. Telling people about God doesn't do much in my experience - it annoys the one's who reject the idea of God, and it annoys those who believe in God because I come from a different angle.
What type of ship were you on? What about the Great Commission? Aren't you a Christian?
That's a good point. I didn't even think of that. There's only one plane that has ever been built capable of a non-stop flight of that distance, and it was the Rutan's "Voyager" aircraft specifically built for the task. 2 crew, 2 prop engines, one of which was switched off a couple days into the flight. It purported ly flew 28,000 miles and took 9 days to do it back in 1986. Ergo, a large reason for the maps I'd post AND point: FLIGHT CONNECTIONS. (Btw Ping -- I can't endorse or validate the maps or actual placement of places EITHER land masses of the two maps on this realm called "earth.") I''m saying... The purported mileage on that trans-Pacific airline is just one the main issue. The primary point and observation made here is the odd connection that is seemingly WAY out of the way on that Flight (which makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth Map.) Here is yet another DOCUMENTED case; Bali-to-LAX Flight makes an emergency-stop...IN ANCHORAGE, Alaska. WHY?? (For the SAME reason IF our real is indeed a Flat-Plan.) At about 2:45 is a Map and route that evokes the ver same "Hmmmm...." CHECK IT OUT:
As well it should. So, let me ask you something. If I put you in the cockpit of a long-range airc aircraft. Say, flying due north from New York. So you could look out the fron front window the whole time and see the instruments, and gave you detailed flig flight map so you could follow along the route with your finger....flying over the north pole, then across through Russia...Then up again, over the th the the South Pole, and back up this side of the world to New York, would you then beli b beli believe that the world was round? All of the above air route IS possible. EXCEPT flying "over the South Pole." ALL non-military travel and flights are official restricted beyond the purported 60 South latitude, and obviously OVER Antarctica and the supposed South Pole.
That's because you refused to herded into the pen with the other sheep. ("Kook" is a simple, LAME gaslighting technique designed to ostracize the weak and ignorant.) I am fascinated by adamant deniers - of God, for example - or, in this case, of the the spheroidal nature to the the spheroidal nature of the Earth. It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Earth is, in fact, a spheroid. You've got the equation wrong, Vic. Tell me -- what is the "Proof" that our realm is indeed "spheroid" or a "globe"? For you is it the primary source...NASA?? I've thought about it. I think the world is round because I don't see any pa particular reason to question it. I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon. That this is because the earth is curved makes sense to me. Thanks for your honesty. If you're interested in valid explanations of the phenomena of horizons and curvature (due to limitations of our vision and perspective/vanishing point), they are readily available if you have a telescoping lens. What seemingly "disappears" over the "7-mile" horizon happens to re-capture ships and objects over twice that distance and often much further. The notion that there is a giant conspiracy...about ANYTHING...always sounds nutty to me, and makes me wonder why the person ch chooses to reject things that they reject. Q: Do you reject OR accept the ongoing conspiracy to oust Trump from office in a coup by 0bama holdovers and "Deep State" players?
You will just say CGI, fake, nasa is making it up etc. Sounds as if you are saying it's NASA on whom you would base your "evidence." Stone, come on. I haven't lied. I haven't mis-led you or anyone. I've simply documented many cases lies, mis-direction, and own words by NASA itself. If you've watch even a snippet of countless evidences for/of NASA trickery, their credibility is shot. Why is it my fault that videos that further detail and document countless bad CGI, harnesses, photoshop, etc are available that expose and bogus science, "astronomy," and especially NASA? I'm just the bearer of the news and truth. And again, simply, just how do you or anyone seriously believe NASA officials when they claim 1960s NASA technology to the Moon was "lost"? Sincere question: On what authority or source(s) or documentation do you base the belief on a "Globe" of "Ball" realm? Remember -- I also recently believed the whole "Earth-is-Round" narrative (but didn't believe the Moon Landing/Mars/Solar System Space Travel thing.) Btw, YES, Scripture is completely at odds with the deGrasse-Tyson wing of "The Cosmos" and "Creation." One OR the other is true. Can't be both, brutha.
In the video you provided, the both plots of the airline course done by the narrator are done on "flat earth maps", believe it or not. The standard rectangular earth map depicts earth in flat 2-D form, just as the polar radial map does, but neither are accurate for purposes of plotting actual airline paths. If you want to see what the shortest course is between Bali and LAX, you must plot the course on an actual 3-D globe, not the standard 2D map of the earth. No one, not even flat earthers (with the exception of the video narrator, it seems), maintains that the 2-D rectangular map is the same as a spherical representation. If you plot the path on a globe: www.google.com/maps/place...34.0522342!4d-118.2436849 ...you'll see that the straightest path from Bali to LAX would take a plane to farther north in latitude than the Canadian border with the US mid-west states such that Alaska is not so far out of the way. In that respect, for the purposes of plotting airplane courses, the radial map of earth can sometimes be more accurate than the rectangular map. To illustrate a case of when it's far more accurate, plot a shortest course from Chicago to Moscow on both maps. Do that and you'll see the polar radial map is far more representative of a spherical earth path in plotting the airline course than the standard rectangular map which would see the plane going over Europe. The standard 2-D map does not depict the earth as a sphere. and cannot be used for the video narrator's argument. He must use a globe but doesn't do so either because he has an agenda and wants to deceive people or he's got a low spacial perception IQ.
TC already blew your satanic flat earth lies to smithereens. You can keep serving satan and spreading lies. Or use your brain for a change. The bible doesn't teach a flat earth.
www.google.com/maps/place...34.0522342!4d-118.2436849 ...you'll see that the straightest path from Bali to LAX would take a plane to farther north in latitude than the Canadian border with the US mid-west states such that Alaska is not so far out of the way. In that respect, for the purposes of plotting airplane courses, the radial map of earth can sometimes be more accurate than the rectangular map. Dunno what you're looking at, but that Google Map did not help your case. From Bali in the South pacific, LAX/California is by far the more direct and closer destination over that of Anchorage, AK. Thus any detour from Bali to Alaska (or north of LA, including the Canadian border) is waaay out of the way. That's whether it's Google Maps, the Globe Earth Map and it's various representations on a flat piece of paper, or looking at a "Globe." Even the stated mileage reflects a longer distance. The ONLY way this flight makes sense is as demonstrated -- On a Plane Earth. On a Plane Earth, as we can clearly see, Anchorage also provide a reasonable straight-flight stop-over and eventual connection onward toward LAX. So what else can we conclude? Either the stated mileage from Bali to LAX is erroneous. OR... The actual shape and stated geography of our Realm is erroneously stated. The standard 2-D map does not depict the earth as a sphere. and cannot be used for the video narrator's argument. He must use a globe but doesn't do so either because he has an agenda and wants to deceive people or he's got a low spacial perception IQ. Do *you* actually "see curvature" as you fly? At the ocean horizon? Or is it a 'Mandela Effect' and part of the life-long power of suggestion? I don't see it. And neither do countless other people. As a reminder, flat earths maps are used by just about everywhere, by everyone. Including pilots who properly perceive PLANE/FLAT earth, use flat earth in their training simulations and fly based on IT. (Do you presume pilots are trained to maintain dipping the aircraft nose to account for "the curvature" of earth??) Azimuthal Equidistant and Mercator projection seem to be the most popular of the maps, but then again ALL maps seem to present problems: https://www.axismaps.com/guide/general/map-projections/ One can only look at that stop-over (and similar others) and scratch our head. I don't understand why one cannot just conclude, "I don't really know why or how that is" at worst. There's no shame in questioning the logic in convoluted plane routes and stop-overs that seem to be out of the way -- especially from the Southern Hemisphere.
On what planet? Imported Inverted Truth are still Lies. And still the true satanic agenda. (Moreover, many have recognized and observed TC's ongoing Gate-Keeper agenda. HELLO.) Strange indeed. You refuse to examine countless evidences I've provided yet fall on your knees unquestionably believing TC's misinfo, disinfo, spinmeistering of so-called "evidence AND sources of "truth"? That is un-freakin' believable. Believe what you want; BUT EXAMINE IT FIRST. Stone, what do you gain by ignoring the submitted REAL evidence? Why at the same time suspend ALL logic, reason, and your own eyes? This is just...sad. At the least -- and based on the volume of evidence I've provided to consider -- at the bare minimum the true intellectually honest person would say, "Yes, there is quite a bit I've been told is truth that must now question." Luke, 8:17
You've provided horse shit for the brain.
Okay, fine Did some more digging, checking this guys facts. I'm a bit bored today. #1) He claims the flight was from Bali to LAX. It wasn't. It was from Taiwan. I found 2 youtubes on the subject. Both were news reports, one in english, and the other in a foreign language. The english one stated and illustrated the flight being from Taiwan. The non-english one didn't show a map but the vid was titled as saying it was from Bali. The woman was from Taiwan. I searched and found a site saying no non-stop flights from Bali to LAX exist. I searched Kayak which gave flight opportunities only with 1 or more stops, no direct flights. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html #2) Your guy on your video claims it is a significantly farther distance from Bali to Anchorage than from Bali to LAX. He lied, at least as far as kooky spherical earthers are concerned. The spherical distances are 12693 km (Anchorage) vs 13149 km (LAX), so Anchorage is closer to Bali than LAX. But to be fair, he didn't state the km distance, he gave flight durations for the two trips as 23 hours and 45 minutes (Anchorage) and 19 hours & 30 minutes (LAX). But again, there are no direct flights that do either of these fictitious legs. Where did he get the flight time then? Seems little doubt the times were taken from trip duration estimates that included layovers somewhere and he was too conveniently lazy to notice the times included layovers. I guess stating travel times just fit in to this guys agenda to mislead people works better than providing actual distances. So, this guy created this vid spewing a load of crap on two different major points of fact. And you bought it, hook, line and sinker. Apparently I have done more research on the topic than either you or the guy on the video, but that didn't stop him from making the video spouting fake information, did it? The Bible warns against listening to false teachings, but you didn't check this guy's message out before you promoted it here.
I would not say it makes me angry either. I've repeatedly said we are all challenged with certain deficiencies. The only thing that does irritate me in this and similar cases is when someone who doesn't understand something purports to do so while completely walling off what I consider basic logic. I guess it's when the time and effort I expend to debate and, what I would consider "enlighten" simply goes absolutely nowhere. That is when it becomes frustrating. I'm sure what I've just said is just as applicable to the my opposition as it is me on whatever subject. Many Christians say there is not enough faith in the world. I say the opposite. There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
Here is yet another DOCUMENTED case; Bali-to-LAX Flight makes an emergency-stop...IN ANCHORAGE, Alaska. WHY?? (For the SAME reason IF our real is indeed a Flat-Plan.) A direct flight on Round Earth Airlines is possible for this route, using the two long-range airliners I mentioned above. Aerospace-Technology.com: The top 10 longest range airliners in the world Using the superior Boeing to fly Bali to LAX nonstop would be 8616 miles. So, if there was demand for it and they could keep the flights packed full, there could be such nonstop flights. The Boeing, with a range of 9392 miles, would fly from Bali to LAX nonstop and still be able to fly another 776 miles before crashing into the sea with empty tanks. Well, if they didn't drift off-course or encounter a major storm or the jet stream pushing them around and eating up their fuel. Airlines like to have at least a few hours worth of fuel in the event of a major airport problem at the destination. So it is doable, just barely. But the airlines wouldn't like arriving over such an oceanic distance with empty tanks. Too risky. As for this particular Bali-LAX flight, it was not nonstop. It had a 2 hour layover point in Taipei, Taiwan. China Airlines (don't be confused by others with names like South China Airlines), has at least one such flights per day that fly to (and from) LAX via Taipei. There are flights from other airlines that do much the same with stopovers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong and Taipei (non-communist Chinese airports) seem to be the preferred layovers for one-stopover flights. There are other cheaper flights but they have two stopovers and touch ground in communist China. Here's a listing for an upcoming Bali-LAX flight on China Airlines with the Taipei stopover. This is the only Bali-LAX flight offered. No airlines offer a direct flight from Bali to LAX even though it is at least possible to offer such a flight using the rare long-range airliners from Boeing and Airbus as mentioned above. I snapshotted this today from Expedia and put it up on PostImg.cc for 31 days. These ridiculous videos of flights on Flat Earth Airlines don't work out once you understand that these are not non-stop flights. The same was true above with the Santiago-to-Sydney flights (which routed via airports in Texas and/or California with one or two stopovers in the States) except for the Qantas flight which was a direct flight with no stopovers. People should understand that Flat Earth con men who are preparing this information have to know that they are deliberately deceiving gullible people like Liberator with this garbage. He is their mark, their target. They hope to get him to come to some crappy conference or buy a book or flack their work for free around Teh Interwebs so other gullible people will buy books or attend kook confabs. These are con men and Liberator is their rube. They are using him as a tool to get to us, hopefully to find other kooks who will help to spread their nonsense virally via Fakebook or Twitter or whatnot. The CT cultist personality type is perfect for them to exploit because people like Liberator are self-winding toys with a lot of energy to devote to helping the con men swindle them and other people as well. As with religion, those True Believers are your best profit centers and best evangelists. Flat Earth should be considered a religious belief, much as 9/11 Truthers should be considered a religious belief. No facts will ever sway them and there is more than a little of the cultic fanatic about them. And they are ready, even eager, to be aggrieved martyrs for their little causes.
What you say about faith is interesting, particularly in the religious context. Millions, perhaps billions, of Christians have seriously deluded themselves by not understanding that the word we translate as "faith" in English - "fides" in Latin, "pistis" in Greek - and the word "faith" itself as originally used in English, does not mean "belief in", it means trust. When someone shows his "Bona Fides" - his "good faith", or makes a "good faith" effort, this in no way means a "believable" effort, it means an honest or trustworthy thing. To have faith in God is not to believe God exists, it's to TRUST that God (who is already assumed to exist) will act in a certain way (presumably as revealed). The meaning of the word "faith" itself has changed in English, and now "I have faith" means simply "I believe God exists". The same expression USED to mean "I trust that God will do what he promised". BELIEF in God was never an issue before the 17th Century. Everybody in the world believed in God, or "the gods" in the time of Jesus. There was not a single atheist in Israel. The Romans weren't, the Samaritans weren't, the Jews weren't - everybody believed in God. When Jesus called for faith, he was not calling for anybody to believe in God - that was assumed - nobody hearing that doubted that A God, or gods, existed. He was calling for people to TRUST God, that he would do what he promised he would do. And that's a very, very different thing. TODAY, the word "faith" simply means "belief". This is applied anachronistically
Good points Vic. The only thing I have issue is that everyone believed in God. I don't know how you could know that. Otherwise spot on imo.
Like I said a long time ago. It is like debating if 7 + 8 = 9. It is pointless and a waste of time and makes everyone stupider.
Crap. I got up, full of my righteous sense of duty to keep all the Rounders from being corrupted into Flattism (as a duly-appointed Gatekeeper) and wasted a bunch of time on Expedia and other sites. Only to post it and discover that you had covered the same ground in far fewer words. You, sir, are the Master Gatekeeper.
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. How does that apply to you Liberator. You have itching ears jumping from youtube to youtube channel hoping to find something that tickles your ears and is new. You've been duped rube.
I feel I was a bit harsh on my prior post yesterday. I apologize for that. I don't consider it a "sin" to be wrong about the shape of the earth or any other academic subject. If it honestly makes sense to you then keep believing it. But you should know that the youtube vid narrator, at the bare minimum in this case, has simply not done anything close to sound research on the subject. Either than or he is, yes, intentionally using false facts to support the allegations he claims. I contend all these flat earth videos are defective. Proving insincere intent behind the mispresentation and arguments is quite hard and not our job, as seekers of truth. But they are nonetheless defective, for whatever reason.
One thing I did notice but didn't mention on the Taiwan - LAX flights is that the east-west flights were a couple hours longer than the west-east flights. I supposed that was due to the routine air currents being easterly. In that case, the Bali-LAX leg might be possible for LAX bound flights but not for the return trip. Obviously the flight ranges you gave would be the theoretical ranges, and assume no wind at all.
Like I said a long time ago. It is like debating if 7 + 8 = 9. It is pointless and a waste of time and makes everyone stupider. As I said before, if the debate is honest and real, it can yield an understanding as to why someone believes what they do. If you go into a debate without an interest in understanding the opponent's thought processes, then you are not really debating. You are just wasting everyone's time, including your own.
The first real challenge to God was Newtonian physics. By reducing the universe to a predictable place, determinism became fashionable among SOME intellectuals (like Voltaire). But even the French Revolutionaries with their "Cult of Reason" were generally more reacting to the abuses of clericalism in the organized churches than the idea of God as such. And the people didn't really follow that: the Reign of Terror with its "Cult of Reason" only lasted 6 months before the "Thermidorean Reaction" ended the nonsense and chopped off the heads of the madmen. Soon enough Napoleon signed a Concordat with the Pope and the French people by and large settled back into a (regulated, less overmighty) Church. It wasn't really until Darwin and man as a sapient ape that actual belief in God himself began to decline. Looking to the Scriptures, the Hebrews and the early Christians were not contending with atheists, but with other gods and religions.
It may also have to do with scheduled inspections and maintenance. They have to have factory-qualified techs to inspect and repair these airliners every so often. Typically, even in domestic flights, the planes get routed to a particular airport which has the qualified techs. When I worked for a railroad many years ago, I spent some time at the roundhouse and I observed the same thing. Some things can only be done in a hub with qualified techs on hand and you just schedule according to that requirement. You also have required rest periods for flight crew. If your pilot has X many hours on duty, they have to be off-duty for a certain number of hours. Same for truckers, same for railroad engineers, etc. If you have, for instance, an extra hour of layover at Taipei airport to accommodate connections to other flights, that extra hour would show up in the required rest period for the pilots and air crew. Don't think that required rest and deadheading issues don't play a big role in scheduling. They do. And airlines are very rigorous about enforcing them. So are big trucking companies, bus companies and railroads. I was interested somewhat in why the flight diverted to Alaska since I thought that Hawaii would be closer. However, there could be reasons for this. Prevailing cross-Pacific flight lanes might be one. Another might be that all flights must have an emergency alternate destination. In the event that a major airport like LAX is closed, where do you re-route the planes already in the air with LAX as their destination? In some cases, like these long trans-Pacific flights with so few airports, you can't just say that they'll all go to Honolulu because they would not be able to handle so much traffic. So it would make sense to have Alaska as an alternate for some of those flights. You have to spread them around. Think about, for instance, what you do if there is an outbreak of disease (Ebola, smallpox) and they close the airports. Or what happened on 9/11 where all air traffic gets grounded for days (unless you're a Saudi who is a member of the bin Laden family which gets you a special flight out of the country). I would bet that factors like that would explain the flight hours being different on east-west vs. west-east flights on the same route and on the choice of an emergency alternate destination for a particular flight. But you would probably have to be an airline pilot or an airline fleet management person to know exactly what the particular reasons are for these scheduling/routing decisions are. You really have to keep in mind how much is preplanned for worst-case scenarios once you put people in the air and they must come down in X hours or they'll all die in a watery grave and all their heirs will sue your ass off after you get a lot of bad publicity that can end careers of top company officials.
I think you know that some of these videos are deliberate frauds, not merely some accident. That Santiago-Sydney one in particular. There is no way to explain that other than fraudulent intent, the kind that gets con men sent to jail on a regular basis. I understand being polite and giving the benefit of the doubt and not attributing fraud/malice when ignorance is as good an explanation but there are instances where only fraudulent intent offers an adequate explanation in a court of law.
Tell me, Stone, how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"? How do you quantify what constitutes "real" belief? What does it really mean to "believe"? Vicomte13 just posted a bit about the meaning of the term concluding the difference with the term "faith" meaning "trust" more than "belief". I do not know about the tech defs of terms between languages. That's not my area, but I do concur that "belief", if it is to be on par with "head knowledge", regardless of whether the knowledge is correct or not, is not something that God cares about. The pseud-documentary called "The Secret", espouses a "Law of Attraction", which claims that whatever attitude you have in your heart is what will come to fruition in your life, whether good or bad. Leaving aside the question of how true that is (I think it is credible) I do think that describes what faith really is. It's not clenching your fists with your eyes shut trying to force your brain cells into aligning with a certain intellectual understanding, kinda like the child's fable story entitled "The Little Engine That Could" which I think we all know (a story that sure, is applicable for accomplishing challenging physical tasks) but it simply not applicable when it comes to understanding God. No, when it comes to God, understanding or acknowledging the truth doesn't come forcefully. It comes from being open minded, which you are not. You proved it by your prior post about how debating the question of 7+8=9 is a waste of time. In the same way, in your mind, debating the age of the earth is similarly a waste of time. You don't care why I and a great many people think it's far older. Unlike you, I am open minded. I always have been, even while I claimed to be a Christian. And my open minded nature allowed me to explore beyond the Bible. As a matter of theology, I subsequently found Michael Newton's work very credible. It fully qualified God as having all the patience the Bible talks about him having, in spite of the Bible's overall claim of the end of human life being the time when God's patience runs out. I find the theology of sin to be rather "messy" and always have, even while a Christian. Messy because sin must be done with intent, and intent is simply not qualifiable in many cases, particularly with very young children. Our comprehension of right and wrong varies abstractly. Under Newton, one's actual theological understanding of God isn't important. This solves the problem of God condemning people to hell for all eternity because of their sinful nature in spite of the fact that they may never had any opportunity to even hear about this one theological message about Jesus dying for our sins even though "Jesus" a name we are not spelling or pronouncing correctly as we have the wrong language. (But somehow, God knows who we mean anyway, right, so He allows us that leeway but not any other kind of leeway?) Sure you have your explanation about how it's okay for God to condemn people -- or allow them to condemn themselves. I, on the other hand, have an explanation for how that doesn't happen at all. If "faith" is indeed not mere head knowledge, but rather expresses actual trust, then I think I can say that I have faith that God doesn't act this way with non-Christians, and will not act that way with me. I will point out, as I have before, that over 90% of what Christianity teaches is compatible with Michael Newton's findings. Namely in terms of loving others, the Golden Rule, putting others first before yourself, loving your enemies, embellishing virtues and quashing vices. All of that is 100% the same. The only thing different is the theology of sin (though even there, there is some overlap), a final judgment after one life, the idea that our humanity is modeled after God, and of course, the question of how many times a soul can incarnate into a human body. And yes, I think it is accurate to say that Christianity does espouse that we did incarnate when soul merged with the human body. The difference is that Christianity says this can only happen once, while according to Newton, it can happen multiple times. In that light, "reincarnation" is not such a far-fetched theology. Michael Newton makes more theological sense. At least to me. Everything falls in place with this model. Contemporary accounts which are easy to find claim past life experiences, and the one account I've posted of several times of the young boy recalling being a pilot that was shot down and killed in WW2 being exceptionally compelling as he allegedly was even able to recall shipmate names at a veteran reunion. Sure you write that off as demons, but then again, you're close minded. You won't listen to any arguments that contradict the Bible, just as Liberator won't, it seems, listen to any arguments that the earth is round. I may not be a Christian, Stone, but it doesn't mean I don't have faith. God is better than anything you or I can possibly imagine. You may agree with that statement superficially, and yet you nonetheless still keep God in a box, not allowing him to be anything more than what the Bible depicts. You think that under God's watch and in accordance to a design that He signed off on, the vast majority of his children will end up burning in hell for all eternity. I say, God is better than that. And under Newton, God IS better than that. Our path is more than a single lifetime. Why shouldn't it be? And I have found what I believe to be validation in my own life that I have had past lives. No, not lives I can remember consciously, but experiences in past lives that would explain certain fears I've had in this life, and fears I am overcoming. Our journey is far longer, far more sophisticated, far deeper than a single lifetime could possibly offer. It all makes more sense.
The main reason West to East flights are shorter is that the Jet Stream blows at 200 mph, so one's airspeed may be the same, but one's speed-over- ground is 200 mph faster West to East than East to West. Now, East to West we try not to fly directly into the most intense headwinds, but the Flight levels are only 1000 feet apart, so there's only so much you can do on the established airways. Up to a certain point, you can overcome the effect of the wind, but to do it you have to burn more fuel. The reason the flight paths loop up like that is that they are flying great circle routes, which are the shortest distance between two points on the curved world. We're used to flat maps that distort everything. If you take a length of string and a properly shaped globe, and lay out a shortest- distance path, you'll use less string flying what looks to be an arc on a flat map. then by flying what looks to be straight on the flat map.
"Flat Earth should be considered a religious belief, much as 9/11 Truthers should be considered a religious belief." I'll let TC's statement stand alone a moment...
Sorry. I messed up the "recipient" line to the above post.
Flat Earth should be considered a religious belief, much as 9/11 Truthers should be considered a religious belief....cultic. Ok...I laughed. (sorry folks -- I'm only pinging you because TC pinged you to witness his unhinged CT about CTers.) Q: Who exactly is "conning" who here? As has been pointed out often, the moniker "Too Conservative" is more irony than truth. By your own words, you appear to be no more "conservative" and tolerant of ideas than any other closet fascist. Of further humorous curiosity: In that you have comically self-anointed yourself LF's 'Captain of Gatekeeping,' the questions that must be asked: Why do discussions, beliefs, and theories that challenge every single Powers-That-Be, institutional narrative or "Official Report" be immediately derailed, dismissed, derided, and otherwise spammed by you? The consensus and THE truth? Everyone (other than apparently you) knows we have been and continue to be LIED TO. Whether by the Body Politic, Globalists, so-called "Science," the Media, and especially by the so-called, "Powers-That-Be" -- aka 'The Elites'. The only people who despise "Truthers" are...Gatekeepers AND those with something to hide. LIKE AN AGENDA. People like Liberator are self-winding toys with a lot of energy to devote to helping the con men swindle them and other people as well. Hilarious. "Swindle"? Who?? And out of what? Never mind. I'm still enjoying this inane insanity. But speaking of "energy".... What is it about "conspiracies theories" and challenging ALL official narratives that viscerally energizes and upsets YOU? After all, who cares about a tiny inconsequential forum of 25 posters, right?
Our comprehension of right and wrong varies abstractly. (We can literally spend months or years on your post, this convo...) But for now... God is better than anything you or I can possibly imagine. Yes He is! Amen! Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"? We obviously commit sins consciously in our heart, but even inadvertently (Ex: lust, jealousy, negativity) exactly because it is inexorably part man's nature. Even so-called "saints" cannot remain sin-less. This evokes a logical question: HOW do WE and WHO are we -- as mere men as sinners, as created beings -- judge God?? With respect to children and "innocence," the Lord's supreme judgement considers age, comprehension of Right & Wrong, and ability to discern intent and personal responsibility. In other words, if we can't trust God, we can we trust? Man's conscience and DNA has been hardwired to know "Right & Wrong" -- that's why acts and thoughts like murder, lying, "dishonor," are universally discouraged and regarded as "sins" within every society in history. That the concept or act of "sin"-- why even ONE single sin is God's "death penalty" in the event of admittance into Heaven is abstract for many people. On the surface it may seem patently unfair. But is it? How can God allow even one sin to enter (and taint) Heaven, an eternal realm of spiritual purity and perfection? This is how and why the concept of the embodiment of spiritual purity, innocence, and perfection -- Jesus Christ, God in the flesh/as a man -- becomes our substitute, our proxy, our Salvation *for* that sinlessness. In what is the most generous, loving act of God the Father, our Creator, He offers ALL sinners who believe on Jesus Christ's blood-sacrifice of his Innocence and Purity in Heart this divine gift of ultimate Grace. It is the greatest Gift possible -- all we have to do is open our heart and accept it.
I've read about them before but never had any reason to learn more about them. It does make sense as do your remarks on the jet stream. I did find some info on North Atlantic Tracks system for anyone wanting to learn more about airliner routing and the jet stream. Apparently, the jet stream effect and air traffic is so much greater over the Atlantic that Wiki doesn't have any matching North Pacific Tracks system. There is a system for Pacific flights but it is not as important as the Atlantic routing system. I get the impression that the prevailing winds and jet stream pattern over the Pacific are simply more of a wash where the Atlantic has a more pronounced effect on airliners. And the Atlantic system itself does get re-evaluated twice a day. The timing of flights (night or daytime) is also involved due to solar activity, it seems. Apparently it does matter a lot in flight time and fuel economy to have this Atlantic system; the Pacific not so much.
I am, at best, only the Junior Gatekeeper. Neil is the Master Gatekeeper as I declared in a previous post.
This is yet another instance where a fact-based discussion is dragged off into a religious discussion. "Blah-blah-blah, you're a Catlick so I don't believe your Rounder propaganda." "Blah-blah-blah, you're not much of a Christian at all so I think you're a Flattard." "Blah-blah-blah, I'm losing this argument so I'd better remind everyone that you have ideas about reincarnation." People who want to participate on religious threads should post religious threads and wait for people to show some interest in them. It really is more than a little unpleasant to hijack threads on political or science or current events topics and use them to try to "investigate" people's religious beliefs. Or to dispute someone's private religious views publicly when they were just posting on politics or current events. Or to attack someone's religious opinions when there's no other way to win a particular argument with them. This is an anonymous little news forum, not the Spanish Inquisition.
No offense taken. But I appreciate your sentiments. Your opinion is your opinion. Your points are still considered, valued and respected even if/when we disagree (a view we often share.) I contend all these flat earth videos are defective. Proving insincere intent behind the mispresentation and arguments is quite hard and not our job, as seekers of truth. But they are nonetheless defective, for whatever reason. My perspective, understanding and regard is obviously much different. Once the mask came off of our formerly "trusted" institutions, the real world became unveiled. Even if you manage to find "defects" in half or even 90% of the assertions, that still leaves 10-50% to legitimately ponder over. Once a NASA caught repeatedly fudging is eliminated from the quotient, what is there? THIS is why NASA and their theater, their studios, their "Mars" future and obsession with "Deep Space" has been promoted so heavily during the last few years. As a reminder, there are now 11 such "memes" that challenge institutionally presumed "truths" regarding our natural realm and "science" in a simple, brief formats. FWIW, as to any "agenda" of seeking/sharing Truth; why shouldn't we consider seeking, then sharing truth a duty or valuable? (Though I can understand why it is not everyone necessarily wants to leave a state of bliss or know they are being lied to.)
STOP. Before you beclown yourself into oblivion. OH WAIT....too late. smh
The Jet Stream occurs at certain latitudes. Look at the Atlantic. Europe is pretty far north - Paris is the same latitude as Quebec City, and Moscow is about at Hudson's Bay. The great circle routs to Europe largely follow the Jet Stream, which is pretty much on the route across to Europe. Asian civilization is a bit more southerly, and the great circles (shortest distance) practically go over the Arctic, where there is not much in the way of winds. The routes then pretty much plunge back south perpendicular to the wind patterns, such that one does not really approach China East-to- West, but from the North East. So one is cutting across the winds, not flying directly into them. The winds are still THERE, but their most intense locations cut across the Great Circles at an angle, and thus are not blowing as nearly direct tailwinds or headwinds the way they do on the trans-Atlantic routes. It's still faster to fly FROM Asia TO America than vice versa, because of the headwinds, tailwinds, but if the winds were as direct head-on, or tail on as in the routes to Europe, it would be 6 hours faster to fly TO America from China, and 6 hours slower to fly to China from America.
Jesus said that God forgives men their sins against him in proportion to the degree to which men forgive other men their sins against them. The forgiving are forgiven, and the unforgiving are unforgiven. Those who judge with mercy are judged mercifully, those who judge mercilessly are judged without mercy. In other words, do unto others as you would have God do unto you: if you forgive, you'll be forgiven. If you're a judgmental bastard, you will find God to be as obdurate. As Jesus put it: You shall be measured by the measure by which you measured. So, to be forgiven sin, you have to forgive others theirs. That's what Jesus said. Other men say different things.
I get the impression that, on any given day, it is harder to predict the jet stream over the Pacific than it is for eastern CONUS and the Atlantic flight lanes. There's a good animation of this at Wiki that I linked above. The Pacific region is just more chaotic and constantly in flux. The Atlantic jet stream is pretty predictable by comparison.
+
So you're saying that once NASA's credibility has been called into question with some issues and fabrications of whatever sort, they shouldn't be trusted. Well, shouldn't that same rule apply to flat earth advocates like this one that claims this flight came from Bali and not Taiwan? Why doesn't their credibility fall apart when they suggest wrong distances between cities, or state that the magnetic poles are in line with the geographic poles? But yes, all allegations of flat earth can be refuted, not just 90% of them, provided they rely on factual info that can be researched. There's no way to refute someone simply claiming to have gone up in a plane and seeing a flat earth. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims, we just have to decide whether to accept them, reject them, or just set them aside as unsubstantiated.
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit. That's basically it.
My meaning with "messy" was not in terms of dirty, soiled or unclean. I mean sin is messy theologically. That is, it's pretty much impossible to quantify whether an act is a sin or not. There is no binary switch in the human psyche that flips an LED light on in the brain that specifies a sin is in progress. Sin relies on bad intent to violate some law of God. And how do you measure intent in the mind of a 3 year old who takes a cookie without asking? Is it the commission of a sin against God of stealing or just a 3-year old acting on instinct to eat? Consciousness varies in all of us from time to time. We are not always fully aware of why we do things or even of what's going on around us. In fact I don't think we can ever attest to being "fully" aware of our surroundings. Sometimes we are wide away and on high alert. Other times we are drousy, sick in bed or even in a coma, so the degree of our awareness of our environment and circumstances varies on a sliding scale. And since a factor in deciding whether sin occurs is how aware we are, then it necessarily also makes sin something that is measured on a sliding scale. But that's not something fundamentalist Christianity teaches, which is that sin is something you have on you, or you don't. So it's messy. Not clean cut. Not clear. Difficult to qualify in terms of when it sin is committed. Under Newton, while there is right and wrong, virtue and vice, sin as a staining entity that condemns a soul for eternity and can only be washed away by the blood of an innocent is not a theological component. So in terms of theological modeling, the Newton model just works better as it doesn't have that messy issue.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian. Edit: Spelling that out, it's because all souls are born of God. It is that reason why we are considered children of God. It has nothing to do with our humanity (which is why evolution doesn't matter). What matters is our origins as souls, and all of us, as souls, originated from God.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit. However, that human spirit does not function the way it should, and that person experiences emptiness, which then causes that person to seek to fill the void, so to speak. That person will seek and try many things to fill the emptiness, but nothing ever truly satisfies. Oh, maybe for a little while that person will find excitement, relationships, possessions, ect. but in the end, they are still empty. However, when God's Spirit enters in, the human spirit becomes as it was intended, alive and in communion/fellowship with God. We have been created for this very reason, to have inward fellowship with God. If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
No. JimRob had nothing to do with shutting down either Clown Posse site, first the Snitz site and shortly thereafter, the vBulletin site. The Snitz site was not brought down by a legal action. A legal action required a plaintiff who knew the real world identity of the site owner in order to effect service. The manner of the shutdown probably required a relationship with the host in the UK who pulled the plug. I believe the vBulletin site was brought down by the threat of legal action, but had nothing to do with JimRob.
All the same, I wish I'd kept an archive of their stuff. Wildly funny but very mean.
You illustrate the paradigm difference between conventional Christian belief and the Newton model I subscribe to. Not just Christian belief but also Judaism and Islam. All 3 of these faiths tend to phrase it as though the soul or spirit is an add-on to the physical body. A person is born "with" a human spirit. This expression implies the physical body is the primary identity of the person, of who and what we are, with the soul being a lessor component thrown in as a bonus. Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on". It is the soul that defines the vast majority of our personal identity and even personality. Modern science has discovered DNA which has been accepted and presumed to be the defining element of all that we are, shaping our personality, favorite colors, virtues and vices. Under Newton, some qualities are indeed defined by our human structure, sexual preferences being one, but most of what we are is defined at the soul level. We are hybrid entities, mostly soul/spirit, but with a lessor human component, which would include capabilities of the human mind. The human body can be compared to a temporary rental unit instead of something that we own "for life" for the soul, and a rental unit that, once it stops working is disposed of and can be replaced at a future time. Stated another way, we do not say that shoes have feet, gloves have hands, or that hats have heads. We say feet have shoes, hands have gloves and so on. Saying a body has a soul is the same as the former when in fact it is a soul that may or may not have, or wear, a body. Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution. Given the assumption that our DNA defines our full identity, it follows that if we are descended from apes, that apes define our origins. Under Newton, that is not a problem as our human nature is only incidental and does not define our true origins as souls. Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth. Fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, because it maintains our uniqueness revolves around human nature as being special and unique above all other life forms, has to impart something spiritually unique about the human body, about our DNA that other animals do not possess. It must rely on our humanity reflecting the "image of God", which is often inferred to be the human body itself. Under Newton, that's not the case at all. We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we could just as easily incarnate into alien bodies for the same purpose. The human race is not who we are. It's what we use, and in spiritual terms is completely disposable, as is planet earth itself. I won't attempt to explain why emotions are experienced as it is something that can't be quantified, but I will say that any emotions associated with a certain religious faith do not necessarily validate the theology of that faith.
As you have lamented before that you have gone to great lengths, time and effort to explain your beliefs, only to have them hastily tossed aside, I wanted to say that I read your comment carefully, word for word, and...I actually understand your belief system much better now. So just a point or two... The Christian belief is pretty much the same. The soul (our thoughts, feelings, etc) is what defines us...that is, until our spirit comes into play. Until our spirit is reborn and comes to life we are regarded as "soulful". Being soulful is actually not a good thing. While our thoughts and feelings can lift us up to exhilarating heights, they can just as easily bring us down to devastating lows. That's because the spirit is not functioning fully, to act as a governor, so to speak. When God gives life to our spirit the human being is now finally able to exist in balance, as God planned. We become regenerated, starting with the spirit, which governs the soul, which in turn governs the body. I know I have written all of this before but it bears repeating. Before rebirth and renewal we are known by our soul. Think of all the descriptive words: he's an intellectual, she's an emotional wreck, he's moody, she's energetic, on and on. But after rebirth we are known by our spiritual attributes (or should be): he's wise unto God, she's prayerful, he's has a servant heart, she has real peace and joy, and so on. But trust me, the soul is always trying to resume its control of us! Christians fail all the time, every day. Hence the desperate need for grace! Just a word about evolution. We have a problem with evolution because we can see that life is just too complex to fit within the teachings of evolution. We believe God intentional made life so complex that we couldn't reasonably ascribe evolution to the creation. But man did it anyway! Ping, I have more questions about your beliefs and hope to ask them in another post. I just need to think a bit more about what you have written.
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil? Is there a spiritual force of evil that acts upon, or in conjunction with human evil? For Christians, of course, that would be fallen angelic beings aligning themselves with evil humans, or it might just be evil humans acting on their own. You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature. And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
On the question of demons and devils, Newton, in one of his online interviews, while he does not state in absolute terms that they do not exist, does state, in objective fashion, that in the many thousands of hypnotic sessions he's had with clients, not a single one has ever made any mention of such entities existing. Having said that, he does in his books refer to souls having negative or bad energy, which seems to be essentially a sickness. And that bad energy and souls that emit it can have a negative impact on others. I theorize that such cases could be interpreted as demons at work. I think Newton's explanation on the matter would qualify as agreement, except with your use of the adjective "human". Evil, or bad energy, arises as an indirect consequence of weakness of the soul, not from "human nature". "Spiritual lessons" are more than simply academic, head knowledge lessons. They are lessons of experience.
Under the hyptnotists model. You can commit all kinds of evil with no consequences. You can rape 100 women, then cut the balls off of their husbands. Then go out an shoot up 50 schools. Then hijack the nukes and Nuke Iran until they are all dead. No matter with Newton you are still a good person there is no consequence for your actions, zero. You are just weak. Then you are still reborn or something.
We incarnate into human form... So there is a God in the Newton model. What role does God play in your incarnation into human form? Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence? If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"? It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
Thanks so much for the colorful illustrations. I have stated many, many times, that in the Newton model, there most certainly is accountability for intentional actions which unjustly harm others. Absolutely there is. I'm sure it doesn't satisfy you that the accountability doesn't take the form of dumping them into a lake of fire for all eternity, but full accountability nonetheless exists.
In Newton's books, the actual term that is frequently cited for God is "The Source". My impression is that is the term repeatedly selected by clients to describe God but I won't swear to it. Obviously as an English, human term, it's definition is likely incomplete as, of course, English is certainly not the language of the spirit world. Rather, clients under hypnosis are using English to describe memories they are recalling of the spirit world. I'm sure you can empathize with that sort of issue in comparing English to Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible. I'm not sure where you are going with that question, but it seems a very deep question and I'm not really inclined to recite the whole book. If you are asking about whether our purpose in life is all centered around God or centered around ourselves, I'd probably say it's centered around everyone, including God, and including ourselves. As we grow, all around us also benefit, so it's not like it's even possible to grow in a self-centered way that doesn't benefit everyone. Consider an analogy to be the average family. The life of parents in a healthy family are pretty much centered around the children, in helping them grow and learn wisdom and knowledge. Why then would it, should it, be different between us and God? The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate. If God created us "in His image", which is one biblical description I agree with and which I think is largely how things work in the Newton model, then to say we are nothing is inaccurate. We are special. Not because God arbitrarily decided that we were special. We are special because we, as souls, were born of God. We are special because of our origin and nature. And that has absolutely nothing to do with human DNA or evolution or anything having to do with planet earth.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers. You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that.
When I look into the clear night sky I see mass (stars, planets, whatever) and wonder, how did this get here? When I try to look beyond the stars, I wonder, where does this end? I try to imagine what is beyond what I can see, and then what is beyond that, and what is beyond that! And I realize I am looking into infinity...and my brain bogs down. (Try it some time) My brain can't deal with something that has no end because I am a finite creature trying to comprehend the infinite. So my point is this: God is EVEN BIGGER than the infinite universe! He made the universe! Merely by speaking it into existence. Out of nothing. So when the Bible says we are as nothing compared to God...we understand that we are indeed "as nothing". Dust. The unsurpassed beauty of Christianity is that we know a God Who, although is All-powerful, All-knowing, Self-existent(Try to comprehend that), has condescended to not only dwell among us, but to actually serve us, and make a way for us to live with Him forever. That, Ping, is the love of God... God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers. You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that. Then my conversation with you is over. As I pointed out, you are not interested is listening to anything I have to say on this topic. I've answered your questions constructively but all you come back with is animosity.
Oh I listened. You dont answer questions though. You said no matter what you do even my extreme example you are still a good person according to the suggestor.
I can empathize with much of what you say. But I don't see the connect with your final statement. Neither term, "God" or "The Source", can adequately describe all God is. And this conversation isn't about describing all that he is. It's about how life works. You subscribe to a theology written many thousands of years ago, ascribing some divine truthful authority for it. I, on the other hand, subscribe to a more basic & human explanation for Biblical origins. You admit the universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet maintain it is comprehensibly young. I consider the universe both incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly old. You insist biological life is too miraculous for any explanation other than divine creation to explain it. I say divine creation does not necessarily exclude utilizing evolution. You suggest God is infinitely more than what we can imagine (true) and yet would create a system that would see so many perish for all eternity simply for not understanding or believing a certain theology. I ask why it is God would make understanding a theology, which is something serviced by the human mind, a condition to enjoying eternal life when even mortal parents would not approve of condemning their own kids to death for not understanding, say, basic mathematics. But your final statement implies that you know me, and you really don't. You base the claim on my academic understanding. I think God is better than that. He really has to be, and the Newton model essentially removes limits on God that Biblical Christianity has in place. It works better in every way I can see. If God condemns me for all eternity because of my theological understanding, then He'll condemn me for being an honest man. If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
I can tell you that there is no injustice whatsoever in God. If there were He would not be God. God is not capable of any wrong or imperfection. When He deals with mankind, including you, it is with perfect justice, perfect love, etc. Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone. When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross. You say I don't know you, true, but I know human nature. We are all pretty much the same. We all share the same fallen condition. We all need our Creator, to speak to us, to love us and accept us as we are, to restore us to beings that are fit for that eternal life for which we crave.
Okay, if that is the case, then even if the earth and universe were created just 6000 years ago, then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right? It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old. It does not take much study or analysis to hear the gospel message, and realize you are indeed a sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. Even a child can recognize that...can you Ping? And this is the gospel...
More of that retarded tow opposite things can be true. I thought you were smarter than that.
That is a lie. He said no such thing. Having faith in a suggestor is a dumb thing. Only you and 10 others have found the "truth".
This is a very weak argument that watchman is offering. This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system, one that can be sustained only by heavily indoctrinating children in it from an early age.
That is interesting. If corrupt Eve hadn't tempted Adam to eat an apple from the one magical tree in all of creation that could instantly confer on the eater the ability to discern good from evil, primarily by revealing to the eater their own nakedness, it does lead to other questions. If Eve ate the apple first, then she had to know she was naked. Why didn't she go hide her nakedness from Adam? Instead she boldly and cunningly approached him, trying to make him Fall as well. That bitch. And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc. And no one ever has explained why God, with his perfect foreknowledge of future events that leads to prophecies that come true, failed to foresee that the snake would tempt Eve and then use her as a Vessel Of Evil to cause Adam's fall. Why didn't God see this coming? Why didn't God protect his creation from Satan's plan to thwart God's entire plan of pure and innocent creation with a couple of apples, a snake and a weak woman? Why wasn't God omniscient back in the days of Eden? Why was God lacking in foreknowledge that Satan would attempt to destroy the very nature of God's creation?
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago? Some people like to claim that Big Bang or evolution are evil deceptions by the devil. But Satan did not ever have the power to create anything, like light arriving here from millions of years ago. Or is Satan also a time-traveling demon who can travel back in time to create these illusions of ancient light or is Satan perhaps empowered (by God) to manufacture such illusions currently and on an ongoing basis to deceive us. Satan was not a creator at all, only a rebel leader who wanted to spoil God's creation plan on earth. It begins to appear that God may be the bigger deceiver, not Satan. Satan doesn't have the superpowers that some people wish to ascribe to him.
This is a very weak argument that watchman is offering. As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe. Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?) Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God. As for 'heavily indoctrinating' children, some do, with great damage being done to the child. Salvation cannot be forced on anyone...
I thought that the subject was creation, the Genesis creation account. Now you suddenly want to switch to a New Testament gospel to try to make your point. Which doesn't tell us anything about the fall of man, old/young Earth creationism, Adam & Eve, God's role in manufacturing evidence that undermines the Bible's account, etc. You're just saying that you must set aside rationality entirely in order to believe. If that is the case, then mankind's intellectual capacity must be another of God's mistakes since it thwarts God's plan. But, wait, what exactly was God's plan anyway? He turned the snake loose on Eve which caused the Fall and, despite his perect omniscience and perfect foreknowledge, still allowed mankind to fall. Was it because Jesus was bored up in heaven and needed to have Adam fall so that four thousand years later Jesus could be incarnated and then suffer crucifixion to provide the perfect sacrifice to expiate mankind's sins before God, i.e. the sins which God's plan seems to have required man to suffer through Adam eating a special apple? You really haven't done much to justify the entire system of belief or to rationalize it or explain the notable inconsistencies inherent to it.
That is my take as well. The moral seems to be that we should just believe (have faith) as a child would. That is, without question. But that is precisely what 1 billion Muslims have done, have they not? And these non-Christians will all burn in hell for eternity for doing exactly what people are expected to do in accepting Christianity? Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to. I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much. It is no coincidence that entire countries of many millions of people that are predominently of one religion remain that religion even after generations of people come and go, and that is true no matter what the religion is, whether it Chrisitianity, Islam, Hindu or whatever. Why? Because we, as people, are most apt to do exactly as watchman says we should do: Accept and believe as a child would. Children most often grow up into adults firmly believing whatever religion their parents taught them, no matter what it is. If it were otherwise, we would see religious beliefs homogenously mixed throughout the world as everyone would question faith and migrate to the one that makes the most logical sense to them. But clearly, that is not what happens in the real world. As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated. So in my book, we MUST apply some rational critique of any theological understanding of God and not simply accept what a religious institution says, what our parents say, or what an old book says. As I see it, the Bible is a compilation of ancient writings that had the benefit of revisions and editing for poetic and literary enhancement as it was passed down verbally from parent to child until such time as it was codified Subsequent writings were done quite often with the author having the benefit of knowing what more ancient texts said, which could very often explain claims of fulfilled prophesy. Combine all that with our overcapacity to believe things, and you have a Christian religion that considers the Bible to be the Word of God. Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity. So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
Here's the kicker on this, as I see it. Cause here's the thing. Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept. It actually predates Christianity itself, and is built in to Hinduism and Buddhism. It's even referenced, I believe, in the Bible as one of Paul's letters seems to discount reincarnation with a line about it being appointed to man "once to die" and after that, the judgment. So in my musings, I've wondered why, if the Newton model is correct, it does not exist as a mainstream faith as the "big 5" do (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism). And the answer I come up with is because there is no mandate built into the Newton model that the belief be spread. Christianity has that in the form of a fear of eternal damnation, so believers are energized with the urgency of teaching others the faith. Can't speak for Islam but in at least some versions of it, if you don't believe you get your head chopped off so that's another energizing factor for the faith. With the Newton model, there is no such mandate to convince others of anything because their is no consequence for not believing the Newton model. Ergo, I postulate that if Christianity did not include the doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, and the necessity of believing in sin being washed away by his blood shed on the cross with a final judgment.... then Christianity would not exist today because people thousands of years ago would not have had any drive to spread the gospel. Not to others, and not to their children.
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old. Keep in mind, God creates time too, not just space. At least according to Einstein, who found the 2 pretty much go hand in hand. However, suggesting God would have fast forwarded universe creation instead of just waiting 13 billion years raises the question of why God would have not simply waited it out? Would we suggest that He couldn't bear the thought sitting around twiddling his thumbs for that long? Such suggestions largely ascribe human attributes to God (which is also done in the Bible, I contend, with descriptions of God as jealous and angry). I think those descriptions are done either naively or for the purpose of controlling the audience via imposition of fear of the almighty. (Politics and religion do mix, and often did, even in ancient times!)
I counter this with what I've said that the capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is enormous, and it's enough to make one believe that God's spirit is at work is understanding. This phenomenon is partially known in the present day when it comes crime witnesses who falsely, though sincerely, identify innocent people as the criminal perps. Innocent people have gone to jail on sworn testimony that was later found to be flat out wrong. It's a psychological thing, and when time is involved, where the person memory of an event is replayed thousands of times in someone's head, memories can be distorted in dramatic ways. That is one theory behind the accusations against Kavinaugh by Ford of his having raped her 35 years prior. Maybe she lied criminally, and it was all fake, but it's also possible she was sincere in her claims but gravely mistaken as to who it was and where it happened. It's even possible it was a movie she saw which over times became her real past experience. But in defense of Christianity, I will restate that a great deal of it is completely compatible with the Newton model, and according to the Newton model, we are all subconsciously aware of what the truth is. And those elements of the Bible and Christianity that are true would resonate in each of us as being true, and those resonations would be credited to Christianity, and may even be where you allude to the Spirit of God giving affirmation to us about Christianity. Again, I consider Christianity to be a good faith. All the morals about how we are to live and treat others, embellishing virtues and such are spot on. The only real differences is in the abstract doctrines of sin, redemption and judgment. And according to the Newton model, it's not important if someone is wrong about that. (Obviously, the reverse is not true for Christianity, or at least your version of it).
You have a point there. Religion is less often a problem for busy people. It's when people have decades of leisure time to browbeat everyone with their opinions or when a TV evangelist or imam sees an opportunity for fame and fortune in hawking ever-more-radical and extreme religious rhetoric and theology that you have the most problems. Not by the government or by libmedia. They rely on it as a foundation of their existence. I refrained from saying so but I think Newton would be rather shocked at these notions of him as some sort of theologian. He was a radical and only marginally Christian. There were far more doctrines in orthodox Christianity that Newton rejected than theology that he did believe and advocate for in the context of his scientific beliefs. By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism." Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair. In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian. In a minority position, T.C. Pfizenmaier offers a more nuanced view, arguing that Newton held closer to the Semi-Arian view of the Trinity that Jesus Christ was of a "similar substance" (homoiousios) from the Father rather than the orthodox view that Jesus Christ is of the "same substance" of the Father (homoousios) as endorsed by modern Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, this type of view 'has lost support of late with the availability of Newton's theological papers', and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist. Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John. He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity". He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities. For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion." Newton's position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace's work "Celestial Mechanics" had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits do not require periodic divine intervention. Scholars long debated whether Newton disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. His first biographer, Sir David Brewster, who compiled his manuscripts, interpreted Newton as questioning the veracity of some passages used to support the Trinity, but never denying the doctrine of the Trinity as such. In the twentieth century, encrypted manuscripts written by Newton and bought by John Maynard Keynes (among others) were deciphered and it became known that Newton did indeed reject Trinitarianism. Returning to your point, Newton's model is indeed compatible with Christianity if by Christianity you do not mean the idea that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind. To Newton, there was no Trinity. And neither he nor anyone else has ever found the word "trinity" in the Bible. By any honest historical measure of Christian orthodoxy, Newton was a dire heretic and a radical. Newton's disagreements with Leibniz and Spinoza can be simplistically reduced to the proposition that God must periodically rewind the celestial clocks to keep the planets in motion and the sun in its assigned position. Newton said God didn't need to do that. So Newton's views on science informed and really dominated his religious sentiments.
hehehe.... a long write up, and interesting account of Issac Newton. However, all of my references to Newton refer to Dr. Michael Newton who is a contemporary who utilized hypnosis as a therapeutic method, initially for common things like losing weight, quitting smoking and regression to childhood to recall traumatic events that were impacting complaining clients, but then discovered that clients sometimes recalled events from not just prior lives but from between lives that took place, alledgely, in the spiritual realm. He went on to make past life and between life regression his specialty and wrote a few books on his findings. Michael Newton was initially an atheist but was, he claims, forced to adjust his beliefs because of what he found in his work. He went on to create an institute (The Newton Institute) for training therapeutic hypnotists in the art he had developed on his own for recalling past and between life events. He died just a couple years ago. My frequent searches show no substantive claims of fraud in anything he's done, other than armchair doubters. I have found his work to be very objective and as scientific in approach as is possible in the field. He has not written things up in an emotional way, but rather very objective way, it seems, which does appeal to me and my way of thinking. He's not as well known as Dr. Brian Weiss who is in the exact same field and came to virtually 100% of all the same conclusions as Newton, and the same way via clients that presented past life recall. Weiss, however, is less scientific and objective in his work, and has far less focus on the between life stage which Newton has declared to be what our earthly life is centered around. All interesting stuff, in my view.
Isaac Newton was essentially right about those things, including the April 3, 33 AD date of the crucifixion. (On April 3, 33 AD, a Friday, the moon in the Levant rose in full eclipse - a "blood moon". He was right that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father - at least during his life. Now Jesus is Lord of mankind, and at the end he will be the judge of all things. But Jesus, as the son, was not Father - both are divine. That is how they are both "God" - both share divinity. One was fathered by the other. This isn't really hard to see from the writings. The degree of adamancy of the Trinitarian versus Arian fight is, and always was, excessively violent and un-Christian. Newton was right that this was the doctrine that set the Church on a decidedly bad path, for it was over the doctrine of the Trinity that the Church began carrying out executions in the 380s AD, and with that, tainted itself forevermore.
Context, my friend... True -- "child-like faith" is a necessity. But then again, that doesn't also preclude Christians from kicking it up several notches as well; "study or analysis" of Scripture is exactly how Christian Bible Scholars and Christians have discerned Truth from Genesis-to-Revelation, inexorably reinforcing the foundations of Christian Faith. Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.… I have the following questions and concerns for your soul, Ping. Your faith and fate for Eternity deserves one more deep dive: (1) Michael Newton's definitive account of the Afterlife, and his "Life Between Lives" upper-echelon Spirit "mentoring" of the recently deceased spirit -- Absolutely Fact? OR Theory? Are you willing to stake your eternal soul on Newton's account as THE Truth? (2) DID the kind of "study and analysis" conducted by Newton and his conclusion actually create the notion of exposing Christianity as lacking reason, logic, and documentation? In your opinion, does Michael Newton's own "study and analysis" surpass that of the Christian for our faith?? I assume you are well aware of the tremendous weight and testimony factual historical, prophecies and documentation provided in both the Old and New Testaments. (OR...do they seem to be from your perspective riddled with inaccuracies, impossibilities, and misunderstandings?) (3) Given Dr. Newton's "credentials" as a clinical Psychologist/Hypnotist, why should one trust the account of Dr. Michael Newton as a prophet of sorts? Or accounts of his hypnotized subjects, who voluntarily surrendered their respective will to the Power-of-Suggestion while in a waking-sleep state consciousness? (4) IS it possible... that while under hypnosis and state of spiritual surrender they may have allowed disembodied spirits to "take over the helm" and give false testimony about Past-Lives-Regression? (After all, it is this "testimony" and "documentation" on which you base your entire faith of the Afterlife, isn't it?) (5) IS it possible....that the PLR accounts of these hypnotized subjects of Dr. Newton were lies? WAS it possible that they as well as Newton himself were posessed, guided and fully deceived? IS it possible... that demonic disembodied spirits created false "memories" and accounts, ergo a motive in promoting an alternative "Way, Truth, and Life"? (does this resemble the Tree of Knowledge temptation in Eden as well?) Also worthy of consideration and introspection: Giving weight and reliance on the "study and analyses" of any "Science" to validate the spiritual realm which by most accounts lie outside of our physical realm. If Newton's accounts are to be believed at face value, there are spiritual entities involved who bridge the two realms. That expressed message is: "God is a Liar. Scripture is a Lie. Heaven and Hell are lies. The reason for a Redeemer of Sins is a Lie. YOU alone control your own Judgement and Afterlife, not God." Bottom Line: Regarding Dr. Newton and his theory on what happens the moment one's soul transitions into the next realm, should folks place their faith AND fate of their Eternal Soul in such an "Authority" or Karmic System and "prophet" like Dr. Newton? We are all given fair warning: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world." ~ 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Maybe that's the key test for entering the Pearly Gates: if you insist the universe is 13 billion years old, despite all the pressure to conform to creationism that it is only 6,000 years old, then you get into heaven. Or vice versa. Saint Peter: "To enter the Pearly Gates to eternal life and happiness, answer thou me this one question: How old is the universe? [John Cleese will play the role of Saint Peter in the movie version.] The bible does say that very few will get into heaven at all. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way" and all that. For God to be God, he must exist entirely outside the space/time continuum. Those are artifacts of God's creation and he is not subject to them. If he was, then he would be nothing more than another artifact of his own creation. You can find a nice short PDF version here: The Jefferson Bible This was the version of the Jefferson bible which was distributed to members of Congress from 1904 through the Fifties. It was not known to the general public. A longer version of it with some of the background info and Jefferson's own words to explain it can be found here: Jefferson Bible, expanded It begins and ends with the following verses: . . . 62Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. Notice there is no virgin birth and no resurrection in Jefferson's bible. We should find more context for Jefferson and what he was trying to do with his bible. In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews", and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity". Jefferson explains that he does not have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish it. Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 12, 1813: Jefferson wrote that “The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus Himself are within the comprehension of a child". He explained these doctrines were such as were "professed & acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the 1st century". In a letter to Reverend Charles Clay, he described his results: Jefferson never referred to his work as a Bible, and the full title of this 1804 version was The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, being Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrased [uncomplicated] with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions. Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition. Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the King James Version of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order—putting together excerpts from one text with those of another to create a single narrative. Thus he begins with Luke 2 and Luke 3, then follows with Mark 1 and Matthew 3. He provides a record of which verses he selected, and of the order he chose in his Table of the Texts from the Evangelists employed in this Narrative and of the order of their arrangement. Consistent with his naturalistic outlook and intent, most supernatural events are not included in Jefferson's heavily edited compilation. Paul K. Conkin states that "For the teachings of Jesus he concentrated on his milder admonitions (the Sermon on the Mount) and his most memorable parables. What resulted is a reasonably coherent, but at places oddly truncated, biography. If necessary to exclude the miraculous, Jefferson would cut the text even in mid-verse." Historian Edwin Scott Gaustad explains, "If a moral lesson was embedded in a miracle, the lesson survived in Jeffersonian scripture, but the miracle did not. Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor, Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus' role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer." Therefore, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus' birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from his collection. No supernatural acts of Christ are included at all in this regard, while the few things of a supernatural nature include receiving of the Holy Spirit, angels, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, the Tribulation, the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, a future kingdom, and eternal life, Heaven, Hell and punishment in everlasting fire, the Devil, and the soldiers falling backwards to the ground in response to Jesus stating, "I am he." Rejecting the resurrection of Jesus, the work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." These words correspond to the ending of John 19 in the Bible. It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it. Gaustad states, "The retired President did not produce his small book to shock or offend a somnolent world; he composed it for himself, for his devotion, for his assurance, for a more restful sleep at nights and a more confident greeting of the mornings." There is no record of this or its successor being for "the Use of the Indians", despite the stated intent of the 1804 version being that purpose. Although the government long supported Christian activity among Indians, and in Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson supported "a perpetual mission among the Indian tribes", at least in the interest of anthropology, and as President sanctioned financial support for a priest and church for the Kaskaskia Indians, Jefferson did not make these works public. Instead, he acknowledged the existence of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth to only a few friends, saying that he read it before retiring at night, as he found this project intensely personal and private. Ainsworth Rand Spofford, Librarian of Congress (1864–1894) stated: "His original idea was to have the life and teachings of the Saviour, told in similar excerpts, prepared for the Indians, thinking this simple form would suit them best. But, abandoning this, the formal execution of his plan took the shape above described, which was for his individual use. He used the four languages that he might have the texts in them side by side, convenient for comparison. In the book he pasted a map of the ancient world and the Holy Land, with which he studied the New Testament." Some speculate that the reference to "Indians" in the 1804 title may have been an allusion to Jefferson's Federalist opponents, as he likewise used this indirect tactic against them at least once before, that being in his second inaugural address. Or that he was providing himself a cover story in case this work became public. Also referring to the 1804 version, Jefferson wrote, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." Jefferson's claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unusual views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. The most complete form Jefferson produced was inherited by his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, and was acquired in 1895 by the National Museum in Washington.[36] The book was later published as a lithographic reproduction by an act of the United States Congress in 1904. Beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. A private organization, the Libertarian Press, revived the practice in 1997. . . . Notice that Jefferson's bible was given to every member of Congress quietly for the first half of the 20th century. The general public only became aware of the Jefferson bible about 20 years ago; it was among those historical matters reserved for college-educated men, not for the perusal of the hoi-polloi of the public schools who were not even told that it existed. However, there were multiple versions of the KJV produced in the 1760s. The 1760 Cambridge edition, the 1763 Baskerville edition, and the 1769 edition. A key difference from the 1760 edition so popular in Britain and the even more popular 1769 edition that was so widely used in Britain and America is the rendering of Matthew 5:13 (chapter 6 verse 13 of Jefferson's bible). Let's compare the KJV versions of the 1760s to find out which one Jefferson cut to pieces. I conclude that Jefferson was likely using the now-rare 1763 Baskerville edition, said to be quite a beautiful folio version, to create his KJV pages. Baskerville was an innovative printer and designer of his own typefaces, a colleague of and greatly admired by Ben Franklin. Typographically and in word rendering choice, Jefferson's KJV is halfway between the 1760 and the 1769 versions so Baskerville's is the only likely candidate. How's that for some really pointless bibliographic minutiae? I haven't been able to locate an online copy of the 1763 Baskerville edition to verify this however. The only search results I get are for sales of that bible as a rare book in the range of $25,000-$40,000. And you can see the annotations and razor marks of just how Jefferson chopped words and pasted them together. And you can read the whole thing in only an hour or so. And Vic can even choose to read the passages in Latin, French or (1763?) KJV English. Even Jefferson's map choices are interesting. There is endless detail to pore over. Notice how the page before his title page contains a reverse image. Jefferson wrote it quickly in his bad penmanship and flipped the page while the ink was still wet which transferred some of the title page's ink to the preceding blank page, producing a limned mirror image of the title page. Charming. And without further ado, here is the full Jefferson Bible in full: Jefferson Bible by SethMarr123 on Scribd We should try to find even more context to Jefferson's views on Christianity. Jefferson's views on Jesus and the Bible were mixed, but were progressively far from what was and is largely considered orthodox in Christianity. Jefferson stated in a letter in 1819, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he wrote to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man". On one hand Jefferson affirmed, "We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses," that he was "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others," and that "the doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man." However, Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. In a letter to William Short in 1820, Jefferson described many biblical passages as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". In the same letter Jefferson states he describes Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". Jefferson also denied the divine inspiration of the Book of Revelation, describing it to Alexander Smyth in 1825 as "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams". From his study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God. In 1803 Jefferson composed a "Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus" of the comparative merits of Christianity, after having read the pamphlet "Socrates and Jesus Compared" by the Unitarian minister Dr. Joseph Priestley. In this brief work Jefferson affirms Jesus' "moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews," but asserts that "fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible" and that "the question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines." He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him. In 1804, Jefferson began piecing together his own version of the Gospels from which he omitted the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity, and the resurrection of Jesus – among many other teachings and events. He retained primarily Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved, and also included the Second Coming, a future judgment, Heaven, Hell, and a few other supernatural events. This compilation was completed about 1820, but Jefferson did not make these works public, acknowledging "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" existence only to a few friends. This work was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible. While Jefferson did indeed include some Protestant clergymen as amongst his friends, and while he did in fact donate monies in support of some churches, his attitude towards Protestant clerics as a group and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole was one of extreme aversion. Jefferson's residence in France just before the French Revolution left him deeply suspicious of Catholic priests and bishops, considering them a force for reaction and ignorance. His later private letters indicated he was skeptical of too much interference by Catholic clergy in matters of civil government. He wrote in letters: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government" and "[i]n every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." In 1817 he wrote to John Adams: In an 1820 letter to William Short, Jefferson wrote, "[T]he serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous." Jefferson intensely opposed Calvinism. He never ceased to denounce the "blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin," writing three years before his death to John Adams, "His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin." Jefferson expressed general agreement with Unitarianism, which, like Deism, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson never joined a Unitarian church, but he did attend Unitarian services while in Philadelphia. His friend Joseph Priestley was the minister. Jefferson corresponded on religious matters with numerous Unitarians, among them Jared Sparks (Unitarian minister, historian and president of Harvard), Thomas Cooper, Benjamin Waterhouse and John Adams. In an 1822 letter to Benjamin Waterhouse he wrote, "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." Jefferson named the teachings of both Joseph Priestley and Conyers Middleton (an English clergyman who questioned miracles and revelation, emphasizing Christianity's role as a mainstay of social order) as the basis for his own faith. He became friends with Priestley, who lived in Philadelphia. In a letter to John Adams dated August 22, 1813, Jefferson wrote, Jefferson continued to express his strong objections to the doctrines of the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity. In a letter to Adams (April 11, 1823), Jefferson wrote, "And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." In an 1821 letter he wrote: Jefferson once wrote to the minister of the First Parish Church (Unitarian) in Portland, Maine, asking for services for him and a small group of friends. The church responded that it did not have clergy to send to the South. In an 1825 letter to Waterhouse, Jefferson wrote, When followers of Richard Price and Priestley began debating over the existence of free-will and the soul (Priestley had taken the materialist position), Jefferson expressed reservations that Unitarians were finding it important to dispute doctrine with one another. In 1822 he held the Quakers up as an example for them to emulate. In Jefferson's time, Unitarianism was generally considered a branch of Christianity. Originally it questioned the doctrine of the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ. During the period 1800–1850, Unitarianism began also to question the existence of miracles, the inspiration of Scripture, and the virgin birth, though not yet the resurrection of Jesus. Contemporary Unitarianism no longer implies belief in a deity; some Unitarians are theists and some are not. Modern Unitarians consider Jefferson both a kindred spirit and an important figure in their history. The Famous UUs website says: [I know, after a post this long, I never get to complain about long posts again. This is likely among the most complex HTML posts ever seen on LF, something I would never have attempted without my macro utility and my programmer's text editor with regex search-replace.]
Doh. I went by Vic's initial mention of Isaac Newton. I missed your post that contained 3 mentions of this Michael Newton. Now you understand why I mentioned that Isaac Newton would have thought it peculiar to associate him with this debate. You must know that hypnotists that claim to recover repressed memories are held in extreme disrepute and have caused demonstrable harm to people, destroying families, driving people into mental illness and suicide, people put in prison based on false memories implanted, sometimes inadvertently, by the therapist or hypnotist. Okay, now it's time for Liberator to call me the Gatekeeper again.
It probably is the single greatest fight over heresy in Christian history. And I'll remind you that my hero, Saint Lucifer of Cagliari, Sardinia, was right in the thick of things, throwing punches with the best of them, publicly denouncing the Roman emperor as an apostate king in writing, refusing orders to reconcile with Arian bishops, demanding the right for Athanasius to face his accusers in court, and declaring his willingness to die for his beliefs so the emperor could just sod off if he didn't like them. A very passionate guy. Even the fall of Constantinople and the TULIP thing never caused quite so much havoc.
The only real differences is in the abstract doctrines of sin, redemption and judgment. Sin. Redemption. Judgement. It sure is a Big-Three, ain't it? (For good reason.) SIN IS the definition of "Sin" actually abstract? Probably for some. Maybe because their eyes and spirit cannot perceive Sin at its most subtle. There are those who won't nor can't discern "sin" or admit it even rises to a "serious" offense. There are many who just don't care and let the chips fall. This is tragic. And then... there are THE most evil and heinous of Sins -- those knowingly committed by who relish it as homage to their "god" -- Satan himself. 99.99999999% White /= PURE-WHITE. Only PURE WHITE is clean/sinless enough for admission to Heaven. 100% of Man full into that category. SIN-LESS/PURITY OF SPIRIT MATTERS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Worth noting: God's Standard /= Man's.) REDEMPTION Not to pick on the RCC, but it is impossible to win our own "Redemption"; OR, "cleanse" ourselves of even that .0000000001 stain. One Gazillion 'Hail Marys' and Bazillion 'Our Fathers' won't do it; Neither will a donation to the Pope himself, nor helping one trillion Old Ladies across the street. Not to pick on the Hindus, but "Karma" is a Forever-Cycle of "correction," "re-correction," and self-redemption that never ends. Not to pick on True Atheists, but, "you" were made in both Body AND Spirit; BY A CREATOR. (Let's call Him..."GOD." Your Body indeed returns to dust, BUT, "you" -- and your Spirit LIVES ON. You also will awaken from what was literally, a "Dirt-Nap." NOW WHAT? JUDGEMENT Yup. This is the biggie. THIS is what all people, all religions, all cults, all rebels, and all atheists are running from. Options? Well, there IS God's Plan...and Jesus. OR... Create or Invent a religion, cult, belief-system, or Final Scenario in which EVERYONE goes to "Heaven." OR, they "Graduate" or "Evolve" into other High Reward-Friendly realms. There are always faith in "traditions" as well, because reassurances from the ancient pagans and the "Enlightened" an be trusted above all. What they all have in common: NO Accountability, NO Debt Service, NO Death Penalty. NO MATTER WHAT... Sorta like we create our own "Reality" and "live forever" elsewhere. Like awakening as a "god" on our own personal planet; Awakening to 72 Virgins; Awakening to the 'Devil's Orgiastic Playground'; Awakening to benevolent mentors who kindly prepare us for the "Next Life"; Awakening, but only to further suffering in a Temporary "Waiting Room"; Awakening to the Elysium Fields of our imagination as our own self-proclaimed "reward" for enduring a harsh Mortal Life. Avoidance of Judgement by our Creator, The Almighty, may be THE biggest deception in this life.
I've always considered this perspective to be fascinating. (For more than a few reasons.) Other than rigging an ideological/psychological propaganda war that has purposely and tactically forced Bible-literalists into battling the cult of Scientism over the subject of TRUTH and God's Word??....(Otherwise WHY insist on a "13 billion year old Universe," an age that obviously that can't be proven? ) This premise bakes-in a "13 billion year old" Universe, based on WHAT?? WHO?? All that matters for "Science" that MAYBE it allows for a supposed plausibility of "Evolution"? "Science" -- as has become it's usual MO -- relies on intellectual brow-beating and gas-lighting basing its hard-line "It's fact, dammit!!" on flimsy dating theories -- which are indeed the ever fallacious, untested, unproven "Science" that relies on notoriously inaccurate dating methodologies. The world's Rock Strata ARE actually only thousands of years old. Remember Mount St Helen's volcano eruption? THIS strata was created in just a few hours, Look old, doesn't it? Good link: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/why-is-mount-st-helens-important-to-the-origins-controversy/ *I* would go yet farther and say, "IF the earthly realm appears to have survived a cataclysmic Great Flood -- based on the evidence of World's Flood strata -- then it IS only Thousands of Years old.
If I had to choose between the 2 models with the understanding that if I was wrong I'd burn forever, at present I'd choose the Newton model. Of course, according to the Newton model, I would be fine choosing the Christian model or any other model out there. If you say our beliefs should be shaped by fear of being wrong, I'd say that means nothing in terms of what is true. Biblical prophecies are sometimes self-fulfilling. Case in point: According to gospels, Jesus died on the cross with no broken bones. Analyzing these verses, we can easily conclude that whomever penned the passage was already aware of prior scripture about bones not being broken, as he plainly references passages. So when the author, already aware of that historical passage, cites it as occurring in the present day, it is a much different thing than if he had reported an event with no knowledge of the historic passages. It's much as my predicting someone famous being killed in a boating accident but not specifying who or when. Then at some point in the future, some news organization who's aware of my prediction covers some celebrity's death in a boat accident and reports on it and cites my prediction as "fulfilled prophesy". No, that doesn't work. A double blind fulfilled prophesy is when someone reporting an event knows nothing of the prophesy itself. This is especially important if the celebrity died of, say, a heart attack on the boat which suffered the accident, in which case the link to the accident is somewhat compromised. By reporting it as "fulfilled prophesy" the reporter is declaring a link that illustrates a bias in the report itself. In this particular case, this bias can similarly impact the reliability of the claim itself. That is: How could the author have even known, for certain, than no bones were broken in the body of Jesus after all he had been through? Even if it was penned by an eye-witness, did they give his body a full x-ray before burying it? Obviously not. So there's no way the human author could have been reasonably certain of the claim of no broken bones. Assuming he observed the whole event and later wrote about it with a bias that Jesus was the Son of God, then he, being aware of the historic passage, would have been motivated to report Jesus having suffered no broken bones when he could not have had any human way of being certain that was the case. I think there are many cases of this type of "fulfilled prophesy" which is a case where the author claims an event he witnessed was fulfillment of something spoken of in more ancient writings. Not all, but many. That is one small example of how biblical texts could be construed as fulfilled prophesy when the accuracy of the claim is disputable. For me, it's because Newton's work is validated by my own life's observations, reasoning and experiences. Yes it is. It's as possible for that to be the case as it is that the entire Bible is similarly the work of demons. Suggesting this is fallacious as it can never be credibly used against any theology. Again, fallacious. Some Christians make the mistake, perhaps knowingly, of equating disagreements or criticisms of Biblical texts as "calling God (or Jesus) a liar". This is quite a malicious and insincere charge as it presumes the person making the criticism agrees that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God".
That is precisely my view as well. Souls, as described in any theological context including Newton's, defy the very laws of thermal dynamics (i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed) in that they can persist eternally in spite of them operating. That implies to me that if they exist, they must, by necessity, consist of material that originates outside of our current big bang universe where the laws of thermal dynamics as currently understood do not apply. That would reasonably be construed as an alternate or extra/super dimensional universe, perhaps more real than our own. Newton's work does touch upon our universe being one of at least several. I interpret the work to theorize that when this universe runs its course and burns out, a new one can be made to replace it. (And we'll all be around to see it when that happens). But we, as souls, are not a product of this universe. But all physical life, including animals, plants and the human race, is. That is what makes us special. Not our human DNA. It's also why evolution doesn't matter. Christians who are hung up on evolution consider us to be special because of our humanity, which is why evolution is a problem for them.
Maybe they need a little more time to evolve. ; )
I agree it is not a precise science, and Newton is/was aware of that as well. He writes of "conscious interference" as a phenomenon when the conscious mind can alter what is claimed to be recalled due to bias. Basically, it's when the degree to which the conscious mind is turned off is just not quite sufficient, and cited memories are not entirely accurate. What Newton claimed on this score for his general findings, however, is the massive amount of corroboration he has found, and this can be found in his online interviews. He says that of the thousands of people he has regressed they all gave very consistent and compatible information about the basic reality of reincarnation and the existence of a spirit world where we go to between lives on earth. And it did not matter what the conscious religious beliefs or cultural background of the people involved, including atheists. They all gave, he says, compatible information while under hypnosis. That is what he says convinced him that what he found was real, in spite of the accuracy shortcomings with hypnosis. He also maintains that he was not in the practice of asking leading questions about things. I.e. he claims he asked people what they see, not if they see this or that. This is, in my view, in line with the nature of Newton's responses in on-line interviews and also in his written work. His approach appears to be that of a true scientist allowing the information to speak for itself. Obviously the nature of hypnosis and psychology is not nearly a cut and dry as is something like physics or biochemistry. But it seems Newton did as good a job with treating it as a science field as could reasonably be possible. But even after so many years, there's no credible or substantiated claims anywhere on the internet claiming anything Newton has written or claimed being fraudulent or an outright scam. In my search on that, I did find one online post somewhere claiming to be a woman who's case was cited in one of Newton's books. The comment was favorable to Newton. For whatever that is worth, which is about nothing. On the negative side, I recall someone attempting to research the name of one person cited in one of Newton's books. A last name was given and a profession of, I think, a prosecutor in some midwestern state. This person committed suicide. The researcher was unable to identify any historic person in that state during that time who fit the description. In that case, perhaps the person recalled the wrong state? Or maybe the historic record simply were not complete. But that's about the most I've ever found that challenges anything about what Newton has claimed. On this score, I'll also mention that Dr. Brian Weiss is/was in the same doctor field as Newton and came to virtually all the same conclusions as Newton. Both were brought to accept reincarnation as reality through clients recalling past lives, in both cases the past life recall being unsolicited. In spite of their not referring to each other's work in the slightest, the work of Newton and Weiss appear to me to be in virtually 100% agreement on their findings. Though Newton's work does predate that of Weiss and I could in no way guarantee Weiss did not read Newton's books, though it seems likely Weiss wrote his first one based solely on his own extensive experince with a single client, which is quite a read.
No. Adam appeared to be 30 something but was in fact only 1 day old, so, your logic has failed you. Who says that the universe is 13 billion years old? Really? The same scientists who are now back-pedaling about evolution not explaining the complexity of life on Earth?
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what? Have you ever watched anyone die? Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
Liberator, have you taken some poor Bible scholar hostage and forcing him to make comments for you on the internet?
I have no dispute over what Christian theology says, so I see no need to respond to it, except for.... Under the Newton model, there most certainly is accountability. Debt service? There is karmatic justice. And there is in fact a possibility that individual souls could vanish into oblivion in some way. Maybe. It's an open question.
Just because fresh strata can look like old doesn't mean strata cannot be extremely old. There's no word in that photo how hard that strata is. Is it "rock hard" or just layers of packed dirt one could stick a shovel into? While it opens the door to some strata being young, it cannot possibly prove all strata is young. One Bible passage can apply: "Seek, and ye shall find". If you set out to prove creationism and evidence of a young earth, you will certainly find it. Everyone with a bias on the subject, which in no way excludes creationists, will find evidence to support their case.
I disagree. Isn't God the creator of time itself? According to Einstein, time is really just one more dimension of space. If so, then if God created all space, then it certainly follows God created time as well. But... this is semantics only. We do indeed choose who and what to believe.
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating, continuing our growth in the spirit realm. Yes, I have. Absolutely not. Not in the least. Not even close. While our approach to death can be terrifying, even to the point of leaving some scars in the form of phobias on subsequent lives (fear of heights, claustrophobia and such), my perception is that exiting this life and returning to the spirit world is so wonderful that it easily would qualify as the happiest day of anyone's life. There was one woman who had a near death experience, or claims to, a Dr. Mary Neal, I think her name is. She drowned in a kayak accident and was underwater for maybe 15 minutes or more. She claims an experience quite compatible with Newton's findings, and was so elated upon death she didn't want to come back. At all. And that in spite of having 4 young children in her care. I recall her interview in which she answered a question as to why she took so many years to write of her experience, and one reason she gave was because she was ashamed. Ashamed that she didn't want to come back in spite of having 4 children that needed and depended on her. It was a sentiment that wasn't even in the least bit negotiable, as what she experienced in her NDE was simply that overwhelming. And it seems she was in every way a very good and loving mother. This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity. That in spite of my take on her descriptions as being 100% compatible with Newton. That's a bit of an aside, but the point remains, that death itself is a wonderful thing. While in the Christian model is it a permanent departure and certainly invokes lots of sadness, under the Newton model, it's simply the end of one chapter in the very long book of the story of one soul's total experience in earthly life. Death does not mark an exit from human life from which we never return. In the words of a certain terminator robot, the expression "I'll be back" could certainly be fitting for someone's dying breath.
I've had dreams that were just as real (if not more so) than she experienced in her unconscious state, her NDE as you say. I don't think her experience has anything to do with Christianity. We are dead when the spirit leaves the body...and the spirit does not come back. The human spirit either goes to be with Christ, or the spirit goes into Hades, the fiery holding tank for unbelieving humans, to await the final judgement. With so much returning to the earth (6000 divided by 70 = 85.7 potential reincarnations) we are not seeing ANY sign of human progression toward perfection. In fact, just the opposite. What we ARE seeing is what the Bible describes: Look at that passage closely, Ping. You know its true!
But when have human beings ever been anything else? History reveals that is the fundamental nature of mankind. Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous. Everything we find in our recorded history is more of the same things that Paul is complaining about to Timothy, sometimes a little worse or a little better but fundamentally the same as far as human conduct. Exactly where in human history is this era of the Good Old Days that is the baseline to which we should compare all human life? Name a year or a century and a place where these Good Old Days existed. Give some examples of historical eras and locales where mankind was any different than what Paul was complaining about. It sounds a lot like some old guy pining for The Good Old Days. And Paul was an old dude when he wrote this to Timothy. Doesn't it sound like the lament of an old man, staring at approaching death, and regretting his choices and the choices of others outside his control? Normally, when we hear people speak of the Good Old Days, we find those Good Old Days were just the same as the present. The people speaking were just younger and more naive or at least more filled with hope for the future. Now get off my lawn, punk. LOL
I hate to pick at you and make you mad. But that is bullshit, not true. It shows a lack of intelligence to believe such nonsense. I also notice you say it is your current belief system. Which hints at you are not that sure of it. I don't go around saying I'm currently a Christian. Muslims don't go around saying i'm currently a Muslim.
Oh I see the problem. Like Liberator you watch retards and believe them.
Duh it's true. You try to prove evolution and it isn't possible because it didn't happen in any matter shape or form. The fossil record is quite clear and it says no evolution.
You keep making shit up that has no basis in reality. Quit pretending.
You sound like someone in a cult sticking up for Jim Jones. I'll stop now before you delete the website.
The Bible doesn't say that there was ever a "Good Old Days" time in human history. God simply says things are going to get worse in the last days. There is certainly no improvement in the human condition that you would expect to see from all that reincarnatin' and spiritual lesson learnin'. Talk about fail!
How do you know he looked 30-something? In medieval art, Adam/Eve were just as often depicted as teenagers, the whole Romeo/Juliet, Blue Lagoon style. For that matter, why couldn't Adam/Eve have looked 100? The bible has plenty of couples giving birth when they were very very old. But no one ever thinks Adam/Eve were old in appearance. I guess it spoils things to think of them as old people. Physicists. Really. How do you not know this? For some years, they said it was 14 billion but they seem to have revised that down based on revised tinkering with Big Bang math that they now claim is more accurate. Physicists rarely discuss biology. I'm not sure how many scientists are 'back-pedaling about evolution'. There are a decent number, a minority, that complain that it is inadequate as a scientific theory, that it lacks adequate falsifiability, etc.
That is your belief. But to be objective, we should be examining her experience to determine the model to which it best conforms. There is also much more to her experience. She claims to have learned during this experience that one of her children would die relatively young, which came to pass some years later when he was killed by a drunk driver at age 19, I think it was. In the Newton model, souls are created on a continuing basis so the higher population can generally reflect an average experience/development level that is reduced, which would explain a world with generally deteriorating morals.
But how will they get worse? Compared to when? Compared to, say, all those times in the Old Testament when God killed off so many Israelites or sent them into captivity and slavery as punishment? Compared to the Roman era when the New Testament was written? Worse than Nero and Caligula? Worse than the pagan cults of Rome and the public child brothels and the slavery and so on? Things have been pretty much the same in terms of human morality since the Greco-Roman period. Really, since the Achaemenid empire (the First Persian empire under Darius, the King of Kings, circa 500BC and which contained 45% of the entire human race).
Without the evidence of the miracles, Christianity is precisely that, as are all of the other religions. What distinguishes Christianity from the other religions is that God actually did leave physical, laboratory-examinable miracles whose informational content verifies certain assertions of some branches of the Christian faith, and thus prove the existence of intelligent divinity itself (as an override to mere mindless determinism), and the affinity of divinity with certain specific Christian beliefs which, because of the concrete veridical evidence, are transformed from myths into facts. Take away the Shroud, and there's no reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected, let alone preferred by God. There's just non- rational belief, which is most easily transferred the way all religion mostly is: through the heavy indoctrination of children from a very early age. Christianity as practiced, of course, differs widely and wildly from the Christianity that WOULD BE practiced if people actually listened to what Jesus said, but that's a different subject entirely, one that I happen to be more interested in than the various other arguments. To me, Jesus' association with divinity is proven by the physical facts, which are obviously miracles and therefore were acts by which God overrode the physics that would otherwise have prevented such objects from existing. I associate the power that did that with the power that talked to me and performed similar nature-overriding miracles for me or in my presence. And it is through that vector that I pay attention to what Jesus said. Because what Jesus says conflicts with some things that Paul says, I reject Paul as binding authority. Because what Jesus says conflicts with some things that James says, I reject James as binding authority. Because what Jesus says conflicts with some things that the Churches (all of them, except the Quakers) have said or done, I reject all of the Churches (except the Quakers) as binding authority. Of course, what "Jesus said" is really only what Jesus is SAID to have said, by a set of anonymous ancient authors who may or may not be the people whose names we have associated with their gospels. And in places, Jesus contradicts Jesus, which creates a difficult situation as there is no external authority other than God to resolve the tension. Given the lack of external authority, the final authority must be...well...ME. And given that God has not only kept me alive and performed wondrous things for me, but talks to me on occasion as well, I gather that he either agrees with my choices on such matters, or doesn't object sufficiently to depart from me, or doesn't care either way. In any case, that is all that I can do or say about the matter. I disagree with Jefferson's assessment that Jesus was not divine. He was. But then, Jefferson never talked with God, and I have, so Jefferson was lacking facts that I have. In any case, I think that to make the world better, we have to reform human activity such that it conforms with what God wants of us. And since human beings are unwilling to change even with proof, and the various religions, as they exist, are pretty weak vessels, I have largely given up the field. The problem with the other religions is that they are made up. The problem with the Christian religions is that they have all (except the Quekers) been horribly violent and evil, and have not yet come to grips with their own evil, making them tainted vessels for learning, and chock full of bullheaded people. Which is why the Churches are dying out all over the place. People outside of the circle. Since people won't do right, or accept that there are standards, and Christians are so contentious, I've given up on them and just turned to cultivating my own garden.
You can ban me if you want, and I still won't delete it. You are paying the annual fee for it and I'm providing this as a service for pay. You run it how you wish. You want to believe the Bible is the Word of God. You want to believe that our total journey consists of a single lifetime of how ever many years, whether 1 or 100. You seemingly don't want to hear that bad people won't be eternally punished. You are not interested in any criticisms that might show life works differently, arguably both better and worse from that. Better as it offers more hope. Worse because we don't get an quick retirements into paradise. That's fine, but it doesn't mean Christianity should get a free pass from scrutiny. If Christianity is true, then it will stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
Right! "Ah, the 50's..." You mean, when blacks were segregated and women did not truly have equal rights? And the Communists were taking over China and Cuba and Vietnam and Korea? Pass. I prefer today to then. "But, they didn't have gay marriage back then!" True, but people also didn't fornicate with most of their girlfriends back then either, and sin or not, I enjoyed fornicating with my girlfiends over the years, and would rather not live in a time where I couldn't, and where it was not so easy to avoid pregnancy (and irritate the Pope in the process). The good old days weren't all that good. Today seems better than then, at least here, at least to me. Sure, there are problems. But Trump is gonna save us from all of them, and it's gonna be GREAT! (He told me so, how can I disagree?)
I was disappointed that no one read my mega-post on the Jefferson bible (and my own sleuthing about the possible use of a Baskerville KJV). Jefferson was an interesting Founder, a real Enlightenment kind of guy. Like you, Jefferson focused on the words and moral teachings of Jesus. Like you, he disliked Paul, rather intensely. Like you, he was a church of one and considered himself alone in his beliefs despite being very much a Unitarian most of his adult life. I thought the parallels were interesting. But you like the accounts of miracles in the Gospels and like relics like the Shroud even more. And Jefferson rejected most of them. Anyway, it is an interesting exercise, to see what Jefferson created with a razor and a glue pot over the course of a few nights cutting and pasting bits of a couple KJV bibles and a copy of a Greek and French and Latin bible. You have to wonder what other people might create if they chose to engage in a similar exercise. It does highlight what a person actually believes the real message of the bible is, at least to them. Maybe you should consider publishing the Vicomte bible. I'm sure it would be a big hit down at the rectory. : )
Yep, and it's a pointless and stupid fight. It was of SUCH important to Jesus that he spent zero percent of his time on it. No reason to believe he cared, or cares. But the killing and the ostracism of Christians from each other over it - Jesus forbade that. So Jesus DOES care a lot more about the behavior of divided Christians over the matter than the matter itself, obviously. Equally obviously, Christians are headstrong and know better than Jesus. Which is why their churches are all dying. Can a new Church of Jesus be made that puts it all back together again? Not without miracles that overthrow the iron grip of deterministic science on the bulk of minds, no. Existing Christianity will fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die with their backs turned to each other, and without miracles there's no reason to think that God exists, or that even if God exists, he cares what people think. The existing miracles don't do it. It would take a new prophetic figure doing miracles - preferably great healing miracles (I believe that limb regeneration on live TV would be required to shut up the most stubborn opponents) - to be able to really make the change (if nothing else, every amputee and born blind or deaf or paralytic healed would be a true believer). It would be more potent if the prophetic figure could both heal the paralytic and blind and CAUSE paralysis and blindness, and raise the dead and strike dead as well, for that would set up an actual risk profile, a probably confrontation with a government, and the sudden dissolution (by mass striking dead) of some major state, which would certainly create a following.
True, but people also didn't fornicate with most of their girlfriends back then either, and sin or not, I enjoyed fornicating with my girlfiends over the years, and would rather not live in a time where I couldn't, and where it was not so easy to avoid pregnancy (and irritate the Pope in the process). Don't be naive. There weren't very many virgins getting married in the Fifties either. You have to go back to the Victorian era for that kind of thing. And that was a brief period, preceded and followed by eras of lax morals. The Great Depression finished off much of what remained of Victorian morality and WW II mostly extinguished it, outside some very rural areas. Returning to the Jefferson bible's beginning, we can see that Joseph had a knocked up fiance when he and she traveled to comply with the census and no one said anything about that to them or seemed to criticize them for Mary being pregnant out of wedlock. I liked that Jefferson chose to start his bible with "there was a guy named Joseph and he had a knocked-up fiance named Mary." BTW, did you know that Tolstoy also produced his own version of the bible? Archive.org: The Gospel In Brief, Leo Tolstoy, 1896 You could instead argue that the world is a more moral and just place than it has ever been. Slavery is outlawed in every country. Only a handful of backward Third World nations still tolerate it unofficially. War is on a general decline in recent decades. And we've had no world wars or nuclear wars. Poverty is on the decline, healthcare on the rise, economies improving around the world, especially in Third World countries in Asia and South America. Even Africa is finally starting to improve somewhat though some countries are still very backward. Famine and plague are very much decreased. Smallpox is gone and in the next few years, we are likely to discontinue polio vaccinations. These are all mankind's ancient enemies. And they are receding. I just gave some examples offhand but I think you know what I'm talking about, being LF's biggest optimist. There is at least as much reason to insist that life is getting better in every way than there is to embrace the gloom and insist that mankind is more sinful and evil with each passing day.
Hey, I AM reading it, in pieces, keep going back to it. I'd love to discuss it piece by piece. For example, far from disliking Paul, I love Paul. He's the most human of the writers. I get him. I dislike what Christians do with Paul, making HIM God and dethroning Jesus. That pisses me off because it's so ridiculous. I am natively a pantheist. I accept that there is a THINKING God because he talks to me, and reversed my own paralysis at a moment when death was certain - a true miracle - and raised two very dead animals back to life in my very dead hands, because I asked him. I cannot DENY the existence of an intelligent God, because I know him directly. I ask him for things, and he tells me no, or ignores me. Other times, I get what I want, in time. So, God IS and I know it. How God relates to the religions - well, my inclination there is to dismiss the religions as human politics, unless God indicated one. He hasn't told me "That one", but one of the religions DOES have miracles that are real (or seem to be) and that religion just happens to be the one that I was born into - which could be a case of bias, or it could be because if God was going to treat me special with contact, etc., he would of course cause me to be born into the one real religion, so that others would not be led astray if I started talking about my experiences with me and hearers started to believe me. If I published something, it would be called "Just God", and it would be my already existing "Harmony of the Gospels plus", with the mechanically, concordantly translated text, and the Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew right there. For the Old Testament, it would just be the red-letter/purple letter/golden letter words of Elohiym, YHWH, El Elyon etc. And there would be a synthesis of the legal texts, a "Restatement of the Torah" as it were, that would draw together the various legal strings and reduce it to the blackletter law, and the observation that every other thing that God said in the Old Testament, and most of what Jesus said in the new, went right back to those specific black-letter laws of YHWH, It would be a ton of work, though, and people would just shit on me after all of that effort, so why do it? Wouldn't accomplish anything. To actually change people's minds, you need miracles. God knows that, which is why he never taught anybody anything new, and never gave any laws, without a bunch of accompanying miracles seen by multitudes. God knows people, which is why Jesus said that if people come with doctrines, like he was, "You should by no means be believing unless you see signs..." Of course, that doesn't mean what it SEEMS to mean. He's not giving a commandment, he's observing human nature, but it's just like the "poor in spirit" - a class of creature that Jesus never spoke of - what HE said was "Happy in spirit are the poor", but the Greek writer lined up the beatitudes using alliteration, and thus we get "Blessed are the poor in spirit", creating a new creature - the "poor-in-spirit" by literary device, and touching off endless arguments that weary my soul.
It was the World Wars. Draft whole generations of teenage men and send them en masse to go and likely die bloody, with the only leave being in places like Paris or Amsterdam, where poor girls (made poorer by war, and desperately lonely by the departure of the young men) and the desperate soon-to-die guys hooked up for desperate companionship... How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen Paree?
I'll put my hopes in the Vicomte bible. : ) Well, it would likely bring back all the lapsed Christian types or at least put the fear of God back into them for 20 years or so. Which is about all you can hope to accomplish, judging by history. Well, now you're talking! LOL I think you should have someone able to call lightning out of the sky to smite the unbelievers. Fire would work just as well. Or maybe alternate the tools of smiting for variety and to keep your TV ratings up. : )
It would be a ton of work, though, and people would just shit on me after all of that effort, so why do it? Wouldn't accomplish anything. Maybe not. But maybe it would. Maybe it would be worthwhile. The only way to know would be to do it. And most great things that people have done were done without a lot of hope that they could change the world. But some of them succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. Set yourself a timetable to complete it. A week of working spare evening hours. Or a month. Then show it to someone you trust. Hey, the family's away so you don't have many social obligations at present... You might be surprised if you approached it as a "what the bible really says to me as a 21st century educated Catholic". Who knows, you could gain a following even. Maybe you could become a big televangelist. Is it too soon to speak of...dare I say it...Pope Victor III? LOL Who says miracles can no longer happen anyway? I hate to say it but the words "mechanical translation", while more technically possible now than ever, just sounds awful to me. But you know what? Maybe that's why you should do it.
Yep. I really DO think the world is a LOT better than it was. I just hesitate to say it here, because of the Dolorous Chorus of dying Christianity that's going to complain about things that don't bother me (like gays). Yeah, abortion does bother me, but not like you think. The babies don't feel much pain, except for late, and then not for long, then they're with God in Paradise (not the sky - but that discussion is not for now). I don't like the killing of little helpless things (and would be a vegan but for the fact that it doesn't actually save animal lives at all - probably kills more, net net, and it's really unhealthy). But when speaking to Christians, I don't let them hold onto their emotional folderol. No no, if you're going to bring all of those poor babies into the world, you've GOT to then go with the economics of God, fully spelled out by YHWH, which includes debt erasure every few years, the absolute right to permanent housing (at no cost), the right to be fed by the community when necessary, and lots of wealth redistribution and communal economic responsibility - the very thing that Christians decry as contrary to God's Own Capitalism. Abortion on demand, young, is where the society has compromised. I wouldn't compromise and go with God, which would mean a whole lot of communalism and involuntary wealth redistribution, with which people of God comply with a willing smile. I know this is the Achilles' Heel of the Christian West (always has been), and I stick my dirk into that heel every time. Christians never wake up and think, they just emote, bark and howl, and I just roll my eyes and recognize that their attitudes are why their church membership rolls are all dropping like flies. So yes, life IS getting better. Because of science, and because some of Jesus' morality HAS permeated the culture, somewhat, and influenced people over time. I want to replant the Garden, of course, but we're not getting there with the current blighted crop of religions.
Abortion rates are really declining in recent years, largely due to young girls not getting pregnant. Or at least not staying pregnant, by using the abortifacient drugs the day after sex or before implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Whatever the cause, surgical abortion is declining sharply among females in their teens and twenties which is when most abortions happen. Another area where things are improving. At least they are doing far less harm to recognizable human beings. Also less late-term abortion generally but still plenty of those due to better detection of birth defects and a willingness to abort Downs babies and babies with problems like spina bifida and other very serious conditions.
Just the healing power, including the power to raise the dead (even the long-dead - bring their spirits back from Paradise (or Gehenna, or wherever- the-hell else...Valhalla!) and put them in regenerated bodies, and of course the inverse of these things - if you can heal a heart attack and a stroke, you can break blood vessels too. Note that concomitant with these abilities is the ability to live without food, water or air, or even a corporeal body, since the starving would be healed...without replenishing their food - simply converting air and space and energy into healthy tissue. This is quite important, because obviously our prophet would be an INSTANT threat to the world order, the economic order - everything - and it would be easiest for the authorities to remove that threat by killing it. But we can't have another Jesus situation. There was one Jesus. If God is going to put this prophet here to remake the world through persuasion to follow the law of God, this prophet is going to have to resilient - can't poison him, can't starve him, can't kill him - and he needs to be able to raise back up all of the "enemies of the state" that the state kills...and the ability to strike dead the TOP of the chain of command, such that the TOPS of the chain of command everywhere forbid their juniors from attempting anything, since in a war with HIM, it's the generals and kings who all die first, and the draftee foot soldiers get resurrected. The healing becomes the vehicle for "voluntary" wealth redistribution - on a Toranic model. You have hardened arteries and cancer, poor old street woman? Well, now you have a young clean body again. Come along and help me. You have terminal cancer, Mr. Rockefeller? You can have the same vigor and youth as this poor woman, but it will require the redistribution of all of your wealth above the amount we calculate necessary to maintain your family life in dignity, and to maintain the employment of your businesses. You don't need to accumulate more, however, and your purpose now, in operating your businesses, will be to no longer accumulate profits in your own accounts (for you will never rule the world through wealth, so stop trying), but to actually get everybody into a by-right living space (everybody as in, everybody in the world, not just everybody in Detroit), with food, etc. Oh, and you're all going to garden some. Yes, you're all going to grow food. The price now is hundreds of thousands to insurance companies and doctors for hit-or miss care. The price now is healing is free, but you have to behave in the ways that God intended - and that means tending your own garden - which makes the world green and lovely and fed and healthy. No, you don't HAVE to do it. You can choose to simply die of cancer if you want. No, you don't HAVE to get your kid killed in an accident back, but if you do, this is coming from God, and the price is that you're going to admit God exists, admit these are God's laws, and pay with change of behavior. If you're good, you'll keep living happy. If you're not, well, that cancer can come back you know (not that the prophet is going to give it to you). Etc. It's a nice story. But it's not going to happen so why waste the ink. Having "What God Said" right there on the table, with the full synthesis from the actual words, but rejecting ALL outside authority diverting the words...people will just fight like hell over this stuff - look how many millions have already been killed in the name of the "Prince of Peace". Nobody would get killed over my book - the fangs have already been pulled out of Christianity. The only people who fight now are the margin in the dwindling Churches.
Ah, so your prophet could quietly say, "Death to thee" and smite them. Then he could bring them back to life. If they still don't obey, he could kill them and resurrect them over and over again until they finally obey! Kind of like an instant reincarnation cycle. No waiting to live/die/reincarnate. Instant action! Film at 11! Neil should like that. Well, at least a little more than getting bible-bashed here at LF which isn't all that much fun as hobbies go. : ) You go on about wealth redistribution a lot. Why don't you ever consider the abolition of money itself? Try to get outside that box we all have lived in our entire lives. Jesus certainly didn't care much for money. And he did scourge the moneychangers rather memorably. Maybe that should be more your goal. Don't try to get a bigger welfare state by redistribution of money by denomination: just abolish the entire notion of wealth as measured by money. Death to Adam Smith! Pope Victor III could order his books burned, his body disinterred and burned at the stake. Tune in next week! Again, the medical establishment has its own price. Abolish the price entirely. The obscene profits are driven by greed as are many of the bad drugs. The profit incentive is the flaw, not the products themselves. C'mon, just try to think far more radically about the abolition of wealth. After all, the bible tells us that a rich man is less likely to get to heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Of course, you are aware of all the disputes over the proper translation of this particular phrase. Camel? Elephant? Rope/Cable? Passing through the eye of a needle or through a small gate used at night to enter Jerusalem, etc.
Family's away, but the old homeless guy I have taken in to use the space left open in their absence is very talkative, and has a lot of pain in his heart that he needs to express to somebody, so I find myself going to bed fairly late after listening. Also, I think it's rude to just leave somebody upstairs alone and go sit at the computer. Mechanical translation is NECESSARY to remove translator's bias. Wherever an Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Greek word appears, that word must be carefully defined and world-listed, and then THAT ENGLISH WORD be used used EVERY SINGLE TIME that the foreign word appears. Of course you conjugate the nouns and decline the verbs. but you must be absolutely consistent - MECHANICALLY consistent, like a computer, so that all of those places where the theological bias of the translator creeps in. For example, either the word "skies" or the word "heavens" will appear in the translation, but not both words, and the word "breath", or "wind" or "spirit", but the translator does not get to pick when a word "means" "skies", or "means" "Heaven", or "means" breath, or "means" wind or spirit. The simplicity of the vocabulary used will remove the layer of distinction that isn't in the original text. Because the word lists are clear, somebody can always simply mass replace one word with another, but the point is that the words are the words, and the translator doesn't get any choices - to make something theological. "In origin was the word and the word was with the divine and divine was the word." The root of "theos" is "heaven" or "bright sky", across many languages - thus, the association of "the divine" with the sky itself (which in the greek is "ouranos" - uranus - which of course was also the name of the original sky god who, with gaae (the earth mother) fathered the original gods. The Hebrew words for God move around "el" (or "al", depending on pronunciation), which is "mighty one" and is drawn (and called) as a bull's head (the letter "Aleph"). Christians place too much weight on that word "God", because it's not a defined term in either testament, but comes from words in the underlying language that refer to something. In Hebrew, the word simply means "power", in Greek root, it derives from "bright sky", and means "divine". Now, a non-mechanical reader with a theological agenda will positively scream that I am "twisting the Scripture", but actually, I am saying what the word really IS, what the words really ARE - if "the heaven" inspired them (the mandate of the sky, so to speak) - perhaps the heaven was revealing its nature in that choice of word. But that's not what theological Jews or Christians want - no, they're quite sure of what "God" is, even though nobody told them but their tradition. I'm not revising anything. I'm writing the words in their actual meaning. That those words really make firm theological beliefs fuzzy is a weakness of the theological beliefs - the words just are what they are. "But, but, you're DELIBERATELY making fuzzy what is clear!" No, I'm deliberately using the clear words to demonstrate that the theology you and your people have believed for thousands of years is ITSELF fuzzy and inexact, and all of the logical exactitude you've built up over the years is built on a fuzzy foundation of states. "God" is the bright sky - the mandate of heaven, as the Chinese would put it. "God" is the POWER that just exists, it just is. And it's plural in Hebrew. In the beginning "THE POWERS THAT BE" made the land and the sky. The Christians go ballistic. But they can't kill any longer, because back in the day, they DID kill, and fatally wounded their own religion such that people pulled its fangs out and deprived it of POWER, so now it can just bark while the caravan passes. People don't like mechanical things, and they don't like roots, because it puts a torpedo under the keel of firm beliefs and makes you realize that the ancients were dealing with concepts, not simple-minded things. And yet, the bright sky TALKS. It did to ME. Nobody cares about THAT, but THAT is what makes what I have to say more interesting, to the discerning person. Why the hell do I care what Pope Sixtus the Seventh said? Did God talk to him? He never said so. Why, then, does HE matter, what does HE know? On the other hand, Jesus spoke to God, and as God, and Amos quoted God whom others could not see (and they hated both of them for it too). I'm interested in what God had to say, not what men had to say. And anyway, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the god and the word was divine" is not actually spoken by Jesus or God anyway, that's John. So that whole statement, in both testaments, would not be in my set of scriptures to examine in the first place. Those are theological conclusions of the writer. I'm interested in what GOD said. I'll decide what that means. Moses and John, respectively, are credited with writing some memorable prefaces, but they are, after all, prefaces by Moses and John, or somebody. They don't say "God said" - what God, or Jesus, SAID is always indicted by "God said..." or "Jesus said..." And that's what I'M interested in. But I've already read that stuff and thought about it. Others, when I mention it, spend so much time objecting to my method that they don't ever get to the words, so why should I devote my own precious time to carefully (and it all has to be SO CAREFUL) put down words they're going to disregard anyway? Why FIGHT with the Whigs in 1870, or the American Communist Party today? They're moribund.
Because most of the Torah, and most what Jesus said, focuses squarely on the issue of human poverty and its relief. The Torah gives a comprehensive system to eliminate poverty: birthright to inalienable land, returned in the Jubilee NO MATTER WHAT, cancellation of debt in the seventh year, no interest on loans to believers, no slavery for believers at all. Every Christian who bays away about some issue like the gays, mentioned in about two sentences of the Torah, or about the SAbbath and sabbath keeping - a rest from work, which INCLUDED a sabbath from planting crops in the seventh year - but who won't engage in the economic logic of God - given how MUCH of the Torah God spent on the matter, and how forceful the prophets (e.g.: Amos) were on the matter, and how Jesus spent his time and so much of his ministry on issues of the poor - Basically, Christians want to talk about the mind. God talked about economics, since God is interested in making sure that his followers were stewards who alleviated human suffering in a fallen world. American Christians have incorporated modern Western economic ideas, including things like slavery, debt interest, etc., into their Christianity. And when I just start quoting God they call me an enemy of God because they're enemies of God and don't like to hear it. God's law of money is like garlic and crosses to vampires. I bring it up because American "Christians" are reliably vampiric, and I like to make vampires snarl and cringe at God. It satisfies my desire to make them rage against the light, since I know that none of them is ever going to reform an inch. I've GIVEN UP on the Christian religions, because they are so awful. I stick with God and his Jesus, because they're real. My temporary roommate is deeply Catholic. I want to talk about poverty relief with him. He wants to worry about certain ritualistic things. That I say are unimportant. And so we go. I'm "marginal", and I'm "arrogant" according to him. I point out that I never burnt people alive for disagreeing with me, but that our church does that. Also, I never raped any little boys (or girls), but that the Church has paid out over $4 billion in sex abuse settlements in just the US alone. So, is that money going into the coffers to keep up the pretty buildings, pay the clergy, and feed and house and clothe the poor? The first two, then it goes to pay the settlements from all of the boys the priests have raped, all of the coverup. And the poor? Well, if you're just a Catholic guy out of a job or who has lost your home, will the Church help YOU? No. Christians like to turn the criticism back on the critic. I simply won't have it.
Can a new Church of Jesus be made that puts it all back together again? Not without miracles that overthrow the iron grip of deterministic science on the bulk of minds, no. Existing Christianity will fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die with their backs turned to each other... Actual Christians certainly do readily acknowledge NOT knowing anything more or "better" than Jesus. And ARE "Christian" Churches actually "dying"? Is that your observation or experience? Might be time to change gears, Vic. (Or are these last days simply a case of the wheat being divided from the tares?) I don't know if it is a case of today's Christians "fighting fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die"; I'm witnessing a lot of passion, fellowship, growth, and commitment by Believers. We're now at the point where we're all personally accountable. And if anyone truly hungers for the Truth and the Word instead of the politics, they'll focus on THAT. ...Without miracles there's no reason to think that God exists, or that even if God exists, he cares what people think. "Miracles" happen every day in the respective hearts of the broken, the fallen and the disbelieving when they pray to Jesus for His Presence and Belief & Faith in Him. The account of Saul/Paul also testifies to God's existence, hands-on involvement and of personal miracles. And anyway, God's/Jesus' "miracles" are already documented in Scripture (unless you now disbelieve Scripture.) The existing miracles don't do it. It would take a new prophetic figure doing miracles - preferably great healing miracles. If that's all it takes, the anti-Christ or counterfeit Savior might fit that bill. "Narrow is the way." If people demand NT-type "miracles" in order to believe these days, than they are sadly watching too many "Super-Hero" flick and are simply making lazy choices on their respective eternal fate and Salvation.
That's great news!
God talked about economics, since God is interested in making sure that his followers were stewards who alleviated human suffering in a fallen world. God discussed plenty -- including, yes, stewardship of one's brother (materially/spiritually) , the animal kingdom, and planet. But also reaping what one sows -- as well as helping those to help themselves (i.e. teaching a man to fish)... The Lord was also interested in making sure there was such a virtue as personal responsibility and accountability. He also advocated for charity (for widows, family, and the sick & maimed.) What God was NOT interested in and certainly did NOT advocate for was/is... Socialism OR Communism. P.S. -- The alleviation of suffering is inevitable and largely not preventable as a result of (as you mentioned) our "Fallen World."
I'm not seeing this, Liberator. But I'm not seeing the church "dying", as Vic would describe it. What I see is this: In the case of the Laodicean Church, it's members were actually delusional. Imagine a starving, naked, blind man staggering toward you on the street. Then he starts telling you he's a wealthy man! You offer to assist him and he informs you he needs nothing. What else could you think...the guy is delusional. The Church is in this condition today...(I wish I were wrong, but I don't think I am)
ACTUAL miracles of healing, the REAL thing. They do not happen, but by the po power of God. Can Satan heal the blind? The cripple? The paralytic? Regnerate limbs? Raise the dea th the dea the dead? No. Jesus asked the same question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" Some Churches may be growing at the margins, while Christianity as a whole s s shrinks. BUT does that even matter? A few more people here or there believe in s s something. Is the poverty being attacked and reduced? Is the distress w w weakening?
If Satan COULD do those things, he would already rule the world, if he even wanted to. Regenerate a cripple's limb, give a paralytic back his legs, remove a stricken man's cancer, sweep out Alzheimer's, cleanse a child of Muscular Dystrophy, walk into a school of the blind, raise your hands, and give sight to 1000 people in an instant - those people will follow you to the ends of the earth. They will believe in your God if you asked them to, because YOUR God delivers the goods that other gods cannot (or will not). Heal the multitudes and declare YOURSELF God, and people will worship you, especially when it becomes clear that YOUR worshippers are all healthy and well and never die, whil while everybody else's do die. If Satan could heal, he already would be worshipped as God, because he would ha have healed a sufficient number of people that the world would pursue him cr crying "Lord! Lord!" That's precisely what the ancient Jews though Jesus was: Sa Satan co Sa Satan coming to steal the children of Israel by performing healing miracles. Jesus said, implicitly that Satan cannot do such things, because if the answer to Jesus' question is "Sure, Satan can cast out Satan - as a ruse", then Jesus' an answ an answer to the Jews was not an answer, and maybe he WAS doing what he did th through the power of Satan. But the world is not black and evil enough for that to be true. No, Satan cannot perform great healing miracles. If he could, we'd already be worshipping him as God.
You are correct. Thanks you're certainly an honorable man. Sorry to give you a hard time from time to time lately. I just disagree.
I know it doesn't bother you that much when you said if a christian wins the nomination you would vote for mass baby killer Hillary. You also said in the past that the way to have a better world would be for you to murder all right wingers. By their fruit ye shall know them.
You also said in the past that the way to have a better world would be for you to murder all right wingers. By their fruit ye shall know them. And I know that your own profanity-laced tirades against those whom you perceive as political opponents does not trouble you in the slightest. You barely remember them, and where you do, you consider them to have been justified because of the strength of your political beliefs. Example: you point at Hillary Clinton, as though she is the only politician who supports abortion rights. Truth is, the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court since 1969, and have controlled the White House and the Senate - necessary to appoint federal judges - for 12 years during the total 22 years of terms of the last 4 Republican Presidents - more than half of that time. Republican Presidents have appointed 11 out of 15 total Supreme Court appointments in the last 40 years since Roe. The Democrats have only appointed four. And yet, despite having completely replaced the Supreme Court and then some, since then, and dominating the federal judiciary, and controlling all of government for 4 years, the Republicans were "unable" to reverse Roe. You fall for rope-a-dope, which is your privilege, of course, but then you rage with distemper at people like me, who don't, And you really believe yourself to be virtuous. You do not come across to me as virtuous, or Christian, just angry and spiteful, equating the Republican Party with Christ, and the Democrat Party with anti-Christ. You really believe it, and you rail at even non-Democrats, like me, who are neutral about the parties, as though we were in league with the Devil. You believe this to be pious and Christian and good. To me, this is the purple, angry, unreasoning, blind and willfully ignorant face of Christianity. You've been duped by the people who say their your allies, and you rail against those point it out. I recall saying something about Hillary Clinton - something hyperbolic (I loathe her) - about some particularly loathsome Republican at one point, that if that loathsome stain were the nominee, I'd vote for Hillary or just not vote. Would I have really? I don't know: the situation to against which I was railing never occurred, so it's moot. That was many years ago, not in the Trump era. You remember it, and you beat it like a drum. Of course, you supported Ronald Reagan (as did () but you pretend that a man who signed the abortion act in California and who appointed two pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court was "pro-life" - you don't even see that he was not. And you don't care. And then H.W. Bush, whose appointed a pro-Roe justice to the court and tried to appoint a second one (but he was blocked). And then W, who appointed the current Chief Justice (who went soft on Obamacare with its abortion provisions), and who tried to appoint the pro-abortion Harriet Miers to the court. Trump is the first one to have held to a litmus test on abortion, and guess what - these Republicans whom you extol, whom you permit yourself to vomit bile on everybody who criticises them - these Republicans HATE Trump, whereas I have been in his camp all along. So yep, you sure get in high moral dudgeon - the purple-faced angry Christian who never forgets anything and never learns from experience either. And you bring up some past scrape from long ago as though it justifies being a blind and belligerent ass in every age. You do you - nobody is going to stop you. But, you know, there is a REASON that the world gradually drifts in my direction on so many things, while the water drains out of the tub of the things you care about. And the reason is that you don't realise who your friends are, you can't keep allies like the old Bourbon kings, who never forgot anything and never learned anything. You've just gotta take a pop at me every now and again, over Hillary Clinton! I'd like to see the woman indicted. But at the time, whoever she was running against was such a transparently pro-rich, pro-abortion Republican that yeah, it would have been better to vote for Hillary and not let the Republican Party get away with baldfaced lies, than to let them hold power, do what they wanted to do, and continue to dupe the likes of you into digging us deeper and deeper into a situation from which their very dishonesty made it harder for us to dig out. With Trump, we finally have a Republican who means what he says, and who actually DOES it, or tries.
After Vic has disposed of all those mean old white Christian right wingers, he'll be left alone with all his leftist, communist, atheist pals...and they will do what they always do...they will immediately kill him.
I don't fall for shit. I am aware that there are a lot of fake Republicans who support abortion. Thing is all your prescious progressive pieces of shit you support because they steal from the working people and give to deadbeats all support murderinc children. I am aware that you support abortion too. You said you would vote for one of them. The democrats gave us Roe vs wade. The democrats are 98 percent pro murder and you would vote for them if a real christian like Ted Cruz won the nomination because he isn't a thief like you are. Well you vote for people to steal because you don't have faith in God to deliver on his word. You have faith in Vic. You are flawed. I know we are all flawed and you have other good characteristics. But on this issue you are just a weirdo flapping his gums. Go brag some more.
Ted Cruz. What is loathsome about Ted Cruz? Besides the fact you want to murder him. I mean real stuff not your over active imagination.
People can change. Reagan appointed pro life people. I didn't vote for Reagan ever. I wasn't old enough. If you want to bash me on this issue do it for voting for Perot.
It isn't moving in your direction as much as it is moving in my direction. You support Trump and I agree with you. There is stuff you said Trump would never do. Like welfare stuff. Well Trump agrees with my position more that your s on leeches stealing from the system. Welfare. So if Trump is the model he is more like me that you. So by your logic the country is moving more in my direction that yours.
Yep. I take shots at things that bug me. Everyone including people I like on other issues. And I like you Vic I just expect more from someone like you. So I hold you to a higher standard. Yes Vic I do like you despite our disagreements.
Clarence Thomas is the best judge on the Supreme court. Pro life appointed by Bush. Souter was a disappointment. When you appoint someone you can't completely know their heart. Vic some people who call themselves Republicans are real pieces of shit. Like about half of the elected ones.
That isn't true. I praise Republicans like Rand Paul. Like Jim Jordan and the Meadows fellow. Even Mitch is doing good things. Not the Romneys whom I never liked. Not the Mccains. Not the Susan Collins. You know not the more progressive ones.
"In origin was the word and the word was with the divine and divine was the word." The root of "theos" is "heaven" or "bright sky", across many languages - thus, the association of "the divine" with the sky itself (which in the greek is "ouranos" - uranus - which of course was also the name of the original sky god who, with gaae (the earth mother) fathered the original gods. The Hebrew words for God move around "el" (or "al", depending on pronunciation), which is "mighty one" and is drawn (and called) as a bull's head (the letter "Aleph"). Christians place too much weight on that word "God", because it's not a defined term in either testament, but comes from words in the underlying language that refer to something. In Hebrew, the word simply means "power", in Greek root, it derives from "bright sky", and means "divine". Now, a non-mechanical reader with a theological agenda will positively scream that I am "twisting the Scripture", but actually, I am saying what the word really IS, what the words really ARE - if "the heaven" inspired them (the mandate of the sky, so to speak) - perhaps the heaven was revealing its nature in that choice of word. But that's not what theological Jews or Christians want - no, they're quite sure of what "God" is, even though nobody told them but their tradition. I'm not revising anything. I'm writing the words in their actual meaning. That those words really make firm theological beliefs fuzzy is a weakness of the theological beliefs - the words just are what they are. Hmmm...inasmuch as I grasp your point, perhaps we could use a simple passage as an example. As you know, translators have grappled with the proper translation of the names rendered as "Lord" and "God" for centuries. The primary names in Hebrew are: Jehovah (the tetragramatron YHVH, used 6,521 times, usually translated as LORD), Adonai (used 335 times, ), and Elohim (used 2,601 times, usually rendered as gods or god or God) and their singular/plural word forms. This is good short summary: Rabbinic Judaism describes seven names which are so holy that, once written, should not be erased: YHWH and six others which can be categorized as titles are El ("God"), Eloah ("God"), Elohim ("Gods"), Shaddai (“Almighty"), Ehyeh ("I Will Be"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts"). I suggest you review that Wiki page for these 7 unerasable names of God as well as the other names used for God in Hebrew scripture, the leading one of this secondary rank of names for God being Adon/Adonai (as I understand it). But enough all the different names for God in the OT and about translation principles like formal equivalence (the name for the translation method you would like to use with word-for-word translation). Let's proceed to a well-known concrete example, just one single verse we can translate. Let's use Deuteronomy 10:17. It's very familiar and contains a number of these names used in ancient Israel which we translate as LORD, or Lord, or God, or The Almighty, etc. Since these names are all found in a single verse, we don't have to worry that the meanings or usage drifted over the centuries. If they're all in one verse, they had to make sense to any literate Jews back when they were written, published on scrolls, and recited in synagogue. Here is a list of various translations of the verse that I got from e-Sword, including a few Catholic versions like Vulgate and Jubilee bible along with the Bishop's, Geneva, KJV-1611, KJV (1769), KJV with Strong's numbers, and a few modern literal translations like LITV and MKJV. Notice that if you hover your mouse over the Strong's numbers, a tooltip will appear to tell you which Hebrew word is being used when the word "God" or "LORD" or "Lord" (YHVH, Elohim, EL). You can verify the Strong's numbers at any bible website; I included them here for convenience. If you really like translations that strive for accuracy and consistency in names and terms across the entire bible, LITV and Jubilee have that as their goal. They try to make the words self-defining by context. The results are mixed IMO. I included the CEV just for humor because it's so stupid, as are all the paraphrase bibles.
Given that He Exists (or He Lives), he is powers of powers, leader of leaders, the power, the great, the courageous and the feared one, he will not lift up face and he will not take bribe. That's how I would view that, from the Hebrew. YHWH = He Exists or He Lives or He Is - to exist, to be, and to live are one single verb in Hebrew - take your pick. Elohiym = Powers El = Power Adonai = "lord", which is just the archaic form of "leader". The name of God missing in this is El Elyon - the Power of Powers - the Most High of Powers, the Highest Power. El Elyon - the Most High - is Jesus' God and Father.
So, you see, the critters in the religious zoo, to me, are El Elyon and YHSWH - The Highest God, who is the father and god of Yahshua - Jesus - his only begotten son. The first "word" of Genesis, before creation (so before time) is a pictographic sentence showing the begetting of the son from the father: b'reshiyt = B R A Sh Y T House Head El divide-into point-at Cross. God is El Elyon - he is our most high God, and he was (and is) Jesus' God also. Jesus prayed to God - his Father - and that God was (and is) El Elyon. The only son God ever fathered biologically through a woman's uterus was Jesus (and his very name puts the "bite in two" letter "Shin" into the middle of YHWH). God fathered EVERY human, by breathing out our spirit (spirit is breath, divine spirit is the breath of God - the "Holy Spirit" is that which is breathed out by the divine - which is El Elyon, and also the Son), but God only IMPREGNATED one woman to create one son BIOLOGICALLY. That is why Jesus and we have the same father, but Jesus' relationship to that father is "only-begotten" - begotten means "fathered" - El Elyon breathed his spirit into all of us, giving us life. But El Elyon biologically fathered Jesus through a woman's egg - the only time he ever did that - which is why Jesus is our brother of the same Father, but he's the only BEGOTTEN son. Is Jesus divine? Of course. Are WE divine? In a sense - we live because of the breath of God that animates us, the individual spirit that God breathed out that makes us what we are. Of course, WE breathe out spirit also, and our spirits can indeed affect others, inspiring them, blighting them, etc. We can't CREATE material and biological things by our spirit, but we certainly subcreate by our words and expressions. Indeed, we make in the image by which we are made. But we can indeed be "fathered", metaphorically speaking, by evil spirits too. "Satan" - the adversarial principle, that which opposed to God, it can be breathed into us and animate us (not originally giving us life, only God originally animates us), but the "spirit of Satan" can come to be what we live and breathe pretty quickly (not in the womb, and not when we are very little - that is why Jesus said to suffer the little ones to come to him and don't block them, for unless one became as a little child (again), without the spirit of satan in him, one could not enter the kingdom of God. This is why Jesus said to Nicodemas the spirit (wind) blows where it may, and one doesn't know whence it comes or whither it goes, but that unless you are fathered (not born - begotten) again (by the Father, with a new spirit - a new breath) with water and the word, you can't come to God. That's why "your father is Satan" - because the spirit of the adversary fills the blood of your veins and your minds, once you are polluted with it, and only the spirit/breath...oxygen!...of God can overbear that. The breath/spirit is the crossover of everything - it is both intangible and physical, it animates life. The physical component of spirit - air - is WHY the blood is the life - because the blood literally carries the wind (spirit/oxygen) to the body to each cell to let it live. God is not SIMPLY an idea, but also manifests physically. This is why the eucharist is a mystery - this IS my body, this IS my blood - breath IS God's spirit, not simply metaphorically, but not JUST physically. The philosophical desire to render God utterly non-physical and outside of the physical is the downfall of many millions who cannot accept that God is both ethereal AND physical. It's what, for example, makes Jesus' own divinity so hard to accept (for some), and why the endless wrangling over the "nature" of the eucharist. Spirit/breath is the transition, the crossover, and when one understands that the physical winds of earth are literally the willed breaths of God, that that is exactly how the Hebrews understood it, one understands how much CLOSER God was to them in their minds, and how much closer he actually IS. Psalm 104 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath [spirit], they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit [breath] they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. It's not really hard to understand. For some reason it's hard for some to accept.
Yes you can. Or at least Democrats can. After all, they've appointed four in the past 40 years, and a lot more to the appellate benches and district courts, and they NEVER break ranks on abortion - NOT EVER. Democrats apply a litmus test, and they drive the point home in direct questioning, demanding ideological purity and absolute orthodoxy on the matter in their questioning BEFORE they will offer up the nomination. Republicans don't do that, pretending it's "inappropriate". it's NOT inappropriate AT ALL. Republicans DO THAT because the rich who control the GOP - including folks like the Romneys and the Bushes, but also Wall Street backers, etc., are pro-choice, but the party runs as pro-life. On things that matter to the rich - regulatory matters, contract rights - the Republican judges NEVER break ranks, because there IS a litmus test applied to Republican judges. Abortion is simply not one of the tests, because the Republican Party owners and top leaders and donors are PRO-CHOICE. They need the pro-life votes, but they have NO INTENTION OF EVER allowing a pro-life majority to get on that court, which is why Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy - both pro-choice, and why Bush 41 appointed Souter (and tried to appoint Ginsburg): both pro-choice, and why W appointed the Chief Justice (who is treacherous) and tried to appoint Harriet Miers. Democrat Presidents appoint justices and judges they know damned well are pro-Roe absolutists, and Democrats re NEVER disappointed by their judges. You never see the Democrats SURPRISED by a Kelo, or by a ruling on anything important to Democrats, because Democrat Presidents and their judicial appointment officials exhaustively examine and test the ideological purity of their judges. Republicans do too, and overturning Roe is NOT part of the Republican litmus test. It CoULD be. I think with Trump it actually IS, which is yet one more reason why the owners of the GOP - the country club set - the Rockefellers and Bushes and Romneys, etc., really detest Trump. This is why I get on Republicans so hard: the party is not HONEST in what it campaigns on. If it were, they could have VERY EASILY tested potential judicial nominees as harshly on matters of abortion as they do on matters of private contract and regulatory powers, and Republican judges could be just as reliable on matters of Roe as Democrat judges are. But Republicans don't, because the leaders of the Republican party are pro-choice, and don't WANT an ACTUAL pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. They want to get the votes from the Christians by always dangling the carrot, but they have no intention of EVER putting the crucial 5th vote up there, and they want guys up there like John Roberts who, in a pinch, will change sides to preserve the policy they want to keep. Obamacare is an example of a policy that the Republican Party wanted to campaign against to get votes, but did not really want to kill. All of that mandatory purchasing channeled billions of private money into financial institutions under their control. And so, when it came before the Supreme Court, John Roberts changed sides. And when it came before the Congress, dying Senator McCain took the bullet and prevented it from being struck down. The Republican pattern is so utterly consistent that, as the years go on, people should be able to see it, especially when contrasted to the Democrats, who ALWAYS stick to their guns and who NEVER betray their principles on core matters.
That's true. But the most important thing, to me, about Trump has always been peace and friendship with Russia, tariffs on China, and controlling the Mexican Border. China has to be stopped from walking into the position of world hegemon through economic denomination, because the whole world is greedy and afraid to face them alone. The US had to lead that charge, it had to be with tariffs, and Trump had done that. Trump made Mexico put the detention camps there and pay for them, lest they lost NAFTA. And the Wall is going up. Most importantly, Trump is working with Russia, as we see in Syria, and will see in the course of time with Iran. Good relations with Russia and economic measures that stop the rise of China mean that we don't need the huge military we have, over time we can significantly reduce it, which means a balanced budget then a budget surplus, which means economic stability and improvement in the USA in the long run. So, these foreign affairs issues are ultimate the most important things for the long term future of the country. And Trump has all of these issues right. Domestically, he has applied a litmus test on abortion (or appears to have). I'm pleased as punch with Trump for all of those reasons.
I voted for Reagan, always denouncing his voodoo economics and free trade as debt-producing, industry-destroying stupidity. I now know it was not stupidly. Reagan, like all Republicans, actively dismantled the American broad middle class economy in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of the top Republican business class. At the time, I thought he was a boob. Now I realize that he was an asshole on those matters, as are all Republicans except Trump. That's why Trump has launched a trade war with China, and punishes companies who try to move manufacturing outside of America. Despite Reaganomics, I voted for Reagan because foreign policy is more important than the domestic economy. Reagan was fighting the Cold War, and the Democrats were spineless wimps, cringing in the face of Vietnam a few years earlier, cringing in the face of Cuban aggression, Russians in Afghanistan, Iranian students. Reagan kicked their asses and built a strong military to hem in and ultimately destroy the Soviet Union, and when he had them on the ropes, he made peace with them too. He was a great grand strategist, and that earned my vote. Bush lost my vote because he lied about taxes - even though I thought the tax hikes were actually necessary to prevent the debt from burgeoning. It isn't enough that you do what is necessary. If you lie to my face to get power, you're shit on my boots and I'm going to scrape you off. Bush lied to our faces, and thought that because he was President, he had the discretion to do whatever he wanted. Well, we could not stop him, but we DID throw him out of office on his ass - a one termer - the hallmark of a failed Presdidency. I PROUDLY voted for Perot, because Bush was a skunk who raised taxes, but also because Perot was DEAD RIGHT about "free" trade and immigration. We finally got Perot with Trump. With 20-20 hindsight, I recognize that voting for Perot meant Clinton won, and I am fine with that. Clinton was a crappy human, but he wasn't a terrible President - we did balance the budget. I voted for Dole. I voted for McCain against W in the primaries, but held my nose and voted for W in the first election, happily in the second because I support the War on Terror and am please to see how we've largely won it. Trump has even managed to enlist Russian support in keeping Syria peaceful and ending its terrorist tendences. Obama wasn't a disaster in my eyes, those I voted against him both times. The thing I appreciate about Democrats is that their taxation and economics are much better for the common man than Republican plutocracy. But their foreign policy and immigration policy are shite, so I vote for Republicans. But when you get a Republican like Romney, who incorporates everything that is terrible about Republican economics, with everything that is terrible about Democrat foreign policy AND who is obviously pro-choice but says he's not - another H.W. Bush. He can stuff it. Give us four more years of Trump, and let Trump start working on health care: we'll be in good shape.
He doesn't bother me the way he used to. I don't remember what riled me up about him then. Perhaps it was the way he was going after Trump?
I agree with you.
Actually, I'll be left with the Independent Centrists, like me. There are more of us than there are Republicans OR Democrats. Catholics will be more heavily represented - though all of Christianity is in trouble. I'm not "disposing" of anybody. The Christian Churches aren't dying because of ME. They're dying because the new generation doesn't believe in God, and the older generations don't trust them. Of note, the Catholic Church has broken itself with the mass rape of little boys and cover up, and the refusal to get rid of a rule that doesn't work anymore. I wanted Border control, and if Trump holds out, we'll finally get it. But the damage done before it, and the birth rates, mean that Hispanic Catholics will grow in numbers. So no, the atheists will not be storming the ramparts. In truth, people are not all that atheist. They are discouraged and disgusted with their traditional organized Churches for very good reasons. Doesn't mean they're giving up on God. I don't consider people who support Social Security, public schooling and Medicare to be leftists. I consider people who think they are to be right- wing nutjobs...usually who are THEMSELVES dependent on these programs they hate. They can't be silenced, so you just have to turn out to vote down their stubborn, stupid ideas as always. This is the same wing of American politics they tried to keep America out of World War II. Dumb.
No, I consider abortion to be murder. But I recognize that there are 1.5 million poor babies aborted every year. Outlaw abortion, as I would do, and you must simultaneously be prepared to MASSIVELY expand welfare rolls by about 1.5 million a year, year after year. Because if you don't have abortion, you're going to have all of those poor babies. And we cannot (and will not) let them starve. Because I recognize that expanded social welfare is joined at the hip with the abortion issue, and that the two cannot be separated, I speak of them together. They are cars on the same cable. And I notice that conservative Republicans are never mature enough or rational enough to see the obvious truth of that, and to bite the bullet. They want to outlaw abortion AND cut social welfare, which is wildly unrealistic nonsense that sensible people will never let happen, because it will obviously lead to mass starvation. I already don't see Republicans as really being pro-life, for the reasons I've stated before, but even the pro-life right I don't see as REALISTICALLY being pro-life, because they live in a fantasy world in which outlawing abortion doesn't mean an explosion of the numbers of poor. Of course it does! And the unwillingness to acknowledge that the poor have to be fed, housed, clothed, educated and medically treated is simply unrealism, and un- Christian, as far as I am concerned. I'm a realist.
I'm not sure the Vicomte bible will be a big seller. Kind of lacks literary style, not punchy enough. And no poetic meter or vivid imagery. I'm not trying to be overly critical. It's just a bit flat in reading it. Some capitalization would help. I would probably have used Almighty for EL but that is kinda nitpicking. I'm doubt that's the worst translation around - for that look at the paraphrase bibles - but it isn't memorable or especially accurate, at least in my understanding. A great translation teaches something and says it in a memorable way. I think that is a prime measure of the merits of a translation of scripture. I'm sure you see my point. Returning to where this began, I'm not sure you could use this ensample (example in modern terms) of names of God to translate word-for-word the entire Old Testament. Other passages would get very very ragged, I think. That's the problem with formal equivalence translations. Especially when dealing with a collection of OT books written in multiple languages (Hebrew, Koine Greek) spanning 500 years or more. I'm not complaining, I could do no better. And, of course, we haven't even begun to deal with all the other names for God, gods of foreign nations, etc. If a translation method cannot deal with all the names given for God in a book of various scriptures, that translation method doesn't have a lot of merit IMO. I thought you might enjoy observing the development of English translations over time. Too bad I don't have a ready source for Tyndale's bible, the real granddaddy of English vernaculars. But the Bishop's is close enough. The Geneva uses most of the same renderings which were familiar to English readers from the Bishop's and the Tyndale. And the KJV borrowed many of the same readings, often infusing them with more literary style as well as some poetic meter which aided memorization greatly. There's a reason that no one memorizes and quotes bible verses from the modern bibles. They have no meter unless they're just stealing readings from the older Tyndale-based bibles. So they can fuss all they want over basing modern translations on the supposedly superior Nestle-Aland Greek text (based on Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) instead of the Textus Receptus. But if they just steal the old familiar readings from the KJV, then what good are their supposed superior underlying Greek manuscripts? It's just a scam to sell new copyrighted bibles like NIV. Don't get me started on just how scammy these modern bible companies are and how greedy. It's a truly dismal story. I did like seeing the Orthodox Jewish Bible though. I might have to examine it more fully in other passages. It might be considerably more accurate and give a better sense of the original text to English readers. In translation, some things just can't be properly translated and you have to see a near-representation to read it. And the OJB is a bit punchy in style and might even be suitable to memorize. It has a certain punchiness to it. Believe it or not but punchiness, style and meter are vital attributes in scripture translations. : ) BTW, if you were serious about machine translation, the public-domain software for the Babylon dictionary/translation project has been crafted into a proprietary software called Babylon. About $130, Mac or PC. That is the kind of software that could do the sort of translation you have been talking about. Try it out online: https://translation.babylon-software.com/ Using BibleGateway's Leningrad Codex, I fed Deuteronomy 10:17 to the online version of Babylon and got this: Well, it's about what you expect from such translation software. I think you could impose more rules on the $130 version and really make it work much better but I haven't actually used Babylon in some years so I may be overestimating it a little. But just for using the free generic online version, that rendering isn't that bad. I think the Hebrew they're using as their dictionary is modern Israeli Masoretic, not a dictionary of ancient Hebrew. So you could probably do a lot better with the retail Babylon.
All three of us can be right; It's our respective observation and sense. Then also a matter of our expectation and on what metric we assess the current State of The Church. By "Church," I would say, those who believe simply in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Vic maybe making his assessment based on his local or international RCC. It's reasonable to expect our experience to be different. What I see is this: You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Rev. 3:17 The Church is in this condition today...(I wish I were wrong, but I don't think I am) I can concur with this assessment as an overall State of the Church and Jesus' own observation. But then again, hadn't Jesus warned of a flabby, "lukewarm" faith and Church? We are seeing that -- especially of "mega" and "show-biz" churches. Faith and Salvation is going to come down to a "Mano-a-Mano" personal relationship with the Lord and growing the way we need to. That may mean leaving a particular church behind.
People will see what they want to see and perceive ANY supernatural act as "an act of God." That's the problem. Jesus asked the same question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" Good point. But then again as watchman has noted and inferred -- there are weak churches, with those of weak faith, who think they are amply "armed." They can and will easily be duped by anti-Christ or false messiah who will wield demonic power, capable of great deception. Some Churches may be growing at the margins, while Christianity as a whole shrinks. BUT does that even matter? YES. EVERY saved soul always matters, doesn't it? THAT person may save other souls. And so forth. A few more people here or there believe in something. Is the poverty being attacked and reduced? Is the distress weakening? Whom do you think has been preventing this evil world from caving in upon itself? The moral, the wise, the Godly. Moreover, this fallen mortal realm was never intended to be Heaven, Vic. You're giving way too much weight to "poverty" as the primary dilemma for man -- Salvation is. Scripture itself tells us the poor will ALWAYS be with us. If anybody has actually been helping the poor, it's been Christian charity. That said, it is NOT up to government to confiscate wealth and re-distribute it. That my friend is called, THEFT. "Distress" you say? NEVER in history has there been less "distress" among poor people. Who do you think in helping Africa fro starving to death?
It is accurate. That's the point. It precisely says what the words mean. And it does so consistently. It's flat and uninteresting, but there are no games played with "LORD" versus YHWH - two different words that mean different things. Where the precision matters is only in certain places, such as where God explicitly tells Isaiah that he creates evil. This matches, of course, God's threats in other places, such as throughout his warnings given to Amos, and it matches the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil" - that word - Ra - but it contradicts a psalm that says God does not do evil. Similarly that word "Kill", as in "You shall not kill". The efforts to turn that word into "murder", thereby allowing killing by authorities to do things people like - or killing in war. Translators decide that in most places "ratsaq" is "kill", but in others, it's murder. Nope. One word. God creates evil, that is very clear. God made everything. And God commanded men not to kill, and only generally authorized men to shed men's blood in payment for the shedding of blood. Then, in Israel (only) God imposed the death penalty for various offenses, including Sabbath breaking, but these are not laws for the whole world, just for Israel under the covenant of Sinai. Those precisions are very precious when it comes to combatting theologies that have been devised to change the words to allow men to do what men want to do. Nowhere is it more important than in the notion that men can decide on laws, and then appoint some men to kill other men if they will not obey their laws. All of that killing done to enforce authority violates God's commandment against killing. There is no "law enforcement exception". Paradoxically, then, charity is actually MANDATORY, but compliance with human law is what is voluntary. Men sin if they DON'T give to the poor - and they sin in a way that offends God to the point of sending those who don't into outer darkness - but men sin if they kill in enforcement of law, or in war to seize territory - there is no "government exception" to the law against killing - organized war is mass murder on an organized scale, and those who obey orders and kill are candidates for the lake of fire. These two facts from the text, when translated mechanically and without changing the words around, are directly opposite what Christians teach themselves, and explain most of the evil that befalls the Christian world. We do not understand that we are COMMANDED to give or lend (at zero interest) our excess money to relieve poverty, but that we are FORBIDDEN from enforcing our civil laws with deadly force. That "charity" is compelled but that obedience to human law is voluntary is what God actually says - or the implication of it - and it is the diametric opposite of what humans want. That is why, in Israel, they appointed a King - so they could wage war and the stronger could dominate the weak - and so they would not be dependent on God for defense and harvests. Given just how offensive God's way really is to the Christian mind, of course any exacting translation will evoke rejection. The Quakers - with their nonviolence and their insistence on unanimity before imposing any rule - are actually the only religion on earth that obeys God. And that's why they're also the one that hasn't killed anybody - despite having existed in the 1600s, and the one that led to the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, conscientious objection, the single price theory. BECAUSE they are God's people, in the sense that they're the only ones who ACTUALLY OBEY HIM on the most fundamental rule: NOBODY (including the King and the Army) is permitted by God to kill ANYBODY, except in direct self-defense against immediate violence. I suppose the Jains of India are in the same place. Anyway, the reason I don't bother to try to do anything comprehensive is that it would be oceans of work, to be ignored in general, and the fact the people ignore direct words of God carefully placed before them enrages me and makes me go nonlinear. And what good is that to me? Oceans of time wasted to be ignored or endlessly contradicted by ignoramuses who "like the old wine better"? I have better things to do with my time. Judaeo-Christian religion is dying IN GENERAL. (The REASON it is dying is because it dwells endlessly on what individuals feel and want and social structures and rituals, and does not address the cardinal problems of humanity: poverty and violence - and that is because Christians have chosen to believe in a God who lets them do the POLAR OPPOSITE with regards to violence and charity from what the REAL God said to do. OF COURSE, therefore, Christianity will wilt and die: it's not real. It's not true. Jesus is the Son of God, and he said to do certain things. God has a rule of violence that Christians ignore. God set up the world as an economic entity without scarcity, but the fall imposed scarcity, and that imposes HEAVY burdens on humanity. God set up his laws for Israel explicitly to ELIMINATE human suffering from want - but it comes at the heavy price (to men's egos) of there being NO king, NO legislature, and NO human authority at all in the formation of laws - just the execution of judicial judgment on those who break God's laws...without, even, discretion in the judges: God gave them the prescription judgments they must deliver. And God even gave the Urim and Thummim to consult him in those cases where the facts could not be determined. Thus, in Israel there would be no scarcity, because all land and all produce and all people were accounted for under the laws of God, including who must be given to by whom in the event of misfortune. And there would be no abuse of law because men were completely stripped of their ability to make any law whatever. They could only execute the laws God set, without changing them. No place was left to human opinion, and there was, effectively, no source of human voluntary power in the system. Thus did God create a system that would lake poverty or abuse, by eliminating the human ego from the governance of men. For once, Christians who want to use God's ISRAELITE law to go after, say, the gays, will be happy to proclaim "WE'RE NOT ISRAELITES!" and thus we CAN determine our laws, and enforce them as we place. Yes, except that the law against shedding blood was given to NOAH and his sons after the Flood, so that denial of the right to kill/inflict violence (except in defense or punishment of a violent attacker) is NOT the law of YHWH for Israel, but of Elohiym for the entire world. Sorry, Christians, you were ALWAYS WRONG when you executed anybody for heresy, homosexuality, apostasy, witchcraft or anything BUT killing. I do the mechanical translation for the insights it gives me, and to have things to converse with God about, so that he can show me insights into how he has done things. When the hieroglyphs in which Genesis was originally carved are read, the revelation is mind blowing. Something simple like the word "El" - the first appearance of "God" - is an ox head picture, and the sound of it "EL" is the same picture (Eh, or Ah), and L - lamed - a shepherd's crook picture. So, the word "powers" or "mighty one" - the first "name" of God, is, phonetically spelled: Lord Shepherd. The Lord is MY shepherd indeed! People like what they like. I'm not going to change them. They're contentious. I've given up on trying to teach anybody anything from the Bible. If God wants to do that, he can. I delve into the words so I can talk to him about what he meant, what he wants of me. Sharing these things with the world just gets me bruised, angry and sullen. So what's the point?
God.
God commanded that the people of the state he set up give 10% of their production, plus their first fruits harvest, plus their head toll (in total around 24% of their annual income) to the state he set up. He commanded the state he set up to receive those imposts, and to use some of them to support the judges and administrators, and most of it to support the classes of the poor within the land. And he commanded the judges of the state he set up to prosecute and punish those who did not pay their taxes. He commanded every individual to pay what was owed over to his state, and also to lend their excess to their poor neighbors, if asked, without interest, and to drop any portion of that debt that was not repaid after seven years. There was nothing voluntary about any of it, and it was entirely involuntary.
Let's cut to the chase: Does God allow men to kill other men? Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment. Who has to worry about that? Do murderers? What about people who order murder but don't commit it themselves? What about those who aid and abet murder? Does Paul have anything to worry about? What about soldiers who kill? What about cops? What about people who kill an innocent by accident? What about people who kill in self defense? What about people who torture animals? Discuss.
Yes. God delegates His authority to governments to put to death those guilty of crimes against the state. Acts 26:10 is an example of Paul/Saul acting under authority to execute criminals. The only people consigned to the Lake of Fire are those who reject Jesus Christ. Murderers are to be tried by courts of the government and meet with whatever punishment set by that government. Same applies to aiding and abetting. The murderer can accept Christ while in route to execution and will receive eternal life in heaven. Military and cops fall under the rules of the government. If their killing is justified they are merely instruments of the state upholding the law. If they kill unjustly, as we often read about here on the forum, then courts must decide their fates/punishment, etc. Those who kill accidentally must also face certain judgments and make restitution as set forth by the government. Allowed. If the delegated authority (government) allows it. Punished by laws set forth by the government.
Don't be dumb, no you can't.
I think you take this farther than scripture. The bible is full of kings and magistrates using force. Because that is what it takes to stop bandits, scofflaws, and criminal elements. It's very hard to believe that ancient Israel just suggested that people should follow their laws. They used force to keep the criminal element down. Look at how they dealt with their enemies, over and over. They were not shy about using violence to enforce the civil order, conquer the land, etc. And Israel under Rome in the time of Jesus certainly did not lack enforcement by Roman troops nor did the governor or the Sanhedrin shy away from using them at will. You prefer this as policy. That doesn't mean there was no law enforcement. Without armed enforcement, there is no rule of law. Because people don't obey the laws otherwise. The Jews in particular had to fear lawlessness as a serious threat to them historically. Major cities had thousands of crucified criminals along the roads leading to them, generally with the cooperation of the Sanhedrin and Jewish civilians. The poor in modern Western countries have more opportunity and more actual wealth than most ancient kings. The bible does not give much sympathy to those who refuse to help themselves or who refuse to work at all and prefer to spend their days drinking and doing drugs and leading immoral lives. So before you tell us all to sell all that we have to give to the poor, can you tell us finally just what "poor" means? What income level does that mean? Do we have to give them all houses and cars? Because we do do that with most of them. We scour the world and bring millions more poor people here and give them a lot of stuff too. If we can be faulted, it is that we neglect the native citizens in favor of constantly importing hordes of foreigners, something the Bible never commanded Israel to do.
I spoke there only of what God said, out of his mouth, as far as law goes. I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’. I then look past him to the gross errors of Paul and Israel, wielding death to stop the progress of God, until Jesus himself blinded him and made him dependent on the people he was headed to Damascus to persecute. I look at the only two people who offended God enough in the new testament for God to kill outright in a pair of unambiguous open miracles (Ananias and Sapphira); then I look forward to the fatal sin of the Church, circa 381 AD, when it fired itself up with the wrongheaded zeal of “Error has no rights!” Augustine and started to use the state it dominated to execute people for heresy. And I conclude that, no, it’s not a question of what I “prefer”. It never was that.
Does God allow men to kill other men? If Scripture is our reference, YES. Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment. (Is there not a difference between "killing" and "murder"? You're also familiar with Ecclesiastes, right?) Who has to worry about that? Do murderers? What about people who order murder but don't commit it themselves? What about those who aid and abet murder? Does Paul have anything to worry about? Judgement Day and the blood of Jesus will sort all that and all other sins out. (Why would Paul have anything to worry about??) What about soldiers who kill? What about cops? What about people who kill an innocent by accident? What about people who kill in self defense? What about people who torture animals? Discuss. (Again, please reference Ecclesiastes and Jesus' Gift of Grace & Salvation. He knows our heart.) Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV 3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
I think you have conflict with others over the extent to which you value the relevance of Old Testament teachings to Christians. Just because Jesus and his disciples were Torah-observant Jews does not mean they absolutely forbade many matters of Jewish law to Christians. Abandoning circumcision for Gentile converts and even for newborns in Christian families. What is more fundamental to ancient Jewish law and culture than the absolute requirement that all males in that cult be circumcised? Yet there are no such requirements in Christianity. One of the most fundamental breaks between Christianity, the new vine grafted to the ancient vine of Israel, was the matter of tribal membership based on circumcision. That was the first and only significant attribute of any Jew, observant or not. Nothing that any ancient person could do would make them part of the Old Covenant with the God of Israel unless they were circumsized. Period, end of story. And dismiss entirely the notion that the God of Israel was the god of any other nation. He was not. Jewish scripture describes the god of Israel and the laws of circumsized observant Jews of the ancient era, not the god of all mankind and a universal set of laws applicable to all the ages of mankind on the earth. So I think you over-value the laws of Israel and would impose many Old Testament laws upon Christians that are not valid. I'm speaking in general terms, of reading the thrusts of your posts over the years. There is always a dividing line in theology over what elements, if any, are carried over from Judaism to Christianity. What elements of actual ancient Jewish law and religion still applied in the era of Jesus and how the New Covenant was established for Christians (non-observant Jews and Gentile converts). And many obscure Jewish customs were abolished for Gentile converts, among them circumcision, that most basic element of Jewish identity and subjection to the strictures of Jewish religion and custom. Now of course, you must recognize that I am implying that you are a Judaizer, that you seek to impose irrelevant Jewish laws on modern Christians for psychological or theological or philosophical or cultic reasons. But I don't think that is true. I think there is just a difference in where we place the dividing line between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. One of the key distinctions in this kind of disagreement is fully illustrated in Paul's victory over Peter before the council of Jerusalem, the ruling body of early Christianity, the pre-Vatican, over the issue of whether Gentiles or even Jewish Christians were required to be circumcised to become Christians. While there is a time to fight, there are many times when a fight is simply not worth it. I can remember Vance Havner once saying something like this: “Shucks, a hound dog can lick a skunk any day, but it just isn’t worth it.” A friend of mine used to say, “There are some things I would go to the wall for, but this isn’t one of them.” We should strive to avoid conflict, but there are those few times when we must engage in conflict in order to stand for what is essential and true. Acts 15 contains Luke’s account of two such instances, where conflict was necessary and where the gospel was advanced as a result of both disagreements. The first 35 verses describe the conflict which Paul and Barnabas had with certain men who had come to Antioch from Judea. The issue at hand was whether Gentile converts had to become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved. The outgrowth of this conflict was the first church council, which included some heated words but resulted in a very wise decision on the part of the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem. The remaining verses in Acts 15 describe the disagreement which arose between Paul and Barnabas. This was a matter which was settled privately and into which the church leaders were not drawn. We will concentrate in this lesson on the first conflict between Paul and Barnabas and some overly Jewish Christians, and the Jerusalem Council which met to settle the dispute. We will take note of the way in which the problem was handled and of the basis for the decision, as well as the decision of the Council and its impact. We will then seek to discern those principles which are inherent in our text and ponder their implications for the church today. The issue is that of the gospel itself. What did the gospel require of those who were Gentiles and who were converted to faith in Christ? The answer of Paul and Barnabas can be summed up in these words: There were certain unnamed men who had come down to Antioch from Judea who held to a very different “gospel,” a “gospel” which, in reality, was a false one.323Their “gospel” might be summed up in this fashion: Christianity is Jewish. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, but in order to be a part of this covenant community, Israel, one must become a proselyte, which is entered into by circumcision, which obligates the individual to keep the Law of Moses. Put differently, to these “Judaisers” salvation meant identifying not only with Christ but with the nation Israel. It meant placing oneself under the Mosaic Covenant and keeping the Laws of Moses, as defined by Judaism. We know for certain that these men who opposed Paul and Barnabas were from Judea. We can be sure they were Jews and that they had been and continued to be Pharisees (15:5). We are also told that these men were believers (15:5). We can infer, with some confidence, that these men either claimed or implied that their position represented the viewpoint of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.324 It is probably safe to say that they taught with great confidence and an air of authority. When Paul and Barnabas opposed them, the sparks began to fly. Neither party was willing to budge. As wrong as these “Judaisers” were, they believed their position was biblical. A brief look at some Old Testament passages will show us the basis for their error, as well as an explanation of the error. Tracking the concept of circumcision through the Old Testament provides us with the reasons these Pharisees believed as they did and the reason they were wrong. Consider these two passages, the first found in Genesis 17 and the second in Exodus 12: Circumcision was no mere ritual—it was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. By being circumcised men bore witness to their faith in the God of Abraham and in His covenant with him and his descendants. Failure to circumcise his son nearly cost Moses his life (cf. Exodus 4:24-26). Failure or refusal to be circumcised placed one outside the covenant community. In order for one to participate in the Passover meal, one had to be circumcised. Aliens (Gentiles, for all practical purposes) could participate, but only after being circumcised. How easy it would be for a Jew to reason that these circumcision passages applied equally to those who wished salvation in Christ. Jesus was a Jew, the Jewish Messiah. If men wished to benefit in the blessings which God promised in and through the Messiah, they must identify themselves with Israel, with their covenants, and with the Mosaic commands. The fallacy of this Pharisaical position was that one did not have to identify with Israel to be saved, but only with Christ. Indeed, the baptism of John and later that of our Lord and His apostles was a public renouncing of Judaism as a system of works and an identification with Christ, on the basis of faith alone. Men turned their backs on legalistic Judaism and turned to Christ, who alone kept the law and bore its (death) penalty for sinners. The law could not save anyone; it could only condemn all men as sinners. Christ alone can save, and thus men had to choose between self-righteousness, based upon perfect obedience of the law, or Christ’s righteousness, a gift of God’s grace, through faith in the person and work of His Son, Jesus. The Judaisers viewed circumcision from these early texts in the Old Testament, but not from the other texts which showed the “true circumcision” to be an act of God, performed on men’s hearts and not on their physical flesh.325 Notice how this “spiritual” circumcision becomes more and more clear as the Old Testament progresses: 1 “If you will return, O Israel, return to me,” declares the Lord. “If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, 2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, ‘As surely as the Lord lives,’ then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.” 3 This is what the Lord says to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it (Jeremiah 4:1-4, NIV). 23 This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord. 25 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh—26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:23-26, NIV). Though the term “circumcision” is not used, God’s promise of a new covenant and a new heart is surely referring to the “spiritual circumcision” which God will perform on men’s hearts, by faith, under a new covenant: “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:31-33, NASB). So the differences between us probably amount more to differences on how we lay down the dividing lines between the Old Covenant for Israel and the New Covenant which led to non-observant Jews forming churches of their own and abandoning entirely the system of priestly sacrifices and the other strictures of the Jewish state, keeping in mind this was very much the era in which the Sandhedrin, a religious court, ruled in conjunction with a Roman governor (instead of a Jewish king). But, you say, what of the fundamentals, the Ten Commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain, etc.? Do we then wish to enforce the Ten Commandments with the full force of the modern state? Should we punish those who fail to make the God of Israel their primary god and never take his name in vain? Should we forbid the use of all imagery as idolatry, the creation of graven images? How do we enforce the prohibition on coveting the property of your neighbor or his wife? The truth is that we are modern people and you have to have good reasons to insist absolutely on certain particulars of Old Testament laws as being applicable to modern Christians. If you don't enforce them all, why are you enforcing any of them? I think you have a lawyerly craving for underlying and consistent principles within an organized system of law. Otherwise, despite any contradictions or failures of the system, there is no underlying systemic principles to dispense justice. Without fundamental principles, there is no concept of real justice. I do find your insistence that it is forbidden to kill those who are breaking the laws. What do you think is actually required if dealing with a Las Vegas massacre situation? The police are supposed to knock at the door and request politely that the gunman stop shooting? Or they just wait until he runs out of bullets and needs more snacks? It is only the law if the modern state is willing to kill you or imprison you and pay your institutional upkeep if you break those laws. Some people don't stop shooting or harming others until the police just kill them. It surprises me that you don't understand this. I think you just don't like it. And it is an easy way to condemn the entire system on moral grounds. Not that the American justice system and its policing don't deserve to be condemned; they absolutely do. But not on the grounds that you argue repeatedly, like some mythical refusal to kill because the ancient laws of Israel forbids it. Anyway, that seems to me to be the fundamental difference in our positions. A lot of times, people disagree on the particulars but don't look at the fundamental positions that others hold, different views of the most important features of a policing and justice system. Trying to apply the laws of small nation of homogenous religious and cultural tribe, a society like ancient Israel, to modern America and to any modern Christian nation is an exercise in futility, doomed to fail before you even start. And even if we granted you the power to impose such a system, it is readily apparent it would fail when faced with hardened criminal gangs and those who refuse to obey authority when push comes to shove in the matter of police encountering a lawbreaker. I flagged a few others who might be interested. Sometimes we argue endlessly the particulars when the real issue is the unspoken fundamentals. At least it seems that way to me. There is often a fundamental disagreement in opinion that works out to a wider range of conflicts in opinion.
There is an issue of literalism here. When the armies of Israel were commanded to fight and conquer other nations like Canaan, there was no such prohibition against killing. Killing the enemies of the nation of Israel or those who resisted armed conquest of their lands by the nation of Israel was allowed and even praised and rewarded by God. So is the prohibition, "Thou shalt not kill" so absolute and literal that it should be read as "Thou shalt not kill unless you are an ancient Jew and the God of Israel has commanded your leader/king to conquer and kill the inhabitants of land that God promised to the Jews". Because God did order a lot of killing in the Old Testament, much of it for conquest, much of it for ritual deviation or profaning the sacred or for forbidden sexual relations, just to name a few of the things that God commanded ancient Israel to kill for. Jews were ordered to stone to death a lot of different people committing various offenses under Old Testament (therefore Old Covenant) laws.
Circumcision was given to Abraham and his heirs, and the to the Hebrews of Sinai and theirs. So it never applied to you and me. (Note: the uncircumcised heir lost his right to inherit land in Israel, which was the only promise given to Abraham, and givennat Sinai. “Eternal life” is not part of the package offered either. The prohibition on shedding blood was given to Noah and his heirs, which is everybody on earth. Jesus said that killers earn the lake of fire at final judgment. As far as the invasion of Canaan goes, God gave that order to the Hebrews, only, conquering Canaan, only. It was not a permanent grant of authority for Jews to make war on whomever. They had a permanent right to defend the land God gave them, and were commanded to kill the Canaanites who did not flee (this was explicitly part of the divine judgment against the Canaanites. The exception to the “don’t kill” rule was limited in time and place, not an authorizatuion for Gentiles to wage wars of conquest.
To insist on the Ten Commanments, even, is JudaiIzing. Jesus listed SOME of the ten in his lists of mortal sins, added sins that aren’t there. And of course the law against killing doesn’t come from the Ten Commandments, but from the Ark. it is merely repeated at Sinai. Moreover, the Law of Moses, if followed perfectly by a Hebrew in Israel, doesn’t promise eternal life - that’s not the deal. It only promises a secure farm in Israel in this life. On the other hand, it’s Jesus, not Moses, whose law says that those who do not provide for the poor will be left in outer darkness for Christ does not know them. Don’t kill was a law before Sinai, and is a law of Jesus. It’s not a Jewish Law as such, and not Judaizing to insist on it.
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.
A little help, please. What verse are you referring to?
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”.
Are murderers un-redeemable?
Vic isn't a bible believer. I also notice he is adding to scripture adding the word mortal. Vic is a bit of a fool.
Sad news! He does seem to believe certain parts of the Bible...and mixes in something like Catholicism?
He says he only trusts the red writing.
Well, that's a good start. Here's a Bible that will appeal to Vic...an OT red letter edition https://kjver.com/redletter.aspx I'll keep looking until I find an entire Bible printed in red.
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.
An entire Bible printed in red would be useless, therefore. The red would be distracting and hard on the eyes.
Jesus promised that God forgives those who forgive, and that he will not forgive those who do not.
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
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.
And you REALLY believe that this is what Jesus meant by his teaching?
Did you not just read Matt 5:20? Jesus said it, I believe it.
So, where Jesus said that men are judged by their works, do you believe that? Or do you go with Paul?
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?
So Jesus was a sinner? He was known to be angry.
If Jesus were a sinner, He wouldn't qualify as the One to redeem us from our sin. He had to be the perfect Lamb. Not all anger is sin.
Okay I just asked because you told Vic if you've ever been the "least"...
Yes, showing that Jesus' anger was sinless is a needed clarification. Thank you.
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.
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.
What a strange statement. Not true.
That's not what Jesus said.
You're right: it doesn't add up. But it's really not worth arguing about.
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. We can run, but we can't hide from Judgement Day.
But it's really not worth arguing about. 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.)
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
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?
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.
Yes Vic it does add up. Don't be dumb
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 Creation and 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.
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.
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 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. 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 as stubborn as a mule and kick like one, too. 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.
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 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.
And you have been coming to this forum for how long? Better men than me have reasoned with you and you've thrown it all back in their faces. No wonder Stone uses the word dumb or whatever when replying to you. You come here because you know Christians care about your soul and will tell you the truth.
Just put the verses up. I don't want to lecture you. I simply want to clear up any discrepancies. You're making wild accusations that need to be looked at.
I come here to see if the hard right, as your ranks dwindle and you lose on battlefield after battlefield, is ready to rethink. You're not.
Gladly. That will be my next 10, or 50, messages to you - as long as it takes, to put up all of the relevant verses. I'm not even going to bother with explanation. Jesus is usually clear.
Says the leftist who doesn't believe scripture.
That will be my next 10, or 50, messages to you Is this going to be like the economics thread you promised and aborted?
Luke 18:9-14 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.read more. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
I am Alpha and Omega ... who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty. Write down in a book what you see, and send it to the seven Churches - to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea! Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the living one. I am he who was dead, and now you see me alive for timeless ages! I hold in my hand the keys of death and the grave. Therefore, write down what you have seen, both the things which are now, and the things which are to be hereafter. The secret meaning of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and of the seven golden lampstands is this: the seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches and the lampstands are the Churches themselves. Write this to the angel of the Church in Ephesus: These words are spoken by the one who holds the seven stars safe in his right hand, and who walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know what you have done; I know how hard you have worked and what you have endured. I know that you will not tolerate wicked men, that you have put to the test self-styled 'apostles', who are nothing of the sort, and have found them to be liars. I know your powers of endurance - how you have suffered for the sake of my name and have not grown weary. But I hold this against you, that you do not love as you did at first. Remember then how far you have fallen. Repent and live as you lived at first. Otherwise, if your heart remains unchanged, I shall come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. Yet you have this to your credit, that you hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I myself detest. Let every listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches: To the victorious I will give the right to eat from the tree of life which grows in the paradise of God. Write this to the angel of the Church in Smyrna: These words are spoken by the first and the last, who died and came to life again. I know of your tribulation and of your poverty - though in fact you are rich! I know how you are slandered by those who call themselves Jews, but in fact are no Jews but a synagogue of Satan. Have no fear of what you will suffer. I tell you now that the devil is going to cast some of your number into prison where your faith will be tested and your distress will last for ten days. Be faithful in the face of death and I will give you the crown of life. Let every listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches: The victorious cannot suffer the slightest hurt from the second death. Write this to the angel of the Church in Pergamum: These words are spoken by him who has the sharp two-edged sword. I know where you live - where Satan sits enthroned. I know that you hold fast to my name and that you never denied your faith in me even in the days when Antipas, my faithful witness, was martyred before your eyes in the very house of Satan. Yet I have a few things against you - some of your number cling to the teaching of Balaam, the man who taught Balak how to entice the children of Israel into eating meat sacrificed to idols and into sexual immorality. I have also against you the fact that among your number are some who hold just as closely to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent then, or else I shall come to you quickly and make war upon them with the sword of my mouth. Let the listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches: I will give the victorious some of the hidden manna, and I will also give him a white stone with a new name written upon it which no man knows except the man who receives it. Write this to the angel of the Church in Thyatira: These are the words of the Son of God whose eyes blaze like fire and whose feet shine like the finest bronze: I know what you have done. I know of your love and your loyalty, your service and your endurance. Moreover, I know that you are doing more than you did at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess, but who by her teaching deceives my servants into sexual immorality and eating idols' meat. I have given her time to repent but she has shown no desire to repent of her immorality. See, now, how I throw her into bed and her lovers with her, and I will send them terrible suffering unless they repent of what she has done. As for her children, I shall strike them dead. Then all the Churches will know that I am the one who searches men's hearts and minds, and that I will reward each one of you according to your works. But for the rest of you at Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, and have not learned what they call 'the deep things of Satan', I will lay no further burden upon you, except that you hold on to what you have until I come! To the one who is victorious, who carries out my work to the end, I will give authority over the nations, just as I myself have received authority from my Father, and I will give him the morning star. He shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the potter's vessels shall be broken to pieces. Let the listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. Write this to the angel of the Church in Sardis: These are the words of him who holds in his hand the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: I know what you have done, that you have a reputation for being alive, but that in fact you are dead. Now wake up! Strengthen what you still have before it dies! For I have not found any of your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember then what you were given and what you were taught. Hold to those things and repent. If you refuse to wake up, then I will come to you like a thief, and you will have no idea of the hour of my coming. Yet you still have a few names in Sardis of people who have not soiled their garments. They shall walk with me in white, for they have deserved to do so. The victorious shall wear such white garments, and never will I erase his name from the book of life. Indeed, I will speak his name openly in the presence of my Father and of his angels. Let the listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. Then write this to the angel of the Church in Philadelphia: These are the words of the holy one and the true, He who has the key of David. He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens. I know what you have done. See, I have given you a door flung wide open, which no man can close! For you have some little power and have been faithful to my message and have not denied my name. See how I deal with those of Satan's synagogue, who claim to be Jews, yet are no Jews but liars! Watch how I make them come and bow down before your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. Because you have obeyed my call to patient endurance I will keep you safe from the hour of trial which is to come upon the whole world, to test all who live upon the earth. I am coming soon; hold fast to what you have - let no one deprive you of your crown. As for the victorious, I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he will never leave it. I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down out of Heaven from my God. And I will write upon him my own new name. Let the listener hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. Then write this to the angel of the Church in Laodicea: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation: I know what you have done, and that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish that you were either cold or hot! but since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I intend to spit you out of my mouth! While you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and there is nothing that I need, you have no eyes to see that you are wretched, pitiable, poverty-stricken, blind and naked. My advice to you is to buy from me that gold which is purified in the furnace so that you may be rich, and white garments to wear so that you may hide the shame of your nakedness, and salve to put on your eyes to make you see. All those whom I love I correct and discipline. Therefore, shake off your complacency and repent. See, I stand knocking at the door. If anyone listens to my voice and opens the door, I will go into his house, and dine with him, and he with me. As for the victorious, I will give him the honor of sitting beside me on my throne, just as I myself have won the victory and have taken my seat beside my Father on his throne. Let the listener hear what the spirit says to the Churches. ... Then I saw a new Heaven and a new earth, for the first Heaven and the first earth had disappeared and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descending from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride dressed in beauty for her husband. Then I heard a great voice from the throne crying, "See! The home of God is with men, and he will live among them. They shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death shall be no more, and never again shall there be sorrow or crying or pain. For all those former things are past and gone." Then he who is seated upon the throne said, "See, I am making all thing new!" And he added, "Write this down for my words are true and to be trusted!" Then he said to me, "It is done! I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the thirsty water without price from the fountain of life. The victorious shall inherit these things, and I will be God to him and he will be son to me. But as for the cowards, the faithless and the corrupt, the murderers, the traffickers in sex and sorcery, the worshipers of idols and all liars - their inheritance is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." ... "See, I come quickly! I carry my reward with me, and repay every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the Beginning and the End. Happy are those who wash their robes, for they have the right to the tree of life and the freedom of the gates of the city. Shut out from the city shall be the depraved, the sorcerers, the impure, the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices a lie! "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the Churches. I am both the root and stock of David, and the bright star of the morning!"
I wrote you pages and pages of quotes of God directly - YHWH and Jesus. Pages and pages of them speaking directly, their words. You disregarded all of it, as if it were not there, and continued to come directly after me, for having a mindset that reflects what their words said. After that, I shook the dust off my shoes and stopped trying with you. If the direct words of God Almighty do not form the basis of your beliefs, as they do mine, then I really don't care what you think. I aborted the conversation, because you refused to acknowledge the direct words of YHWH and of Jesus. Your political and philosophical beliefs outweighed everything that God said directly on the matter - you didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE God's direct words. What more, then, could I possible have to say to you? I "aborted" the thread because you're blind and deaf to God's own words. My own are of much less value. If you're not going to listen to HIM, why even TRY to get you to listen to me? So, whether this ends up being like that economics thread or not depends on how the direct words of Jesus are received, depends on Watchman. I've begun to quote Jesus, the Lord, extensively and verbatim. He's the Alpha - he starts the conversation. He's the Omega - he finishes it too. What he said, that is what I accept, precisely as he said it. If you want to talk about religion with me, quote God. I'm giving you his words, in extenso. If you CAN'T make your point with the words of God, then your point is worthless and I'm not interested in hearing it. When I was speaking to you about economics, you didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE the words of God, written out in extenso. Your own beliefs superseded God, and it was more important for you to attack me, for something you think is "wrong" about my head for quoting God directly, than it was for you to even ACKNOWLEDGE the presence of God on that thread, in pages and pages of his OWN direct words. That was when I gave up on you and ceased to even attempt to have meaningful discussions with you about religion. You called on me to "prove my point" by citing the Bible. I did one better, and demonstrated where my thinking comes from by ONLY quoting God Almighty and Jesus Christ out of the Bible. I didn't NEED any other quotes, just the HIGHEST authority. You didn't acknowledge the authority. You didn't acknowledge the quotes. You didn't acknowledge anything, just continued your headlong screed at me. So I saw that with you, it's not about God at all. Well, for me, it's all about God. Seeing we had no common ground at all, I gave up trying and walked away from the conversation.
That will be my next 10, or 50, messages to you - as long as it takes, to put up all of the relevant verses. Good grief, Vic. Restrain yourself :-/ BTW, you know there are several resurrections and judgments, right? (Hence, my reason for specific verses)
Okay. The letters to the 7 Churches is simply that...Jesus talking to His church, His body of believers. Christ is talking about judging the works of CHRISTIANS only. This judgment will take place at the Bema Seat of Christ. This judgment will take place somewhere between the rapture and 2nd Coming, and will judge the works and walk of every believer. It will determine rewards or loss of rewards. No Lake of Fire or eternal damnation in this judgment. Next case...
Then he who is seated upon the throne said, "See, I am making all thing new!" And he added, "Write this down for my words are true and to be trusted!" Then he said to me, "It is done! I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the thirsty water without price from the fountain of life. The victorious shall inherit these things, and I will be God to him and he will be son to me. But as for the cowards, the faithless and the corrupt, the murderers, the traffickers in sex and sorcery, the worshipers of idols and all liars - their inheritance is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 22:12-16 "See, I come quickly! I carry my reward with me, and repay every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the Beginning and the End. Happy are those who wash their robes, for they have the right to the tree of life and the freedom of the gates of the city. Shut out from the city shall be the depraved, the sorcerers, the impure, the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices a lie! "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the Churches. I am both the root and stock of David, and the bright star of the morning!" So you took Rev. 1-3, Rev. 21:1-8 and Rev, 22:12-16, removed all the chapter and verse numbers, and ran them together...thanks alot. Next time provide all the chapter/verse numbers! Without chapter/verse I can't refer to specific verses, and people reading here will be confused, as well. Give me a sec to sort out this mess you've made.
Then he who is seated upon the throne said, "See, I am making all thing new!" And he added, "Write this down for my words are true and to be trusted!" Then he said to me, "It is done! I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the thirsty water without price from the fountain of life. The victorious shall inherit these things, and I will be God to him and he will be son to me. But as for the cowards, the faithless and the corrupt, the murderers, the traffickers in sex and sorcery, the worshipers of idols and all liars - their inheritance is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 22:12-16 "See, I come quickly! I carry my reward with me, and repay every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the Beginning and the End. Happy are those who wash their robes, for they have the right to the tree of life and the freedom of the gates of the city. Shut out from the city shall be the depraved, the sorcerers, the impure, the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices a lie! "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the Churches. I am both the root and stock of David, and the bright star of the morning!" Of the passages you have presented, Rev.21:1-8 is not actual judgment, but is referring BACK to judgments that have already taken place. Rev.22:12-16 is an admonition to everyone: make sure you find yourself in the right judgment! There will be judgments for those who BY FAITH have washed their robes in the atoning blood of Christ...and the rest, who's (faithless) works will be insufficient to attain the right to the tree of life. When you read "Then I saw a new Heaven and a new earth, for the first Heaven and the first earth had disappeared", this is obviously a future time BEYOND the Great Millennium (the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth). Primarily, Christ is referring back to the Bema Seat Judgment for BELIEVERS, and also the Great White Throne Judgment for UNBELIEVERS (Rev. 21:11-15). Note: there are at least seven judgments that have taken place by the time you read Rev.21. Those judgements include the judgment of Christians who were martyred in the Tribulation, the Old Testament Saints, the Sheep/Goat judgment, Satan/fallen angel judgment, ect. I can point these judgments out to you with Scripture references but it gets a bit lengthy for this forum. To reiterate, salvation is not by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
By all means list them.
For cryin' out loud... Believers...the Bema Seat...their Christian life...2Cor.5:10 OT Saints...end of Trib...faith in coming messiah...Dan. 12:1-3 Martyred Trib saints...end of Trib...faith/works...Rev.20:4-6 Surviving Jews...end of Trib...faith in Christ...Ez20:34-38/Mt25:1-13 Surviving Gentiles...end of Trib...Sheep/goat...Joel3:1,2/Mt25:31-46 Satan/fallen angels...end of millennium...Jude6/2Pt2:4 All unsaved people...end of millennium...for rejection of God...Rev20:11-15 (This is a very simplified list of the various judgments) In all the judgments pertaining to humans, salvation is always by faith, not works done in unbelief Edit: the question is, Vic, which judgement will you find yourself in?
The list needed improvement. My second edition... Judgement of Believers...When: btween rapture and 2nd Coming...Basis: our Christian life...1Cor3:10/2Cor.5:10 Judgement of OT Saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith in coming messiah...Dan. 12:1-3 Judgement of Martyred Trib saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith proven by works...Rev.20:4-6 Judgement of Surviving Jews of Trib...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith in Christ...Ez20:34-38/Mt25:1-13 Judgement of Surviving Gentiles of Trib...When: end of Trib...Basis: Sheep-or-goat...Joel3:1,2/Mt25:31-46 Judgement of Satan/fallen angels...When: end of millennium...Basis: rebellion... Jude6/2Pt2:4 Judgement of All unsaved people...When: end of millennium...Basis: for rejection of God...Rev20:11-15
Your very simplified list does not pass muster. I will accept the words of Jesus as revealing what will happen, given his divinity. Jesus' revealed a much simpler structure of judgment and life after death than the complicated tarte-a-la-creme that you've presented. Prove it with Jesus.
It's called Systematic Theology, freshman level. Perhaps you'd like to present Jesus' version, clearly, concisely using verses with chapter and number this time;) And a slice of Tart Tatin a la creme if you please.
He can't do that. He thinks Jesus was a liar when he said all scripture was.... Vic is also a pretender. He pretends he only believes the red writing and asks you to only use red words. Then he believes this catholic cult made up purgatory and is quite domatic about it. Yet Jesus never said that in red. Or any other part of the Bible for that matter. I think Vic basically has a good heart (if I ignore his calling for the murder of all right wingers to solve the worlds problems) but he gets things mostly wrong.
Surely you must realize that is laughable. "It's only okay to kill if God commands us directly to do so." I think you like and prefer the no-killing thing. I don't disagree with you or your right to agitate for any and all means of reducing the rates of killing. What I object to is people insisting that mankind is forbidden to kill by the bible. It really is so much nicer to take a position philosophically or on religious grounds and then insist that your position is the Bible's position. That way, you get the moral high ground and your opponents get assigned the status of being either ignorant or evil or both. So it is satisfying. How did Jesus react to violence and the means of self-defense? I think, for your argument to be valid, then it would have to come from the lips of Jesus. In red letters!
There is nothing laughable about my belief here, though you laugh at it, and the site owner mocks it, as do others. What did Jesus say about self defense? From the last supper: And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords!” And he said to them, “Enough!” So, then, Jesus authorized them to buy weapons to defend themselves. And when they got excited about that, he cut them off brusquely with a "That's enough!" Yes, you need to defend yourself, with weapons, no, you are not to be thrilled or excited by that. It's an unfortunate necessity, not a thing to be delighted in. And no, Jesus NEVER authorized the apostles, or the Church, to use violence to enforce their opinions. And he did not authorize anybody to go out and conquer other people because they wanted to. The only active conquest he ever authorized was the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites. He did not authorize or justify, but he used the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians, the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, the conquest of Babylon by the Persians, and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, to punish disobedience, and to sweep away the religion of the Temple. Yes, God authorizes you to defend yourself. No, you are not to exult in it, to boast of violent power, or delight in the tools or exercise of violence. And no, you are never authorized to use violence to enforce your will. Never. Only to defend yourself and others. (And then only justly.) You're not authorized to kill witches. You're not authorized to kill heretics. You're not authorized to stone adulteresses or burn sodomites. And no, you're not authorized to engage in wars of conquest because you want territory. Of course, you CAN exult in arms, and go kill people to take their lands and resources, or to silence their heresy or remove their political resistance. And when you do, you are simply a murderer and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment, whether you call yourself a "Christian" or not. For "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments." Laugh at it if you want to, that is the law of Jesus on the matter. If you think otherwise, you're simply not following Jesus. You can laugh at me all you would like on the matter. When you do, you're laughing at what Jesus said. I listen to him. You guys go ahead and listen to "Him PLUS"...which always ends up being "minus him" at the end, because the Plusses always end up authorizing you to do something Jesus said "no" to, or letting you think that faith requires mere thought, as opposed to action. One thing that talking to self-professed "Christians" over time has taught me, is that Christianity is an aggressive religion full of proud and insulting people. I'll stick with Jesus alone, you can keep your "Christianity". Since I have no means of persuading you, and I have no means of enforcement (and such means are very limited, by God), I've learned the meaning and wisdom of what the angel conveyed when he said "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." I live and let live. You do you. I'll do me. We'll all see in the end. "Le vrai honnete homme ne se pique de rien." - La Rochefoucauld
Agreed. I pity him. His heart is hardened toward God, refusing to hear the "whole counsel of God".
Judgement of Believers...When: btween rapture and 2nd Coming...Basis: our Christian life...1Cor3:10/2Cor.5:10 - WHERE IS JESUS? Judgement of OT Saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith in coming messiah...Dan. 12:1-3 - THE LENGTHY PASSAGES AROUND THIS APPEAR TO REFER TO THE PERSIANS, ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND HIS SUCCESSORS, THE MACCABEEAN REVOLT AND, FINALLY, THE COMING OF JESUS. THE EVERLASTING LIFE SPOKEN OF THERE IS WHAT JESUS BRINGS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE PASSAGES THAT SPEAKS OF "THE MESSIAH". NOTE THAT "THE HOLY PEOPLE" ARE FINALLY BROKEN IN THESE PASSAGES. THIS COULD FORETELL THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND THE END OF THE PRIESTHOOD. Judgement of Martyred Trib saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith proven by works...Rev.20:4-6 - THIS IS PERTINENT Judgement of Surviving Jews of Trib...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith in Christ...Ez20:34-38/Mt25:1-13 Judgement of Surviving Gentiles of Trib...When: end of Trib...Basis: Sheep- or-goat...Joel3:1,2/Mt25:31-46 AND BASIS OF BEING A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS WHETHER OR NOT ONE HELPED THE POOR< THE SICK, THE PRISONER, THE NAKED. DON'T HELP THE POOR - A WORK - AND BURN IN THE FIRE. EVEN IF YOU PROFESS JESUS AS LORD. THE WORK IS WHAT MATTERS HERE. WHAT MAKES THEM RIGHTEOUS IS WHAT THEY DID. WHAT MAKES THEM UNRIGHTEOUS IS WHAT THEY FAILED TO DO. DEEDS, NOT BELIEFS. THERE IS NO "SURVIVING OF TRIBULATION" IN THIS PASSAGE Judgement of Satan/fallen angels...When: end of millennium...Basis: rebellion... Jude6/2Pt2:4 - FINE, BUT NOT RELEVANT TO PEOPLE. Judgement of All unsaved people...When: end of millennium...Basis: for rejection of God...Rev20:11-15
You're not God. We're done.
Are you kidding? This judgement is at the Bema Seat, Judgment Seat of Christ. Christ is the Judge here! Nope. This passage is understood by the phrase "at that time" which theologians have determined to be the time of the tribulation/2nd coming. The OT saints have to be judged before entering into the millennium period. Remember this truth. Everyone is saved by faith in Christ. The OT believers were saved by LOOKING AHEAD to the promised Messiah. We NT believers are saved by faith by LOOKING BACK at Him. Daniel is speaking to the Jews, telling them (v.2) that their judgement will come "at that time". Yes. Once the church age has ended and the tribulation has begun, salvation will not be so easy. To become a believer during the tribulation will probably result in your being beheaded, hence the verses from Rev. 20. There will be surviving Christians (not many) and non-believers coming out of the Great Tribulation. Since they weren't beheaded (proving their faith) they are going to be judged by how they conducted themselves during the trib. The non-believers who survived will be the goats. It is relevant. I want to see Satan and his cohorts dealt with. As do many, many other people who are aware of his evil. This judgement is as vital as all the other judgements. Vic, thank you for looking at my list! I appreciate your comments. I hope I helped clear up some of the difficulties you have with them. There is alot going on here to keep track of, but a simple list like this helps present a framework to keep it all together.
Drama much?
No drama. Rather, the desire to avoid a very harsh exchange.
Under your beliefs. Can you repent and be saved after murdering someone in a premeditated fashion?
We're done. Jesus said all the scriptures were to be studied. Don't get mad at someone because you don't like the truth. I mean someone who said they wanted to murder all right wingers shouldn't be upset when someone says that their heart is hardened.
Sometimes you have to be harsh to get at the truth.
THAT. IRONY.
You're right on most of your points here, Vic. We may not agree exactly on faith, but Christians are supposed to instruct gently with kindness and respect. I would ask -- are those who are trying to "save" your soul doing so more out of real love and concern? Or, as a matter of personal pride and one-upsmanship? (We've all been there.)
There is no irony. Your flat earth bullshit isn't biblical or scientific. It is for gullible people.
Yeah, there is. You ignore God's own word and truth. Because of PRIDE.
Just routine stuff for me. I care about Vic's soul. I understand the coming judgments and I understand what's at stake. Eternity hangs in the balance. Not true at all. But like Stone said, truth is harsh. That's why the Bible says Jesus came into this world full of grace and truth...grace is needed in the presence of the harsh truth. God supplies both and notice the order...grace then truth. God is good.
It is BOTH. And until you let go of the unscientific, un-biblical LIES and BS that this lying secular-based world have foisted upon you, you remain their slave. TO WIT: This same "Science" that you trust confirms and teaches "Evolution" -- do you believe that? That means, This same "Science" that you trust confirms and teaches the 'Big Bang' and a gazillion year old Universe -- do you believe that? If so, you, Bill Nye, De Grasse Tyson, and the rest of the militant anti-God atheists believe THE SAME EXACT THING. Meanwhile, the Bible sez God's earthly realm is surrounded by a Firmament, "The waters ABOVE (above the highest sky) divided by the waters BELOW" (the oceans). There IS no "Outer Space." NASA = LIES. More than that -- IT MOCKS US. God also NEVER once spoke of a "Globe or ball" earth. God spoke of a "face" of the earth. Btw, look up, 'Michelson-Morley experiment. It proved the earth does NOT spin; That we are indeed NOT spinning/moving. AT ALL.
I understand and agree with all of what you've said. That said... At the same time as Christians, we must be careful and be reminded to heed Jesus' own countenance and gentle rebuke in sharing the word and truth without pride or arrogance. I have been guilty of this as well.
I'm not going to judge them, but leave them be. They've said what they believe. I understand it. I don't agree with them on many points. I've said what I believe. THey don't agree with me on many points. Nothing is served by beating it into the ground again. As far as evolution goes, God made the land and the sky and filled them with living things. Evolution is probably how he did it. Nothing more needs to be said on that front either. Some agree, some disagree. They all have their reasons.
Well stated. We've got to be able to debate issues (as a forum) without insults and calling people "stupid" (even though we may believe that to be the case ;-) As far as evolution goes, God made the land and the sky and filled them with living things. Evolution is probably how he did it. Nothing more needs to be said on that front either. Some agree, some disagree. They all have their reasons. When you say, that God "probably" used "Evolution." on what evidence do you base your theory? Why should this matter? Because there can be only one truth. "Creationism" (like Plane/Flat Earth) speaks to the absolute fidelity and literal truth of God and His word with respect to His Creation. Moreover Vic -- if there were indeed a pre-Adam man as well as "Dinosaurs" who lived 65 mil years ago AND "death" of all life before the fall of Adam & Eve, doesn't it dispel the entire account of God in the 6-Day Creation, including Adam and Eve out of the dust in the first place? Doesn't it also dispel the Genesis account that the Death of all subsequent life based on the fallen Adam & Eve and reason for a "second Adam" -- Jesus Christ -- no longer applies?
You don't know Jesus very well... Understand, there are two sides to wrangling with Vic...one is contending for his soul...the other is rebuking (often sharply) his false teaching. You require a similar rebuke for your nonsense.
...You require a similar rebuke for your nonsense. STOP right there before you say something ignorant. WAIT... (too late)
You're an interesting person, Liberator. Did I ever ask you how and when you became a Christian?
Thanks... ...and yes, you have asked.
Sorry, memory ain't what it used to be...
There were dinosaurs. We have the bones. There was death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Animals and humans ate plants. Eating plants kills them. Genesis is a poetic account of the filling of the land and the sky by God. It's not an actual scientific record. It's important to understand that, because it demonstrates that the Bible cannot always be taken literally. God, speaking from the sky, said of Jesus "This is my beloved son, listen to HIM." That's what I do - I listen to HIM. And given that I see contradictions between what HE said, and what Paul, James and John said; and also what the various Churches have taught, I have to decide whether I am going to try to blend what others have said with what HE said, and thereby dilute what he said, or if I'm going to take him straight and, therefore, diminish the others. I choose the latter, for two reasons: (1) The actual examinable miracles left behind by Jesus over the ages are all about HIM, and (2) I know independently that God exists through miracle and communication. Take (2) out, and I would be less tenacious about sticking to Jesus. In any case, if somebody wants to talk to be about Christianity and persuade me of anything, he's going to have to do so through Jesus - and not try to cherry pick Jesus because I am very, very, very well versed in exactly what HE said. I'm not going to accept the authority of the Churches - they killed people, and thereby knocked out any claim to superior authority that I am going to admit into MY courtroom - they lost whatever authority they had by producing bloody fruit. And they're going to have to stop trying to pound Paul, John, James, Moses, etc. as the equals of Jesus. They're not. God said "Listen to HIM" and HE is Jesus. My knowledge of what God wants, from the Bible, is built on the words of Jesus alone. That's the way it is, and that is how to approach me. I'm willing to pleasantly discuss why. But the other thing one must not do is directly insult me in any way. I never start that sort of crap, not ever, and once it is introduced into my courtroom I gavel the person who insults me out of court for contempt. I never start that sort of thing, and once it appears, I shut the door. So, the door is shut here, again. When Christians insult me, they demonstrate to me why their religion is dwindling so rapidly today. Lots of bad fruit there. No thanks. I did try. But if people who come into my parlor to chat have to insult me, the conversation is over. Take your rotten fruit and false religions and get out.
You mean, someone like Paul? Sure.
Agreed. But what it doesn't do is "prove" old age. Moreover, God did not create a "riddle" to purposely "fool" the same secular scientists who claim "Old Earth." This is *their* response in attempting to discredit an "Young Earth Creation." There was death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Animals and humans ate plants. Eating plants kills them. No "death" before Adam and Eve's fall. Not according to Scripture. Isn't it technically true that edible plants and their fruit and leaves could still be eaten without the plant's death? Genesis is a poetic account of the filling of the land and the sky by God. It's not an actual scientific record. That's one perspective. We need to be careful when defining "Science" -- especially in giving "Science" more authority on nature than it deserves or warrants. FWIW, God's "poetry" is found more in Psalms and Song of Solomon. The Almighty was not speaking poetically when describing Genesis. NOR in Job. NOR in Isaiah. What evidence or indicator leads you to believe Genesis is "poetry"? Q: Why can't God's own account of Creation be literal truth? What would be the "proof" that dismisses its divine, literal account? What evidence dismisses the account of a 6-Day Creation? Is there any limitation to God? God, speaking from the sky, said of Jesus "This is my beloved son, listen to HIM." That's what I do - I listen to HIM. And given that I see contradictions between what HE said, and what Paul, James and John said; and also what the various Churches have taught, I have to decide whether I am going to try to blend what others have said with what HE said, and thereby dilute what he said, or if I'm going to take him straight and, therefore, diminish the others. Firstly, I don't doubt your personal faith in Jesus as Redeemer. Only you know your heart; Same of others. I think we can agree on dismissing what man or "churches" claim is their unique version of "truth." That said, there is still disagreement on the absolute authority and fidelity of Scripture as the inspired word of God through ALL of the Apostles -- including Saul/Paul, who did not walk this earth with Jesus. But then neither did Noah, Moses, Abraham, and Isaiah -- yet we still believe they spoke on behalf of God/Jesus. Which "contradictions" do you see in the respective account of Paul, James and John? In any case, if somebody wants to talk to be about Christianity and persuade me of anything, he's going to have to do so through Jesus - and not try to cherry pick Jesus because I am very, very, very well versed in exactly what HE said. I'm not going to accept the authority of the Churches - they killed people, and thereby knocked out any claim to superior authority that I am going to admit into MY courtroom - they lost whatever authority they had by producing bloody fruit. And they're going to have to stop trying to pound Paul, John, James, Moses, etc. as the equals of Jesus. They're not. God said "Listen to HIM" and HE is Jesus. Well Vic -- you get an "AMEN, Brutha!" outta me on most of the above. But when you reference "Churches," are you citing Papal authority and its abuse over the millennial? Who else specifically do you place on that list? Beyond the teachings and Gospel of Jesus while his 33 years on this earth, He gave HIS divine power and authority onto His Apostles to carry out His same teachings and Gospel -- and then some. That is one primary reason Jesus chose/elected those Apostles for their mission. (For that matter, ALL of the Prophets -- including Moses -- spoke on behalf of The Lord as His Inspired Word.) True, it does NOT mean nor was it ever intended that The Apostles were to be Jesus' "equal"; To my knowledge and from study of scripture, no one (or Apostle) has ever claimed that to be the case. BUT...they were entrusted, tasked AND chosen by Jesus Christ Himself to speak and testify ON BEHALF OF Him, ergo, God the Father. The weight that relationship between Jesus and His Apostles carries speaks for itself. It is documented. To "shut the door" on and "slam the gavel" on the Divine Authority of the Apostles is to ignore the ongoing Authority, wisdom, and further teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. The "evidence" of their relationship and mission in spreading the Gospel is in plain sight and overwhelming. What Jesus wants and commanded was for us to continue heeding the Word of His Apostles -- as they testify and speak of and for Him as the Inspired Word. With respect to personal insults and disrespect by others, again, I share your frustration. It shouldn't be condoned. I do understand the frustration from them as well from a faith stand point... I'd highly recommended NOT conflating or rejecting acceptance of any Truth simply because its presentation isn't acceptable or respectful. The stakes are high. That should be THE consideration.
Cells are alive. When you eat them, you kill them.
You're gonna have to do a much better job than that of explaining your position. I can't read your mind. This is a convo between you and I. Not you etal.
Are you a retard?
It's important to understand that, because it demonstrates that the Bible cannot always be taken literally. No death before sin. You're an idiot. No quotes from scripture as usual for you. Just the ravings of delusional lunatic who thinks he was a mouse or a rat raised from the dead. Go seek out mental health help. https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/delusional-disorder-a-to-z
According to what you have said. The following is not Gods word according to you? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1–5)
God never said no death at all before the Fall. Paul did. It does not work, because the animals and man were all eating before the Fall. Plants are living things, as are their component parts. Paul’s statement gets at a spiritual truth, but it’s not biologically true.
The words you quoted are John’s, not God’s. John wrote them under God’s inspiration, and they reflect deep truths: that God willed everything into existence, but John did not take dictation. In Revelation, John takes direct dictation from Jesus, and clearly so indicates.
No. Cells are alive. When you eat them, they die. Animals and men were killing plants long before the fall. Nor does Genesis prescribe foot for sea creatures at all. What were sharks and whales eating? Text doesn’t say. Whatever it was, they, and all other sea creatures, were killing their food all along.
Look what you have to put up with to even try to have a quiet, rational conversation with a Christian if he disagrees with you. That’s the fruit of their pens. They “rebuke” you - as though what they say is at all persuasive. They abuse you and hector you constantly. And then, in the old days before the Age of Reason and the Revolutions, they killed you quite horribly if you did not submit to their illogic and emotion. Deprived of the power to kill, they never developed the power to speak rationally. They reject science, because it requires a revision of their understanding of their book. Muslims behave the same way. Why would anyone want to join a club of people who treat them like this. Why would I? When I tell them about my own contacts and communications with God, they impugn my sanity? These Christians are full of rage, hate and insult. I like God much better than I like them. He’s nothing like them, and he demonstrates what he means. So I’ll stick with him. Talking to Christians is too unpleasant to keep up.
As usual, some good reading from Answers In Genesis. A snippet from the article "Death Before Sin?" Link to the article: https://www.icr.org/article/295/ Link to a longer article "'Life' According to the Bible": https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/what-is-life/life-according-to-the-bible-and-the-scientific-evidence/
Quit bastarding scripture and you wont get corrected. In other words give up your fake christian Catholic beliefs that contradict what Jesus and the Bible says. Every word of the Bible that is. It isn't hate it is disgust at someone perverting Gods word like you do regularly. You rip pages out of the Bible because you can't live up to them. Then you add to scripture by accepting the lies of sinner popes. Purgatory for example 1 of 10000 or so.
You reject science asshole. You also reject the Gospel. Tell us foolish one what science to we reject.
This is an interesting discussion, “necessary”, Life, “soul” etc. Can we have the discussion off the board? It’s very difficult to talk calmly while being snarled at.
Well I shouldn't have said that. At least I never advocated the murder of hundreds of millions of people to solve the worlds problems like you have.
Does God allow men to kill other men? Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment. Then why are you working for the devil and trying to send people to hell when you said "Yep. Let's throw off the mask. I hate the enemy. Hate them. And I want to see them dead. We cannot lose a war against them, and they're hellbent on war - seizing tankers, shooting down drones, supporting terrorism, declaring us the Great Satan - all of that shit. Let's give them the war they so badly want. And continue that war until they are broken and cease to exist as an organized fighting force. Persia delenda est. So be it. Vicomte13 posted on 2019-07-26 15:47:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit"
I've been having a bit of a time crunch the past few days. I'll send you a note.
Not really sure whether I should respond to A K A Stone's rolling raging screed above or not. On the one hand, it's not pleasant to read, and the personal insults and anti-Catholic bigotry in it are painful to deal with. On the other hand, if I don't respond blow for blow, I fear that could be perceived as ceding the field because of a lack of answers to that nonsense. Not being willing to deal with a nettle is not the same thing as being unable to. My instinct is to let the dogs yowl while my caravan passes, and that's what I am likely to do, unless you gentlemen tell me that you think I need to stand and fight here.
Quit feeling sorry for yourself. You told pinguinite he is ungodly and should die for all you care. So take your phoney mask off. You aren't a Catholic. Catholics by definitoin believe the Gospel which you said is a lie. You can dish it out but when someone points out that you call for murder you cry poor me stone is attacking me what shall I do. Grow up. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
So quoting you and pointing out you are a hypocrite is now an attack. Poor little Vic.
Then why are you working for the devil and trying to send people to hell when you said "Yep. Let's throw off the mask. I hate the enemy. Hate them. And I want to see them dead. That isn't your only murder rant. You also ranted about murdering all right wingers for world peace. Your fruit is stinky.
You're a walking bag of deceptions. You say you only believe the red letters in the Bible. Then why the F do you believe the lie that makes Christ a liar Purgatory. You can't defend that because if would make you a hypocrite again.
You catholics have been making stuff up about the Bible and Christ for centuries. Someone calls you out on your crap and you start crying. You can't defend your beliefs consistently. You have to delete scripture. Lie and say you only believe the red letters. Yes it is a lie because purgatory and some idiot pope heading the church are not in any red letters or anywhere else for that matter. Why do you wear a mask and pretend? Love Stone
...if I don't respond blow for blow, I fear that could be perceived as ceding the field because of a lack of answers to that nonsense. Oh, I don't about that Vic... That depends on how seriously you take LF's "field" and Nurse A K A Ratchet hysteria. Let me put this in perspective for you:
Ha! Well, that's fair. This is, after all, an Internet chat site. Still, I see the sincerity - and the sincere anger - in the posts directed at me. I just don't think I can get through.
Also fair to question whether this forum "reality" really is a "chat" site or Judge, Jury & Firing Squad ;-) Still, I see the sincerity - and the sincere anger - in the posts directed at me. I just don't think I can get through. That is certainly the reality of the situation -- it's no mirage. Points get made, but often little actual feedback is exchanged. At BOTH ends. becomes frustrating. You'd suggested a give & take one-on-one exchange. There's always an element of posturing in a forum -- it's natural, but no one gets very far. Maybe a candid personal exchange beyond prying eyes is the only fair solution to understanding one another. IF that indeed is the goal. And just maybe some of us drone on too long on deep riffs. Some have briefer attention-spans. Maybe better to keep thing shorter & sweeter. JMHO.
Watchman is certainly a sincere Christian - he obviously REALLY BELIEVES what he is trying to teach. I certainly believe what I say. Rather than tear each other apart for everybody else's entertainment, I expect we'll have a discussion by PM of the religious topics we have discussed. That seems to me the way to get to productive discussion between people with very different views of God, if they actually, really, truly want to understand each other. On the other hand, I'm not interested in being preached at, just as I am sure nobody else is either. And finally, I'm really NOT interested in going after anybody with a tire iron. It's not that I CAN'T, it's that I don't want to. I do wonder if it all ultimately serves any purpose. For example, the clear difference in opinion here regarding theories of the origins of species and the literalness of the Bible. There is passion on both sides, but can that passion generate anything other than heat and smoke? Nobody on either side will convince the other of anything. I know that. Why, then, engage in the conversation at all? Do I expect anybody to change his mind? Does anybody really expect to change mine? And that's even if the nicest and most cordial words are used. Obviously nobody ever changed anybody's mind about anything by insulting him and trying to rip him apart. Even that - how does one respond to be ripped at? Physical violence is not possible. What, then? An exchange of insults? In the end, what purpose is there in having these discussions at all?
That's one of the reasons why I see support in my position on theology: It's not what you believe, it's what you do with what you believe. So if one believes the Bible as the literal Word of God, fine. Are you using that belief destructively to harm others or gently to aid others? The contrast between Stone and Watchman, as I perceive it at least, illustrates the wrong and right way to do it. (And yes, Stone, as I see it, resorting to insults is not what the Bible teaches). But.... people need time to change. And one lifetime is simply not enough to change. Probably no argument on that from Christians as quashing vices is not the required Christian objective, but it is an element in support of the reincarnation view.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Jeremiah 13: 23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. Romans 12:1 - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service 2 Corinthians 7:1 - Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
It is published, so may find an audience. I happened across this today and am reminded of our previous correspondence, which has been interesting and valuable to me. Brings to mind the discussions I enjoyed with several of the Catholics at FR, back in the day. My favorite interlocutors are educated Catholics, followed by those Jews who are not mired in pilpul or engaging in outright prevarication (wittingly or not). Perhaps we can pick it up again someday. Cheers!
Thank you. THAT reminds me to keep my cool. I'm a thinker, a philosopher by nature. But I'm ALSO a boy from the northwoods who went off to the Navy for two decades and who was, and is, perfectly willing - even eager - to blow up the bad guys. It's not particularly difficult for a bookworm to turn the other cheek. His instinct is not to fight. My instincts are more that of a bear: provoke me, and my instinct is to maul you, or a bull - content to munch on the flowers, but likely to charge when provoked. Insults provoke me. If I follow my instincts, it's very cathartic for ME, but it mangles the message that Jesus put out there specifically FOR me and people like me: check the rage, calm the pride and stay on course. So, thanks for reminding me that other people read this besides the bear-baiter and the picador.
Except you can't follow your instincts I have you in a corner and you are afriad to comment because it will show you a hypocrite. You said to pinguinite that he is godless and he can die for all you care. So no one is worse then you at insulting people here. No one. You say that christians are anti science. You can't defend that. You're afraid to. You say that you wear a mask meaning you are a fake and a phoney. Then you said you wanted to kill all your enemies. You wanted the all dead and we had to do that and we can't lose. Then a few weeks later you said any soldier who kills another in war is a murderer and goes to hell. Which by the way you said you didn't believe in before. So I ask if you are serving the devil, a legitimate question since you made comments wanting others do do your dirty work and murder as you put it lots and lots of people. Does that happen in a vacuum? Do those people not go to hell because Vic the guy who claims lizards and mice were raised from the dead wants it? You said you reject the Bible as Gods word and only believe the red letters. Well that makes you a liar again because the asshole Popes and Purgatory isn't there in red or anywhere else. Making your position that of a liar or at the least someone who is not consistent. You also like to boast of how great you are. These words frighten you and you know you are a hypocrite or at the least someone with inconsistent beliefs. You say you follow christ but you ignore when he says all scripture is profitable for study it is all Gods word. So you are calling Jesus a liar. You are also calling Jesus a liar when he says he is the only way and it is finished. With your lying doctrine of purgatory that fools people into not getting saved or paying off the catholic CULT for entry to heaven. The Pope is not infallible he does not speak for God. The Pope isn't in the Bible, I repeat it because you are kind of slow on the take sometimes.
Sounds like you are a Catholic. Maybe you can answer some questions. Do the Catholics teach that only the red words of Jesus are Scripture like Vic says is the way? Is Jesus the only way or can you pay off the Catholic church to get to heaven and have your sins forgiven? Why did the Catholics make up Purgatory? It isn't in the Bible and you know that and will admit that if you are an honest person.
Why because the human mind can believe things that simply aren't true? One lifetime better be enough because that is all you get despite some fool hyptontist whispering suggestions in peoples ears. You still never answered why you used to claim to be a christian. Was it true? What caused you to change your mind? It is curious that you refuse to go into that. It is your right but just curious.
I did answer that. We're not communicating so I won't bother to respond again.
I missed it. Do you have a link? If not I'll wade through your posts.
I don't have a link.
Sounds like you are a Catholic. Maybe you can answer some questions. I am a Christian who attends to exegetical works from several denominations. The Catholic Church is a well developed source. Do the Catholics teach that only the red words of Jesus are Scripture like Vic says is the way? I believe the Catholic Church uses the whole Bible as a scriptural source, with additional attention to oral traditions that have been passed down. Vicomte13 can speak for himself. Is Jesus the only way or can you pay off the Catholic church to get to heaven and have your sins forgiven? A state of grace is required to enter Heaven, which for most of us requires acceptance of grace and repentance of our sins. Prayer and good works can help to expatiate sin and recognize grace. Why did the Catholics make up Purgatory? It isn't in the Bible and you know that and will admit that if you are an honest person. I am aware that there are exegetical difference between Catholics and Protestants on this subject. Now let me ask you: Are you without sin? Is repentance an easy instant thing, or does it most often require a significant effort to first recognize it, then to expatiate it from our hearts? Can you help others free themselves from sin by your prayers and works?
I believe that, as human beings, we have both an animal nature and a spiritual nature. The former is easy, as it is merely nature. The latter is difficult, as it is the effort required to expatiate the sin of sapience -- the ability to know the difference between good and evil and willingly engage ourselves in either and both.
Not even close. But I don't pretend that I am. I don't pretend and change scripture to make myself feel like I didn't sin when I do.
I don’t do the latter either.
You do worse. You deny Gods word is his word. You are a follower of the Popes. You follow men who add to scripture. Like Purgatory and men Popes who are not holy. You don't even follow Catholic doctrine correctly.
...a boy from the northwoods who went off to the Navy for two decades My instincts are more that of a bear: provoke me, and my instinct is to maul you, Vic, whatever may be said about your belief system...you are truly...a warrior poet.
Yeh.
You don't even follow Catholic doctrine correctly. Facepalm.
You should face palm yourself. You can't defend your pretend positions. You're no fighter you're a coward.
Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.
The Bible does not teach that we have an animal nature. God's Word does teach that we are men, created in the image of God, having a spirit, soul and body.
If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say?
Let's instead examine videos with actual content.
We hear of the Flattards claiming the Bible teaches the earth is flat. Here is a preacher who does not agree at all.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
#3. To: Liberator (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone, ALL (#1)
Let's instead examine videos with actual content.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#3)
That won't stop me from continuing to do so.
#6. To: Tooconservative, All (#0)
Getting saved is the easiest and most important thing you can do :) You just have to come to the knowledge that you (like everyone else on earth) are a sinner in need of salvation or we would spend eternity in Hell. Salvation is not something we could ever attain on our own, that is why Jesus came to this earth and paid the ultimate price for our sins by allowing himself to be sacrificed for all mankind so through him we can be saved. Jesus led a sinless life and by doing so was able to take all of humanities sins they would ever commit on himself making one sacrifice that covered all sin.
To be saved you have to say a prayer something like this (and most importantly mean it because God reads your heart). Say "God I know I am a sinner. I know that because of my sin Jesus came to this earth and died for me making atonement for all the sins I would ever commit. I believe Jesus died on that cross and raised from the dead three days later conquering death and making a way for me to be saved by taking my sins upon himself. I pray Lord that you save me and come into my heart and life allowing me to be born again through Jesus, living in this world but no longer being of this world. Thank you Lord for saving my soul please lead me, guide me, and direct me all the remaining days of my life. In Jesus name I pray, Amen."
If you said that prayer and meant it you are saved and sealed and nothing anyone could ever say or do can take that away. I would continue to pray daily building a relationship with God, and read the bible some everyday as well. He knows you, but that's the only way to get to know him. Try your best to stop sinning (this is not possible by the way) but you have to make the effort because that is what true repentance means is that you will turn from your sin. Don't give up, this is not easy, I repent and ask God to forgive me for something or another every single day. He knows we aren't perfect, but if we truly love him we gotta try :)
God bless you, here are some scriptures that you might find helpful, and welcome to the family! :D
John 3:3 (KJV) 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Romans 3:23 (KJV) 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 6:23 (KJV) 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:8 (KJV) 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 10:9-10 (KJV) 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:13 (KJV) 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
John 3:16-17 (KJV) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
How to be Saved - The Most Important "Truth"
https://youtu.be/4RSj-CMPBlw
#7. To: Liberator (#0)
#8. To: Liberator (#4)
Do you fear others gaining information and knowledge that badly?
#9. To: A K A Stone, ALL (#8)
Spreading lies and bullshit to people is a sin.
I have zero respect for this flat earth bullshit.
It is retarded.
Was Ferdinand Magellan in on the conspiracy too?
2) Natuber TV
3) ODD Reality
4) Rob Skiba
5) Eric Dubay
6) Taboo Conspiracy II
7) JTolan Media 1
8) William Guzman (the REAL one is really good)
9) Hibbler Productions
10) Jay Myers Documentaries
11) Astro Not II
12) Celebrate Truth
13) Jeranism
14) Flat Earth Brothers
15) Truth Center
16) Richie From Boston
17) DITRH
18) Hacking The Headlines
19) Probably Alexandra
20) FlatWater FlatEarth
21) The Amazing Polly
22) Research Flat Earth
23) A Call For An Uprising
24) FLAT EARTH DATA
25) Dorji Daka
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
It's entertaining.
#11. To: Liberator (#10)
#12. To: Liberator (#0)
When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
#13. To: Liberator (#9)
Was Ferdinand Magellan in on the conspiracy too?
#14. To: Pinguinite, vicomte13 (#12)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
I just wondered if you would also waste your time watching a video about the fact tat 8 + 7 = 9?
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#17. To: Vicomte13, all (#16)
I don't personally care if the world is flat or not. What difference does it make to me? None whatsoever.
2) Evolution
3) Atheism
4) "Alien" Seeding
5) Paganism
6) Occult
7) The New World Order
8) Satanic/Luciferian-based world system of Lies & Deception
9) Lies that both Earth and Man are inconsequential specks in an infinite Universe
2) Validates Science
3) Reinforces God as only Creator of all Things
4) Reinforces God as Creator of Order
5) Reinforces God as Creator and Source of all Truth
6) Reinforces God as Creator of Purpose, Reason, & Function
7) Reinforces God's Creation of Man as special & unique
8) Reinforces God's truth that Earth is a special Realm at the Center of the Universe -- with man at It's Center
#18. To: Liberator (#17)
1) Validates God's Word in Bible as truth of His Creation, it's sequence, and description 2) Validates Science 3) Reinforces God as only Creator of all Things 4) Reinforces God as Creator of Order 5) Reinforces God as Creator and Source of all Truth 6) Reinforces God as Creator of Purpose, Reason, & Function 7) Reinforces God's Creation of Man as special & unique 8) Reinforces God's truth that Earth is a special Realm at the Center of the Universe -- with man at It's Center
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
You can't just post ascertains without backing them up. Your list is bullshit.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#12)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed.
#21. To: Liberator (#20)
But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it.
#22. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#21)
There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water...
#23. To: Liberator (#22)
By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. I
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
(Edited)
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics.
#25. To: Liberator (#24)
(Edited)
Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE,
#26. To: A K A Stone (#25)
You haven't proved shit. You just proved you are gullible and easily manipulated.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
Blatant lies have no place here.
#28. To: Liberator (#27)
Blatant lies have no place here. PROVE THE LIES. Just one. Put up or shut up.
#29. To: Liberator (#24)
(Edited)
After all, on who or what source shall we base "truth"? (or credibility?)
But all I ever see is THIS one by you:
...So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself.
It is on this one basis ALL other evidence to the contrary should be dismissed??
Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE," and still you claim, "every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One."
Why engage in cognitive absolutism without examining the tangible, provable data, science, observations, and facts? Please refute ANY of the memes. Just one.
It is said that Santiago-Sydney flights (close to your examples of Chile to New Zealand, right?) go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.
#30. To: Pinguinite (#29)
#31. To: Pinguinite, Liberator, tooconservative (#29)
#32. To: Pinguinite (#23)
TC posted this vid about the psychological term for describing an inability to accurately understand or comprehend certain subjects. I forget the term.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
A cruise to the end of the earth by the great ice wall that keeps the wildings out and keeps the sharks from falling off the edge of the earth is taking reservations.
#34. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#24)
Curious geometry:
The 747-400, the most common variant in service, has a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85–0.855 (up to 570 mph or 920 km/h) with an intercontinental range of 7,260 nautical miles (8,350 statute miles or 13,450 km).[16]
So are 300-400 people per day just dying when their airliners crash into the sea and no one ever mentions it or NASA is somehow deceiving us all? Are you stating that these non-stop flights do actually fly over the United States at any time, day or night, and none of the passengers ever notice all those brightly-lit cities along the way or that huge continental land mass? There are 300-400 people flying these non-stop flights, generally on a daily basis and none of them ever notice they were flying over South America and North America on their way between Chile and Australia? Or is NASA just deceiving us all by getting Qantas to advertise these flights but they never actually take the passengers on those flights after they book them and pay for them? Boeing and Airbus take pride in manufacturing some of the world's longest range airliners. The Boeing 777-200LR - with a massive range of 17,395km - tops the list, followed by the Airbus A340-500 with a range of 16,670km.
#35. To: Liberator (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)
#38. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
just a just as no amo just a just as no amount of that has ever been able to convince me of a single thing concer concerning Go concer concerning God and his existence.
#40. To: Pinguinite (#39)
#41. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#37)
that I DON'T know God
I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what lo looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon and sink into the sea on the other.
#42. To: watchman (#41)
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
Yes, I spend six full years at sea.
Telling people about God doesn't do much in my experience...I come from a different angle
#44. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, all (#38)
<<"Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight.">>
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
The question of proof to the skeptic fascinates me, whatever the subject.
#46. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, designated Gatekeeper (#37)
I don't care about the "kook" label.
#47. To: A K A Stone (#28)
Waste of time.
#48. To: Liberator (#44)
#49. To: Liberator (#46)
#50. To: Pinguinite (#48)
If you plot the path on a globe:
#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)
TC already blew your satanic flat earth lies to smithereens
#52. To: Liberator (#51)
#53. To: Liberator (#44)
(Edited)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Earth is, in fact, a spheroid.
#55. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#44)
The purported mileage on that trans-Pacific airline is just one the main issue. The primary point and observation made here is the odd connection that is seemingly WAY out of the way on that Flight (which makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth Map.)
Boeing and Airbus take pride in manufacturing some of the world's longest range airliners. The Boeing 777-200LR - with a massive range of 17,395km - tops the list, followed by the Airbus A340-500 with a range of 16,670km. 
#56. To: Pinguinite (#54)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
#58. To: Pinguinite (#54)
I guess it's when the time and effort I expend to debate and, what I would consider "enlighten" simply goes absolutely nowhere. That is when it becomes frustrating.
#59. To: Pinguinite (#53)
#1) He claims the flight was from Bali to LAX. It wasn't. It was from Taiwan. I found 2 youtubes on the subject. Both were news reports, one in english, and the other in a foreign language. The english one stated and illustrated the flight being from Taiwan. The non-english one didn't show a map but the vid was titled as saying it was from Bali. The woman was from Taiwan. I searched and found a site saying no non-stop flights from Bali to LAX exist. I searched Kayak which gave flight opportunities only with 1 or more stops, no direct flights.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
#61. To: Liberator (#51)
#62. To: Liberator (#54)
#63. To: Tooconservative (#55)
A direct flight on Round Earth Airlines is possible for this route, using the two long-range airliners I mentioned above.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#65. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#66. To: Pinguinite (#63)
One thing I did notice but didn't mention on the Taiwan - LAX flights is that the east-west flights were a couple hours longer than the west-east flights. I supposed that was due to the routine air currents being easterly. In that case, the Bali-LAX leg might be possible for LAX bound flights but not for the return trip. Obviously the flight ranges you gave would be the theoretical ranges, and assume no wind at all.
#67. To: Pinguinite (#62)
But you should know that the youtube vid narrator, at the bare minimum in this case, has simply not done anything close to sound research on the subject. Either than or he is, yes, intentionally using false facts to support the allegations he claims.
#68. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, Vicomte13, watchman, Tooconservative (#60)
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Or were you never really a Christian...
#69. To: Tooconservative (#66)
#70. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, Deckard, Watchman, A K A Stoneredleghunter, (#55)
Too Conservative:
#71. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#70)
#72. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#55)
These are con men and Liberator is their rube....[blah, blah]...kooks ...nonsense... Fakebook or Twitter or whatnot [YouBoob]....The CT cultist...
#73. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, watchman, redleghunter (#68)
I find the theology of sin to be rather "messy" and always have, even while a Christian. Messy because sin must be done with intent, and intent is simply not qualifiable in many cases, particularly with very young children.
#74. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#69)
The reason the flight paths loop up like that is that they are flying great circle routes, which are the shortest distance between two points on the curved world.
#75. To: Liberator (#72)
In that you have comically self-anointed yourself LF's 'Captain of Gatekeeping,' the questions that must be asked:
#76. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#73)
(We can literally spend months or years on your post, this convo...)
#77. To: Pinguinite (#62)
I feel I was a bit harsh on my prior post yesterday. I apologize for that...
#78. To: Tooconservative (#76)
It really is more than a little unpleasant to hijack threads...
#79. To: Tooconservative (#74)
#80. To: Liberator (#73)
Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"?
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
#83. To: Liberator (#77)
Even if you manage to find "defects" in half or even 90% of the assertions, that still leaves 10-50% to legitimately ponder over. Once a NASA caught repeatedly fudging is eliminated from the quotient, what is there?
#84. To: Pinguinite (#68)
how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"?
#85. To: Liberator (#73)
Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"?
#86. To: watchman (#84)
(Edited)
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit.
That's basically it.
#87. To: Pinguinite (#86)
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
#88. To: Tooconservative (#33)
I have regretted over the years that I didn't keep an archive of the antifreeper Clown Posse stuff. It seems that RimJob threatened them with lawsuits and they folded up and disappeared entirely.
#89. To: nolu chan (#88)
#90. To: watchman (#87)
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
#91. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on".
Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution.
#92. To: Pinguinite (#90)
We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned.
#93. To: watchman (#92)
(Edited)
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil?
You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature.
And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
#94. To: Pinguinite, watchman (#93)
#95. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#97. To: watchman (#95)
So there is a God in the Newton model.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
#98. To: Pinguinite (#96)
(Edited)
but full accountability nonetheless exists.
#99. To: Pinguinite (#97)
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#98)
#101. To: Pinguinite (#100)
#102. To: watchman (#99)
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
#103. To: Pinguinite (#102)
If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
#104. To: watchman (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in.
Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone.
#105. To: Pinguinite (#104)
then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
#106. To: Pinguinite (#104)
Okay, if that is the case, then even if the earth and universe were created just 6000 years ago, then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
#107. To: Pinguinite (#104)
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
#108. To: Pinguinite, watchman (#104)
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
#109. To: watchman, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross.
#110. To: watchman, Liberator, Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#105)
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old.
#111. To: Tooconservative (#108)
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:40-42
#112. To: watchman, Pinguinite (#111)
As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe.
Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?)
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
#113. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#108)
This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system
#114. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#109)
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
#115. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#110)
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago?,
#116. To: watchman (#111)
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God.
#117. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13, watchman (#113)
Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to.
You should brace yourself but...the Muslims say the same damned thing about Christianity! Who knew? I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much.
As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated.
Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity.
Newton was not a conventional orthodox Christian in any sense. So I can see why you might like him but not the others here. Newton was obviously a very original thinker, something that was not apparent for many years after his death. The religious establishment has also sought to conceal his true opinions, something rather instructive about the nature of concentrated official religious power. The same thing happened with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, in particular the contents of the Jefferson bible. And Newton would likely have applauded the Jefferson bible, given what we know. I may post separately on the Jefferson bible and its history; it is very interesting and not widely known. Wiki: Isaac Newton: Religious Views Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic. So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
#118. To: Tooconservative (#117)
#119. To: Tooconservative (#117)
#120. To: Pinguinite (#104)
(Edited)
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
#121. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13, watchman, A K A Stone, Liberator (#115)
(Edited)
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
Keep in mind, God creates time too, not just space. At least according to Einstein, who found the 2 pretty much go hand in hand.
Anyway, I just posted that stuff as a sneaky pretext to return to the Jefferson Bible. I'll flag Vic because I think he'll find some of this rather familiar, given his notorious past as a redheaded red-blooded Red-Letter KJV-Only Mackerel-Snapping Roman Catholic. He is little devious and his personality traits are not dissimilar to Jefferson's. : ) 1Now it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
2And this enrollment was the first which was made when Quirinius, was governor of Syria.
3And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
5To be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, being then with child.
63There laid they Jesus,
64And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. Wiki: Jefferson Bible: Early Draft Early draft
In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines. Probably you have heard me say I had taken the four Evangelists, had cut out from them every text they had recorded of the moral precepts of Jesus, and arranged them in a certain order; and although they appeared but as fragments, yet fragments of the most sublime edifice of morality which had ever been exhibited to man. Content
Purpose
Publication history
Nerd Alert!
It is said that Jefferson destroyed at least two KJV bibles to produce his own version and I noticed that these were not 1611 Authorized versions (old bibles) but ones that were new enough that they had two different letters for 's' and 'f' which were the same letter in the original Authorized Version. It also uses the letter 'u' which had previously been written as 'v'. One might conclude that Jefferson used the 1769 version of the KJV bible to create his own. But did he? I know that is a burning question in everyone's minds. LOL 1760 Cambridge "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be troden under foot of men." 1769 edition Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Jefferson's text
???"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
Wiki: Religious views of Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson, Jesus, and the Bible Jefferson, Jesus, and the Bible
Anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Calvinism
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained. Priestley and Unitarianism
You are right in supposing, in one of yours, that I had not read much of Priestley's Predestination, his no-soul system, or his controversy with Horsley. But I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, and on Middleton's writings, especially his Letters from Rome, and To Waterland, as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered, nor can be answered by quoting historical proofs, as they have done. For these facts, therefore, I cling to their learning, so much superior to my own. No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an impostor. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. ... I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also. I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, altho I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated. Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley's Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley's theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the Trinitarian theology. His work, the Jefferson Bible, was Unitarian in theology ...
#122. To: Pinguinite (#118)
(Edited)
hehehe.... a long write up, and interesting account of Issac Newton. However, all of my references to Newton refer to Dr. Michael Newton who is a contemporary who utilized hypnosis as a therapeutic method, initially for common things like losing weight, quitting smoking and regression to childhood to recall traumatic events that were impacting complaining clients, but then discovered that clients sometimes recalled events from not just prior lives but from between lives that took place, alledgely, in the spiritual realm.
#123. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
The degree of adamancy of the Trinitarian versus Arian fight is, and always was, excessively violent and un-Christian. Newton was right that this was the doctrine that set the Church on a decidedly bad path, for it was over the doctrine of the Trinity that the Church began carrying out executions in the 380s AD, and with that, tainted itself forevermore.
#124. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#116)
I consider Christianity to be a good faith. All the morals about how we are to live and treat others, embellishing virtues and such are spot on.
#125. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#115)
(Edited)
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
#126. To: Liberator (#120)
(1) Michael Newton's definitive account of the Afterlife, and his "Life Between Lives" upper-echelon Spirit "mentoring" of the recently deceased spirit -- Absolutely Fact? OR Theory? Are you willing to stake your eternal soul on Newton's account as THE Truth?
(2) DID the kind of "study and analysis" conducted by Newton and his conclusion actually create the notion of exposing Christianity as lacking reason, logic, and documentation? In your opinion, does Michael Newton's own "study and analysis" surpass that of the Christian for our faith?? I assume you are well aware of the tremendous weight and testimony factual historical, prophecies and documentation provided in both the Old and New Testaments. (OR...do they seem to be from your perspective riddled with inaccuracies, impossibilities, and misunderstandings?)
John 19: 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken
(3) Given Dr. Newton's "credentials" as a clinical Psychologist/Hypnotist, why should one trust the account of Dr. Michael Newton as a prophet of sorts? Or accounts of his hypnotized subjects, who voluntarily surrendered their respective will to the Power-of-Suggestion while in a waking-sleep state consciousness?
(4) IS it possible... that while under hypnosis and state of spiritual surrender they may have allowed disembodied spirits to "take over the helm" and give false testimony about Past-Lives-Regression? (After all, it is this "testimony" and "documentation" on which you base your entire faith of the Afterlife, isn't it?)
(5) IS it possible....that the PLR accounts of these hypnotized subjects of Dr. Newton were lies? WAS it possible that they as well as Newton himself were posessed, guided and fully deceived? IS it possible... that demonic disembodied spirits created false "memories" and accounts, ergo a motive in promoting an alternative "Way, Truth, and Life"? (does this resemble the Tree of Knowledge temptation in Eden as well?)
If Newton's accounts are to be believed at face value, there are spiritual entities involved who bridge the two realms. That expressed message is: "God is a Liar. Scripture is a Lie. Heaven and Hell are lies. The reason for a Redeemer of Sins is a Lie. YOU alone control your own Judgement and Afterlife, not God."
#127. To: Tooconservative (#121)
For God to be God, he must exist entirely outside the space/time continuum. Those are artifacts of God's creation and he is not subject to them. If he was, then he would be nothing more than another artifact of his own creation.
#128. To: Pinguinite (#127)
Christians who are hung up on evolution consider us to be special because of our humanity, which is why evolution is a problem for them.
#129. To: Tooconservative (#122)
You must know that hypnotists that claim to recover repressed memories are held in extreme disrepute and have caused demonstrable harm to people, destroying families, driving people into mental illness and suicide, people put in prison based on false memories implanted, sometimes inadvertently, by the therapist or hypnotist.
#130. To: Pinguinite (#115)
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
#131. To: Pinguinite (#114)
Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept.
a line about it being appointed to man "once to die"
#132. To: Liberator (#120)
But then again, that doesn't also preclude Christians from kicking it up several notches as well; "study or analysis" of Scripture is exactly how Christian Bible Scholars and Christians have discerned Truth from Genesis-to-Revelation, inexorably reinforcing the foundations of Christian Faith.
#133. To: Liberator (#124)
It sure is a Big-Three, ain't it? (For good reason.)
What they all have in common: NO Accountability, NO Debt Service, NO Death Penalty. NO MATTER WHAT...
#134. To: Liberator (#125)
THIS strata was created in just a few hours, Look old, doesn't it?
#135. To: watchman (#130)
No.
Adam appeared to be 30 something but was in fact only 1 day old, so, your logic has failed you.
Who says that the universe is 13 billion years old? Really? The same scientists who are now back-pedaling about evolution not explaining the complexity of life on Earth?
#136. To: watchman (#131)
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what?
Have you ever watched anyone die?
Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#136)
This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity.
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating,
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#138. To: watchman, Pinguinite, Liberator (#137)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#139. To: Pinguinite (#136)
phobias on subsequent lives
#140. To: Pinguinite (#136)
There was one woman who had a near death experience, or claims to, a Dr. Mary Neal, I think her name is. She drowned in a kayak accident and was underwater for maybe 15 minutes or more. She claims an experience quite compatible with Newton's findings, and was so elated upon death she didn't want to come back. At all. And that in spite of having 4 young children in her care. I recall her interview in which she answered a question as to why she took so many years to write of her experience, and one reason she gave was because she was ashamed. Ashamed that she didn't want to come back in spite of having 4 children that needed and depended on her. It was a sentiment that wasn't even in the least bit negotiable, as what she experienced in her NDE was simply that overwhelming. And it seems she was in every way a very good and loving mother.
#141. To: Pinguinite (#134)
One Bible passage can apply: "Seek, and ye shall find". If you set out to prove creationism and evidence of a young earth, you will certainly find it.
#142. To: Pinguinite (#133)
Under the Newton model, there most certainly is accountability. Debt service? There is karmatic justice. And there is in fact a possibility that individual souls could vanish into oblivion in some way. Maybe. It's an open question.
#143. To: Pinguinite (#129)
I agree it is not a precise science, and Newton is/was aware of that as well.
#144. To: Tooconservative (#138)
Exactly where in human history is this era of the Good Old Days that is the baseline to which we should compare all human life?
#145. To: watchman (#130)
Adam appeared to be 30 something but was in fact only 1 day old, so, your logic has failed you.
Who says that the universe is 13 billion years old? Really?
The same scientists who are now back-pedaling about evolution not explaining the complexity of life on Earth?
#146. To: watchman (#137)
I don't think her experience has anything to do with Christianity. We are dead when the spirit leaves the body...and the spirit does not come back. The human spirit either goes to be with Christ, or the spirit goes into Hades, the fiery holding tank for unbelieving humans, to await the final judgement.
With so much returning to the earth (6000 divided by 70 = 85.7 potential reincarnations) we are not seeing ANY sign of human progression toward perfection. In fact, just the opposite.
#147. To: watchman (#144)
The Bible doesn't say that there was ever a "Good Old Days" time in human history. God simply says things are going to get worse in the last days.
#148. To: Tooconservative (#108)
It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system, one that can be sustained only by heavily indoctrinating children in it from an early age.
#149. To: A K A Stone (#143)
I'll stop now before you delete the website.
#150. To: Tooconservative (#138)
Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous.
#151. To: Tooconservative (#138)
Normally, when we hear people speak of the Good Old Days, we find those Good Old Days were just the same as the present. The people speaking were just younger and more naive or at least more filled with hope for the future.
#152. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
#153. To: Tooconservative (#123)
It probably is the single greatest fight over heresy in Christian history.
#154. To: Vicomte13 (#151)
"But, they didn't have gay marriage back then!"
#155. To: Tooconservative (#152)
I was disappointed that no one read my mega-post
#156. To: Tooconservative (#154)
The Great Depression finished off much of what remained of Victorian morality and WW II mostly extinguished it, outside some very rural areas.
#157. To: Vicomte13 (#153)
Can a new Church of Jesus be made that puts it all back together again?
The existing miracles don't do it. It would take a new prophetic figure doing miracles - preferably great healing miracles (I believe that limb regeneration on live TV would be required to shut up the most stubborn opponents) - to be able to really make the change (if nothing else, every amputee and born blind or deaf or paralytic healed would be a true believer).
It would be more potent if the prophetic figure could both heal the paralytic and blind and CAUSE paralysis and blindness, and raise the dead and strike dead as well, for that would set up an actual risk profile, a probably confrontation with a government, and the sudden dissolution (by mass striking dead) of some major state, which would certainly create a following.
#158. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#155)
(Edited)
For the Old Testament, it would just be the red-letter/purple letter/golden letter words of Elohiym, YHWH, El Elyon etc. And there would be a synthesis of the legal texts, a "Restatement of the Torah" as it were, that would draw together the various legal strings and reduce it to the blackletter law, and the observation that every other thing that God said in the Old Testament, and most of what Jesus said in the new, went right back to those specific black-letter laws of YHWH,
If I published something, it would be called "Just God", and it would be my already existing "Harmony of the Gospels plus", with the mechanically, concordantly translated text, and the Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew right there.
#159. To: Tooconservative (#154)
#160. To: Vicomte13 (#159)
Abortion on demand, young, is where the society has compromised. I wouldn't compromise and go with God, which would mean a whole lot of communalism and involuntary wealth redistribution, with which people of God comply with a willing smile.
#161. To: Tooconservative (#157)
I think you should have someone able to call lightning out of the sky to smite the unbelievers. Fire would work just as well. Or maybe alternate the tools of smiting for variety and to keep your TV ratings up.
#162. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#161)
Just the healing power, including the power to raise the dead (even the long-dead - bring their spirits back from Paradise (or Gehenna, or wherever- the-hell else...Valhalla!) and put them in regenerated bodies, and of course the inverse of these things - if you can heal a heart attack and a stroke, you can break blood vessels too.
The healing becomes the vehicle for "voluntary" wealth redistribution - on a Toranic model. You have hardened arteries and cancer, poor old street woman? Well, now you have a young clean body again. Come along and help me. You have terminal cancer, Mr. Rockefeller? You can have the same vigor and youth as this poor woman, but it will require the redistribution of all of your wealth above the amount we calculate necessary to maintain your family life in dignity, and to maintain the employment of your businesses. You don't need to accumulate more, however, and your purpose now, in operating your businesses, will be to no longer accumulate profits in your own accounts (for you will never rule the world through wealth, so stop trying), but to actually get everybody into a by-right living space (everybody as in, everybody in the world, not just everybody in Detroit), with food, etc.
Oh, and you're all going to garden some. Yes, you're all going to grow food. The price now is hundreds of thousands to insurance companies and doctors for hit-or miss care. The price now is healing is free, but you have to behave in the ways that God intended - and that means tending your own garden - which makes the world green and lovely and fed and healthy.
#163. To: Tooconservative (#158)
Hey, the family's away so you don't have many social obligations at present...
#164. To: Tooconservative (#162)
You go on about wealth redistribution a lot.
#165. To: Vicomte13 (#153)
Christians are headstrong and know better than Jesus. Which is why their churches are all dying.
#166. To: Vicomte13 (#164)
I've GIVEN UP on the Christian religions, because they are so awful. I stick with God and his Jesus, because they're real.
#167. To: Vicomte13 (#164)
(Edited)
Basically, Christians want to talk about the mind.
#168. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#165)
I'm witnessing a lot of passion, fellowship, growth, and commitment by Believers.
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Rev. 3:17
#169. To: Liberator (#165)
(Edited)
#170. To: All (#169)
#171. To: Pinguinite (#149)
That's fine, but it doesn't mean Christianity should get a free pass from scrutiny. If Christianity is true, then it will stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
#172. To: Vicomte13, watchman (#159)
Yeah, abortion does bother me, but not like you think.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#172)
I know it doesn't bother you that much when you said if a christian wins the nomination you would vote for mass baby killer Hillary.
#174. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#172)
You also said in the past that the way to have a better world would be for you to murder all right wingers.
#175. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
You fall for rope-a-dope
#176. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
about some particularly loathsome Republican at one point,
#177. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
(Edited)
That was many years ago, not in the Trump era. You remember it, and you beat it like a drum. Of course, you supported Ronald Reagan (as did () but you pretend that a man who signed the abortion act in California and who appointed two pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court was "pro- life" - you don't even see that he was not.
#178. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
there is a REASON that the world gradually drifts in my direction on so many things,
#179. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
You've just gotta take a pop at me every now and again, over Hillary Clinton! I'd like to see the woman indicted.
#180. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
And then H.W. Bush, whose appointed a pro-Roe justice to the court and tried to appoint a second one (but he was blocked).
#181. To: Vicomte13 (#173)
these Republicans whom you extol, whom you permit yourself to vomit bile on everybody who criticises them - these Republicans HATE Trump, whereas I have been in his camp all along.
#182. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
Because the word lists are clear, somebody can always simply mass replace one word with another, but the point is that the words are the words, and the translator doesn't get any choices - to make something theological.
Wiki: Names of God in Judaism The name of God most often used in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Owing to the Jewish tradition viewing the divine name as too sacred to be uttered it was replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai ("My Lord"), which was translated as Kyrios ("Lord") in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. It is frequently anglicized as Yahweh or Jehovah and written in most English editions of the Bible as "the LORD".
So how would you translate these various names of God from Hebrew, using word pictures like bright sky god in this one well-known verse, word for word, with or without capitals, with or without modern punctuation? How would you improve these various English translations? BTW, I included the Jubilee bible just for fun. And I added the Orthodox Jewish Bible translation at the very end, almost certainly more accurate than any of the others and pretty revealing of the underlying Hebrew language structure but...who would really want to read that as daily scripture readings? Not many people, I think. Deuteronomy 10:17 Bishops For the Lorde your God, is God of Gods, and Lorde of Lordes, a great God, a mightie and a terrible, whiche regardeth no mans person, nor taketh rewarde. Geneva For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lordes, a great God, mightie and terrible, which accepteth no persons nor taketh reward: KJV-1611 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. KJV For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: KJV+ ForH3588 the LORDH3068 your GodH430 is GodH430 of gods,H430 and LordH113 of lords,H113 a greatH1419 God,H410 a mighty,H1368 and a terrible,H3372 whichH834 regardethH5375 notH3808 persons,H6440 norH3808 takethH3947 reward:H7810 LITV For Jehovah your God, He is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords; the great, the mighty, the fearful God who does not lift up faces, nor take a bribe. MKJV For Jehovah your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, the mighty, and a terrible God, who does not respect persons nor take a bribe. JUB For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God, mighty, and terrible, who makes no exception of persons, nor takes a bribe; Latin quia Dominus Deus vester ipse est Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium Deus magnus et potens et terribilis qui personam non accipit nec munera CEV The LORD your God is more powerful than all other gods and lords, and his tremendous power is to be feared. His decisions are always fair, and you cannot bribe him to change his mind. ESV For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. OJB 17 For Hashem Eloheichem is Elohei HaElohim, and Adonei HaAdonim, HaEl HaGadol, HaGibbor v’HaNorah, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh shochad (bribe):
#183. To: Tooconservative (#182)
#184. To: Tooconservative (#182)
#185. To: A K A Stone (#180)
When you appoint someone you can't completely know their heart.
#186. To: A K A Stone (#178)
There is stuff you said Trump would never do. Like welfare stuff. Well Trump agrees with my position more that your s on leeches stealing from the system. Welfare. So if Trump is the model he is more like me that you. So by your logic the country is moving more in my direction that yours.
#187. To: A K A Stone (#177)
I didn't vote for Reagan ever. I wasn't old enough. If you want to bash me on this issue do it for voting for Perot.
#188. To: A K A Stone (#176)
Ted Cruz. What is loathsome about Ted Cruz? Besides the fact you want to murder him. I mean real stuff not your over active imagination.
#189. To: A K A Stone (#180)
Clarence Thomas is the best judge on the Supreme court. Pro life appointed by Bush.
#190. To: watchman (#174)
After Vic has disposed of all those mean old white Christian right wingers, he'll be left alone with all his leftist, communist, atheist pals...and they will do what they always do...they will immediately kill him.
#191. To: A K A Stone (#175)
I am aware that you support abortion too.
#192. To: Vicomte13 (#183)
Given that He Exists (or He Lives), he is powers of powers, leader of leaders, the power, the great, the courageous and the feared one, he will not lift up face and he will not take bribe.
That the LORD your God is the God of God, and the lords of God increase increase and terrible that no-bear and not take bribes.
#193. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#168)
I'm not seeing this, Liberator. But I'm not seeing the church "dying", as Vic would describe it.
#194. To: Vicomte13, watchman (#169)
(Edited)
ACTUAL miracles of healing, the REAL thing. They do not happen, but by the power of God.
#195. To: Tooconservative (#192)
#196. To: Liberator (#194)
Whom do you think has been preventing this evil world from caving in upon itself?
#197. To: Liberator (#194)
it is NOT up to government to confiscate wealth and re-distribute it. That my friend is called, THEFT.
#198. To: All (#197)
#199. To: Vicomte13 (#198)
Does God allow men to kill other men?
Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. Acts 26:10
Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment.
Who has to worry about that? Do murderers? What about people who order murder but don't commit it themselves? What about those who aid and abet murder? Does Paul have anything to worry about?
What about soldiers who kill? What about cops? What about people who kill an innocent by accident?
What about people who kill in self defense?
What about people who torture animals?
#200. To: Vicomte13 (#185)
When you appoint someone you can't completely know their heart. Yes you can.
#201. To: Vicomte13 (#195)
These two facts from the text, when translated mechanically and without changing the words around, are directly opposite what Christians teach themselves, and explain most of the evil that befalls the Christian world. We do not understand that we are COMMANDED to give or lend (at zero interest) our excess money to relieve poverty, but that we are FORBIDDEN from enforcing our civil laws with deadly force. That "charity" is compelled but that obedience to human law is voluntary is what God actually says - or the implication of it - and it is the diametric opposite of what humans want.
Thus, in Israel there would be no scarcity, because all land and all produce and all people were accounted for under the laws of God, including who must be given to by whom in the event of misfortune. And there would be no abuse of law because men were completely stripped of their ability to make any law whatever. They could only execute the laws God set, without changing them. No place was left to human opinion, and there was, effectively, no source of human voluntary power in the system. Thus did God create a system that would lake poverty or abuse, by eliminating the human ego from the governance of men.
#202. To: Tooconservative (#201)
#203. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#198)
(Edited)
Let's cut to the chase:
#204. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Pinguinite, redleghunter (#202)
I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’.
Bible.org: The Jerusalem Council: The Gospel Defined and Defended (Acts 15:1-35) Introduction
The Issue, Its Advocates and Its Assumptions
The gospel requires nothing more than a personal faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, in the sinner’s place, resulting in the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the certainty of eternal life. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” … 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen (Genesis 17:5-14, 22-25, NIV). 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. 46 “It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. 49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you” (Exodus 12:43-49, NIV). 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (Deuteronomy 30:6, NIV).
#205. To: Liberator (#203)
(Is there not a difference between "killing" and "murder"? You're also familiar with Ecclesiastes, right?)
#206. To: Tooconservative (#204)
#207. To: Tooconservative (#205)
#208. To: Tooconservative (#205)
#209. To: Vicomte13 (#208)
but Jesus says that killers today go into the lake of fire
#210. To: watchman (#209)
#211. To: Vicomte13 (#210)
liars, killers, the sexually immoral, etc. Killers appear on both lists.
#212. To: watchman (#209)
(Edited)
#213. To: A K A Stone (#212)
Vic isn't a bible believer.
#214. To: watchman (#213)
#215. To: A K A Stone (#214)
He says he only trusts the red writing.
#216. To: watchman (#215)
#217. To: watchman (#215)
#218. To: watchman (#211)
Murderers unredeemable?
#219. To: A K A Stone (#212)
I also notice he is adding to scripture adding the word mortal.
#220. To: All (#219)
#221. To: Vicomte13 (#220)
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
#222. To: watchman (#221)
#223. To: Vicomte13 (#222)
And you REALLY believe that this is what Jesus meant by his teaching?
#224. To: watchman (#223)
#225. To: Vicomte13 (#224)
#226. To: watchman (#221)
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.
#227. To: A K A Stone (#226)
So Jesus was a sinner?
#228. To: watchman (#227)
#229. To: A K A Stone (#228)
#230. To: A K A Stone, watchman (#226)
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.
#231. To: Pinguinite (#230)
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.
#232. To: Pinguinite (#230)
Anger is a response to insecurity
#233. To: Pinguinite (#230)
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.
#234. To: watchman (#225)
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
#235. To: Pinguinite (#230)
I'm saying it does not add up.
#236. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#231)
(Ping): "I know, I know.... That [God's justification] was "righteous" anger. That's somehow different from ordinary anger.
#237. To: Vicomte13 (#235)
You're right: it doesn't add up.
#238. To: Pinguinite (#230)
(Edited)
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.
#239. To: Vicomte13 (#234)
That's not what Jesus said.
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
#240. To: Liberator (#236)
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.")
#241. To: Vicomte13 (#235)
#242. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#240)
(Edited)
I disagree. We'll have to put this in the same disagree category as flat earth theory.
#243. To: watchman (#239)
Question: are you trying to get into heaven by your works? So you can boast?
#244. To: Vicomte13 (#243)
I - very reasonably - decide that Jesus is the highest authority.
Paul appears here to contradict Jesus.
Your type actually feels superior to Catholics, and you cannot restrain your tongues, and go into full-blown judgment mode.
I also recognise that people are not going to change their minds about things they've become stubborn about.
But your ilk will not leave it alone.
#245. To: watchman (#244)
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)
#246. To: watchman (#244)
I'll be back soon to see what verses you have come up with as to those contradictions you speak of.
#247. To: Vicomte13 (#245)
I'm struggling to remain polite with you.
#248. To: Vicomte13 (#246)
I'll not be engaging in that game. You want to lecture me.
#249. To: watchman (#247)
You come here because you know Christians care about your soul and will tell you the truth.
#250. To: watchman (#248)
Just put the verses up.
#251. To: Vicomte13 (#249)
I come here to see if the hard right
#252. To: Vicomte13 (#250)
Gladly.
#253. To: Vicomte13 (#249)
I come here to see if the hard right, as your ranks dwindle and you lose on battlefield after battlefield, is ready to rethink. You're not.
#254. To: watchman (#250)
Just put the verses up.
#255. To: A K A Stone (#252)
Is this going to be like the economics thread you promised and aborted?
#256. To: Vicomte13 (#250)
Only one or two examples please. I don't have all day, you know.
#257. To: Vicomte13 (#254)
and repay every man according to his works.
#258. To: Vicomte13 (#254)
Rev. 21:1-8 Then I saw a new Heaven and a new earth, for the first Heaven and the first earth had disappeared and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descending from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride dressed in beauty for her husband. Then I heard a great voice from the throne crying, "See! The home of God is with men, and he will live among them. They shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death shall be no more, and never again shall there be sorrow or crying or pain. For all those former things are past and gone."
#259. To: All (#258)
(Edited)
Rev. 21:1-8 Then I saw a new Heaven and a new earth, for the first Heaven and the first earth had disappeared and the sea was no more. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descending from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride dressed in beauty for her husband. Then I heard a great voice from the throne crying, "See! The home of God is with men, and he will live among them. They shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death shall be no more, and never again shall there be sorrow or crying or pain. For all those former things are past and gone."
#260. To: watchman (#259)
Note: there are at least seven judgments that have taken place by the time you read Rev.21. Those judgements include the judgment of Christians who were martyred in the Tribulation, the Old Testament Saints, the Sheep/Goat judgment, Satan/fallen angel judgment, ect. I can point these judgments out to you with Scripture references but it gets a bit lengthy for this forum.
#261. To: Vicomte13 (#260)
(Edited)
By all means list them.
#262. To: All (#261)
#263. To: watchman (#261)
#264. To: Vicomte13 (#263)
complicated tarte-a-la-creme
Jesus' revealed a much simpler structure of judgment and life after death
#265. To: watchman, vicomte13 (#264)
Perhaps you'd like to present Jesus' version, clearly, concisely using verses with chapter and number this time;)
#266. To: Vicomte13 (#208)
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.
#267. To: Tooconservative (#266)
(Edited)
#268. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#265)
He pretends he only believes the red writing
I think Vic basically has a good heart
#269. To: watchman (#262)
#270. To: watchman, A K A Stone (#268)
I pity him. His heart is hardened toward God, refusing to hear the "whole counsel of God".
#271. To: Vicomte13 (#269)
Judgement of Believers...When: btween rapture and 2nd Coming...Basis: our Christian life...1Cor3:10/2Cor.5:10 - WHERE IS JESUS?
Judgement of OT Saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith in coming messiah...Dan. 12:1-3 - THE LENGTHY PASSAGES AROUND THIS APPEAR TO REFER TO THE PERSIANS,
Judgement of Martyred Trib saints...When: end of Trib...Basis: faith proven by works...Rev.20:4-6 - THIS IS PERTINENT
Judgement of Surviving Gentiles of Trib...When: end of Trib...Basis: Sheep- or-goat...Joel3:1,2/Mt25:31-46...THERE IS NO "SURVIVING OF TRIBULATION" IN THIS PASSAGE
Judgement of Satan/fallen angels...When: end of millennium...Basis: rebellion... Jude6/2Pt2:4 - FINE, BUT NOT RELEVANT TO PEOPLE.
#272. To: Vicomte13 (#270)
We're done.
#273. To: watchman (#272)
Drama much?
#274. To: Vicomte13 (#267)
Of course, you CAN exult in arms, and go kill people to take their lands and resources, or to silence their heresy or remove their political resistance. And when you do, you are simply a murderer and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment, whether you call yourself a "Christian" or not.
#275. To: Vicomte13 (#270)
You're not God.
#276. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
No drama. Rather, the desire to avoid a very harsh exchange.
#277. To: A K A Stone (#275)
Don't get mad at someone because you don't like the truth.
#278. To: Vicomte13, watchman, A K A Stone (#267)
One thing that talking to self-professed "Christians" over time has taught me, is that Christianity is an aggressive religion full of proud and insulting people. I'll stick with Jesus alone, you can keep your "Christianity".
#279. To: Liberator (#277)
No drama. Rather, the desire to avoid a very harsh exchange.
#280. To: A K A Stone (#279)
#281. To: Liberator, Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#278)
I would ask -- are those who are trying to "save" your soul doing so more out of real love and concern? Or, as a matter of personal pride and one-upsmanship? (We've all been there.)
Christianity is an aggressive religion full of proud and insulting people
#282. To: A K A Stone (#279)
(Edited)
Your flat earth bullshit isn't biblical or scientific.
#283. To: watchman, Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#281)
#284. To: Liberator (#278)
I would ask -- are those who are trying to "save" your soul doing so more out of real love and concern? Or, as a matter of personal pride and one-upsmanship? (We've all been there.)
#285. To: Vicomte13 (#284)
(Edited)
They've said what they believe. I understand it. I don't agree with them on many points. I've said what I believe. THey don't agree with me on many points. Nothing is served by beating it into the ground again.
#286. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#283)
heed Jesus' own countenance and gentle rebuke in sharing the word and truth
#287. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#286)
You don't know Jesus very well...
#288. To: Liberator (#287)
#289. To: watchman (#288)
#290. To: Liberator (#289)
#291. To: Liberator (#285)
(Edited)
#292. To: A K A Stone (#274)
Under your beliefs. Can you repent and be saved after murdering someone in a premeditated fashion?
#293. To: Vicomte13 (#291)
(Edited)
There were dinosaurs. We have the bones.
#294. To: Liberator (#293)
#295. To: Vicomte13 (#294)
(Edited)
#296. To: Vicomte13 (#294)
Cells are alive. When you eat them, you kill them.
#297. To: Vicomte13 (#291)
Genesis is a poetic account of the filling of the land and the sky by God. It's not an actual scientific record.
#298. To: Vicomte13 (#284)
They've said what they believe. I understand it. I don't agree with them on many points. I've said what I believe. THey don't agree with me on many points.
#299. To: A K A Stone (#297)
#300. To: A K A Stone (#298)
#301. To: A K A Stone (#296)
Are you a retard?
#302. To: A K A Stone (#297)
You’re an idiot....ravings of a delusional lunatic...Get mental help.
#303. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#296)
Cells are alive. When you eat them, you kill them.
The Bible is very clear about the nature of life. Life, according to the Bible, resides in the "soul," or the Hebrew word "nephesh." This might be equated roughly with the concept of consciousness. This quality is ascribed only to man and some animals, but never plants. The Bible is also very clear as to what happens to plants—"they wither and fade" (Isaiah 40:6-8; James 1:10) but plants never die. They have biological life, but not Biblical life. Men and animals could eat plant life without death, in Biblical terms, taking place.
#304. To: Vicomte13 (#302)
Look what you have to put up with to even try to have a quiet, rational conversation with a Christian if he disagrees with you.
#305. To: Vicomte13 (#302)
They reject science,
#306. To: watchman (#303)
#307. To: Vicomte13 (#302)
(Edited)
You’re an idiot....ravings of a delusional lunatic...Get mental help.
Why would anyone want to join a club of people who treat them like this.
#308. To: Vicomte13 (#198)
Let's cut to the chase:
#309. To: Vicomte13 (#306)
Can we have the discussion off the board?
#310. To: Pinguinite, watchman, Liberator, Tooconservative, nolu chan (#308)
(Edited)
Then why are you working for the devil and trying to send people to hell
#311. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
Not really sure whether I should respond to A K A Stone's
#312. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
On the one hand, it's not pleasant to read, and the personal insults
#313. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment.
#314. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
Not being willing to deal with a nettle is not the same thing as being unable to.
#315. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
insults and anti-Catholic bigotry
#316. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite, watchman, Tooconservative, nolu chan, A K A Stone, Hank Rearden (#310)
Not really sure whether I should respond to A K A Stone's rolling raging screed above or not...
#317. To: Liberator (#316)
#318. To: Vicomte13 (#317)
(Edited)
Ha! Well, that's fair. This is, after all, an Internet chat site.
#319. To: Liberator (#318)
(Edited)
#320. To: Vicomte13 (#319)
Nobody on either side will convince the other of anything. I know that. Why, then, engage in the conversation at all? Do I expect anybody to change his mind? Does anybody really expect to change mine? And that's even if the nicest and most cordial words are used. Obviously nobody ever changed anybody's mind about anything by insulting him and trying to rip him apart.
#321. To: Pinguinite (#320)
So if one believes the Bible as the literal Word of God, fine. Are you using that belief destructively to harm others or gently to aid others?
And one lifetime is simply not enough to change.
Probably no argument on that from Christians as quashing vices is not the required Christian objective
#322. To: Vicomte13 (#319)
In the end, what purpose is there in having these discussions at all?
#323. To: Anthem (#322)
#324. To: Vicomte13, antham (#323)
t. My instincts are more that of a bear: provoke me, and my instinct is to maul you, or a bull - content to munch on the flowers, but likely to charge when provoked.
#325. To: Anthem (#322)
It is published, so may find an audience. I happened across this today and am reminded of our previous correspondence
#326. To: Pinguinite (#320)
That's one of the reasons why I see support in my position on theology:
#327. To: A K A Stone (#326)
It is curious that you refuse to go into that.
#328. To: Pinguinite (#327)
#329. To: A K A Stone (#328)
#330. To: A K A Stone (#325)
#331. To: Vicomte13 (#323)
#332. To: Anthem (#330)
Are you without sin?
#333. To: A K A Stone (#332)
#334. To: Vicomte13 (#333)
I don’t do the latter either.
#335. To: Vicomte13 (#323)
I'm a thinker, a philosopher by nature...
#336. To: watchman (#335)
#337. To: A K A Stone (#334)
You do worse. You deny Gods word is his word. You are a follower of the Popes. You follow men who add to scripture. Like Purgatory and men Popes who are not holy.
#338. To: Vicomte13 (#337)
Facepalm.
#339. To: A K A Stone (#338)
You should face palm yourself. You can't defend your pretend positions. You're no fighter you're a coward.
#340. To: Anthem (#331)
(Edited)
I believe that, as human beings, we have both an animal nature and a spiritual nature.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]