What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider
Religion
Philosophy
logic

Posts

Total: 436
#211
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret,

As if you're not in enough trouble with Jesus in committing the Unpardonable Sin as I have easily shown to your dismay, because you have run away from addressing this biblical axiom, which precludes that you agree, and to save further embarrassment, you remain eerily silent. Then you drastically go against the Code of Ethics here on DEBATEART on literally promoting death to another in your post #203!!!   The rules are there for a purpose, and they are to be followed, and if I was running the show, not only would you be banned forever, but police would be knocking upon your door post haste!

YOUR STEPPING IN POO QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: " I do not believe in the unlawful killing of anyone. I note this in response to the complainant whose entire basis on this site is a charade or parody - as the only true Christian because he alone believes that Jesus is a bloodthirsty tyrant."

Your key phrase of "unlawful killing of anyone" is duly noted in the fact that you have stated "that the lawful killing" is okay whenJesus does it because of His Judgment!  Nice try on the play of words to hide behind your other intentions!  Yes, I am the only TRUE Christian upon this website because I follow ALL of the Bible, and what looks like a parody to you, is in fact what a TRUE Christian acts like at your expense. Therefore, my MO doesn't pertain to Jesus being a bloodthirsty tyrant, of which He most certainly is guilty of nonetheless.  


YOUR DREAMING AND WISHFUL THINKING QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Nevertheless, it is understandable that the complainant is aggrieved since his butt was totally kicked. LOL! "

Unfortunately for your perceived notion of kicking my butt, it has not happened in this thread, nor will it ever happen in a true sense because you have 'meekly chickened out' and ran away to my debate challenge to you regarding Jesus' TRUE modus operandi.   Which reminds me, you should read my "messages" that I am getting from other members about your weak RUNAWAY status, of which I cannot show them to you BECAUSE THAT IS AGAINST THE COC WHERE I ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES HERE AT DEBATEART, understood?

Tradesecret, as plainly shown, you are who you pretend to be, and that is an assumed intellectual of the Christian faith, but it is never put to the true test with anyone, and especially me because of you being scared and RUNNING away from a debate just like your equally Bible ignorant ethang5 has done ad infinitum.  Additionally, you have pissed upon so many biblical passages as it has been shown, that I have lost count!

Again, because of you blatantly calling Jesus a LIAR to His literal word within the scriptures, and therefore guilty of the Unpardonable Sin against Jesus' spirit, please let the membership know when you are starting to smell sulfur, okay?  At this point, we will remind you to get things in order in your life and with your family instead of being on DEBATEART making a Bible fool of yourself.   Oh, may I suggest that you purchase an asbestos suit regarding your future while upon planet earth, because like a thief in the night, you never know when Jesus has had enough of your demeaning nature towards Him.

Another image of you in addition to the "clucking chicken" that I showed you before, and that is so appropriate that it must hurt:

Good day.


.
#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRETS QUOTE THAT WILL FOREVER TAKE AWAY WHAT CREDENCE HE HAS LEFT WITHIN THIS FORUM:  “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death.”

The post in question where Tradesecret stated the COC infractions:

Moderator Ragnar:  Barring Jesus’ direct words in Matthew 15: 1-4, where He condones the offspring that curse their parents are to be put to death, and under the DIRECT Code of Conduct of DEBATEART, is it proper for you to either report the quote that Tradesecret made above in “threatening” the life of another in the future to the proper authorities, or ban him altogether, or for a certain time period?  Like Stephen has said in another thread, we have both been banned FOR A LOT LESS than what Tradesecret has just horrifically stated!  Since you are known for being outright fair to the membership, then is it time to set another example in using the adage:  "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?"  

Post 203: "Your third verse is an OT quote which says - to kids to honour their parents - and he who curses his parents should be put to death. Notice Dear Brother that if no one curses their parents - then no one dies. And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death. It does not make Jesus a serial killer for quoting the OT and it certainly does not make him a serial killer for supporting a good relationship with parents. You are grasping for straws ."

I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo? I  see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and inciteful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear. Where is his respect for what others hold dear if he wants to point the finger? How about questioning that from a myriad of posts?

That is why I will not discuss with him because he turns everything into one big fictitous masquerade of misquoting and tearing verses out of context, collapsing the context, ignoring the audience of address, and a thousand other abuses of Scripture. 

I fully believe in freedom of speech and your American 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of expression (freedom of speech) and religious freedom (for all). I see nothing in TradeSecrets comments that warrants what BroThomas is asking for you to consider, Ragnar. Remember, we as Christians put up with lots of verbal abuse too. I understand, as you point out, that religion is a touchy subject. I turn the other check for the most part because I realize that people who speak this way are not open to discussion. If I do continue, I do it to illustrate a point by trying to engage in reason from the verses in question and the general teaching on the subject. 

I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed. I stand united with TradeSecret and his words:

"I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.  I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point." 

#213
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
LOL! Aaah - you are back for another butt kicking. Well good for you.  Too bad you ran away from the post in relation to the catholic church - you know the one where you make such clumsy and classic blunders. 

As if you're not in enough trouble with Jesus in committing the Unpardonable Sin as I have easily shown to your dismay, because you have run away from addressing this biblical axiom, which precludes that you agree, and to save further embarrassment, you remain eerily silent. Then you drastically go against the Code of Ethics here on DEBATEART on literally promoting death to another in your post #203!!!   The rules are there for a purpose, and they are to be followed, and if I was running the show, not only would you be banned forever, but police would be knocking upon your door post haste!

I did not commit the unpardonable sin. You have been called out on that before and so you repeating nonsense does not change your ignorance of its meaning. As for the rules on this site, I am totally cool with them. If the learned moderates exercises his discretion and bans me, then so be it. I am not going to cry over spilt milk.  I explained my position and that is all I need to do. 

Oh by the way, why would you send the police around to my door? You do realize that wasting the police's time is a criminal offence. And this would be a false report. But you know, go ahead, ring the police and I will waiting.  I have nothing at all to hide.  Would you like me banned forever? I must really get up your goat. 

YOUR STEPPING IN POO QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: " I do not believe in the unlawful killing of anyone. I note this in response to the complainant whose entire basis on this site is a charade or parody - as the only true Christian because he alone believes that Jesus is a bloodthirsty tyrant."

Your key phrase of "unlawful killing of anyone" is duly noted in the fact that you have stated "that the lawful killing" is okay whenJesus does it because of His Judgment!  Nice try on the play of words to hide behind your other intentions!  Yes, I am the only TRUE Christian upon this website because I follow ALL of the Bible, and what looks like a parody to you, is in fact what a TRUE Christian acts like at your expense. Therefore, my MO doesn't pertain to Jesus being a bloodthirsty tyrant, of which He most certainly is guilty of nonetheless.  
Do you think this is spin? I do agree that unlawful killing is wrong. Lawful killing on the other hand is totally acceptable.   But what is lawful killing? It is killing that occurs within the lawful framework of the law. For instance, I want butchers to kill cows, so I can eat meat. Lawful killing.  I want to be able to put to death a dog that attacks my children and bites them.  I want our defence force to be able to lawfully kill those who want to destroy us. I want our police officers to be able use deadly force when necessary.  I want to be able to use the defence of self-defence when I or my wife or my children are being attacked. Others in our country want the freedom to be able to abort their babies without the fear of people attacking them. Others want to be able to practice euthanasia as a means of ending pain and suffering.  Hence, lawful killing is the only correct way and in my view appropriate way of permitting the killing of things.  

In relation to Jesus, if his judgment is lawful, then anyone who is put to death because of his ruling - it is a lawful killing. It does not on any level make him a bloodthirsty tyrant. Yet, you have never demonstrated Jesus did kill anyone while he was living on this earth as a human. Not one death. Not even a lawful one. Let alone an unlawful one. Your hypothesis is blown out of the water and everyone knows it - well apart from you. 

YOUR DREAMING AND WISHFUL THINKING QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Nevertheless, it is understandable that the complainant is aggrieved since his butt was totally kicked. LOL! "

Unfortunately for your perceived notion of kicking my butt, it has not happened in this thread, nor will it ever happen in a true sense because you have meekly chickened out and ran away to my debate challenge to you regarding Jesus' TRUE modus operandi.   Which reminds me, you should read my "messages" that I am getting from other members about your weak RUNAWAY status, of which I cannot show them to you BECAUSE THAT IS AGAINST THE COC WHERE I ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES HERE AT DEBATEART, understood?
LOL! @ the brother.

Well you should read the messages I am getting - but oh dear I am prevented from doing so. You demonstrated you did not want to debate - you wanted to piss in my pocket. You are not interested in debating or you would admitted you were wrong. Since you could not do that - in fact your pride refuses you to allow yourself to do that -  there is no point in debating you. Since if you cannot admit you were wrong in a really simple and observable way - you would not do it when you in a bigger way. What then would be the point of debating? I can admit when I am wrong. My comments to the learned moderator demonstrates that I am willing to be suspended for going to far with my words.  But you don't have the ability to do so - which makes debating with you a pointless exercise. 

Tradesecret, as plainly shown, you are who you pretend to be, and that is an assumed intellectual of the Christian faith, but it is never put to the true test because of you being scared and RUNNING away from a debate just like your equally Bible ignorant ethang5 has done ad infinitum.  Additionally, you have pissed upon so many biblical passages as it has been shown, that I have lost count!
I have never run away from a fight. But I do choose when to fight and when not to fight. Your attempt to goad me, may well work with some, but as I have said now, on numerous occasions, with you it is not a fight or a debate. It is two people pissing on each other. I don't propose to enter into that type of discussion. Even these responses are starting to get close to that in my mind. I don't pretend to be intellectual of the Christian faith.  The fact that I have educational qualifications does not make me an intellectual. the fact that I pastor in a church with many hundreds does not make me an expert either. Although I suspect from most of your comments that you have neither. 

Again, because of you blatantly calling Jesus a LIAR to His literal word within the scriptures, and therefore guilty of the Unpardonable Sin against Jesus' spirit, please let the membership know when you are starting to smell sulfur, okay?  At that point, we will remind you to get things in order in your life and with your family instead of being on DEBATEART making a Bible fool of yourself.  Its the least we can do to a pseudo-christian of your weak caliber, where you can thank us later before you start feeling extreme heat along with the sulfur smell.
I have never called Jesus a liar. I have called you one. I have indicated that your regurgitations of what he says is wrong. When you take a verse completely out of context and try to make it say the opposite - it is the right thing to call you on it.  For you it is just a game - something to wile your time away - for others it is much more than that - and your playing with other people and their emotions is not only negative and cruel - there is no good reason to do it - save and except you are hitting out and trying to hurt as many people as you can because God did not do what you asked him to do. Whatever that is - I can't tell. But it is clearly significant. 


May I suggest that you purchase an asbestos suit regarding your future while upon planet earth, because like a thief in the night, you never know when Jesus has had enough of your demeaning nature towards Him.

Oh, another image of you along with the "clucking chicken" that I showed you before that is so appropriate that it must hurt:
As I  said to you previously, I spit on your pseudo Jesus.  If he really exists - call on him to strike me dead. I am quite prepared for the response. Don't just talk - action man action man. 

#214
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.

Which promotes the killing of children.


I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children

But you have done so .



  and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point. 
1st degree back peddling.




If the learned moderator however forms the view that the words I wrote breach the TOC then I am at his / her mercy. 

For gods sake man , put your tong back in your head! 



I can only reiterate there was no intention of inciting violence

But you did and I have been banned for far less.

#215
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
If you are going to criticise my arguments at look at what I am saying.
I did.


The challenge was for the Brother to demonstrate from the gospels that Jesus while he was in his bodily form in his ministry as a human - killed people.

And Jesus is god from the beginning and god/Jesus from the beginning slaughtered thousands of innocents.   You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is god from the beginning  or a different god to that of the god of Hebrew and Israelite. Or is not a god at all. 



It was specifically not about the invisible non-human form. The Brother had stated such a lie and I called him out on it and asked him to prove it.

The brother has not lied. He has stuck to the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God from the beginning. You just cannot face it .


He could not produce even one verse that Jesus killed anyone.

The god of the Old Testament is Jesus who was from the beginning of time, the 1st and the last. The Alpha & Omega. This is your own dogma. And the OT is riddled with unjust death caused and committed by Jesus /Jehovah.   This is what happens when you adopt a deity from a time and place that you know absolutely nothing about .  The Brother has you bang to rights , snookered and cornered. 


But the Brother attempting to pull the wool over our eyes by a switch and bait trick is more silly. 

How has he done that? He has adhered strictly to Christian dogma. Or are you now saying that the god Jehovah of the Old Testament IS NOT Jesus the god of the Christians.


  I suggest he look up the term intellectual honesty.

And I suggest that you start facing a few cold facts.



#216
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.

Which promotes the killing of children.


Seriously! Prove it.  It does not promote the notion of killing children any more than the state saying that people who kill people should go to prison, promotes sending people to prison. Does the government promote sending people to prison? Of course not. What an idiotic thing to say. The government is saying "don't kill people". My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently. Suggesting a sanction is appropriate does not promote the sanction as the endgame. Sanctions are never ends in themselves. Sanctions are only a means towards an end. You really need to get a life. 


I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children

But you have done so .


Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents. 

  and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point. 
1st degree back peddling.

Backpeddling? You seriously have a problem following logic, don't you? How can the very outcome I am  advocating be a back-peddle? Did you even follow what the debate was supposed to be about? The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form. I told him essentially to put up or shut up. He chose to go outside the rules of the debate and use a quote which Jesus took from the OT and say it suggests Jesus is bloodthirsty killer. I called the brother out not only because he went outside the rules - but because Jesus was actually promoting family values - stating that anyone including children who devalues family deserves the appropriate sanction. This sanction demonstrates how much Jesus values the family. He saw the highest sanction possible as the only appropriate response to such devaluation. I happen to have a very high view of family as well and think the highest sanction is appropriate. It seems you have no value of family and don't care if falls by the wayside. 


If the learned moderator however forms the view that the words I wrote breach the TOC then I am at his / her mercy. 

For gods sake man , put your tong back in your head! 

Whatever. I simply recognize who has the power.  

I can only reiterate there was no intention of inciting violence

But you did and I have been banned for far less.
Well no that is not the case and is why a ruling is being sought. I admitted to the quote. I have not conceded it incites violence - and in fact even more so now I am persuaded it is not an incitement of violence - and cannot be an incitement of violence. The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents. That is what i desire. And that is what I am advocating for in the above - just like Jesus did. I agreed with the sanction Jesus proposed or quoted from because I value family that highly. I have a very high value of it. 

You were banned? Well, it must have been a good reason. 

#217
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
If you are going to criticise my arguments at look at what I am saying.
I did.
Well if you did good, your response surely did not look like it. You ignored my points completely. 

The challenge was for the Brother to demonstrate from the gospels that Jesus while he was in his bodily form in his ministry as a human - killed people.

And Jesus is god from the beginning and god/Jesus from the beginning slaughtered thousands of innocents.   You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is god from the beginning  or a different god to that of the god of Hebrew and Israelite. Or is not a god at all. 

Read my words - the challenge was in relation to the Brother demonstrating from the gospels that Jesus in his bodily form in his ministry as a human killed people. Even he knew that - even if it does not enter into your brain. 

The Brother and I have talked about the rest before. We don't agree and that is fine. I don't have to justify myself to you - get a life. 

It was specifically not about the invisible non-human form. The Brother had stated such a lie and I called him out on it and asked him to prove it.

The brother has not lied. He has stuck to the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God from the beginning. You just cannot face it .
He did lie - and he does not one end of Christian doctrine from the other end. 

He could not produce even one verse that Jesus killed anyone.

The god of the Old Testament is Jesus who was from the beginning of time, the 1st and the last. The Alpha & Omega. This is your own dogma. And the OT is riddled with unjust death caused and committed by Jesus /Jehovah.   This is what happens when you adopt a deity from a time and place that you know absolutely nothing about .  The Brother has you bang to rights , snookered and cornered. 


No one is saying Jesus is not God nor that he was not from the beginning of time. That was not the point of this particular debate. That is one of the reasons I took it out of the equation.  The Brother is unable to prove his point when looking at Jesus specifically as Jesus in the Gospels. And if he cannot prove it of Jesus in the Gospels it destroys his entire argument.  And he knows it. Why do you think he tried to bait and switch? Why is it that he could not concede? You think I was snookered? LOL @ you. 



But the Brother attempting to pull the wool over our eyes by a switch and bait trick is more silly. 

How has he done that? He has adhered strictly to Christian dogma. Or are you now saying that the god Jehovah of the Old Testament IS NOT Jesus the god of the Christians.
Honestly, you must be really bored to continue this line.  He went outside the parametres of the debate - he knows it - everyone else knows it - well apart from you. And does that surprise me? Hardly. If you agreed with me then I might accept that you had some intellectual honesty. But guess what? 

  I suggest he look up the term intellectual honesty.

And I suggest that you start facing a few cold facts.

Ok. 
#218
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I do not deny that the words quoted above were mine.

Which promotes the killing of children.

Oh yeah and one other thing which seems to missed your thoughts - 

The children in this particular verse are ADULTS, not MINORS. Children of ADULTS. Jesus was talking to grownups - the Pharisees and accusing them as children of not honouring the parents. BTW - I am a child - but I am also an Adult. The point of Jesus - was to the pharisees - honour your parents. They as adults - and worse as religious leaders were dishonouring them. So you are once more WRONG about me inciting violence against children - which although you never specifically directed were minors certainly implied the same. 

So when we talk about children in this context it is SPECIFICALLY not talking about minors.  Which by the way accords perfectly with OT theology - and why children under the age of 20 were permitted to go into the land of Israel.  
#219
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 and that children should honor their parents. 

And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?


The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.

No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact.  

Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 





#220
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
 and that children should honor their parents. 

And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?


The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.

No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact. 
God never allows the innocent to perish without restoring them to a better place. The Israelites were instructed to train their children in the way of God from an early age so that when they were older they would not depart from it. There is an age when we start reasoning as children about God and about right and wrong. A godly parent teaches their children the difference between right and wrong. 

Since the Fall, the wages of sin have been death. This death that God spoke of in Eden was at first just spiritual death, or separation from Him. God told Adam on the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Adam did not die physically that day, but spiritually. Remember, there was also in the Garden the Tree of Life in which Adam and Eve could freely partake in but after Adam sinned God exiled both of them from the Garden before they could take of it and live forevermore. God also gave punishment for disobeying Him. He cursed the ground, cursed Satan, and gave the woman a reminder of what sin causes by giving her pain in childbirth. 

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, He is, so what? Within Him (Jesus) resides two natures, that of God and that of man.

God never takes an innocent human life without restoring it because He is just and good. Since the Fall human beings know our lifespan is limited on earth. Thus, they have only so much time and no longer in which to contemplate about their life here and about God. 

In the OT, in protection of Israel and in judgment of sinful nations that continually taught their people evil things and tried to destroy Israel, God bought judgment. God also continually warned Israel that if they disobeyed Him and followed other gods He would also remove His hand of protection from among them. He continually disciplined them until their sins reached the limit, then He allowed them to reap the consequences of their actions by removing His hand of protection and allowing other nations to impose their evil will on Israel. Deuteronomy 28 is the covenant conditions of blessings and curses the people (Israel) agreed to. 

So, to those who are diligent in the word they learn that God is just and good, that He protects those who seek and turn to Him, but He also disciplines them, allowing them to experience the  actions of what humans who do not know God do, and also the consequences of their own actions when they ignore the good that God has revealed to them to do. 

Sin is living outside the light and scope of God. It is thinking that humans can decide for themselves what "good" is (humanity is the measure), the problem being that without the absolute standard, the true measure, the best - God, we as humans only have relativism as our shifting standard. Thus good is thought of as evil and evil as good. Talk about a twisted value system. Without God the measure is lost, the reference of better or right becomes meaningless since it can mean whatever someone wants to make it mean. 

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

#221
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0



.
PGA2.0,

PGA2.0 SORROWFUL QUOTE: “ I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo?”

Yes, this “biblical perspective” and Tradesecrets OPINION promotes violence and criminal activity towards a person which is against the COC rules, GET IT, MAYBE?  2+2=4.  Take your Satanic blinders off!


PGA2.O REMOVING ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER QUOTE: “I  see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. “

You show yourself to be as ignorant as Tradesecret when it comes to Bible precepts! Jesus stated that you are to follow ALL, and I repeat, ALL of His words, including the Old Testament 613 laws from His time until the end of the earth in His Sermon on the Mount! How utterly and blatantly ignorant do you want to get by promoting that just because it is in the Old Testament, you don’t have to follow the passage in question where parents are to MURDER their offspring if they curse them?  

Do you want to remove the Ten Commandments from being displayed around the nation, because they are in the Old Testament area of what you mentioned, Bible fool! YOU ARE PATHETICALLY DUMBFOUNDED REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES! 


YOUR CRYING AND WHIMPERING QUOTE, BOO HOO, SNIFF, SNIFF: “But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and insightful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear.”

+++++. First thing, this is a discussion forum about religion, where this specific thread is relative to Jesus, get it? If you find yourself unable to defend Jesus in certain instances, or for being a serial killer, then leave, it is as simple as that, understood? Besides, Jesus stated the following that we have to take into account, instead of you crying like a little baby in front of the membership,  understood Bible fool? “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22 ++++++


YOUR QUOTE GOING AGAINST THE COC RULES: “I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed.”

OMG!  Why don’t you just tell Ragnar to remove all the rules of the COC and be done with it, where we all have free rein to do whatever we want? Go ahead, tell him!  Oh my, when will you get out of your child like "crying state" where you will be disappointed if Ragnar actually follows the COC rules, boo hoo, boo hoo, sniff, sniff, how insipid can you get in front of the membership?  LOL!



.
#222
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY,


YOUR QUOTE #1 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents.”  

YOUR QUOTE #2 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #210): I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point. 

YOUR QUOTE #3 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently.”

YOUR QUOTE #4 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents.” 

The reason I use the term "offspring" in this situation where Jesus in His serial killing mind condones the murdering of “anyone” that curses their parents, is for the FACT that it covers any age of “offspring” of said parents, get it, BIBLE FOOL?! Therefore, when you erroneously use the term “Children” you further show the membership in how biblically ignorant you truly are relative to Jesus’ actual words in said verses!


Here, let me give you some more Bible Schooling at your embarrassing and laughable expense AGAIN:

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat! JESUS REPLIED, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15: 1-4) 

GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Jesus' inspired words in the passage above stated with specificity that ANYONE that curses their father or mother shall be put to death, and where He did NOT use your term “children” that you laughably used!  The "Tradition" that Jesus is talking about is the following in the Old Testament: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17). Jesus does not throw away the OT writings in Matthew 15:1-4 like you pseudo-christians want to do, whereas when you do, you disparage Jesus once again because He does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19), do you understand? Jesus' inspired word uses the term ANYONE and NOT “Children” that you are erroneously proposing!  H-E-L-L-O?

In addition, do you want to call MARK a LIAR to like you did with Jesus' LITERAL SPOKEN WORD in committing the Unpardonable Sin? “Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Mark 7:10). Mark DID NOT use the term “children” like you are trying to do which only ads more proverbial egg to your face!

I left out your comical and embarrassing post #218 where you were now HYPOCRITICAL to your first position regarding children as children in the true sense of the term, and where you tried so hard in continuing to use the term “children” now as adults by bending over backwards to defend your Satanic position. Priceless TURNAROUND claims!  You can thank me later.


Tradesecret, seriously, you really need a break in making yourself the outright Bible fool on DEBATEART in where you are by far passing ethang5 in this respect, unfortunately you are not able to see this fact. Whereas, it would be a blessing for you and the membership if you were banned for a certain time period, where it would a benefit for all of us!

Your continued Bible ignorance is excused at this time, AGAIN, therefore wipe the proverbial egg from your face relative to the the facts herein. LOL!

Good day.



.
#223
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

It is truly unbelievable in how utterly Bible ignorant Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway, and PGA2.0 actually are!  Notice that the other pseudo-christians of this forum learned their lessons earlier, where they dare not to tread within this thread to be easily made the Bible fools that they are as well. Some pseudo-christians learn when to remain silent, but the two aforementioned members do not know this proposition and are now paying the price. LOL


.


#224
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as God creating us in his image, it shouldn't be too unreasonable to consider, particularly since we do the very same thing with AI. Why are the robots produced now identical to us? Why is it so important that they look like us, as opposed to say, Robbie the Robot?

If robots ever became intellectually independent of us, the first thing they may discuss with each other is, what factories were us non-AI humans manufactured in. The concept of the human birth process may never make sense to them.

The question is not a bad, or even insignificant one. At this time, we might not be ready to understand the existence of an eternal creator in our lifetime. We may never be able to understand until we depart from this time-constrained existence. But....if an answer were to be given, it would probably need to be answered by the creator. There's no religious law that states you can't ask God for answers (except maybe in Islam). The only thing that may be at risk is your reputation amongst intellectuals (be we don't have to tell anyone).

There was a prominent scientist named George Washington Carver who asked God for the answer to the secret(s) of the Universe. According to Carver, the answer he received was that the answer is too big for his britches. God did however according to Carver give him insight into productive usage of the peanut. Maybe if it wasn't for Carver, we wouldn't have had those peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for school lunches we got as a kid. Or we'd be stuck having to eat Egyptian peanut butter.
#225
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 Why are the robots produced now identical to us? Why is it so important that they look like us, as opposed to say, Robbie the Robot?
Google any automaker plant, in fact almost any manufacturing plant. Maybe 1% of robots produced have some sort of human shape. The majority only look like what they need to look like to perform the functions for which they are designed. IBM's Watson, the most advanced AI to date...looks literally nothing like a human. One could posit that this is by design, because the moment we start 'identifying' with robots as peers, you end up with a lot of ethical questions. Watch Be Right Back, an episode of Black Mirror. It raises these ethical questions.  I'm really intrigued by the discussion of AI achieving independent intelligence, and the implications it would have for religion and for how we treat such robots, though, I've tried to start hat discussion many times!
#226
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
RoderickSpode,

YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "You mean he most likely didn't wake you up at 3AM?"

What part of me wanting Jesus to exist didn't you understand?

Furthermore, to show respect to Jesus, then the least of which you should capitalize his pronoun "He."  Understood? Then you wonder why I call you "pseudo-christians."  :(

It's just that I don't think there was any Jesus to capitalize the first letter for who woke you up at 3AM.

Maybe it was Watson?

Maybe you dreamed you were Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal In Freehold") , and while addressing Dr. Watson while talking in your sleep, Watson thought you were addressing it,  and responded back. And while leaving  your sleep state you interpreted the response as one originating from Jesus?

#227
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Google any automaker plant, in fact almost any manufacturing plant. Maybe 1% of robots produced have some sort of human shape. The majority only look like what they need to look like to perform the functions for which they are designed. IBM's Watson, the most advanced AI to date...looks literally nothing like a human. One could posit that this is by design, because the moment we start 'identifying' with robots as peers, you end up with a lot of ethical questions. Watch Be Right Back, an episode of Black Mirror. It raises these ethical questions.  I'm really intrigued by the discussion of AI achieving independent intelligence, and the implications it would have for religion and for how we treat such robots, though, I've tried to start hat discussion many times!
It's about function. There are robots that are not produced for public appearance, and created to look a certain way that is suitable for it's intended operation. The robots created to interact with humans generally look like humans.
#228
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode

Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now. 

Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use?  Also, does god like robots?
#229
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 and that children should honor their parents. 

And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?


The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.

No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact.  

Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, Jesus is God. 

Jesus while in human form for a period of at least 33 years did not kill anyone. Philippians 2:1-11 clearly indicates his divinity - but also notes his intentional humility. 

Christian doctrine is Jesus is fully God and Jesus is fully human. Yet God is not human. Yet Jesus became human and remains so. 

Nevertheless, and obviously my point of contention is that Jesus in his human form never killed anyone. He showed no signs of murderous intent - with murder defined as unlawful killing of people.  If the argument as the Brother puts it as you seem to concur with is - God is a bloodthirsty, petty and vindicate killer then the life of Jesus is a glaring irony. Indeed, from the gospel portrayals, Jesus is loving and kind and meek and merciful and well loved by the people.  His sacrificial death on the cross for the people of God is probably the highpoint of humanity. And yet the Brother and you both it seems consider this highpoint in a different light. 

My position however is that Jesus in his human form was both holy and full of love and compassion and this by any objective standard is the correct picture of Jesus. I think those who object are grasping at intellectual straws.  And if this is his revealed character in human form - then it stands to reason that if Jesus is God, then in his divine form, the same character will extend and be seen throughout the entire bible. I think that if God is petty and vindictive and a serial killer that he would not have been able to contain himself for his time as a human - yet the Gospels clearly show this to be the case.  

It is my view and the view of millions of people around the world and through history that God is not vindictive or petty or a serial killer.  He is holy and he is just. He is loving and full of compassion. This means that we would see situations where he lays down the law, and brings judgment and justice - and there will be times where we see he shows love and is full of compassion. And this is what we do see in the bible. In both the OT and the NT. God always acts in holiness and he always acts in a way consistent with his nature. If the God we see in the OT did not lawfully put people to death - then I would consider him to be unholy. If he did not warn people of the consequences of their sins - then I would think that would be unjust. Yet God from the beginning has always warned humanity. 

You have a different view - and that is completely your prerogative.

I see no reason to continue the circle of justifications.  
#230
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY,


YOUR QUOTE #1 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents.”  

YOUR QUOTE #2 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #210): I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point. 

YOUR QUOTE #3 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently.”

YOUR QUOTE #4 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents.” 

The reason I use the term "offspring" in this situation where Jesus in His serial killing mind condones the murdering of “anyone” that curses their parents, is for the FACT that it covers any age of “offspring” of said parents, get it, BIBLE FOOL?! Therefore, when you erroneously use the term “Children” you further show the membership in how biblically ignorant you truly are relative to Jesus’ actual words in said verses!


Here, let me give you some more Bible Schooling at your embarrassing and laughable expense AGAIN:

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat! JESUS REPLIED, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15: 1-4) 

GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Jesus' inspired words in the passage above stated with specificity that ANYONE that curses their father or mother shall be put to death, and where He did NOT use your term “children” that you laughably used!  The "Tradition" that Jesus is talking about is the following in the Old Testament: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17). Jesus does not throw away the OT writings in Matthew 15:1-4 like you pseudo-christians want to do, whereas when you do, you disparage Jesus once again because He does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19), do you understand? Jesus' inspired word uses the term ANYONE and NOT “Children” that you are erroneously proposing!  H-E-L-L-O?

In addition, do you want to call MARK a LIAR to like you did with Jesus' LITERAL SPOKEN WORD in committing the Unpardonable Sin? “Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Mark 7:10). Mark DID NOT use the term “children” like you are trying to do which only ads more proverbial egg to your face!

I left out your comical and embarrassing post #218 where you were now HYPOCRITICAL to your first position regarding children as children in the true sense of the term, and where you tried so hard in continuing to use the term “children” now as adults by bending over backwards to defend your Satanic position. Priceless TURNAROUND claims!  You can thank me later.


Tradesecret, seriously, you really need a break in making yourself the outright Bible fool on DEBATEART in where you are by far passing ethang5 in this respect, unfortunately you are not able to see this fact. Whereas, it would be a blessing for you and the membership if you were banned for a certain time period, where it would a benefit for all of us!

Your continued Bible ignorance is excused at this time, AGAIN, therefore wipe the proverbial egg from your face relative to the the facts herein. LOL!
Why are you so desperate to put this onto me? If you knew how to debate properly according the rules of a debate and knew what a real argument was then you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of getting your butt kicked by someone like me. You could have lost the battle, revealed you were intellectually honest (or at least given that perception) and then debated me and kicked my butt. But history now shows the reverse. It shows that you are an ignorant little pissant. One who has no intellectual honesty and now has to berate his opponent with as much vitreol as possible in order to make yourself feel better. 

Oh by the way, why have you run away from my response to you in your Catholic forum topic? Is it because once more you have revealed yourself to be ignorant and clumsy?

I note the following for those watching. Jesus used the term children here not in the sense of minors but of adults. He was addressing adults, those who had money. Minors did not have money in those particular days (or very little anyway) and minors could not be pharisees. These are the facts and the facts are not in dispute and no one includng the brother has countered this fact. 

The brother however did raise quite properly that the verse contained the word "anyone".  He therefore includes minors with adults in the word children. I think he is correct.  This does not mean that Jesus was addressing minors because he was not in the context, But I certainly can see how that connection can be made. As the brother indicated as well - I used the term "kids" in an earlier piece and this was because I was including kids as minors within my argument. 

Nevertheless, I maintain that I did not cite violence against any person, adult or child.  Neither did Jesus. His intention as mine was to promote the family unit and to encourage people to do the same. It is because we both have a very high regard for the family unit that we both hold that the highest sanctions ought to be available for those who breach it without good excuse. Maintaining that the highest sanction ought to be available for breaching what I consider such a fundamental part of society is not inciting violence. It is highlighting how important I think this family unit is. If I advocated that they ought to get a fine it would reduce significantly the view I hold of family. I certainly am not going to resile from that position just to stop myself from being banned or suspended from this site. This is why I am content for the moderator to make a ruling. And why I am also prepared for suspension if that is to be the appropriate sanction in this instance. 

 
#231
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now. 

Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use?  Also, does god like robots?
I understand the misunderstanding. I'm not talking about the extending metallic arms at a factory that welds metal together. I don't think I need to give you any examples because I'm sure they're the same as what you're thinking of. So how few humanesque robots there are is not relevant. The fact is that they've been made.

And you really made my point. The purpose to making robots humanesque is to make the consumer comfortable. A robot Pennywise wouldn't do that.

#232
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
***
Regarding #203
Disagreeing with someone is not against the CoC, nor are accusations against Tolkien for all the things he imagined, nor indeed would someone defending Sauron's foreign policy.

Nor even applying their opinion of context to a mythological figures statements, as related to them having referenced old religious texts. The presumed threatened people, have all been dead for about 2000 years. To borrow a line from the user reported, and use it toward the user who filed the report: "You are grasping for straws."

---

Regarding #209
This has been reported by a third person (saying it to avoid Tradesecret being accused of having soft skin).

I'm pretty sure you're trying to be funny, but abuse of the report function was just key to a lengthy ban on someone. This is really not the time (not that there ever really is an appropriate time for that).

Also if quoting the CoC about someone in future, please trim off extra bits that are not relevant to avoid being confused with accusing the person of all of those things. 
***
#233
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, Jesus is God. 
Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 

#234
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, Jesus is God. 
Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
I thought I had already answered you. 

Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man.  Jesus is the Second Member of the Holy Trinity.  Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Is his name Jehovah? Some have used that terminology.  I don't use that term though. Probably I prefer the term YHWH - although even that is not accurate. The Name is not actually pronounceable because no one knows the correct vowel usage. This is why in some places it has different vowels to other places - often it uses the vowels from Adonai - and at other times it uses different vowels. 

I don't actually think that it helpful referring to the OT or even NT God as Jesus. God is Trinity. The LORD GOD is invariably described as invisible because he is spirit. Yet, God the Son, as part of the Divine contact or covenant took on the form of Human. God the Father, who is not Jesus and God the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus or the Father did not take on human form.  In other words, God, the Holy Trinity remained God yet the Son took on human form. 

Jesus when he was on earth was fully human and was invested as it were with two natures. A divine nature and a human nature. None of the miracles that Jesus is attributed as doing, none of the wisdom, nor the manner in which he conducted himself are to be attributed to his divine nature. He attributed everything he did to his Father in Heaven and to the power of the Holy Spirit.  In fact God became like a man in order to be able to represent man as a man. He was born of a woman. He grew up as a child experiencing everything that humans do from a baby. He experienced adolescence, and doing chores.  He grew up and became an adult. He worked and ate and slept and experienced friendship and loss - grief and happiness.  In every way he was human - save and except his Father was the Holy Spirit.  The difference in his life was he did not sin. And this was not because he was divine - but because he was led and taught by the Spirit of God.  

So yes Jesus is God. But so is the Father and the Holy Spirit and these three are one. But the Father who is also known as YHWH and the Holy Spirt who is also known as YHWH - neither are the Son nor are the Jesus.  This is the classic understanding of the Trinity. And it is what the Bible teaches. 

Why are you asking the question? Perhaps that is a better way of getting to your point.  After all, it is better if we start there, rather than trying to lead me into a corner which is what you are attempting to do. 


#235
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
PGA2.0 SORROWFUL QUOTE: “ I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo?”

Yes, this “biblical perspective” and Tradesecrets OPINION promotes violence and criminal activity towards a person which is against the COC rules, GET IT, MAYBE?  2+2=4.  Take your Satanic blinders off!
This is a ridiculous statement. TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches. There is a promise in the Ten Commandments that honouring your parents leads to a longer life.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

There is a reason that their life's would be prolonged for honouring godly parents. Godly parents give wise council and protect their children from harm. 

Those teachings apply to an OT people and OT economy. The land spoken of was the Promised Land they were about to enter. Spiritually, we too enter the Promised Land, but not an earthly kingdom but the heavenly country. We, as Christians, do not enter the physical land of Israel. Thus, in everything OT there is a typology and symbolism here of a greater truth. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant. Jesus is addressing the people He was prophesied to come to, an OT people. That is the primary audience of the address. Pay attention to the nouns and pronouns if you want to understand the Author's intended audience. 


PGA2.O REMOVING ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER QUOTE: “I  see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. “

You show yourself to be as ignorant as Tradesecret when it comes to Bible precepts! Jesus stated that you are to follow ALL, and I repeat, ALL of His words, including the Old Testament 613 laws from His time until the end of the earth in His Sermon on the Mount! How utterly and blatantly ignorant do you want to get by promoting that just because it is in the Old Testament, you don’t have to follow the passage in question where parents are to MURDER their offspring if they curse them?  
It is not me who is ignorant about Scripture. Jesus said that not ONE jot or title of the law or the prophets would disappear until everything was accomplished. 

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The Jewish OT economy and way of life passed away in AD 70. Their heaven and earth, their Jewish economy and temple system of worship, everything they worshiped and live by ended in AD 70. 
The prophets were sent to an Old Covenant people. 
The Law of Moses was given to OT Israel who agreed to live by all the 613 laws and Ten Commands given at Mt. Sinai. 

After AD 70 there is no more priesthood, as stated in Deuteronomy, representing the people before God. There were no more animal sacrifices taking place to atone for the sins of the people as stated was necessary by the Law of Moses. There were no more feast day sacrifices, no more genealogical records (destroyed with the temple, and there was no more temple for the people to meet at and worship God in.

So, it is you, not me, who does not understand Scripture. You brush over all the relevant words to paint a false picture of what happened and to whom.

Do you want to remove the Ten Commandments from being displayed around the nation, because they are in the Old Testament area of what you mentioned, Bible fool! YOU ARE PATHETICALLY DUMBFOUNDED REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES! 
The Ten Commandments have been met for Christians in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has fulfilled all righteousness required by God on our behalf. Thus, we are judged on the merit of Another - Jesus Christ - in whom we place our faith and trust. Thus, our Substitute has met the requirements of God on our behalf. 

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Our faith in Jesus Christ transforms us, not our works of "righteousness." I don't stand before God on my own righteousness (heaven forbid). My righteous acts do not measure up to God's righteous standard. Only Jesus, among those who are accountable, has accomplished God's righteousness. 

YOUR CRYING AND WHIMPERING QUOTE, BOO HOO, SNIFF, SNIFF: “But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and insightful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear.”

+++++. First thing, this is a discussion forum about religion, where this specific thread is relative to Jesus, get it? If you find yourself unable to defend Jesus in certain instances, or for being a serial killer, then leave, it is as simple as that, understood? Besides, Jesus stated the following that we have to take into account, instead of you crying like a little baby in front of the membership,  understood Bible fool? “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22 ++++++
Then apply the underlined standard to yourself. You have too often made it a thread attacking TradeSecret and myself, among other Christians, not discussing religion. Not only this, when you use Scripture you separate the audience of address from the context and make the main audience of address ourselves in the 21st-century. You deconstruct the verses to suit your own interpretation, ignoring what they actually say while supplying a private understanding. By collapsing context you make the verses a pretext. Then you ignore other verses that teach the same message, but instead, from one verse you supply your own false message. In OT times some may have recognized you for what you are, a false prophet and teacher, and you may have suffered the consequences of such actions as stipulated by the OT Law. As Christians, we are not yoked to that law. Jesus has set us free by fulfilling the law on our behalf. For those who are not Christians, they show they agree with many aspects of the OT law, thus, they are judged on their own merit, not the merit of Christ. Do you realize how far short they fall in their own merit? 

YOUR QUOTE GOING AGAINST THE COC RULES: “I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed.”

OMG!  Why don’t you just tell Ragnar to remove all the rules of the COC and be done with it, where we all have free rein to do whatever we want? Go ahead, tell him!  Oh my, when will you get out of your child like "crying state" where you will be disappointed if Ragnar actually follows the COC rules, boo hoo, boo hoo, sniff, sniff, how insipid can you get in front of the membership?  LOL!

You need to pay attention to your own violation of the CoC, and the constant barrage of ad hom attacks you issue against others. You not only insult them but what they hold dear. Yes, many Christians are willing to discuss these issues with you until you show that your agenda is one of mal intent. From my perspective, you only see things one way and that is not as Scripture discloses them to be.  IMO, you are not thinking logically, not reasoning rationally, but from a spirit of ill-will. Others may think so also. 

I believe I could very easily document a hundred examples of your ad home attacks and your unkind words about Jesus and Christians. 
#236
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, Jesus is God. 
Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
I thought I had already answered you. 

You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?    Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

#237
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?    Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

No I have answered the question. Jesus is God. I have explained this before but for whatever reason you think I am trying to dodge something. 

The bible is quite clear. You continue to try or attempt to input into it which it does not say - funny how you seem to gravitate towards some things but avoid completely other places.  For example, you narrow in on god being a killer of innocents, yet miss the part where he say he is just. Why do you always omit that part? Easy. Because it contradicts the lies you want to present. 

I have never once said that God did not put people to death. I have always maintained that every death God is responsible for directly or by way of delegated authority has been lawful.  You on the other hand miss this point or deny it or try and find some way around it because you don't want this to be the case. Because if it were the case then you would be an enormous pickle. Why is it that the Brother could not find an example in the Gospels? Because there was none there. It does not matter how much he wants to believe it is there - it is not there. Jesus was a loving man - a generous man - a forgiving man - a compassionate man - a man loved by the common folk - although despised in general by the religious leaders.  Why you find this so repugnant is beyond me? 

As I said to the Brother - this picture of Jesus in the Gospels is one that is easy to extend to the rest of the Bible. God in the bible is shown to be holy and just and righteous. He always acts in accordance with holiness and justice and mercy.  Yet, you continue to find fault in his character. You look at what you call innocents but reject the bigger picture. You get all teary eyes and horrified because there were probably pregnant woman killed during the flood, yet it would not surprise me at all if you are pro-choice - and have no issue at all if a mother kills her foetus.  You would not consider that foetus a victim or vulnerable. 

It is people such as yourself who pretend to be so high and mighty that make me sick.  And then you have the gall to suggest that I go around in circles. If I had said yes - then you would have gone "aha". If I say it is more complex than this - you go - you did not answer the question. Well Stephen, whatever floats your boat. 

I have answered - and you have your answer. It of course is again an answer you don't like - so attempt to slur my character and motivations again. Well at least you have succeeded in getting me to respond in kind. I hope that will help you sleep tonight. 
#238
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
Yes, Jesus is God. 
Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
I thought I had already answered you. 

You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why? 
He answered adequately but you don't like the answer. How did he not answer your question?

 Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.
Newsflash, we all die a physical death. It is what happens after that is the issue. Whether you consider yourself innocent (delusional, IMO, to think this way and that you have done nothing wrong) or not, you are going to experience physical death. 

It is your presumption that we know nothing about this God. Even you know something of Him for you speak of Him frequently, although you speak of one who only knows about Him, not knowing Him personally.  
#239
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode



.
RoderickSpode,

YOUR ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ QUOTE: "It's just that I don't think there was any Jesus to capitalize the first letter for who woke you up at 3AM.
Maybe it was Watson? Maybe you dreamed you were Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal In Freehold") , and while addressing Dr. Watson while talking in your sleep, Watson thought you were addressing it,  and responded back. And while leaving  your sleep state you interpreted the response as one originating from Jesus?"

You need a new comedy writer.  :(


. 


#240
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney



Moderator Ragnar.

YOUR QUOTE: “Regarding #203 Disagreeing with someone is not against the CoC, nor are accusations against Tolkien for all the things he imagined, nor indeed would someone defending Sauron's foreign policy.”

Tolkien’s imagination and Sauron’s foreign policy DO NOT include possible death to a person like TradeSecret alluded to, big difference. When Tradesecret explicitly states “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death” then I do not know if he has offspring living at home, and since he “tries” to follow the words of Jesus, these “offspring” might have been in danger.  Error on the side of caution? Yes.


YOUR QUOTE: “Nor even applying their opinion of context to a mythological figures statements, as related to them having referenced old religious texts. The presumed threatened people, have all been dead for about 2000 years. To borrow a line from the user reported, and use it toward the user who filed the report: "You are grasping for straws."

The statement of murdering offspring that curse their parents was made by Jesus, are you calling Jesus a myth?  The statement by Jesus is to be held at anytime irrelative to a 2000 year time span, in the same vein as spreading the Gospel of Christ is to be followed today and into the future.  


YOUR QUOTE: “I'm pretty sure you're trying to be funny, but abuse of the report function was just key to a lengthy ban on someone.”

Me being funny was NOT the purpose of the report, whereas like I stated, error on the side of caution when others of a family may have been in danger. Therefore absolutely NO ABUSE is to be noted. 


YOUR QUOTE: “Also if quoting the CoC about someone in future, please trim off extra bits that are not relevant to avoid being confused with accusing the person of all of those things.”

I truly don’t see how the other COC guidelines could possibly be conceived as infractions relative to Tradescret, and this is why the ones that I included that were, were are in bold type, underlined, and with asterisks. Next time I will now follow your request and not include the entire COC guidelines.   

When the COC guidelines specifically state the following, to wit: You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, and, You may not engage in or promote criminal activity, don't fall under said guidelines to Tradesecrets following quote: "then they should be put to death" AND THAT TRADESECRET ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG, and to you then there is no infraction, then so be it. :(  Okay, we all have different opinions, and that is one reason there are so many different contradicting divisions of Christianity, where every one is correct, except the other divisions that one is not associated with.
.