Misconcepciones

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 87
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
How do you know this was Jesus? And not your mind playing tricks.
The whole gleaming robed vision thing is so typical and cheesy and has probably been stored in your internal database since childhood.

I went up a mountain and decided to believe.
One could go up a mountain and decide to believe anything.

This was all, simply a conscious manipulation of acquired and stored data relative to external stimuli.

You are probably just a highly susceptible and easily influenced person.

If your roommates had all been Buddhists, you would probably have had a vision of the Buddha and subsequently have decided to become a Buddhist.




Topic's author
#32
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4


How do you know this was Jesus? And not your mind playing tricks.
The whole gleaming robed vision thing is so typical and cheesy and has probably been stored in your internal database since childhood.
Not likely. I had never been to church up to that point. I basically grew up in an atheist environment. As far as household religious icons and artwork, it was eastern religion. We actually had a Buddhist statue in our backyard.

What's so cheesy about a robe? If you see a Buddhist Monk wearing a robe, do you consider that cheesy?


One could go up a mountain and decide to believe anything.

Or they can stay in their room. What's the point?

This was all, simply a conscious manipulation of acquired and stored data relative to external stimuli.
Really? Have you ever been to Berkeley, CA by chance? That's where this happened. If you're theory was correct, I'd probably be a Hari Krishna follower.

You are probably just a highly susceptible and easily influenced person.
Just the opposite. I'm extremely independent, don't like anyone telling me what to do, believe, think. I was always rebellious (albeit in a civil way). Before I became a believer, I actually pretended to be a Christian just to piss off a scientologist trying to convert me. And the Moonies? Oh yeah. They couldn't stand me.

I'm also very skeptical. Including being skeptical of some of the claims made by a number of atheists.
If your roommates had all been Buddhists, you would probably have had a vision of the Buddha and subsequently have decided to become a Buddhist.
I had been around Buddhists already. Never a vision of Buddha though. Maybe because Buddha was only human.
#33
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@RoderickSpode
Thanks for your response.

Unfortunately there is no way to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, which is so often the case with Christianity. I grew up in church, and was a believer from a child til 34 years old. I have never been drunk and never took mind altering drugs. I have never had an experience like you explained, but people in other religions have. People of all religious persuasions have had experiences that compelled them to believe, the problem with this is how consistent, or rather inconsistent these experiences are. Why are you one of the lucky ones to have such an experience?

Though you didn’t grow up in church, it would surprise me if you were not deeply influenced by the culture of Christianity considering just how prevalent it is around us. 

We are all skeptical of what we don’t believe. The problem arrises when we become convinced. We should be skeptical even if we believe it and should always remain open to change if new information were to show our beliefs and experiences as unreliable. I know a wiccan who has had an experience and believes in a god and godess of creation. These experiences are only convincing to the person who has them. I would be shocked if you are ever able to break the spell Christianity has on you because experiences are so powerful.
Topic's author
#34
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@croweupc
I've always said, sure, there's a possibility I'm wrong. But, in the same fashion I'm open to everything being an allusion. Maybe aliens are manipulating our minds, causing some to believe in a God, others not. But, that falls along the same lines as being open to me just dreaming all of this. So, I'm not going to not go to work because, my workplace may not exist.

A number of non-believers have said something along the lines of "the creator would be able to speak to us in such a way that there's no question it's God. Do you believe that as well?

What are the similar manifestations that people of other religions have that you're referring to. What exactly does the Wiccan women experience?



#35
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RoderickSpode
Out of curiosity, according to how your life is now, taking karma into consideration, what kind of prior life do you feel you had? Assuming you feel you had, or possibly had one.

Well first we should consider our weaknesses and habitual habits or thought patterns we have. It's easy to spot the negativity within the self or things that need to be adjusted because those manifestations are circular meaning they have a hold on the individual and they play out in the mental, emotional and physical layers. So they are plain to see to the individual as they desire to see them. 
For me it's a number of things that need to be adjusted, my heart is pure, my wife's heart is pure and my kids hearts are all sincere and pure. We are really good people but have had a very rough start to life. So whereas we have a very personal passionate family and beliefs and we have a lot of love there are some adjustments to be made and we have had to work through some difficulties. This is a lower level part of creation and most the souls here that are here are here to learn from their experiences and or from their Karma.
My prior life or experience was probably pretty simple, since I tend to enjoy the more simplistic side of creation and just simply love God or the Creator or whatever you want to call that which creates. However my emotional and mental body run much deeper, while beauty and simplicity touch my physical body my emotional and mental state of awareness gets me in trouble lol. I have had to work through obstacles in the mental and emotional layer.
I would assume I had a mediocre life with some harsh lessons, those lessons probably caused me to look deeper to the spiritual self and make the appropriate adjustments in this life. I say this because at a very young age I fell in love with the Gospels of Jesus and by the age of 8 or 9 I was applying the Gospels on my own accord so I was generally very spiritual even as a kid. This sort of laid the foundation of how I lived and thought for the majority of my childhood and adulthood, or better put how I interacted with others. 

With the exception of the spiritual Masters the souls who inhabit this planet are here to experience duality and cause and effect and learn from that reality. This of course is needed before one transcends to the higher heavens....or where you find higher spiritual beings or "angels"...that sort of thing. 
A lot of times souls are paired with people who have similar problems or things they need to work on, not all the time but a lot of the times. For more spiritual souls the lessons are sharper and quicker, for souls that are more immature there is much more time and error to be allowed. 

My life is not that relevant in the grand scheme of things in this world, but my family has what they dream of having. We have a very simple life but a very fulfilling one, it's hard to explain but many people who have a lot of things don't have the seemingly smaller things or the thigs that really make someone happy. I personally like the smaller things, and it that I have had many struggles so my Karma is not yet fully burned off. 
Next time I come back here it better be to uplift the consciousness of mankind on this planet lol, it's too claustrophobic here especially when you know what it is like away from the physical body. 
Topic's author
#36
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's very interesting. Thanks for the response.

#37
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
ET
It must be wonderful to live a fantasy that is so fulfilling, for you.
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Rod, when you read Eternal View's descriptions, do you secretly think "Wow, he is so far off, he's going to really be upset when he's burning in hell forever" or do you actually accept that his view could be right, and yours could be wrong? I mean its very polite of you to say that sort of thing, but as a Christian, one with the conviction you have, I would be very surprised if you let your faith waiver and risked your own soul by allowing that there might be something that isn't the god you dreamed of in some other dimension somewhere. Would you honestly say "That is absolutely bunk, Eternal, I mean very imaginative but clearly ridiculous! I'm afraid you're wrong and you better get right with Jesus" if you thought that?

You'll have to forgive my cynicism as it comes to the intellectual honesty (and in large swaths, honesty in general) demonstrated by professing Christians. You might not be so dishonest, maybe you do think "I might be wrong, maybe he's right, maybe we're both wrong and Ludofl3x is right." I would be surprised, but maybe you're the one honest man, you know?

Topic's author
#39
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, at least you can't throw a No True Scotsman Fallacy my way, lol.

I don't agree with a number of things he's said. I don't believe, for instance in reincarnation. Not in the traditional sense anyway.

From what I gather from his various posts, he believes (and loves) Jesus. And from what very little I know about him, which is strictly on-line, he seems to bear fruits of a believer. I believe he fully understands the traditional biblical view of the after-life, and I don't feel any need to point it out to him.

I myself don't feel a need to consider anything other than the traditional view. But, it doesn't mean I won't listen, and even ponder other thoughts. Yeah, I could be wrong concerning my personal view. I could be wrong about everything. I've mentioned a number of times, maybe I'm part of an alien experiment, and I'm just dreaming all of this. That's possible. But I have no reason to take it beyond just a mere consideration.

Out of curiosity, why do you think I'd be risking my soul, I assume meaning if I don't throw the traditional view out there in the conversation?

#40
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well, you can start with the first commandment: some might say even considering the possibility that there might be other gods or other afterlives that don't hinge on biblical adherence to be in violation of god's most sacred pronouncement. There are also several places in the bible wherein believers are commanded to represent their faith loudly and to all believers at all times (1 Peter 3:15 for example). Granted, not every interpretation of the bible seems so gloom and doom on this topic, but it's all pretty straightforward: the fool doubts god's powers, etc. and god doesn't suffer fools in heaven. You're not a true believer if you're allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong, some can say, and yeah, they can back it up with bible verses, and then can also back up their interpretation of the horrible tortures awaiting you for even doubting Jesus for a second.  

I am not sure that he believes in Jesus, though, and certainly wouldn't qualify as a guy who would get into your heaven, by any standard of rule in the bible, you'd agree, right? He does not confess Jesus as his personal lord and savior, and in fact denies Christianity's spiritual sovereingty at best, and is a serial blasphemer at worst. What happens to guys like that when they die, according to the myths? Spoiler: they don't get a free pass. 

#41
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Sorry, I realize I may be presuming you are NOT a once saved, always saved type, in which case, he might qualify, but that's a doctrine that seems awfully liberal. By that definition, literally anyone who ever thought Jesus was remotely real goes to heaven. 

Still not babies, though. Tough luck babies!
Topic's author
#42
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
You have to be very clear on what you mean by doubting Jesus for a second.

There's a difference between doubting the existence of Jesus (or His deity/Sonship), and doubting a claim or the meaning of portions of scripture. For instance, Mary and Martha didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus, but they doubted his ability, or his will to bring their brother back to life. They took a compromising position that Jesus must have meant the after-life/resurrection. John the Baptist didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus, but he had doubts that the Jesus he was in touch with was the messiah. Peter didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus (not ultimately anyway), but he doubted a revelation given him that he knew came directly from God. He even suggested God was wrong.

Do you detect anywhere in scripture that these individual's soul were in danger?

Being open to being wrong is not doubting. I'm open to the possibility of being part of an alien experiment, and dreaming all of this. But this doesn't mean I doubt I'm wide awake in the real world. If I did, I wouldn't bother going to work today.
 

   
Topic's author
#43
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Why do you think OSAS is a liberal doctrine?

And why do you think babies don't go to heaven?
#44
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
OSAS is a liberal doctrine because it allows all sorts of rule breaking and terrible behavior once you're 'always saved.' It means that you're just constantly forgiven all the time: died after murdering an old woman for a ten dollar brooch? Well, you were saved, so you get into heaven. COmmitted sucide after being discovered with a laptop full of child porn? Well, you were a Christian, you accepted Jesus, even if you fell short of the mark of his behavior, You get to go to heaven too. So long as you accepted Jesus, everything was ALWAYS (that's the A) going to be fine. You can't lose that salvation, thankfully, so you and your friends can go roam the streets and beat up a Muslim woman after you get drunk, in Jesus name! It just doesn't make sense, especially when CHristians want to tout their faith as coming from the perfect source of justice (another laughable idea). None of that is justice.

And babies don't go to heaven because they can't accept Jesus.If someone's baby dies between the birth canal and the neo natal ICU, that baby is not a Christian. THe bible never lays out a third option: it's either heaven because you know Jesus, or hell because you don't. It's an uncomfortable loophole for Christians, but read the book. 
Topic's author
#45
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
1. What do you think the penalty for those violations you mentioned should be?

2. Where should God draw the line on what is forgivable?

As far as children not hearing about Jesus. The Bible refers to angelic visitations, so yes, one can hear about the Gospel from another source other than human. There's a verse that refers to Children and their relationship to angels.

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

How would you interpret that scripture?



#46
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
What do you think the penalty for those violations you mentioned should be? 

Justice where it counts: in this world, the one we are sure and all agree exists. What I think isn't at issue though. I'm more interested in if you disagree that OSAS is a very liberal application of Christian doctrine. I'm not sure you're an OSAS guy still, though, maybe it's not an argument to have with you, but when directly engaged on it, Christians of all stripes head for the hills. Why? Because the problem with the word 'justice;' would be my guess. 

2. Where should God draw the line on what is forgivable?
This is a divide-by-zero error: I don't have any reason to believe any god exists, so where it draws the line on forgiveness does't mean anything to me. It means something to you. Different versions of Christianity seem to think that it's unforgivable for two men to fuck each other with full consent, but if you're a penitent pedophile, that's okay by Jesus. I'm pointing out that if you're calling that perfect justice because of the bible, then you have a fundamentally different and fatally flawed definition of the concept of justice.  

 The Bible refers to angelic visitations, so yes, one can hear about the Gospel from another source other than human. There's a verse that refers to Children and their relationship to angels.

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
I didn't say anything about despising children, and they don't get to see the face of the father. The angels do. "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven" =/=  "babies who die before the age of X automatically get into heaven even if born to some other faith". Before you tell me this is figurative language, do you know how many very, very specific instructions the bible contains on how to burn a goat or a sheep as a sacrifice? The same book that tells you what can share a plate with what, and which fabrics you can wear? My point is that it picks a very strange place to be specific, and a very strange place to be vague. 
Topic's author
#47
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

Justice where it counts: in this world, the one we are sure and all agree exists. What I think isn't
at issue though. I'm more interested in if you disagree that OSAS is a very liberal application of Christian doctrine. I'm not sure you're an OSAS guy still, though, maybe it's not an argument to have with you, but when directly engaged on it, Christians of all stripes head for the hills. Why? Because
the problem with the word 'justice;' would be my guess.
I doubt very seriously anyone runs to the hills on this issue. Most of the time I think we believe we have people on the ropes, it's just they lose interest, don't understand what you're saying, etc. How many times have you walked away from a conversation here with myself? I just figured you lost interest.


And what you think is the issue. The world doesn't agree on what justice is. It means different things to different people. And laws change because society's views of justice change. Justice is subjective. That's why I posed the question.

Maybe OSAS is liberal. I guess that depends on what you mean. Liberal is supposed to be a good thing though. Right?

Part of the problem (and confusion) may lay in the term itself. It has a negative sound to many people, including Christians. Eternal Security is another term used, but still has that sound to it like one looking for a free-ride.

You're looking at it as God not existing, so there's no repercussions from a higher power. Therefore, you speculate that the doctrine will lead Christians to do what they want, without reaping any ill effects, not just in the afterlife, but here on terra-firma. The Bible is very clear that not all those who profess are believers, and the one's that are genuine believers who sin face consequences. The chastening is for God's children. Just like a parent doesnt chasten their neighbor's children, just their own. Paul for instance made mention of the fact that some believers die early because of their sinful lifestyle.







Topic's author
#48
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

This is a divide-by-zero error: I don't have any reason to believe any god exists, so where it draws the line on forgiveness does't mean anything to me. It means something to you.

I think half the planet knows you don't believe any
god's
exist. And the rest, probably don't have the internet.

This fact actually does render the conversation somewhat fruitless, but it doesn't have to go so sour. For one thing, what's not clear, is whether or not
you think OSAS is scriptural. You can answer that without actually believing in any gods. Do you think scripture supports OSAS? If so, why? If no, why?



and they don't get to see the face of the father. The angels do. "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven" =/=  "babies who die
before the age of X automatically get into heaven even if born to some other faith". Before you tell me this is figurative language, do you know how many very, very specific instructions the bible contains on how to burn a goat or a sheep as a sacrifice? The same book that tells you what can share a plate with what, and which fabrics you can wear? My point is that it picks a very strange place to be specific, and a very strange place to be vague.
The point is the children are children of God. Children don't reject God. You didn't reject God when you were a child. You never hear children say they don't believe there's a God unless they're trained to do so. This is why Jesus said "one must become like a child to enter the Kingdom".

Adults, when we've become too big for our britches, decide to reject God's gift of salvation. Of course this will lead into........"I can't reject something I don't believe exists". Well, maybe so. That can be why you're rejecting the gift of salvation. It doesn't matter. You're still rejecting it.

As far as the rest of this post, and you're questions, I'm just not sure what you're getting at.




#49
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
This fact actually does render the conversation somewhat fruitless, but it doesn't have to go so sour. For one thing, what's not clear, is whether or not 
you think OSAS is scriptural. You can answer that without actually believing in any gods. Do you think scripture supports OSAS? If so, why? If no, why?

Scripture is used to support OSAS and Calvinist doctrines (by which I mean you have no control at all over whether or not you're saved, it's predestined). Here is one of the many places we see the problem with the book as the manual for living life: it's far too open to flawed interpretation, and you can use it to support whatever you want. You can use scripture to support both loving your gay neighbor and murdering your gay neighbor's husband by stoning him in the streets, to use a rather stark example. 

The point is the children are children of God. Children don't reject God. You didn't reject God when you were a child. You never hear children say they don't believe there's a God unless they're trained to do so. This is why Jesus said "one must become like a child to enter the Kingdom".
Well, according to YOU, that's the point. You think all children, around the world, believe inherently in your god, and therefore if they die without outright rejecting him, they go to heaven? That is ridiculous on its face. Children are not born with belief in Jesus. They're born with curiosity. They ask questions and let their parents answer them, and based on their evolutionarily necessary credulity, they simply take these answers as correct. If those parents say "Jesus made earth just for you," then, that child is now "trained" in your parlance to believe in Jesus. If the parents say "over the course of billions and billions of years dust and gravity and countless other factors formed it, it's realy complicated to understand as a 2 year old," then that child has been 'trained' to reject Jesus. Jesus said one must become like a child because some adults reason with children by saying "because I said so!" and that's that. THe bible in no way says "Jesus by default for babies," it just doesn't. It says you must accept Jesus, for that's the only way to heaven. You cannot accept anything as a newborn. 

The chastening is for God's children. Just like a parent doesnt chasten their neighbor's children, just their own. 
What happens to a devout Muslim's soul when that devout Muslim dies? Does he go to CHristian heaven after spending his entire life not believing that Jesus is the son of the Christian god?
#50
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
And what you think is the issue. The world doesn't agree on what justice is. It means different things to different people. And laws change because society's views of justice change. Justice is subjective. That's why I posed the question.

Can you conceive of any version of justice wherein a serial child rapist ends up in a state of eternal bliss, while an objectively moral Hindu who's lived a decent life ends up in eternal torture? Because that's the biblical system, whether you like it or not. I have invited you repeatedly to demonstrate through scripture how someone who never believes in Jesus (de facto rejection) gets into your heaven, you never do. 

I took your question as "what do you think God should do?", not "what sort of laws in society would you enact to enforce proper penalties for crimes". 
Topic's author
#51
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Scripture is used to support OSAS and Calvinist doctrines (by which I mean you have no control at all over whether or not you're saved, it's predestined). Here is one of the many places we see the problem with the book as the manual for living life: it's far too open to flawed interpretation, and you can use it to support whatever you want. You can use scripture to support both loving your gay neighbor and murdering your gay neighbor's husband by stoning him in the streets, to use a rather stark example. 
So your argument is that because you have a hard time understanding the Bible, it should be deemed unreliable?

The solution to the problem for many Christians is to study the Bible. It gives a simple message on salvation that most can understand, and from there the believer has the opportunity to learn progressively. This is why so many are fascinated with studying the Bible. Even for non-believers.

When the authors wrote the Bible, they didn't have the foreknowledge that Ludo would have a hard time understanding it. They weren't hip to the idea that people in the future will get mad because the Bible is not written in "See Spot Run" format.

Every argument you make deals with "this is what could happen". Not, "this is what happened." Don't feel bad, some high-profile atheist activists do the same thing. They present laws being worked on to protect religious freedom as being potentially harmful to homosexuals. It's always speculation. "If 'A' happens, 'B' might happen. And "B" never seems to happen.

So you think that the Bible is presenting some hypothetical danger for homosexuals, because some might interpret it wrong? What do you think the solution to the problem is?

Topic's author
#52
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, according to YOU, that's the point. You think all children, around the world, believe inherently in your god, and therefore if they die without outright rejecting him, they go to heaven? That is ridiculous on its face. Children are not born with belief in Jesus. They're born with curiosity. They ask questions and let their parents answer them, and based on their evolutionarily necessary credulity, they simply take these answers as correct. If those parents say "Jesus made earth just for you," then, that child is now "trained" in your parlance to believe in Jesus. If the parents say "over the course of billions and billions of years dust and gravity and countless other factors formed it, it's realy complicated to understand as a 2 year old," then that child has been 'trained' to reject Jesus. Jesus said one must become like a child because some adults reason with children by saying "because I said so!" and that's that. THe bible in no way says "Jesus by default for babies," it just doesn't. It says you must accept Jesus, for that's the only way to heaven. You cannot accept anything as a newborn.
No, I said children don't reject God, so whether they hear about Jesus or not, they don't reject Jesus. At what age did you decide there was no God?

You're basically doing what you're complaining that others do, which is interpret the Bible how you see it.

You read one scripture, and base an opinion on the Bible that on that one scripture. I've told you a number of times, there's a method of bible study called "comparing scripture with scripture". There are numerous instances in the Bible where angels deliver a message pertaining to the Gospel. One scripture for instance explains that every human is without excuse, so predestination is not what we think it is. I have absolutely no problem with the term. The authors described how God has knowledge of the beginning and end. But a timeless knowledge doesn't imply that pertinent decisions were not made by individuals holding them responsible, just because God has a foreknowledge.

#53
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
So your argument is that because you have a hard time understanding the Bible, it should be deemed unreliable?

No. My argument is the bible is unreliable because it is not clear, as evidenced by the innumerable interpretations of it. Do you somehow deny that scripture can and has been used to do things like maintain AND abolish slavery at the same time? How?


So you think that the Bible is presenting some hypothetical danger for homosexuals, because some might interpret it wrong? What do you think the solution to the problem is?
The bible presents a danger to many different groups, one of them is homosexuals, sure, because according to some Christians, "god hates fags" and therefore it's okay to persecute them. If we didn't live in America, it might even be okay to do them bodily harm! The solution to the problem is to stop looking to a 2000 year old collection of myths from unknown and unkownable authorship as some sort of manual for living in 2019.
Topic's author
#54
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

What happens to a devout Muslim's soul when that devout Muslim dies? Does he go to CHristian heaven after spending his entire life not believing that Jesus is the son of the Christian god?
Are you referring to a Muslim who's heard the Gospel message? Or a Muslim that never heard the Gospel?


Can you conceive of any version of justice wherein a serial child rapist ends up in a state of eternal bliss, while an objectively moral Hindu who's lived a decent life ends up in eternal torture? Because that's the biblical system, whether you like it or not. I have invited you repeatedly to demonstrate through scripture how someone who never believes in Jesus (de facto rejection) gets into your heaven, you never do. 

I took your question as "what do you think God should do?", not "what sort of laws in society would you enact to enforce proper penalties for crimes". 
Well here's a verse that refers to angels preaching a message concerning the Gospel.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

There are numerous other veresesinvolving angels giving a message without the message involving human involvement. 

I'm sure I've linked you to some studies by missionaries who took the Gospel into primitive areas that had no Bible.








Topic's author
#55
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

No. My argument is the bible is unreliable because it is not clear, as evidenced by the innumerable interpretations of it. Do you somehow deny that scripture can and has been used to do things like maintain AND abolish slavery at the same time? How?
Yes, people have used the Bible to maintain slavery. I think that's a problem with humans, not the Bible.

People have also misinterpreted Darwinian evolution to suggest white racial superiority.

The bible presents a danger to many different groups, one of them is homosexuals, sure, because according to some Christians, "god hates fags" and therefore it's okay to persecute them. If we didn't live in America, it might even be okay to do them bodily harm! The solution to the problem is to stop looking to a 2000 year old collection of myths from unknown and unkownable
authorship as some sort of manual for living in 2019.
Obviously that's not going to happen because Ludo recommends it. Is the solution to heroine addiction just saying "stop taking heroine"?

What are the dangers you're talking about for both homosexuals, and the "many different groups" you're talking about?





#56
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, I said children don't reject God, so whether they hear about Jesus or not, they don't reject Jesus. At what age did you decide there was no God?

About 12. Why? Are you saying that not explicitly rejecting something is the same as accepting it? 

You're basically doing what you're complaining that others do, which is interpret the Bible how you see it.

Yeah, huh? If only there was a way to tell which Christians had it right, from the ones who have it wrong. Is it the god hates fags Christians, the I'm so sad my kid is gay becuse they're going to burn in hell Christians, or the Christians who say not a big deal because god made them gay...hmmmm...well how do we know who's right? Can you help? And if you think THIS is annoying, imagine if I tried to write laws based on MY interpretation of the bible and said "This is what is in the bible according to me, so it's now law!" and you DIDN'T AGREE WITH MY INTERPRETATION. Wouldn't THAT be annoying? WHat if I decided I pay less taxes than you because of my interpretation? Really annoying! 

But a timeless knowledge doesn't imply that pertinent decisions were not made by individuals holding them responsible, just because God has a foreknowledge
Interesting. Does god know then that some people are going to be evil sinners forever? did he, for example, know from the beginning Adam would eat the apple? Or is that one of those bible stories I'm interpreting wrong (which seems to mean at times I'm reading the words that are there and then not searching for alternative meanings that explain it in the rest of the bible)?

There are numerous other veresesinvolving angels giving a message without the message involving human involvement. 
What does this have to do with anything? 

Are you referring to a Muslim who's heard the Gospel message? Or a Muslim that never heard the Gospel?
What difference does it make? Every human is without excuse. No? You just said so yourself. How is sending either to hell for not accepting Jesus, knowing that god had foreknowledge of this person being born in a Muslim country to muslim parents and would never accept Jesus as a result of these circumstances, how does sending that muslim to Christian hell somehow qualify as perfect justice? If that's not what happens, to EITHER Muslim, please show me in the bible where it says regardless of faith or conviction, you can go to Christian heaven no matter what. I guess unless you're an atheist. 
Topic's author
#57
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

About 12. Why? Are you saying that not explicitly rejecting something is the same as accepting it? 
Sorry, but I'm a bit suspicious about the "12 yeard old" claim. Not because a 12 year old is not capable of coming to that conclusion, but because of other claims you've made.

You've stated that you've sincerely sought God, and that you've gone to church. Was all of this seeking between the ages of 0 to 12 years old? Did you stop going to church when you were 12?

In the case of the Gospel, the problem of salvation is not centered on not knowing how to be saved. How a contemporary modern adult who takes advantage of all of modern technology avoids being saved is rejection of salvation. Children don't do that. They don't have the egomanical capabiltiy. 

If someone had a difficult time believing, that didn't hinder salvation.


Mark 9:23-25 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 Jesus said to him, “If[a] you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”



#58
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes, people have used the Bible to maintain slavery. I think that's a problem with humans, not the Bible.

Would leveraging the words of Jesus have been possible without the bible? I agree it's a human problem, one wherein humans used the bible to subjugate others by saying this is what Jesus said, if you deny it, you deny Jesus and hell's way worse than these cotton fields. Be mindful: the question is not would slavery have still existed, because slavery and subjugation predate the bible and ignore almost all cultural boundaries. The question is would the biblical message have been used as one of the tools to maintain the institution

Is the solution to heroine addiction just saying "stop taking heroine"?

Clearly no, but if I were you I'd steer clear of making the comparison between religion and heroin: someone once called religion the opiate of the people, if I recall correctly, and the connotation of heroin addiction as compared to religious fervor is curious. 

What are the dangers you're talking about for both homosexuals, and the "many different groups" you're talking about?
Any group in the bible judged by any group of Christians to be deserving of rebuke. For example, me! As an avowed blasphemer, unrepentant in my ways and telling others to turn away from god, the bible surely has passages about how I should be ignored or cast out or stoned or any number of tortures visited upon me. Or on people who aren't CHristians. I don't think it's likely in America, but I don't support anything that can be used to grant holy sanction to base discrimination. 
#59
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Sorry, but I'm a bit suspicious about the "12 yeard old" claim. Not because a 12 year old is not capable of coming to that conclusion, but because of other claims you've made.

When I was 12, I started to think about what I'd read about the universe, and how big it is, which made me realize how small I was. I fairly quickly arrived at the "Isn't the idea of god just to make us feel special?" idea, which made me uncomfortable, but it made the most sense. Being as I was 12, I didn't have the choice whether or not to go to church with my family. I ended up kicked out of my confirmation class for asking questions along these lines (at 13). I ended up working a job at a pool hall for a woman named Loree Jon Jones, and her husband, Sam (I mention their names so you can look them up to see if they're real, it'd be a weird detail to make up, right?). They were devout Christians, they seemed really happy, and I was impressionable. I tried for several years to be this version of Christian. I went to bible studies, I went on youth trips, all of that, sincerely seeking some sort of sign, like the voices they said they heard, or the feelings they claimed were so awesome when the spirit was on them. Nothing. Read my bible. Nothing. I decided that was probably not the way to do it, so I started to go back to church (Catholic again) when I was in my early 20's because I had been having a tough time on my own. No prayers answered, no feelings felt, nothing that could shake the belief I'd arrived at years before: that this was just a comfort mechanism because no one wants to think they're just a collection of atoms like everything else. Long story short, I finally admitted to myself and my wife, after insisting that our first child take communion and our second be baptized due to family tradition, that I didn't believe in any of this stuff. 

That's basically the story. I stopped believing at 12, tried to keep believing, then couldn't make myself believe somethign that has no evidence and makes no sense. You can believe it or not, I don't care, it makes no difference to me. You're going to say I wasn't doing it sincerely or properly anyway, and I'm just going to say "according to you." 

Did you ignore this? BEcause no answer.

Are you referring to a Muslim who's heard the Gospel message? Or a Muslim that never heard the Gospel?
What difference does it make? Every human is without excuse. No? You just said so yourself. How is sending either to hell for not accepting Jesus, knowing that god had foreknowledge of this person being born in a Muslim country to muslim parents and would never accept Jesus as a result of these circumstances, how does sending that muslim to Christian hell somehow qualify as perfect justice? If that's not what happens, to EITHER Muslim, please show me in the bible where it says regardless of faith or conviction, you can go to Christian heaven no matter what. I guess unless you're an atheist. 
Where does the muslim go?
#60
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't agree with a number of things he's said. I don't believe, for instance in reincarnation. Not in the traditional sense anyway.

Well we could satisfy that in a number of ways, first consider that the soul existed prior to the physical body, this should be a no-brainer even in Christianity. If that soul inhabits a physical body once or a number of times either way it is a reincarnation because the soul exists apart from any forms. If you exist in an afterlife in another form that is reincarnation.... If you existed in a series of lives or are a new soul no matter how you look at it reincarnation is a reality, when you leave this world you still exist in another form and another world. Whether that's heaven or another shot at the physical world or one of the multiverses it's all reincarnation. Fundamentalist Christians don't like terms that are not generally accepted in their religions lol, but reincarnation at the basic definition is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body." That applies in many ways especially within spirituality, Christianity or whatever religious, spiritual path one pursues spirituality has the same objective for the individual. Also not everything and all knowledge is within the Bible, many other paths of spirituality have knowledge and insights about God and creation. God is not as rigid as some religions make that out to be.

I'd be interested in the other things you don't agree with I said...