Total posts: 3,500
-->
@Shila
What it takes to become a Christian.Commit your life to Christ.And in response, commit your life to following Christ, and enter into a relationship with him through prayer, Bible reading, and worship. We come to know and love God more through the Holy Spirit, who enters our hearts when we commit our lives to Christ.With this definition, you have free will in choosing Christ if the ultimate cause of the choice is your own self-determination. So, the point is the word ultimate here. There may be a lot of factors that share in determining your choice of Christ. But only one of those factors is ultimate or final. Free will on this demands that you be that factor, not anything else, including God. God is not the final, ultimate factor in the choice. You are.Here is another way to say it: You have free will when your will is the decisive cause of your choosing Christ. And the word decisive has the same function as ultimate. There may be many causes that influence your choosing Christ. But for you to be free, in this definition, the decisive cause — the one that finally decides your choice — must be your will, not anyone else’s will, including God’s.
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? If you did, you didn't understand or comprehend it.
The Traditional Christian position is that humanity since the fall has been born with original sin. That sin means ALL humankind is born into the estate of sin and as slaves to sin. That means when it comes to spiritual things they are in bondage and not free. There are three basic positions of salvation.
- Universalism: that is everyone is saved. No church has believed that position at all. There are some small groups and isolated cults that hold to that position.
2. Pelagianism: that man is born good - and essentially can choose to say yes to God and try and do good works. This position was condemned in the early church and has been considered heresy. It denies original sin.
3. Augustinian position. This is the position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed Churches and even many of the Dissident churches. That man is born with original sin and is in bondage to sin.
Pelagianism is the forefather of what is known as semi-Pelagianism and somewhat a forerunner of Arminianism. The latter holds that despite being born with original sin, that God sent prevenient grace to circumvent that original sin and enable people to respond to the gospel. It is somewhat what you are suggesting above. Roman Catholic Churches now suggest that this is what baptism does when you baptise infants. It is prevenient grace to enable to them to respond.
Calvinism, Reformed theology, and Lutheranism, after Augustine, hold that God regenerates the sinner - and gives them the gift of faith.
There sadly is a reliance on libertarian free will - versus the meaning of free will in the Bible. the former suggests that man can choose God or to become a Christian because they can freely choose anything. Biblical Free will insists that - although people have the free will to do whatever they want to do - this doesn't mean they have the free will to do what they ought to do. My illustration about the bank robber above demonstrates that quite persuasively. Spiritually Dead people can do nothing to make themselves alive spiritually. It is a work of God.
The entire issue of free will to become a Christian is a Western Concept. It links coming to God like a marriage. And in doing so, it misses the culture within which Christianity was born. The culture in the Middle East - for marriage is arranged marriage. It is not an individualistic arrangement for love. It is an arrangement determined by the family or the parents for the good of the family.
It also misses the fact that slaves to sin, like slaves in the real world, do not choose to become free. If a slave is sold from one master to another master, it is the decision of the masters or the owners. It is never the slave who decides.
It misses the understanding of the covenant. And we could go on.
People can't choose to become a true born-again Christian. It's an impossibility. People are saved by grace through faith. And faith is a gift. Believing something or saying words - is something even the demons can do- words are not enough. It is an entire submission of the entire body. And that sadly, doesn't happen because we all want to be masters of our own destiny. Masters of our own fate. We want to be gods. To decide for ourselves. That is why it is impossible. And since these things are spiritually discerned, and you are not spiritual. Not truly spiritual. A spiritual person is a person who has the Holy Spirit. Not just someone who dabbles in what they think are spiritual matters. And I am using the Biblical definition here, not the ordinary one by secular persons or even persons of other religions. And I'm doing that because we are talking about Christianity and the Bible, not religion per se.
Created:
-->
@Shila
It is true - and people can't choose to become Christians.Where in the Bible does it say how to become a Christian?Romans 10:9-10 says: "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
Yes thanks for quoting that text.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that human nature always determines the response of man to God.
Think of it like this way. God is holy and humanity is sinful. that's what the bible says. You yourself referred to man being evil. Jesus said the same thing.
Human nature - wants to fight or flee. That's the spirit of humanity. To fight or to flee. It is not what Jesus indicated - turn the other cheek. Which is neither fighting nor fleeing. It is not to repent of one's sins and admit and concede to the punishment coming.
A bank robber leaving a bank - sees a police officer. What should he do? He should put his bag of money down, and his gun and hand himself in. What will he do? He will fight or he will flee? That's human nature. To surrender is the last thing he will do - and only if it is a sense of survival. But survival is not repentance. It is an end to suit yourself. It is the bad guy pleading guilty to avoid a longer term of imprisonment. It is being sorry he got caught, not that he did something wrong.
The Bible very clearly says that the unspiritual man doesn't understand spiritual things. He can't know - unless the Spirit reveals it to him. 1 Corinthians.
Hence, the verse above - indicates that God must give people faith - for them to believe. We can't just drum it up ourselves. And confessing with your mouth is easy - but believing in your heart is another thing. Jesus warned against those who - say Lord Lord - because he says he never knew them.
For the human heart to be changed - requires the person to be born again. That comes first - and then they can believe. And then the person who utters and believes knows for sure that they saved. That's the gist of the passage above. Jesus put it this way in John 3. when he was speaking to Nicodemus. Unless one is born again - they can't even SEE the kingdom. Let alone be saved. Regeneration is a work of God. It is not something that humanity can do for himself.
Hence why I continue to say to you - Shila or Harikrish or whoever you are - and why I continue to challenge you - prove to me you can make yourself a Christian. DO it - and prove me wrong. prove the Bible wrong.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Evil happens because of sin. It's cause and effect. Not because it's deserved.Okay, go ahead and prove that evil isnt deserved.
I did. I explained it was the result of cause and effect. Evil in my view is the absence of good. But essentially, it's the result of a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They are literally back in Israel as kind of an escape hatch. They destroy a country and when everyone realizes it is them they run to Israel. Like literally just stay in Israel or don't destroy your host nation, it's that simple.He'll Israel even openly takes pedophiles and protects them. Do the country is literally so they can go commit crimes and still have a safe haven
I don't follow the politics in Israel. I think though, that you'll find that on average, it probably has a similar proportion of good and bad people as the rest of the world.
In Australia, we have a sizeable Jewish population. I don't see them as being worse or better than anyone else. Recently, it was their synagogue which was firebombed. A couple of years ago, it was several churches. Last year, a mosque was attacked.
The current crisis in the Middle East has stirred up a lot of emotions. I don't see it in the streets though. Predominantly, it remains in the domain of the media; although there have been several protests. None of which I have observed. My family doesn't really talk about it. At church we pray for the conflict to resolve. We pray for comfort for those who have lost loved ones. I haven't taken sides, even though, one of our elders is a Christian convert from being a Jew. His family have cut him off. But he's lovely. He still practices many of his Jewish cultural traditions and provides significant insight into the Bible.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so, it goes like this:1. All humans are bad humans2. Bad humans deserve evil things to happen to themC. All humans deserve evil things to happen to themSo when something bad happens to person, its because person deserved it. Thus, all evil in the world is actually good because evil happens to evil people. It makes sense.All good God has to punish evil and make evil suffer. Not sure why people complain. They are all evil.
Jesus doesn't need defending. Especially with shoddy logic.
Evil happens because of sin. It's cause and effect. Not because it's deserved. If someone shoots someone with a gun, there's a fairly good chance they might die. If someone can't control their lustful behaviour, there's a fairly likely possibility that they might do something they will regret to someone who didn't deserve such behaviour. If you drink too much you will get a hangover. Cause and Effect. Sometimes deserved, sometimes not. We can't escape the world unless we die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Suddenly tradesecret is back. He's heard the siren call.
I never left. I just have others things to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You’re not an end-times supporter?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that comment.
If it is asking whether I believe the world will end one day? The answer is yes.
If it is asking me whether this is going to happen soon? The answer is not likely. (Although I will qualify this by saying I haven't been told a date)
If it is asking me whether the current situation in Israel is predicted in Revelation? I would say no.
I take the view that Israel as a nation today is the result of the United Nations, The League of Nations, who felt sorry for them after WW2.
I don't believe that they are back there as a result of God bringing them back. Every time in biblical history, that Israel was removed from the land, the only way back was to repent of their sin against God. That was always the first step. The reason they lost the land of Israel, most recently, was because they had rejected the Messiah. God took it off them in AD 70 - destroyed the temple and the sad fact is that they have never repented of their sin.
They're back in the land, not because of God, but because of the UN. Hence, not in accord with the Bible's prophecies.
Are we in the last days? Personally, I think we have a long way to go. The West might end. The East might too. We might have numerous world wars including nukes, but none of these things determine the end of the world absolutely. And certainly not judgment day.
Created:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Christianity is true. However, the Bible indicates that no one can simply become a true Christian. Yes, anyone can choose to join a church. They can choose to call themself a Christian. But this doesn't make them a true Christian. The Bible indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who makes people Christian.
So whether it is true is not really helpful. Unless of course, it was a choice to become a Christian. Yet, given that it is not a choice, then the question only really serves as a judgment.
It is true - and people can't choose to become Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
It depends on how you define Jews.
Is it a religion?
Is it a nationality?
Is it something else?
In my view, Jews are a religion. Israel is the nation. Not all Israelies are Jews. Not all Jews are Israelies.
As for liking or disliking them:
Some reasons people - not me - have put-up:-
They are more wealthy on average.
They are more disposed towards Communism on average.
They are more intelligent on average.
They are less generous on average - compared to the Scots, the Dutch, and the South Africans
Wherever they go they take their wealth and their politics.
Their religion used to be exclusive. Not so much anymore.
Some people blame the Jews for killing Jesus.
Some people blame the Jews for taking their homeland, the Palestinians.
Some people are just racist. And bigoted.
Me, I am not anti-semitic. I am not pro-Jew or pro-Israel. But nor do I want to see them decimated. Mind you, I do have a desire to see every person become a Christian, even the Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
In the time of Jesus, some people were slaves because they were born to slave parents. Others were captured in war and were forced to become slaves.
In the time of Jesus, the Romans were the ones running the known world. Yes, the people they captured they made slaves. At that time, many Jews were scattered all around the world as slaves - because they could read and count. That's an interesting part of history too. The Jews were people of the book or scrolls, and so every male could read, mostly by the time they were 12 - do you recall a thing called Bar Mitsva? Even females were encouraged to read. The percentage of them however is something I couldn't indicate.
Since in the time of Jesus, the Jews weren't the ones in charge, it is hardly likely that OT rules and laws would be applied. And in fact we know that the way the slave system worked in Jesus' time, was basically the Roman one / Greek one - the polytheistic religious position. In the OT, the laws applying to children born into slavery was different - and people were not allowed to kidnap others. And while in the OT, it is true that many people in war became slaves, that was a better alternative to death. Remember the Geneva Convention wouldn't appear for thousands of years later.
Judaism is closed because if you’re not born and raised Jewish, you’re strongly discouraged from converting, unless you marry or are adopted into a Jewish family–and even then there are requirements for the process.
That just is not the truth. Many people become Jews. They did in the OT, they did in the NT. And they still do today. My nephew was recently dating a Jewish girl, and they were to be engaged, but he was required to become a Jew first. Rahab became a Jew. Ruth became a Jew. The OT provides the covenant process of adoption for people to become Jews. Were there requirements? Of course there were. To join any club, there are requirements. That stands to reason.
And as for strongly being discouraged? What are you talking about? No one ever wants someone to leave their own religion and join another. And on the other hand, we don't want every Tom Dick and Harry joining our religion. that's what gives religions a bad name. When someone can stand up and say I'm a Christian, but you don't actually know what you mean by that - it's just silly. Jews would be the same. The discouragement is to ensure that only those who are serious do join. In other words, those who care that the religion is more than just a club.
Created:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Catholicism already plays a role in the Secular world. It has op shops. It provides assistance to the poor and the sick. It has hospitals, schools, and other services.
The question in my mind is not whether it plays a role, it is whether it plays a beneficial role?
And how does one determine that? Do we use the utilitarian measure? A secular measure? Or do we use a non-Secular measure - such as the one Jesus used when he said "there is no one Good but God"?
As a Presbyterian, I can acknowledge the history and good of the Catholic church in its early history. But I can also note its atrocities towards the Protestant Church and the Dissident Churches, let alone the way it treated the Orthodox.
Our WCF labels the pope as the Anti-Christ. And although I think the WCF is not absolutely correct here, the Catholic System is more polytheistic than it is montheistic.
And it's system is from my perspective flawed which has been exposed in many forms. Having said that, the Presbyterian System is also flawed and it has too been exposed as such. No human system is perfect.
Still, I think the Roman Catholic church has a part to play in our world. It's not going away. It is far too large to die. Yet it may be true to say that is crumbling from within. But that's another story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
"the jubilee. In Israel - ALL Slaves were to be released after 7 years. that was the law. Effectively their time of slavery was an indenture - a type of mortgage. that didn't happen in other countries. To buy your freedom was unheard of - for many years."Did that apply to 'all slaves,Or only slaves who practiced or adopted Judaism?
It's a great question. The interesting thing is this, though.
- In the first place, it exposes the inconvenient truth that not ALL slavery is permanent.
- In the second place, it exposes that not all slavery is EVIL. In fact it played a good in that time and place where people couldn't get ordinary short-term loans.
- thirdly, it placed a high value on membership. It's not to disimilar to organisational clubs, banks, and businesses which give valuable rights to those who join.
So the answer to your question is - yes, it applied only to slaves who practised or adopted Judaism. And given that anyone could join Judaism - and the OT is full of people who did, then you were only excluded if you chose to be. The question for many would be - is the God of the Jews fairer and more just than the gods of their ancestors? And I reckon that objectively many thought that the Jewish God was. And many others thought otherwise. In many ways, it is no different to our world today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV):If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.The punishment for rape is paying a fine and then perpetually raping the victim? That is messed up.
It's actually quite an advanced and merciful solution to the problem in that time and age. The OT law is not condoning rape. It here is - whether you believe it or not- seeking to address a great crime against the rape victim in an age where ordinarily in every culture in the world, the rape victim was treated less than human.
There was no welfare in those days. None. Females were essentially vessels. And this was the same the world over. Men worked. Men made the money. Men had the power. And in most countries and sub cultures - rape was not an offence. In most cultures rape was a right. The only redress most women had if they were raped was if they were already married - and then their husbands could seek the death of the rapist. Provided of course that the rape occurred in ordinary life and not during a time of war.
That's the picture you need to think about when considering this passage. You need to understand the culture of the entire world at the time. Women who were raped - especially single virgins, were left to fend for themselves. Many became prostitutes. All were considered less than human.
The passage above was a law that actually made it EXPENSIVE to rape someone. It would cause the rapist to think twice before raping someone in Israel. He became responsible for the girl's welfare for the rest of his or her life. This was unheard of in the ancient world. There was no commandment that the raped victim - even if she was married would have to sleep with the bloke. If she decided she wanted to live at her father's house - the rapist couldn't stop her. But he still had to pay her maintenance for the rest of his life. The father of the victim girl could also refuse to let his daughter marry the rapist. You didn't quote that verse. But the rapist would still have to pay for the girl for the rest of his life.
the point is- the law hit the man where it really hurt. In his pocket. It was expensive to commit rape. None of the nations around Israel had any protection for the victim.
This also for the Christian is a law that relates specifically to Israel. It doesn't extend to the Christian - except - in the sense that Christians MUST support laws that protect the victim. Not the perpetrator.
There is also some stuff about slavery. Take Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV):Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells them or still has them when they are caught must be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps a man must die. Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a result. However, if the slave recovers after a day or two, they are not to be punished; for the slave is their property.Right from the word of god: people=property. Don't tell me that literal god had to bend his command around the acceptance of mortals. He's god. Also, even if you weren't going do condemn slavery, why do you have to validate it?
It's a philosophical question of course - about ownership of a person. DO I own myself? Do I have the right to do with my body as I so choose? And how far does that extend? I mean - the basic understanding of a bundle of rights - can it apply to the human body? If I truly own my own body, can't I sell it to someone else? Can I sell my liver or my kidney or my hair? What about myself? Can I sell my body for sex - prostitution? Can I sell it to someone else - for the labor - so I can get paid? Can I sell my body completely with all my rights for the right price? And if not, why not?
2000 - 3000 years - slavery was normal. It was moral in EVERY culture in the world. The passage you quote above shows something quite interesting though, doesn't it? Most slaves in those times - were the result of being kidnapped. People would come - and steal. This also is how many people became slaves in America. People would kidnap people from villages in Africa and sell them.
Israel however - although it certainly accepted the view that people can own themselves and even sell themselves - did not agree with theft. They didn't agree that someone could be kidnapped to become a slave. And that's what you see above. that was unique in the time of this writing. It was miles ahead of where people thought.
Notice too the insight about being beaten. Interestingly, that's still part of our law today in some respects. If you hurt someone - and they don't die immediately it is not as significant if they die straightaway. the other thing most people forget when condeming the Bible about slavery is the jubilee. In Israel - ALL Slaves were to be released after 7 years. that was the law. Effectively their time of slavery was an indenture - a type of mortgage. that didn't happen in other countries. To buy your freedom was unheard of - for many years.
Then, there's the minor genocide god oversees in Joshua 6:21 (NIV):They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.What did the babies do?! Generally god at least spares the virgins for the men to rape after they killed their families.
It's not really genocide. Although clearly it was a command to kill every living thing - including animals. The animals thing is interesting, isn't it? It shows something significant doesn't it? It wasn't about looting another village. It wasn't about taking their wives to plunder. It means something AWFUL must have happened for God to make such a command.
It's interesting you focus on those who are put to death - rather than for what occurred that made God make such a command. You talk about the babies - and while that certainly is important - what must have the adults done that was so bad - that God would make such a command to kill everyone and wipe them off the map completely? And you might conclude - that well - there's nothing that could be that bad. And that of course would be a subjective assessment - since God had a different view.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NIV):When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.And of course, these people are going to go to heaven. They got permission from god to do these things, whereas atheists completely deserve eternal torment for keeping an open mind.
People who win battles plunder. That was how things happened back then. There was no Geneva Convention that people had to subscribe too. And more than that - what would the captured people be expected to do - and how would they live? They would have the choice - of being a slave, being a wife, or being put to death. You tell me. - what would you prefer?
You consider these bad laws. But in the time - they were the most generous and merciful laws of the day. Do they compare to our day? I don't know. I think for many of us - they would be far better laws than what we have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
the be more precise, the pope isn't infallible. you have a certain logic that jesus is infallible and thus the church is by extension as both are the body of christ. however, the church is only infallble when it's consistent with jesus. no church, protestants, catholic, or orthodox, teach consistently such that they can be said to be always infallible. the orthodox church might be, but how they define their authority and submission elements aren't defined very well and are open to interpretation and there's lots of contradicting teachings, depending how you define it. maybe the catholic church could be said the same thing, but only if it dropped the obviously false teaching of infallibility .
But now you have opened the door. You agree that the church is infallible when it's consistent with Jesus. So the question becomes: is the church ever consistent with Christ? And if so, then it is infallible. Hence, to ask to drop an obviously false doctrine would imply that the church is NEVER consistent with Jesus. And that I propose is a pretty big call on your part.
What is the standard for determining whether a Church is consistent with Christ or not? And how should we know that such a standard is itself a correct standard that we can absolutely - (infallibly) trust?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Tao uses simple words everyone is familiar with, yet no one can understand them because Tao's secret is such that it tells things people dont want to hear, thus people dont hear what Tao says.
Do you mean like, if you reject Jesus, you reject God?
Tao is like the Sun which benefits all.Doesnt Sun help both good people and evil people?
The sun is beneficial at times. And at times, it is not beneficial. That's why we have day and night. Because it wouldn't be beneficial to have the sun heating EVERY part of the world EVERY moment.
Tao can be in unity with anything because Tao benefits everything.There are no words which can describe Tao, since no words which describe it can be heard by the people.
I wonder if you realise that you are using WORDS to describe Tao, even when you are saying they can't be used? It's a little bit like saying, there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as an ABSOLUTE.
People read Tao Te Ching, yet they dont understand a single sentence.Such is Tao Te Ching. It is written only for the select few who understand it.Its secrets are open only to those who know how sentences and logical connections work.
Ahhh - the secret few. The elect. The special few. Gnosticism. The secret magic ritual of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Mysticism.
In other words, it is unscientific. Irrational. And therefore nonsense.
Tao uses simple words, yet the people are blind.Tao will always win, because people dont know what Tao is.
Winning is not everything. The ends don't always justify the means. In fact to always win also means to also always lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm not catholic but to determine whether it is infallible requires certain understanding doesn't it?
After all, what is infallibility? What makes something infallible? Who determines it?
Isn't the Catholic teaching that the church is the body of Christ? That's probably the teaching of most of the church too.
Isn't it also the teaching of the Catholic church that Jesus is the head of the church?
So if Jesus is the head and the church is his body, aren't they the same?
Hence, why wouldn't it be true to say that the Church is infallible if its head is Jesus and Jesus is infallible?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
How do you know its simple if NO one can understand it? I presume that no one includes you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Out of curiosity, what reasons are stopping you from adopting religion? Specifically, what is it about Christianity that deters you away?
Is Christianity a religion?
I know it seems to be a no-brainer, but is it really?
Certainly, under some definitions, it's a religion. And if we don't want to use our brains and simply accede to the dogma of the times, I guess it falls within the definition.
It is a worldview that believes in a deity, a supernatural being, a principle, etc. Obviously, under that particular generality, it is a religion whereas say - science can't be.
Many Christians deny that Christianity is a religion. Perhaps they are all wrong? Who knows? Who cares?
Personally, I think Christianity is BOTH a religion and non-religious. Yes, it fits within the secular definition of religion, but it doesn't fit within EVERY definition of religion. Like the Hindus or is it the Buddhists, it would claim to be - a way of life. Does that mean it can't be a religion? Probably not.
Some Christians say religion is any worldview where the people within are looking to find God or nirvana or peace or whatever. This might include science, if it's purpose is to find truth for example. Interestingly, that might include Atheism. Atheism is a movement, (that's a good word isn't it?) that says there is no god. Or perhaps that there is no evidence for God. One might opine that this position implies that they are actively looking for evidence of a god. The fact that they can't find any, doesn't prevent the idea that they are looking. In fact, for them to stop looking for such evidence would either imply that they have comprehensively resolved their position or that they have stopped because they are lazy or have found better things to do.
I wouldn't adopt any other religion except Christianity. I wouldn't adopt secularism either. And the reason for this is because I like to think and use facts and purpose. Scientific facts and intuitive facts, and facts of experience and reason. Legal facts too. Philosophical facts as well. And statistics. Yes, I love statistics.
I wouldn't adopt all forms of Christianity either. I agree that some really are just shadows of the real thing. Many forms of Christianity have moved away or drifted from Christ's original intent. Of course, the one I am involved in has its own share of problems too. Yet, within the mainframe of Christianity, there is significant truth. It's why I can worship with many parts of Christianity, even if I don't agree 100% with them. But there are parameters as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Despite Christianity's talk of religious prosecution against them, atheists are the most hated group of people in the U.S, acording to Pew research center.
It's the atheists who run Washington. And there is much railing against Religion. Not just Christianity, but every religion. If you are in a group whatever that might be, and that group, runs the world. And makes the laws. Then it is to be expected that others will be unhappy about that if your rules and ideas and morality conflicts with theirs. It's not rocket science. I am an Australian by the way. And in Australia, Athiests are held up by the governments as the most wonderful, and objective patrons of the world. Religious people as being unscientific. (I noticed below similar hate sentiments against religious people.)
I recently came out as an atheist to some people in my social web. I was thinking that nothing would really change. These people knew that I cared about morality, that I donated to charities and spent afternoons volunteering.
Coming out as an Athiest. Wow! I can't quite get my head around that notion. Although Religious people are still the majority in Australia, it's certainly decreasing. Atheists have for many years been stating they have morality and care about the world etc. I acknowledge that is true. I don't think Athiests are Amoral. For me- it is really a question of what kind of morals.
It turned out, I was wrong. Not only that, but these people, (who I am somehow vastly more biblically literate than) had nothing but the most stupid arguments to defend their beliefs. Things like "you're just angry at god," and "Well now you're going to go to hell." There were also a lot of insults to my intelligence.
I can't speak for the people you are referring to. Or their motivations. there are many religious people who demonstrate a lack of ignorance of their religion but conversely, there are a lot of Atheists who don't understand their worldview either. I am sincerely sorry that the words thrown at you have insulted you, have made you feel upset. Stupid arguments exist on both sides of the discussion.
I'm not opposed to Christianity. I'm just shocked how hateful this community built around love is.
I think Christianity is a religion of love. For me the question is what is love and how is it demonstrated. Many people today, who are not Christian, or who are not Conservative Christian, consider - anything the Conservative Christian says to be hate, even though it is not hate from where the Christian is coming from. Let me give an example. In America, so, I've been told, there are the Fanatical Baptist cultic churches - who claim to be Christian who - write stuff such as - "God hates Fags". And other hateful things. In my mind, this is hate speech. It is wrong. And to be honest it demonstrates in my view, that they are not Christians for they haven't understood the gospel or how God wants us to treat people. (Yes, I know, people will say - of course they're Christians. Or how convenient that you say these are the haters, but the fact is - the Bible tells us - by their fruits you will know them and not everyone who calls themselves a believer is one. We have entire books devoted to what we call wolves in sheeps clothing. and the reason is to protect ourselves from people who falsely claim to be Christian and yet are divisive and hateful, and have agendas to split the church) On the other hand, we do have Christians, who wish to speak the truth in love, and who believe that the way the Bible describes marriage and relationships is godly. And they want to live in that sort of world, and they want their children to be raised in that kind of a world, and their motives are not to hate, but rather to educate and to help. Those in a secular world are very happy to educate those they consider superstitious or incorrect in thier beliefs and they don't consider that to be hate speech just because they disagree.
I've been to lots of Atheist websites which debate or confront religious people. And honestly, many of those sites have been very viscious and nasty. It is not something that somehow is mutually exclusive to any one group. But therein is one of the reasons for my own belief. People have a tendency to be nasty if they don't get their own way. Adam Smith - called it self interest. I call it the human nature.
The Christians on this stie are quite open minded and well versed on your beliefs. Can y'all please talk some sense into your peers.
that's quite a generous thing to say. I am always trying to talk sense into our peers. I would respectfully request a reciporical plea for you.
As much as it pains me, I'm going to keep lying about my faith to my friends in family. The disrespect and I have received from Christians is unbearable.
I am sorry you feel you need to hide yourself away. For the record, Christians and other religions do this too. As much as like to think we are tolerant society, it's simply not true. Again, I am sorry for the disrespect you have received from any Christian. And I hope it never happens again. But it will - just like I will be disrespected - possibly even on this topic of yours. Of course, it will be surprising to see if others can see that - or if others will acknowledge it. I think in our day and age, that if someone thinks that others are disrespecting others, then they are fair game to be disrespected as well. Personally, I think that is not a Christian moral position, but more of a modern progressive value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
thanks for confirming you can tell the difference between David and me. And that was the truth I was referring to. and that's all I was referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Alright, I'm going to address you as Mister Tradesecret. But remember, you're a mister now so I expect you to behave like a man.As of the other thing, I was just curious, I didn't say anything more. Don't be so jumpy.
Don't call me mister either. And I will act however I please.
I'm not jumpy - I know what the truth is - so I know there is no reason for jumping.
And Let's not make this personal. Just think for yourself - and don't get sucked in by those who want to make it about themselves.
On that note, I apologise for suggesting or calling you a twit. It was uncalled for on my part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah, curious too that you respond after Ms Tradesecret's reply.
Firstly, why is it curious that anyone posts after me? Secondly, I am not a Ms. Thirdly, if you think I am the other poster, then ask the Moderators to investigate and have me banned if they conclude that I have more than one alias.
So back to the question of Twit. Yes, you seem to qualify.
Oh wait - did I deny that I was DavidAZZ? Hmmm. Not on this page. Now what does that lack of a denial mean? Good question.
It could mean anything?
Mostly it means that I did not deny it here. Of course I might have denied it elsewhere - but then again, I'm not sure that it would matter if I denied it or not. After all, what does a denial actually mean?
I mean, aren't you Best Korea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I've always thought that you are a twit but I have to agree with you at this time.
I care less whether you agree with me or not. And I care even less if you think I am a twit.
But the subject of discussion needed addressing, so I did.
Would it make any difference if I thought you were a twit? No, I didn't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think everyone knows that Israel is technically commiting genocide on Palestinians. It doesnt matter how evil muslims are, there is no justification for that so I'm not going to discuss it here.What I want to put into discussion, though, is the way Christians approach to this topic. This is what you're going to see all over the Internet, Christians cheering the jews to keep up with this butchery instead of condemning such horrible attacks only because both religions share the same "God" and some beliefs, but when it comes to other religions all of a sudden they start to remember there are human rights.I dont know about you but this is called double standard wherever you are. That's why I always say that religion and politics resemble one another, they suck.
Interesting theory. But it's so overgeneralised it defeats itself.
Christians all over the world, the West, the East and the Middle East all have different perspectives on this subject. Gee, turn up in Australia to a Uniting Church and the Palestinians are correct and the Israelis are Evil. Walk down the street to a dispensational Baptist Church and the Israelis are right and the Palestinians - are evil.
Luther and Calvin and a heap of the Reformers, along with the Roman Catholics, have long been accused of being anti-Semitic.
It's an issue that is divisive, not just in religion but in the Secular world as well. All over the world in fact. Just as it is here on this forum page. And among those who are not committed to any particular religion.
Me, I think the issue is complex. Israel is killing lots of people. Hamas should just let the hostages go. I think the League of Nations made a powerful mistake in 1940 - to give Jews land in the Middle East. But it did and now the world has to live with this decision. I don't think it was a fulfilment of Scripture, although many Christians do.
The Jews were mightily persecuted during WW2. Hitler's NAZI regime was evil and so are followers of him today. It is not a Christian organisation - since it intentionally tried to destroy the church and has nothing to do with Christ. Using religious words doesn't make it religious. Yes, I know Hitler was a choirboy. So what? It doesn't mean he followed its teachings or promoted them. Fascism and its evil twin brother - Communism are competitors. Both are vying for the monopoly of the world.
Christians are divided on this issue essentially as a matter of doctrine. Interestingly, it's probably an eschatological one, and an ecclesiology one. You will find that Christians do have some sympathy with the Jews as noted by someone above because of its historic roots and connections with Christianity. Yet there are many Christians in Gaza among the Palestinians who are being killed too. Little is told of them because it's not politically helpful.
I think we should call out both parties. But Hamas ought to give back the hostages. Israel should accept that as a reason to stop. Hamas should let Israel live peaceably. Israel should permit the Palestinians to live peaceably. Should there a two state solution? Why not a three state one? Someone should persuade Taiwan to move all of its citizens to live between Israel and Palestine. That'd be interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So GOD is only superfair at times?Which implies, that at other times GOD is a superarsehole.Sounds more like human behaviour to me Trade.
Wow! I didnt realise your logic was so bad. But thanks for reminding us all.
Being superfair doesn't mean at other times he is a super.......@#$%.
God is just and holy. And good always. He justly punishes people for their sins. And he has mercy on others. It is fair to punish people for doing wrong. It is superfair to some to give them mercy. It would be fair to let everyone receive punishment. But it's nice that God is superfair to some.
That can be you too by the way. In fact Jesus put it this way.
For God so manifested his love in this way. He sent Jesus into this world, so that all those who believe in him will not die but receive life.
Hence, for those who believe, they will be treated superfairly. He will give them mercy. Not because they earned it - but because they recognised that they don't.
The rest of humanity, think God is a super @#$% - and so they think they DESERVE mercy if its on the table. Hence, they'll never believe. And then they will receive what is fair and just in the circumstances. Of course, they will argue and quibble - what else would you expect? But that's life and death isn't it? A matter of knowing that we are the sum of our choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
After all, would you want me to be upset over a choice you made freely and desired to make?I choose freedom and knowledge. Those who choose slavery and ignorance are not any kind of holy people. They are not even people. They are worthless brainless sheep. I am on the path of Godhood, a better path.
Yes, you choose your own way. And you think that is the right way and full of freedom and knowledge. That's a matter for you.
I too choose freedom and knowledge. And I think that ignorance is foolish. The slavery in our world today is abominable.
Holiness is something which the LORD commands us to be. I reject the idea that any human is less human than another. There are many sheep in the world today.
What makes you think you are on the path to Godhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I think God is JUST. I think that God is also superfair at times. He gives grace to the undeserved and mercy to those who don't deserve it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is forgiving of sins not just of God?
Only God can forgive sins. But he is not obligated to forgive sins where there is no repentance. And he can't forgive sins before repentance has taken place.
Furthermore, just because God forgives someone who has repented doesn't mean that humans can't punish that person for the offence they committed.
This is why in the Bible, it talks about both forgiveness and punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Think about Best Korea - on this forum page. he's written numerous posts about how he wants to end up in Hell and how he rejects the God of the Bible. Should I be upset that he gets what he wants or should I be upset that he's wrong?Usually, when people see their loved ones burning, they get upset. Maybe you don't have those human feelings.Anyway, I reject God because Lucifer has already told me that the God of the Bible is weak and defeated. Compare him to our mighty primordial God Leviathan, our mighty primordial Dragon who swallows the Sun and shakes the Universe.They are called primordial Gods because they existed at the beginning, in the primordial void. And were first being worshipped. It is true that Christians have for 2000 years hunted and killed those who worshipped actual primordial Gods.But just like the cycles, creation and destruction, witches were destroyed only to be born again even more powerful.And now we see Christianity sinking everywhere while Religion of the Dragon rises after 2000 years to claim victory. Lucifer gave people knowledge because knowledge destroys Christianity and other fake religions. Knowledge is a great gift of Lucifer.
Firstly, I never said I wouldn't be upset. I asked a question about what is the appropriate response. I'd appreciate it if you could try to understand what I am saying before jumping in and making conclusions. After all, would you want me to be upset over a choice you made freely and desired to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
According to the scripture, God is just.
Yes.
He send you to the lake of fire for your unbelief while saving anybody that has murdered, raped or touched a child in their pleasing belief is saved is just and perfect.
Dumb reasoning. God lets people go to Hell because they want to go there rather than spend time with a holy eternal God.
God is not a murderer according to us. God has never justified abortion.
True.
He is totally justified in extinguishing babies or children.
God doesn't agree with people taking the lives of others without the proper and lawful authority.
people destroyed in Noah's flood were killed lawfully. It was a flood. Who controls the weather?
We can totally agree our ways, our thoughts are not his.
that's true.
He is just because he'll forgive you.
no he is just because he is just. He forgives those he wants to forgive. Typically those who have repented of their sins.
Is this your basis to be an antitheist or misotheist?
nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
How can one be happy when they know that their loved ones are engulfed in burning agony in hell? If you were to be happy in heaven, you would have to not be you.Christians like to say that the whole "burning in hell" stuff is all a metaphor, but if everything that gives Christians an issues is a metaphor, then that gives some credibility issues to everything else.
I suppose the question is one of truth or not. Christians may or may not be happy about the final resting place of their loved ones. But truth is truth. Non-christians may not believe such a situation, but it won't change the truth. They would prefer to think - "gee how do I feel about such a thing" as though one's feelings have anything to do with the truth.
For me the entire point of this universe is to be in a right relationship with the one who created it. If my beloved ones believe the purpose is to live for themselves and to do whatever they want despite the consequences, should I be happy that they end up where they desire or should I be sad that they were wrong in the first place?
Think about Best Korea - on this forum page. he's written numerous posts about how he wants to end up in Hell and how he rejects the God of the Bible. Should I be upset that he gets what he wants or should I be upset that he's wrong?
The truth is the truth. I can't change the truth. I might well be wrong. And I will have to live with that. Do I want everyone else to be sad about that? No. Everyone's tried to change my mind, but at the end of the day, I have made up my mind. And I will end up where I will.
I don't know what heaven is going to be like ABSOLUTELy. But I am not going to use a silly argument about wondering whether I am happy or not, about people who end up in a place - that they could have found out more about but chose not too because they were too arrogant or full of pride to really consider - the implications of their situation and choice - to make me not believe in heaven.
Truth is truth. I'd prefer people to make sensible decisions. But it is still their decision to make. And at the end of the day, what I feel or what I want them to make - is not going to change the truth.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Of course, it is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. It has absolutely to do with Jesus.I said one of the hallmarks of the genuine Christian church is the Trinity. Trinity, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Without Jesus there would be no Trinity. Without Jesus there would be no Christianity either. So Jesus is the hallmark of Christianity.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@Shila
It stands to reason, that people who don't agree with the Trinity, would argue against this teaching. But that doesn't make them right. And currently it does make them wrong. Until the Church decides otherwise, this is one of the hallmarks of a genuine Christian church.The hallmark of Christianity is Jesus.John 14:66 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
Of course, it is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. It has absolutely to do with Jesus.
I said one of the hallmarks of the genuine Christian church is the Trinity. Trinity, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Do all Christian denominations believe in the Trinity.Although the Trinitarian view became the orthodox doctrine in mainstream Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a relatively small number of Christian groups and denominations. . Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy
It's a fair question to ask.
The Trinity is one of the marks of Christianity. Even the World Council of Churches, the most ecumenical Christian organisation in the world, states that the Trinity is one of its marks of Christianity.
Other so called Christian denominations, such as the Mormon Church, attend the WCC but they don't have full membership rights.
The Ecumenical Council held in antiquity upheld that the Trinity is one of the doctrines that distinguished Christianity from other religions and cults. Hence, it is a measure which has been upheld and confirmed over and over again.
I would suggest that there are many so called Christian type denominations and cults all over the world. Many use the name of Jesus as part of their name, and indeed attempt to label themselves "Christian".
Are they Christian? Well the Church would say no, but the world would say yes. And the world would say yes, because if someone identifies as a Christian, then that for the world is the first step. Why would someone identify as something if they didn't believe they were?
There are several denominations - that hold to the Oneness idea. Or to unitarianism. Or to polytheism. the Church would hold them to be contrary.
Some hold divergent views on the Trinity doctrine. Again, most of these divergent views have been tested over the years and found wanting. Church history is a wonderful place to visit and to make enquries. Most things have been discussed before. There is not much that is totally new and novel.
A mormon would deny everything i have said. As would the JWs. And the Unitarians too. Most liberals would acknowledge its truth of history, even if they themselves though it an incorrect conclusion of the church. The Trinity is Biblical and it is Christian. To deny this is to deny the history of the church. And speaks of a profound ignorance.
Of course, it is true that the word Trinity isn't found in the bible. and possibly the word wasn't coined for several hundred years after Christ rose from the dead. Yet the essence of the doctrine is found in eternity, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Yes, Athanasius articulated it helpfully. But the questions raised in relation to Jesus from his time on earth and later had raged in the church from the beginning. who was he? Was he just a man or was he more than that? And if more, how much more?
The Spirit's role also was clear from the Beginning. And evident throughout the OT and the NT. Much more than just a mere power. - More than man. Much more but what? It was natural for the questions to arise - as they did. And it was natural for the church to arrive at a consensus in relation to it's teaching. people can continue to argue over it - and they will - but the established and confirmed councils of the church have concluded that one of the tests of orthodoxy of the Christian Church is a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
It stands to reason, that people who don't agree with the Trinity, would argue against this teaching. But that doesn't make them right. And currently it does make them wrong. Until the Church decides otherwise, this is one of the hallmarks of a genuine Christian church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You say what you only "think" a lot.
Probably. So what? What does that mean? Just that this is where I am coming from based on my observations. I could redact it, but I don't see any particular problem with it. I could say, I know or I feel or just make it look like a statement of fact. but unlike you and others here - I am open to being corrected. So to say I think - is the place I am coming from - is most appropriate when I use it.
2 Peter 3:8-9 says; We are not to Forget "a day is but a thousand years to the lord".
"But do not forget this one thing, ... With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
I notice you omitted the last part of this verse which gives us a much fuller understanding of what Peter is saying.
Peter is not saying, this is how you work out how old the Lord is. He's not saying that you can use this as code to figure out when the Lord is returning. What is he doing is making a very profound point. And that point is this"
Firstly, God's timing is not the same as ours because - what is soon for God who lives for eternity is different to what man sees as soon who lives for 80 years.
Soon, for God may well be thousands of years because God is not bound by the same time as we are.
Hence, with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years. Notice even the little word "like". Peter didn't say - a 1000 years is the same as a day. I'm sure you've heard of similes. And if you haven't, I'm sure you can google it.
You say this means:"The verse I mentioned from 2 Peter talks about the delay of Jesus returning."
Yes, it does.
Verse 9 says "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness".So when the lord says a day are we to read (not to forget) this to mean 1000 years?
You can read it any way you want to. I would read it as I said above, it is referring to the difference between humanity and God. God is eternal and immortal and humanity is not. I don't think it is a code or formula to work out the age of the Lord or even the time of his return. I think it is expressing that God's timing is measured according to the fact that he is God and eternal and that when we think soon, given our brevity of life is different to God's soon which is more in line with his eternal nature.
The primary reason I pointed this verse out to you was not respect the timing or delay of his return, but rather the reason why he was delaying it.
"because he is not willing that any would perish", . That is different to your suggestion that Christians and God is just snapping at the bit to torture and punish people. Hence, Why I said it contradicts what you wrote above.
Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont know. Can you explain?
I thought you must understand. Otherwise, why would you make such wild claims?
Christian Thought has three main views of the future. There is the pre-millenial view, the Amillenial view, and the post-millenial view.
The fundamentalists primarily take the first view. The evangelicals, are divided between the three. The liberals tend to be the last. The Roman Catholics hover between the second and third.
I hover between being an optimistic Amil - and PostMil. This means that I think Jesus is not returning any time in the near future, but rather is a long time off.
Of course, if I am wrong, then so be it. Not that it matters from a specific salvation issue, since one's view on eschatology is not a salvation issue. It is an issue of course, but not salvation. Most Reformed people tend to hold to the second view, although traditionally, during the Reformation and up until about the Second World War, most Reformed Christians did hold to Post Mill.
The verse I mentioned from 2 Peter talks about the delay of Jesus returning. The reason provided was to ensure that as many people as possible were saved. that clearly contradicts your notion that he's coming back to bring torture and judgment and that Christians love this idea.
Christians do look forward to Jesus returning. They look forward to a day when they don't have to deal with sin anymore. They are not looking forward to judgment day for people to be destroyed and tortured. that's why most of the Christians I know spend much of their time, sharing the gospel. Most Christians want most people to live in Heaven with God. Personally, I hold the view that Jesus' words to his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount about the wide and the narrow gate was a warning. It may be a prophecy, but it's a warning. In other words, like all prophecies, it has a purpose. A purpose to cause people to change the way they are heading and to take the right path. That's what happened in Ninevah with Jonah. He prophesied and the people turned.
Hence, I see Jesus' words primarily as a warning - and one which - I think in history will be heeded by the majority of humanity. Another reason I think we still have a long way to go before Jesus returns.
Now some people will surely point out all the warnings in the NT - of the coming of the Lord. The day of judgment is imminent. And how the NT Christians thought this meant Jesus was returning soon. And I certainly concede there are quite a few views about that - from some saying, it's proof that Jesus was wrong, to others saying the Disciples misunderstood. People will say what they want to say - me included.
I think there are a couple of things going on in the NT. I think Jesus referred to these couple of things in his sermons - that we see in Matthew 24, MArk 13, and Luke 21.
I think he used the word - this and that or these and those to point us to the Different events. And both can be called the Last Day or Judgment Day or the coming of the Lord or the Day of the Lord. Or the Last Days. Or his coming in or with or even on the clouds. But they don't always refer to the same event.
The two things that were going on in Jesus' commentary:
1. The End of Israel's covenant with God; and
2. The End of the World.
The first referred to the specific event within one generation of Jesus' death.
The Second to the physical return of Christ, the Last Day, and judgment day of the world.
Many of the warnings in the NT, referred to the Last Days of Israel. I think this is evident in Paul and Peter's writings in particular.
And some of the warnings are to the Return of Christ.
Hence, the coming of the Lord may mean as it does in the OT on many occasions, to God's judgment on the world. It may also mean - as it does in Ruth 1:6 a visit from the Lord. Not physically, of course, but rather that he fed them - by ending the famine. It doesn't require a LITERAL coming or visitation.
It of course may mean a physical coming. which is what Jesus' first visit was - and his second one will be as well.
In any event, 2 Peter seems to refute your view. But then again, you seem to understand enough. So all the best with you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not anti-Jew, nor pro-Jew.That's about the strength of it Trade.A sensible person, rather than a non-sensible person, might suggest that it is best to be as tolerant as one can be under prevailing circumstances.When people start adding various religious clubs into the mix, is when things have a tendency to get silly.Sort of, I finally understand why a Middle Eastern religious club tried to trick a hypothetical creator.Absolute non-sense Trade.
To be frank, I have no idea what the point of that paragraph was about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, Christians, but I just had a talk with my father Satan, and yeah, judgment day is delayed.Judgment day is delayed by 200 years, so judgment day will happen in year 2223 (2 + 2 + 2 = 6, and 6 repeated 3 times is 666.).I know many of you were excited by judgment day because Jesus would come back to kill everyone on Earth after brutally torturing them.However, Jesus is scared of Satan, since last time Jesus came to Earth, Satan nailed him and Jesus ran away and never came back.Its actually Satan who decides when judgment day will happen.Jesus isnt even a primordial God.
I'm intrigued by your thoughts.
That doesn't sound like a delay. That sounds like you are bringing it forward.
What do you make of Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:8-9?
Created:
t's all effing nonsense Trade.
As delightful as always, eh Zed?
The fact is the Church is not anti-Jew. It's not pro-Jew either.
You have your view. Good for you. I hope it serves you well.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
t's all effing nonsense Trade.
As delightful as always, eh Zed?
The fact is the Church is not anti-Jew. It's not pro-Jew either.
You have your view. Good for you. I hope it serves you well.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So Ill correct that bible dunce for you, Wylted.That's much better than I would have done, I was just going to call him a cuck
You can call me anything you like. I could care less.
The book of Revelation is God's wrath on Israel. It is the story of how God ended the covenant with them.
This reflects the lesser times God judged the nation of Israel in the OT. TImes when they broke covenant and God punished them by sending them into Babylon or Assyria.
The NT is the story of how Jesus, God's own Son came to this world and his own people rejected him. The punishment was a complete destruction of Israel and it's temple. See Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, all, which predicted it - even as Joel predicted it and Peter reminded the people in Acts 2 in his famous sermon at Pentecost.
In AD 70, within the very generation of Christ's death and the rejection by Israel of Christ, the temple was destroyed and the Jewish religion's heart was ripped out. This is the message that Luther and Calvin preached about many years later. As even Augustine and others have done so throughout church history.
Israel was destroyed as a nation. It's people scattered to the ends of the earth. Its covenant broken and God's judgment brought forth in accordance with the blessings and curses in Leviticus 26. In doing so they lost the legal and theological rights God had given to them. As they did in the previous judgments before them and mentioned above.
For Israel to regain the theological rights back to the place that God promised to Abraham and Moses and David, etc, Israel needs to repent of its sin and unfaithfulness towards God. It did so in the OT. You can read about it in Daniel 9 on one occasion. You can read about it in Nehemiah And Ezra on other occasions. It was only after their repentance - did God give the legal and theological grounds for their return.
After AD, Israel was scattered and dispersed into the world. In 1948 as a response to the destruction in Germany of the Jews by Hitler, the World League of nations took pity on the Jews and decided to give the Jews a place to call their own. there were many places suggested but finally, it was determined their current location in the Middle East was traditionally their place. And it was granted to them - by the League of Nations.
The dispensational Christians around the world leapt for joy with the Jews. The rest of the Middle East and other Christians from the Catholic Chruch, the Anglican church, the Reformed Churches, etc were not so happy about this situation. They knew the way things would unfold - indeed as they have.
The fact is Israel has never repented for rejecting the Messiah. And until they do so they don't have the theological or natural right to call it their home - as promised by God. So it doesn't matter that they call it home - and it doesn't matter that the UN gives them power. As I said, that's a man-made law - by the UN. But it's not a theological or natural right in the Scriptures. Israel breached the covenant. The book of Revelation tells that story. Until they repent it won't change. The good news is that Romans 10-11 predict that Israel will repent.
Of that we can be assured.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
We all know jews try to trick God with things like having an elevator automatically open up on a floor they are heading to as a technicality against breaking a rule or putting a string up outside and then declaring the outside inside.
Nonsense.
At first I thought, these people are assholes, but then a Jewish friend explained it to me this way.God is an asshole, which is well documented in the old Testament
Nonsense.
The asshole requires jews to follow very specific lawsThe laws were written by an asshole and thus are not designed to scale easily into new situations.
Nonsense.
Jewish religious scholars, therefore, need to figure out actual laws to make sure they don't get fucked over by their asshole god. This process of figuring out if the real laws (in the Talmud) are fulfilling the requirements of The Asshole's laws (in the Torah) is what "pilpul" is
Nonsense.
Since their god is a dick the jews only follow the letter of the laws, not the spirit. Why be considerate when your god is the equivalent to the ATF writing bullshit laws to fuck you over?
nonsense.
The silly tricks you see are this, following the letter of the law in a way that still lets jews do the stuff they want to doI really gotta say that Judiasm makes a lot more sense once you realize that Jews don't actually LIKE their God even though they follow his commandments. It's like if you lived under an oppressive government.
nonsense.
Jesus was a Jew. For a Christian to be bagging out someone simply on the basis of their nationality, race, or religion is nonsense. It's totally unacceptable. And even in if the worst case scenario that everything you have alleged is true, even then, it's still nonsense and unacceptable what you are saying.
I am a Christian. I am not a Zionist. I don't think the Jews have any natural or theological right to the land they claim as their own. They do however have a legal right since the League of Nations, or the UN have given them such. I might disagree with the UN. But this is the law and so far as I am able to determine, that makes it valid until someone can show otherwise.
The God of the OT is the same God as the NT. For a Christian to bag out the OT God is stupid. The NT God, if you read the epistles by Paul, Peter, and James, let alone the book of Revelation, demonstrate this convincingly. Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone in the OT. The God of the NT is even more harsh - so it seems than the God of the OT. I think they are the same.
This rhetoric against the Jews is madness. It disagrees with Paul and Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
" It is God - perfect and beautiful using the sinful parts of humanity for God's glory. "Just as the scripture says or teach, the use or through the foolishness of preaching.
I'm not entirely sure of your point here.
Yet, the foolishness of preaching is God's determined means of bringing many to salvation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
This questions is mainly for use CatholicApologetics, though it would be great it anyone else wanted to contribute their opinion.
I don't know why this question is for CatholicApologetics. With respect it seems a naive question to ask a Catholic. Although the Catholics indeed claim to have written the Bible. With all of their nonsense about various things. The Catholic on the other hand - DOES NOT agree with the REFORMATION principle of Sola Scriptura. They hold to the view that the traditions of the church, including church dogma and the pope overrides the Bible.
Grated, there is evidence for Christianity and the resurrection, but the Bible also has some pretty sexist things, as well as some messed up stuff about slavery, unbelievable stories about Noah's ark, and about the universe popping into existence, which has no scientific evidence, or how a loving god sends people to eternal suffering for being raised in a Muslim family. Not to mention all of the contradictions.
The Catholic church does not disagree with your argument here. Hence while it is futile. Protestants will of course. Me included. For example, I think that almost every reason you provide is one of ignorance and not much thought. There are not GENUINE contradictions in the Bible. Indeed, if one could prove one, then one would be a millionaire.
These are the main things that lead me away from the church.
Respectfully, such contradictions lead you away from the church? Pray tell, and where are you headed, that is so lacking in contradictions? People are inconsistent EVERYWHERE. LOL @ you. Evolution and Atheism teach that in the beginning there was nothing and then nothing exploded, for no particular reason. That's reasonable to you? Really?
The question is, how much of the bible do you think is the actual word of god, and how much of it do you think is flawed by the workings of man?
Personally, I think EVERY part of the BIble is God's WORD. And I also think that EVERY part is written by flawed and SINFUL humans. that is in my view one of the greatest and best reasons to understand and appreciate the Bible. It is God - perfect and beautiful using the sinful parts of humanity for God's glory.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
In short, If I believed that there was an all powerful being that created absolute moral truths, then I would do exactly as the being said to the best of my ability.
Why would you do that? WOuld it be because you thought that the all powerful being was also perfectly right? OR would it be because you were afraid of being punished?
This is why I don’t understand Christian churches that accept gay people and treat women as equals. Not that those are bad things, but if you believe that the Bible is the word of god, then you should follow its teachings.
I think that all Churches ought to accept anyone. The gospel is about transforming broken people and restoring them to God. That includes everyone including you and me.
Treating people as equals doesn't mean accepting that they are right or that their behaviour ought to be condoned or supported. It means - at least in my view, that the same law, applies to all people everywhere. This of course means less laws. Not more laws.
We ought to obey what God has required us to do and believe. We also need to consider how those laws apply in different contexts.
I hate Christian’s who demean women and gays, but I respect them more than I do liberal Christians.
Hate is such an ugly word. I must say that I never really know what it means. I certainly find some things disgust me. But does that mean I hate them? There are some things that I know are evil. Even then I think the word hate doesn't quite fit. But perhaps it does.
Is hate the opposite of love? It could mean that. I don't hate anyone. Not even the devil.
I think what you are saying is that you respect "consistency". I can concur with that position.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you think you could do better, then you have committed Treason.Well, I guess I go to Hell to burn forever then. Simple enough.
Yes, that's one option. On the other hand, you could acknowledge that you are wrong, repent of your disloyalty and who knows, perhaps God might extend some grace your way.
I always say, while there is life, there is hope.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Every person deserves to burn in Hell for ever and that includes meYou speak words of a psychopath, again.
Probably.
Which Psychopath in particular do you have in mind?
In my view, the offence must equal the punishment. You know, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
So, if the punishment is everlasting torture in Hell, the crime must have been pretty nasty.
What was the crime again? Eating a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree? That doesn't quite sound right. So there must have been something else going on.
This is why I keep coming back to TREASON against the God of the Universe. Only that crime fits the punishment.
And how do we know if someone has committed treason against the God of the Universe? Hmmm. How?
What's treason? Great question. I wonder how it would present itself?
Tell me do you think the God of the Bible should be the boss of you or not? Or perhaps we could put it this way. Do you think the God of the Bible does a good job, or do you think you could do better? If you think you could do better, then you have committed Treason. It's that simple.
now if you don't think the God of the bible is untrue, then so far as you are right, then it won't matter. On the other hand, - it doesn't matter. Just believe what you want.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Take a look at what tradesecret wrote:if people are burning in Hell, then they deserve to be there and be tortured foreverI find these words rather sick. Its like Tradesecret is trying to make Christianity look even worse.
If stating the truth is going to make us look worse, then so be it. I don't have to compromise on the truth to make people like me or Christianity better.
There are those who hate it. Those who love it and a whole lot of others who have either never decided or don't care.
Just to be very clear though. Every person deserves to burn in Hell for ever and that includes me. That is what the Bible talks about when it says everyone has sinned and deserves death. Death is the second death mentioned in Revelation. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, as the Messiah, died on the cross and paid for the consequences that I deserve. It's good news for me. Not so good for those who reject Christ of course.
In fact it is entirely wonderful news that the Creator and king of the universe planned that not all would suffer the consequences of their sin of treason. I didn't do anything to deserve his forgiveness. In fact, it's entirely a matter for him. I wish I could say it was because I am a nice guy. But I can't. The doctrine of unconditional election is the way I understand this.
Perhaps Peter in 2 Peter 1:1-2 put it best - our faith was given by divine lottery. Of course though since divinity is omniscient, there is no randomness about it. Does that make you hate Christianity even more? Yeah probably.
Some of my close friends are probably in Hell. Do I feel sorry for them right now? Absolutely. It spurs me on to encourage others to not reject Christ. Yet, I am not a miracle worker. I just speak it how it is. I am not here to tickle ears or make people feel good about themselves.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You wrote so much, yet didnt refute anything I said. Your delusions are trully great.
There's no point in refuting something that is nonsense.
Christians think that anyone who considers Hell a better location and place to be than in heaven with Christ as simply not understanding what they are talking about.
To say you'd be upset that your friends would be in Hell is a fair call. Yet it was their choice to be there. They were told as well as everyone else the consequences of living life like you think are God.
Yet to say there is no empathy - suggests that there ought to be some empathy for them - it's a bit like saying, we should have some empathy for pedophiles or mass murderer. Except in this case it is treason against the God of the universe. A crime which is far worse than the other two mentioned.
Created: