when will jesus return?

Author: BigPimpDaddy

Posts

Total: 207
#61
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't get to wear the magic fertility underwear.  
Is this really sillier than thinking the most supreme being in the universe that created everything great and small, good and evil, beautiful and ugly would be personally offended if two penises bump together?

There is a difference between holiness and superstition.  
#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you? 
Stephen, LOL! 

Do you want to play this game? Ok. 

 They are serious questions . I am not playing any game. Stop avoiding the question. You have made an astounding claim.


I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.

Yes you have already told us that you asked for wisdom. You haven't told us how he imparted this" wisdom" to you or what it was. Stop avoiding the question  



So, when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" I am sure some here would like to hear it. Especially myself.

Hi Stephen,

as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation. I do not intend to respond further until he or she responds. 

Until he responds there is with respect nothing to discuss with those outside of his or my faith.  No offence meant, this is simply an inhouse discussion. 
#63
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
It is amusing to me to see theist acuse each other of having false religion. Just a personal opinion.

#64
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
There is a difference between holiness and superstition.  
Like a measurable one or is this just meant in the spirit of a bald assertion?
#65
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
It is amusing to me to see theist acuse each other of having false religion. Just a personal opinion.
What is amusing about it? Atheist's essentially do the same thing.  
#66
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
There is a difference between holiness and superstition.  
Like a measurable one or is this just meant in the spirit of a bald assertion?
Gee - holiness means what?  Acting in accordance with what is right.  I would liken it to justice. 

and 

superstitious is trusting in the mysterious underpinnings of irrationality.  Things like magic, or rituals, or the ilk. 

Hence - the two are quite distinct. 
#67
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
What is amusing about it? Atheist's essentially do the same thing.  
You all have the same standard of evidence. Faith. How could you possibly distinguish whose faith is correct? More data required. Atheism doesn't require you to accept anything on faith. Or at least if you want to be pedantic and define faith so broadly that every belief is faith then at the least there is a difference between the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe that and you give good reasons and evidence and the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe and you are forced to say "I just have faith"
Gee - holiness means what?  Acting in accordance with what is right.  I would liken it to justice. 

So if an atheist does what is right and just they are holy atheists? If not then your definition needs a little work.
superstitious is trusting in the mysterious underpinnings of irrationality.  Things like magic, or rituals, or the ilk. 
At least from an outside perspective that does sound awfully like religion. 
#68
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
That's because atheists are too smart to distinguish a religious practice which involves gods from a non-religious practice that involves spirituality. Considering they're smarter than every theist  who has ever lived they should be able to tell the difference.
#69
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I can appreciate your position poly but you are not yourself nonreligious and I'm not sure why you are so offended at the idea that from the outside all these magical thinking mindsets seem very similar. 
#70
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I'm offended by atheist who think they can come here and tell the religious what they're doing and not doing. I'm offended by the atheist who come here because they have no desire to learn anything they're just here to pick on theists and tell them how stupid they are. I'm offended by the atheist who come here because they asked the same stupid questions over and over again because they're not here to listen to what anybody has to say they're simply here to be bullies and bigots.
#71
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
1. You have the right to be offended [it's the unwritten segment of the 1A].
2. Censure is not the right response. Atheists have the right to offend, also per the 1A. So do theists; maybe atheists are offended, too?
3. Rinse and repeat.
4. The 1A is, perhaps, the single best string ever written because it demands that speakers be allowed to be heard, even if they prefer silence, and also demands that listeners listen and agree or disagree, and offer their response with the expectation that they, too, are allowed to be heard, and without violating the right of their opposite's opinion. it is the most difficult facet of democracy to accomplish successfully, and peacefully.

#72
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
No one's talking to you.
#73
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
What is amusing about it? Atheist's essentially do the same thing.  
You all have the same standard of evidence. Faith. How could you possibly distinguish whose faith is correct? More data required. Atheism doesn't require you to accept anything on faith. Or at least if you want to be pedantic and define faith so broadly that every belief is faith then at the least there is a difference between the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe that and you give good reasons and evidence and the kind of faith where someone asks you why you believe and you are forced to say "I just have faith"
Sorry you think that.  I don't use faith as a standard. I use reason.  Atheism is based on faith.  I give plenty of reasons for my particular view  of the world. And you do too. But it is still faith. Reason requires faith.  I never just resort to the nonsense - that it is just faith. 



Gee - holiness means what?  Acting in accordance with what is right.  I would liken it to justice. 

So if an atheist does what is right and just they are holy atheists? If not then your definition needs a little work.
No you are missing the point.  Holiness is acting in accordance with right. This is quite different to what the atheist does.  No offence - but it comes back to the definition of right or good. 
\

superstitious is trusting in the mysterious underpinnings of irrationality.  Things like magic, or rituals, or the ilk. 
At least from an outside perspective that does sound awfully like religion. 
Just like atheism sounds like superstition to others.  

But this is not meant to be a peeing contest. 

All I wanted to do is bring 949havoc to the table. 
#74
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
Are you going to respond to me or not? 
#75
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Careful, that's just another form of censorship. 

No one is talking to you.

That is either self-centered opinion of one's self, or failure to acknowledge that just on this string, several people are talking to me.
Not that I require anyone to say a bloody thing in order to join the forum discussion, and to direct my commentary to whoever I choose. I hear this is a body of free expression.
#76
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
Good for you, I didn't care.
#77
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Hebrews 1:1-3 specifically says God spoke in various ways in the past but now - speaks through Jesus.  
And Jesus says that whether it is by his mouth, or by the prophets, it is the same. Since Jesus also said the he and the Father are one [not one body, but separate personages who are completely united in thought and deed], I think that means that it does not matter whether Father or Jesus speak. It is the same.

Mormons don't generally understand the bible very much.  So I can understand your problem here
I don't accept that moniker, by the way. Beside the point. That's an awfully wide brush you paint with, my friend. I could just as easily say the same of just about any group, but I know that would be unfair to individuals who may very well understand it implicitly. I do in 4 languages. And I've lost count of then number of times having read it in its entirety. Yeah, yeah, one can say mere reading does not necessarily imply comprehension, but, again, how do you know?

 And the bible is written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  
And translated and transliterated numerous times by people who may not have been so inspired. Requires personal study, pondering, and prayer. Knowledge of at least one of the alleged original languages doesn't hurt.

To say baptism means submersion is not what the bible says.  
βαπτίζω - Greek, meaning immersion [in water]. I'll let you look up immersion.


I'll thank you to stop your ridicule. I will not repeat you childish language. You have no idea of that of which you jest. Until you do, just shut it. Please. What I wear is my business, my devotion, and my choice. Just as I respect others' prayer shawls, yamakas, albs, cinctures, clerical collars, etc. Just stop and keep it civil, please. Your infantile criticism says much of a lack of honest Christianity. Be a saint.
#78
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
Hebrews 1:1-3 specifically says God spoke in various ways in the past but now - speaks through Jesus.  
And Jesus says that whether it is by his mouth, or by the prophets, it is the same. Since Jesus also said the he and the Father are one [not one body, but separate personages who are completely united in thought and deed], I think that means that it does not matter whether Father or Jesus speak. It is the same.
Well that is where you are incorrect.  In the past - God spoke through the prophets - but not now.  In the past he spoke through angels. But not now. In the past God spoke through dreams but not now.  Now He speaks through Jesus - his words as the apostles recorded it and understood as the NT. Daniel 9 which you obviously did not look up sets the time frame as AD 70.  That is when Revelation was "sealed up".  And that is when the NT was completed.   What you think therefore becomes irrelevant. 

Mormons don't generally understand the bible very much.  So I can understand your problem here
I don't accept that moniker, by the way. Beside the point. That's an awfully wide brush you paint with, my friend. I could just as easily say the same of just about any group, but I know that would be unfair to individuals who may very well understand it implicitly. I do in 4 languages. And I've lost count of then number of times having read it in its entirety. Yeah, yeah, one can say mere reading does not necessarily imply comprehension, but, again, how do you know?
Yeah ok. My apologies for lumping you in with the Mormons - but you did you refer to the book of Mormon.  So that's on you.   Is there a reason you did not respond to my testimony? It is as valid as yours. Surely you would agree? 

 And the bible is written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  
And translated and transliterated numerous times by people who may not have been so inspired. Requires personal study, pondering, and prayer. Knowledge of at least one of the alleged original languages doesn't hurt.
The bible is written by God and Man just like Jesus is both God and Man.   The human aspect is what makes it genuine from a human perspective and the divine from the divine.   Reading the bible is not the same as understanding it.  Most people can't read anyway. Try reading the book "how to read a book" - Mortimer Adler. Brilliant read. 

To say baptism means submersion is not what the bible says.  
βαπτίζω - Greek, meaning immersion [in water]. I'll let you look up immersion.
Immersion does not mean submersion.  Two different words.  One means to do with water - the other under water.  The book of Mormon - changes immersion to submersion.  Look at Mark 1: 8. It uses the term twice. Once for water and once for Spirit. How does the Christ baptize with water? Check out Acts and Pentecost. It was by a "pouring out". That is the picture that SUBMERSION misses.  It is also another reason why the Mormon church is a cult rather than a denomination. 

I'll thank you to stop your ridicule. I will not repeat you childish language. You have no idea of that of which you jest. Until you do, just shut it. Please. What I wear is my business, my devotion, and my choice. Just as I respect others' prayer shawls, yamakas, albs, cinctures, clerical collars, etc. Just stop and keep it civil, please. Your infantile criticism says much of a lack of honest Christianity. Be a saint.
I agree with Elijah. The ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed.  Like the prophets of Baal deserve ridicule - so do the prophets of Mormon.  Yet, I have often been ridiculed by the prophets of Mormonism - and their so called high priests - so it is fair to return the favor to them. 

Again, why are you ignoring my testimony?  What you wear is your own business. Just don't pretend it is some kind of present from God.  It is not Christian - it is superstitious mumbo jumbo. 

If I choose to call you out - that is my prerogative.  After all, it is the religion of Christ and his name and honour that I care about. Not yours.  



#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,622
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you? 
Stephen, LOL! 

Do you want to play this game? Ok. 

 They are serious questions . I am not playing any game. Stop avoiding the question. You have made an astounding claim.


I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.

Yes you have already told us that you asked for wisdom. You haven't told us how he imparted this" wisdom" to you or what it was. Stop avoiding the question  



So, when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" I am sure some here would like to hear it. Especially myself.

Hi Stephen,

as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation. I do not intend to respond further until he or she responds. 

Until he responds there is with respect nothing to discuss with those outside of his or my faith.  No offence meant, this is simply an inhouse discussion. 

My arse!. This is a discussion board where you have made an extraordinary and astounding  claim that you are now refusing point blank to support or discuss.


 I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How did he give this wisdom to you and what was it?


I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.

So of all the questions that you could have asked your god about life and the universe this is the question that you chose?


as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation.

Well we can only hope that 949havoc has the good sense to ask you the bleedin' obvious question here.


You are full of shite Reverend "Tradey" and are helpless without the interjections of your other personas.

Get well soon all three of you.


#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I also agree with you and Elijah.

#78.....What some ridiculous" baloney.

All meaningless ritual-speak.


OK...So it fires your conditioned neurons

As it fires my conditioned neurons

Such  is meaning.
#81
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How and what "wisdom" did he bestow on you? 
Stephen, LOL! 

Do you want to play this game? Ok. 

 They are serious questions . I am not playing any game. Stop avoiding the question. You have made an astounding claim.


I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.

Yes you have already told us that you asked for wisdom. You haven't told us how he imparted this" wisdom" to you or what it was. Stop avoiding the question  



So, when you are ready Reverend "Tradey" I am sure some here would like to hear it. Especially myself.

Hi Stephen,

as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation. I do not intend to respond further until he or she responds. 

Until he responds there is with respect nothing to discuss with those outside of his or my faith.  No offence meant, this is simply an inhouse discussion. 

My arse!. This is a discussion board where you have made an extraordinary and astounding  claim that you are now refusing point blank to support or discuss.


 I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How did he give this wisdom to you and what was it?


I asked God for the wisdom to know whether the book of Mormon was the real deal or not.

So of all the questions that you could have asked your god about life and the universe this is the question that you chose?


as I said to secularmerlin, my above comments were intended to draw 949havoc into conversation.

Well we can only hope that 949havoc has the good sense to ask you the bleedin' obvious question here.


You are full of shite Reverend "Tradey" and are helpless without the interjections of your other personas.

Get well soon all three of you.


Your daftness is overwhelming today Stephen.  If you understood Mormon theology, you would realize that I have mirrored his basis for everything. He is now in the situation whereby he is paralyzed. If he denies my position - he denies his own. Yet as you will have noticed - his response ENTIRELY omitted to discuss that which you wanted to know. The question is why? 

I thought you wanted to play this game.  LOL! But it seems you don't even know there was a game.  

That is ok. Back to sleep Stephen. 
#82
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I also agree with you and Elijah.

#78.....What some ridiculous" baloney.

All meaningless ritual-speak.


OK...So it fires your conditioned neurons

As it fires my conditioned neurons

Such  is meaning.

yep
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,622
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet as you will have noticed - his response ENTIRELY omitted to discuss that which you wanted to know. .............. it seems you don't even know there was a game.  


So now you have played your game with 949havoc and believe yourself to have been the victor how about that you now address the questions I asked you that he failed to ask you.


 I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  

How did he impart to you this wisdom and what was it?

#84
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,215
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Christ knows when he is coming back.
#85
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,622
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Christ knows when he is coming back.

Well not if the bible is to be believed, Deb. 

Matthew 24:36

English Standard Version


No One Knows That Day and Hour
36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

#86
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Sorry you think that.  I don't use faith as a standard. I use reason.  Atheism is based on faith.  I give plenty of reasons for my particular view  of the world. And you do too. But it is still faith. Reason requires faith.  I never just resort to the nonsense - that it is just faith. 

Pedantry it is. If you want to say reason requires faith and create a definition whereby that is correct fine but reason backed up by evidence is still different than religious faith which is divorced from the need for evidence.
No you are missing the point.  Holiness is acting in accordance with right. This is quite different to what the atheist does.  No offence - but it comes back to the definition of right or good. 
Right and good are subjective terms that require a goal. If you personally define good as both believing in and acting on the moral dictates of a supernatural historical fiction then firstly I find less utility in that than the definition "doing things that improve the human condition" then I guess you are pedantically correct again but I am deeply unimpressed with that kind of goodness. Holiness as you describe it doesn't strike me as a positive trait.
Just like atheism sounds like superstition to others.  

Not believing in magic is superstitious in the same way not eating corn flakes is breakfast or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
#87
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

#88
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
That is when Revelation was "sealed up".  And that is when the NT was completed.  
And that, as you say, is incorrect. Was there a New Testament when John completed Revelation? No, not yet. I know the verse declaring that no one should alter that book. That book was Revelation, not the entire Bible, which was yet centuries into the future. Come on , you know this.  So you say God no longer reveals to prophets. Which God? God the Father? That appears to be your interpretation, by your instance on Hebrews. So, God, the Son, Jesus Christ. And he said to his disciples that after his departure, he would send the Holy Ghost, the God, Holy Spirit, to speak to man. I, ay least, acknowledge prophets beyond the NT. I acknowledge prophets, today, and whether the inspiration to them, and to myself, frankly, for affairs that concern me, personally, bot not for the world at large because I do not have that responsibility, is by God the Father, Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation, and it matters not, according to Jesus, who is the inspiriator; it is all as if from the mouth of God, the Father.

And thus, the Book of Mormon. Another testament of Jesus Christ. Another scripture. If you read it, cover to cover, and applied the challenge therein to find the truth of it, you would know. There's more. Gods do not finish speaking to man. Never have, never will.
#89
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,215
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
Hi man. 

Would you say that you are currently in the
(  TOP 10,000 )  OF ALL TIME. At scripture translations ?

Yes ?
No ?
Maybe  ?

Thanks.  

#90
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I have no way to measure, but, venturing a guess, probably not.
What I do have, and even this does not even measure in the top 100,000, maybe not even in the top ten million of all time [your qualifier], is the means to have a more proper interpretation. This, I have already explained. I ask the source.