-->
@Tradesecret
Meaningless ritual speak.
In other words..........Five statements of insubstantial waffle.
when will jesus return?
Posts
Total:
207
-->
@Tradesecret
Sin is the difference between heaven and earth. Sin is the issue for a Holy God. It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross. It is the problem between people.God is not worried about sin. What a silly thing to say. Yet that does not mean that God is going to tolerate sin.God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus.One heart at a time - reconciling humanity to God.Saying God should not be concerned about sin is like saying humans should not be worried about murder or pedophilia. Or that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.
What an absolute pile of old bollocks.
Sin is the issue for a Holy God. It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross.God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus.
So the torturous blood sacrifice of his son wasn't enough then? And neither is baptism? With the "worlds problems" still abound. Do you make this shite up on the hoof! , Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete?
-->
@Tradesecret
faith is a set of doctrines.
How is this untrue of a jehovah witness or a bhudist?
A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it? Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either. It might be true - but it might be wrong. Studies show that science itself has a half life. Science changes.
Precisely. Science self corrects. Religion cannot. This addition of possible fault and subsequent revision is exactly how science advances.
My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faith
There us a difference between "faith" in something whose efficacy is measurable and faith in things unseen. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experience. You have a book which makes a claim. The two are unequal as pathways to truth.
I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly.
And this the peer review process. In any case all humans use the scientific method to some degree. It is how a baby learns to wiggle its toes. That it is sometimes improperly observed doesn't mean it is not the single best method ever discovered by humans for discovering truths about the natural world. Opposed to religion which even if you are right about personally (which I remain skeptical of) has led many people to untruth. People like bhudists and muslims... unless you do think they believe truth.
How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't.
Meaningless. Word salad
Logic is not true or false it is efficacious.
I love science
Indeed you need science to maintain your life but I don't need any god(s) in mine. Science is the thing we both agree exists and is useful so it is a bad example when trying to convince me of some faith based claim.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.
That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)
Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?
Hey since we both like experiments let's try one. Explain to me how I can confirm for myself that gravity exists and then explain how I can do the same with some god(s) and we can discuss which method is more likely to yield results.
-->
@Tradesecret
It (sin) is why Jesus died on the cross.
Actually assuming any historicity in the story I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified for being a socialist, ridiculing the rich is dangerous buisness.
Until somebody figures out that science has nothing to do with religion these conversations are meaningless and people shouldn't even be posting here
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually, science has everything to do with religion. It shows that it is a myth made up by early man when he was looking at his rotting leg and two dead children.
Science has nothing to do with religion. Religion is about a relationship with a god or gods. It is based on personal experience and emotion just like a relationship with a person walking around on the planet. It's got nothing to do with science. Religion was born out of animism which was a relationship with the spirits of the things around people everyday again a relationship. Talking about religion is no different than talking about a marriage or friendship or parent-child relationship or husband wife relationship. Nobody ever says oh you love your wife we need scientific proof of that.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, during 2018 approximately 28 percent of female homicide victims (1,414 women) were known to have been killed by their husbands, former husbands or boyfriends. Maybe we should have scientific proof.
Most people that are killed are killed by somebody they know. Since it is scientifically known that men are more aggressive than women it would make sense that more men kill women than women kill men. Still has nothing to do with relationships in general.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Maybe most homicide victims are killed by people they know.
So is he back yet?
WHEN WILL JESUS ( NOT ) RETURN. Predictions.
I pre dick.
Jesus will not be doing the second coming thing this year.
Now it's a big call , as there is still like two and a bit months left.
Keep in mind that this can happen any day now.
HOLD.
WAIT FOR IT.
ALMOST NOW
HOLD.
GET READY.
Who thinks that the jesus coming 2nd thing will not happen in A WHOLE YEAR. ?
I'm not putting my name down for that.
Surely it has to happen within the next whole year.
Picture a 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11 , 12 year old boy or girl learning about this.
A few Years ago, i told my then 8 year old niece that allllllllll the people that don't go to church ( i didn't elaborate ) this part ,
I just said thag alllll the people that do not go to church everyweek will be killed.
( i went on to elaborate )
Jesus is going to return to earth and he will have red eyes, and when he looks at you , you will be turned to ash in a second.
( i went on and elaborated deeper )
I told her that her mummy and daddy will surely be killed.
And her pets.
ASH IN A INSTANT.
Anyway she seem to take it in stride at the time.
Then a week later my sister rang me and told me not ot talk about god to the little one again.
Apparently she didn't want to see mum mum and dad dad get burnt to death. Wuss
Sooooo i ask. .
How does one get their 8 year old daughter prepared for the return of Jesus.
NICELY. ?
Being a JW is not nice anyways hey.
Why Telling a 8 year old girl about the end times must be on par with telling a 8 year old kid that they are not going to have birthday anymore EVERRRRRRRR.
thats fukin scary.
-->
@secularmerlin
It (sin) is why Jesus died on the cross.Actually assuming any historicity in the story I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified for being a socialist, ridiculing the rich is dangerous buisness.
Funny one. Jesus was no socialist. He was a big fan of voluntarism. A big fan of private institutions. And not of compulsion.
-->
@secularmerlin
faith is a set of doctrines.How is this untrue of a jehovah witness or a bhudist?
I never said it was. Science too has doctrines.
A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it? Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either. It might be true - but it might be wrong. Studies show that science itself has a half life. Science changes.Precisely. Science self corrects. Religion cannot. This addition of possible fault and subsequent revision is exactly how science advances.
Religion often corrects itself. We might say the bible is true. But we certainly also say that our interpretation of it is not. It is man's interpretation.
My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faithThere us a difference between "faith" in something whose efficacy is measurable and faith in things unseen. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experience. You have a book which makes a claim. The two are unequal as pathways to truth.
You may be correct. But the principle of logic is on faith unseen. Past experience is not the arbiter of truth. Scientific textbooks are simply people's testimonies.
I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly.And this the peer review process. In any case all humans use the scientific method to some degree. It is how a baby learns to wiggle its toes. That it is sometimes improperly observed doesn't mean it is not the single best method ever discovered by humans for discovering truths about the natural world. Opposed to religion which even if you are right about personally (which I remain skeptical of) has led many people to untruth. People like bhudists and muslims... unless you do think they believe truth.
Peer review is a bollox. I have seen peer reviewed articles by doctors during this pandemic which are anti-vax. I have seen scientists purport to use the same system. The problem is - factions. And there are many of them. Consensus is not proof. I agree that many religions - even Christianity at times have led people up the garden path. It is not however a reason to throw out the baby. Science has led people up the garden path.
How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't.Meaningless. Word saladLogic is not true or false it is efficacious.
Nuh. It is full of meaning. You just don't like it. The principles or laws of Logic are what many scientists would use to prove a point. Yet, its ability to do so - requires validity in order to use it.
I love scienceIndeed you need science to maintain your life but I don't need any god(s) in mine. Science is the thing we both agree exists and is useful so it is a bad example when trying to convince me of some faith based claim.
All my point is - is that i am not opposed to science. Also I am not attempting to convince you that God exists. Only that everything - has a faith basis. Of which you have been unable to refute. Hence your rejection of God is obviously your own personal usage of blind faith.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?
Ok.
Hey since we both like experiments let's try one. Explain to me how I can confirm for myself that gravity exists and then explain how I can do the same with some god(s) and we can discuss which method is more likely to yield results.
What is gravity? How do we measure such a thing? What causes gravity?
-->
@Stephen
So the torturous blood sacrifice of his son wasn't enough then?
enough for what?
And neither is baptism?
please fill out your question.
-->
@Tradesecret
Funny one. Jesus was no socialist. He was a big fan of voluntarism. A big fan of private institutions. And not of compulsion.
He was anti capitalist and pro wealth redistribution. I hate to break it to you but that's socialist.
-->
@Tradesecret
Science too has doctrines.
Category error. Science is a method for uncovering truth not a personal philosophy or religion. In as much as you could call the method a doctrine it is still predicated on evidence and repeatable peer reviewed results which is exactly how it functions.
No religious doctrine is based on evidence.
Religion often corrects itself. We might say the bible is true. But we certainly also say that our interpretation of it is not. It is man's interpretation.
The bible is self contradictory and scientifically inaccurate. Its head deity is a morally bankrupt thug with traits that are logically inconsistent with each other. It is provably fictional and even worse interpretation aside IT CAN NOT CHANGE. If the bible says something false it says that thing forever.
the principle of logic is on faith unseen.
Incorrect. Logic is actually just a methodology and it is relied upon not because of natural faith in the religious sense but specifically because it has great utility. Not faith unseen but faith which is constantly tested and put to the test as people use logic to solve problems.
Past experience is not the arbiter of truth.
While technically accurate without evaluating past events we have no model for predicting future events. Say what you like about reasonable expectations based on past experience but we did all our learning in the past and the lessons of the future will not be ours until it becomes our past.
Scientific textbooks are simply people's testimonies.
The experiments in most textbooks are repeatable. You can do a handful yourself.
Only that everything - has a faith basis.
Only in the pedantic sense. Only if you define every belief as faith. There is a difference between "faith" based on evidence and "faith" based on faith. To pretend otherwise is to construct a strawman.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?Ok.
Since you agree with my rebuttal here then your above assertion must be incorrect. I don't need chance in my world view and I don't claim anything ever came from nothing or that there even ever was nothing in the sense you are using the word.
What is gravity?
The tendency of mass to attract mass.
How do we measure such a thing?
Mathematically.
What causes gravity?
Mass.
Jesus never discussed politics. Not wanting money changers in the church was out of respect for God it had nothing to do with politics. He fed the hungry because they showed up to see him and he wanted them to be full enough to hear what he was saying to them that's not politics that's common f****** sense. Jesus believed in God and the church and self-responsibility. That's not indicative to any political party no matter what either side thinks.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus never discussed politics. Not wanting money changers in the church was out of respect for God it had nothing to do with politics. He fed the hungry because they showed up to see him and he wanted them to be full enough to hear what he was saying to them that's not politics that's common f****** sense. Jesus believed in God and the church and self-responsibility. That's not indicative to any political party no matter what either side thinks.
You are correct that the term socialism had not been coined but eschewing personal wealth in favor of feeding the poor is socialism by definition regardless of one's motives for being socialist.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus never discussed politics.
How can you ever know that?
Sounds like people are confusing Jesus with Robin Hood. There's nothing in the Bible to indicate Jesus discuss politics. Feeding the hungry isn't socialism it happens here in America as well as other places that are capitalist. Jesus said having money made it hard to get in heaven not that people should take the rich's money and distribute it so they can go to heaven cuz they won't give up on their own. If you want to make things up that's fine but if you're talking about Christianity then you have to base what you're talking about on the New Testament. If not you're just saying what you want and sticking it to Jesus cuz you want to take Jesus from the Christians. No one's impressed by that but other atheists.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Feeding the hungry isn't socialism it happens here in America as well as other places that are capitalist.
Socialism isn't mutually exclusive to capitalism they just have goals which are not always compatible. Social security, emergency services, child labor laws, minimum wage these are all examples of social initiatives. Feeding the poor is also a social initiative.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Politics are at the center of the story of Jesus. His historical life ended with a political execution. Crucifixion was used by Rome for those who systematically rejected imperial authority, including chronically defiant slaves and subversives who were attracting a following. In the world of Jesus, a cross was always a Roman cross.
Again it's just atheists stealing the story of Jesus because they can't stand Christians. It's all insincere b*******.
-->
@Tradesecret
(A) Tradesecret wrote: Sin is the issue for a Holy God. It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross.God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus. #119So the torturous blood sacrifice of his son wasn't enough then? With the "worlds problems" still abound. Do you make this shite up on the hoof! , Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete?enough for what?And neither is baptism?please fill out your question.
To pay for and wash away the sins of the world, you bible ignorant dunce. See your own comment at (A) above. Obviously with "sin" still abound in the world your gods idea of cleansing the world of "sin"via a sacrifice of the blood of "his own son" doesn't seem to have gone anywhere in eradicating the sins of the world now does it Reverend "Tradey" Tradsecrete?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus never discussed politics.
The bible is riddled with politics. Government and religion where one and the same things in those times. The priests and the king made the laws of the land. And "render unto Caesar" is a political statement. And we are never allowed to forget that the Jesus story is allegedly all about ushering in a "new Kingdom".
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The story of Jesus.
Exactly Poly.
And labels are labels and people are people.
And some people are agreeable and some people are arseholes....Irrespective of their chosen label.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again it's just atheists stealing the story of Jesus
Not sure what this means. I don't even know with certainty that there was a jesus and definitely don't believe he was a supernatural figure. I am only examining the story as reported in the bible. The fictional character described therein encourages social programs. If you don't consider that political that's just fine but it is still socialist. I'm ok with you describing socialism as anti political. It is certainly anti hierarchical and so by extension anti government.
Exactly Jesus said leave politics to the politicians. He was not political he did not want Christians to be political. I don't even believe he existed at all that doesn't mean I get to make s*** up that's not in the Bible because I'm not a Christian or I didn't think he lived. Be in the world not of the world believe is another one. You can't continue, atheist, to talk about how Jesus was a socialist hippie, how Jesus was ingrained in politics, how Jesus did this and that that was political and it's all bull crap. Jesus went around and spoke to large groups sometimes feeding them it had nothing to do with politics it had everything to do with his spiritual path. Again this is atheists trying to take Jesus and make him more atheist to spite Christians, it's lies, it's hypocrisy considering most of them hate Christianity and hate religion and hate Christians and theists. Regardless of the politics in the Bible Jesus is not political. That's like when Christians say well Jesus was in Bethlehem and Bethlehem's a real place therefore Jesus was real. The two don't necessarily mean anything together. Jesus never talked about running for politics being a politician what you should do regarding politics none of that. And I would tell you to be ashamed of yourselves for trying to do it but why bother because atheists get off on this s***.