Total posts: 3,500
-->
@Owen_T
Korea actually has a point with this one. Heaven also sounds incredibly boring and pointless.
So tell me, what do you know about Heaven that makes it sound boring and pointless?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I wouldnt want to be in heaven if my friends are in hell.
Wow! Really. Would you join your friends in prison too? Surely you wouldn't enjoy being free if your friends were in prison? Ph yes, but that's different isn't it?
I wouldnt feel good in heaven knowing that my friends are burning in hell.
How in the world would you know that?
Only a person with no empathy could enjoy while others are burning.
Heaven is not about enjoying yourself anyway. Heaven is not a holiday resort. In any event, if people are burning in Hell, then they deserve to be there and be tortured forever. It's not like they couldn't have avoided it if they wanted to. But they chose to go there, knowing what it was like. Many of them probably thought just like you are now. So why should they complain? They are getting what they want.
Many people consider the fact that on earth, people are actually restrained by God not to be as evil as they possibly could be. But when they get to Hell, all restraints are off and they become evil. I think when we know what they are like, we will be satisfied that the penalty is fair.
This simply proves Christianity to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not at all. It only proves that you haven't done your homework.
There is no way to disagree with this.
And yet billions do. Go figure.
You are either a psychopath who can live in peace knowing that many people are burning alive, either you will constantly feel bad in heaven which then turns heaven into hell.
Or you are a person who accepts that the punishment is exactly what is fair and just.
Or God will make you forget about hell, which makes you a mindless sheep.
I don't think God will make you forget about Hell.
There is no way out of this one.
Out of what one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
o my point on the hostility was not directed towards you- Tradesecret but this other individual.I included you in the comments as you were being talked about
Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure I wasn't having a go at you.
Do others talk about me? I dunno. I am sure they do. And you know what? That's okay, after all the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"And punished if you disobey."Your response:Wrong."The people who will be punished are those who disobey"Yeah, thats what I said. So you agree that its forced relationship.
If a parent / child relationship is a forced relationship, then yes, I guess so.
My parents never asked me if I wanted to be their child. And I never asked my children if they wanted me to be their parent.
Are these forced relationships? They're relationships. Forced or not forced.
But I also noticed you omitted - deleted - did not mention - my sentence in full. It's not just disobedience, but rejection of God that is the whole equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
We are expected to obeyAnd punished if you disobey.
Wrong.
the child of God may be disciplined, but not punished. One is a means and the other an end.
The people who will be punished are those who disobey God and reject him.
It's all fair in love and war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sexual angst is an inbuilt trait.
I accept that humans for the most part are sexual beings. Nevertheless, not everyone has angst about it.
But you're correct, us oldies lose our edge after a while.
Us oldies, LOL, tis true that the older one gets, priorities change. One hopes never to lose their edge though.
Yes, I'm well, thank you.
Glad to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do need to serve your God, since you must do as he commands you to. I dont see how can you not know this, but then again, only my religion is based on knowledge. Yours is based on blind obedience.
In the Christian religion, if we can call it that, and sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, it is a relationship with God - restored as family.
We are expected to obey, like a child with their father, but the compliance with it is now within that relationship. It is not the master slave relationship as yours seems to be.
I have faith this is true. But this is distinguished from mysticism which is what it appears you understand religion as. The former is based on knowledge, the latter on magic.
I want for Satan to possess me, so that I can rise as a dragon of the Black Sun, and all the people witness its mighty glory.
It is you who is ignorant, not me. To suggest such a thing is as I said above, sad.
Satan has set me free. Praise Satan's infinite wisdom!
what has Satan set you free from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi Zed,
Thanks for the response. Thankfully, many of us are past the teenage years.
I don’t need to lie. I have unfortunately previously revealed some of my teenage life which some love to repeat.
Is my current life like that? Not really. I’ve been married for almost 30 years. And my intimate life is fine. No angst necessary. It’s been a long time since I have had to concern myself with fantasies.
Life changes though.
Is Satan made up? I suppose many people think so.
Me, I’ll stick with the Bible.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by “jizz will out’.
In any event, I trust that things are fine with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would rather fall with Satan as equal than serve under Jesus. I have nothing in life, but there is still darkness in my heart. As long as I have the mark of the Black Sun, I will worship Satan and his noble ideas. Its not even a choice, as I dont believe that people have ability to choose. We just follow what destiny has given us, and destiny has thrown me in the abyss of eternal darkness.
That's about the saddest thing I have seen anyone write for sometime.
Of course, Christians don't need to serve under Christ. As people of God, we have been adopted as his children and have been granted co-heirship with Jesus.
Satan on the other enjoys the darkness in our hearts - he wants us to be his slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I apologize if I offended you. I'm getting what is characterized as a very hostile interaction from you that wasn't before and I don't believe I have been that way towards you.Now I will say you're in error but I want to present that in an amicable fashion not to be taken as berating you.Alright.I just said not to debate on what you don't know which is the scripture. Again, amicably saying. We can still interact. Don't take what I said so harsh. Just don't debate those things. You see we just go in circles on it. I would think you would just agree not to debate those things we're non fruitful in.Alright.
Hi Mall,
thanks for your email. I did not realise I had started being hostile to you. I look back over this topic and I can see only one post I made. It didn't seem to be hostile towards anyone.
Still, if I have upset you or come across hostile, I apologise for causing you any kind of angst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
This forum is to post whether or not you're religious,
It depends on your definition of religion. In my view, there are at least three or four kinds of definition for religion. At times, I use each one and in such times that can make me look like I am either for or against religion.
There is the typical definition of religion. Something to do with the belief in a supernatural being, god or principle. This definition is the classic Western view of religion. At times I hold to this view. It is also the legal definition in Australia. It is appropriate at times to do so. Hence the idea of separation of church and state.
There is another quite general definition of religion. It is that worldview is identical to religion. This is more of a classic non-Western position. It holds the view that religion is inescapable. Everything is religion. Hence the idea that church and state cannot be separated on one level. I think I prefer this definition most of the time. Under this second definition - secularism, and atheism are considered religious - because religion is inescapable.
There is a third definition of religion. It is the idea that humanity is seeking to appease God or the gods and hence, requires humanity to live good lives, do good works, make sacrifices, etc. Opposed to this idea of religion is the view that man can't please God. The Reformation view of Christianity holds to this latter oppositional point of view. It would suggest that man can't please God and therefore that religion is evil and bad (taking into consideration of course James 1:27 of course). Hence the Reformation View of Christianity says - since religion is evil per se, God must take the initiative and save humanity, out of his mercy and grace. When I use this definition - which I do from time to time, then I say "I am not religious". I even call religion evil and that it should be abolished. Ironically, under this third definition, I would consider classic Reformation and Protestant Christians as NON-RELIGIOUS.
There are other definitions too but that is enough. Hence, I would be religious under the first and second definitions but anti-religious under the third definition.
why you think that, and if you are, why you believe your religion is the best and most probable religion.
I have explained my reasoning above. In relation to a religion being the best and most probable, I think this is a flawed question. How do we determine or measure what is best? Is it because I hold to already? Is it because I have considered other religions and therefore dismissed them. And what makes something probable or more probable? I think Buddhism is foolish, but it is more than probably a religion. It is a religion. The same applies to every religion under the first definition. It applies to every religion under the second definition. I hold to the view that Christianity is the only religion which will see members - and not even all of them - go to heaven. Does that make it the best? I also think that Reformation Protestant Christianity is the most accurate compared to the Scriptures. Scriptures defined as the Bible, 66 books. But in my view, all of the Christian denominations so far as they hold to the Trinity and that Jesus is divine are correct. Hence, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Church of Christ, many of the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, the Brethren etc are part of the christian religion. On the other hand, some so-called Christian movements are not part of it, the cults, like JW, the SDAs, the LDS, the Jesus people, many Charismatic groups, many Baptist groups, like the Westboro heretics.
My view is that NOT all roads lead to God or to heaven. There is only one name by which we can be saved. But salvation is not the only hallmark of a religion nor is it the only hallmark of what makes it better than another.
Please be respectful of other's views. Don't try to change anyone's minds in this posts. I just want to see all of the different perspectives out there.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Acknowledgement of a logical possibility, rather than of an objective creator.
LOL - spin again.
Which isn't to say that I do not acknowledge the idea of an objective creator.
Of course you don't. Just speak the truth dear Zed. Stop lying to yourself.
Though such a creator would be subject to the same causal necessities as every other creation idea.
Why? That is the question you never answer.
Same old problem.
Only for you. Not for me.
Whereas seemingly, you unquestioningly accept one particular idea.
Intriguing. What question is that? What idea do you think I never question?
Though it's fair to say that such an Idea is as analogically sound as any other.
I am not sure of what you are talking about.
That is to say:In the beginning there was stuff.And that stuff developed/was developed into other stuff.
Okay, yes, I do laugh. It is either - the following:
In the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded. (evolutional and atheist position) or
In the beginning - God created the heavens and the earth. ( the creationist point of view)
THERE is no other possibility or alternative that any one has posited. the idea of aliens - alien experiements, falls within the first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doing what is right.
yes, great concept. Of course, but what does that mean?
Doing what is assumed to be right relative to a collective idea of righteousness.
Hence your next question - and a sensible one too.
although why a collective idea of righteousness amounts to any more authority is a different question.
Therefore a social club ritual that has meaning within the context of the social collective ideology.Whether that be a pagan ideology or a popular Middle Eastern ideology, or any other collective ideology.As such, baptism/initiation rituals can be extremely variable.
I don't care about baptism in any other situation or circumstance or religion. It is a religious ceremony. I take the view - arrogant as it seems that Christianity is right - rite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The label of Christian and Christianity is man made man invented.But according to the scripture, from the beginning, the religion ordained for those that were predestined, is of being holy.
Okay. Christianity is a man-made concept. People even used Christianity as an insult. Nobody disagrees with this. But So what?
The people who followed Jesus and his teachings were different to everyone else at the time. It stands to reason that people who follow Jesus' teachings, would be called or named Christians.
Even the NT uses that term.
Scripture, the OT. for want of a better term. It refers to the Messiah coming in a particular age to do a particular thing. Was that thing vague? Perhaps. But not to everyone. The wise men in the time of Herod, the Great understood it. They knew when the Messiah was going to be born. They even knew where.
When the Messiah did rise to prominence, those people who believed followed him and those who didn't, didn't. The one who did eventually became known as the Christians. They could have come up with all sorts of names. The NT has another name, the Way. But eventually they became known as Christians. This is historical facts.
Are these the ones ordained from the beginning of time, or even before the world was born, to be holy and blameless? I say yes. I would also include the faithful to the covenant in the times of Israel's history and those who were faithful in the time of Noah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Correction: Yes there's no scripture that says Christianity came from God nor has ordained from the foundation of the world.Man invented the religion of Christianity. Where it says people were predestined or predestinated, it says holy, not christian.
Well thanks for correcting yourself. It's amazing what can happen when you "put" all of the words into a sentence.
God has chosen us (the us we can leave just a little bit) Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world. You are correct in that Paul continues to go on and say "to be holy and blameless". In love God has predestined us to be "adopted" as his sons through Jesus Christ. v.5
This is further argued over the next 5 verses beautifully and then in v.11 Paul repeats - we were chosen, having being predestinated, according to God's plan - ... in order that we who were the first to hope in Christ". Do you see that? It's not those who hope in something else apart from Christ.
The us are all those who are in Christ. Christians believe that is Christians.
2nd Timothy 1: 9 tells us the same thing. "This grace was given us in Christ before the beginning of time". But has been revealed through Jesus. in time.
Let me add, I am not talking about people being created before time. Or before the beginning of the world. I am saying that God chose who would be his before the beginning of time and predestinated them to be holy and blameless. I would suggest that chose and predestinated to be holy and blameless is referring to the specific thing that Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy - and what Paul articulated in Ephesians 1 as well as the Order in Romans 8.
This is the stance of the Reformed Church since at least Luther and Calvin and has its roots in Augustine and the NT, even going back to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Perhaps even back to Genesis 3:15. Thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes there's scripture that says Christianity came from God nor has ordained from the foundation of the world.
I'm not really sure of your point. The Scriptures do indicate that God has made for Himself a people.
And it furthermore declared that He called and predestinated them before the beginning of the World.
So if that is what you are suggesting, okay. I can live with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that baptism is simply a social club ritual, usually backed up, or preceded by, a more extensive period of brain washing.Which to be fair is how all social systems are established and maintained.Systems we variously refer to as religious, political, racial, cultural etc. etc.Probably based upon an age old familiarity and safety in numbers thing.
Okay.
Baptism is simply the bringing the child into the home by covenant. Everyone either has a wet baptism or a dry one. Once the child is named, they are therein part and parcel of that home until an intervening event.
In Christianity, we acknowledge the reality of the family in society but we also recognise the reality of God. Hence, despite believing in the separation of church and family, like many do the separation of church and state, we don't believe in the separation of the person to God.
Is it brainwashing? whatever? That's just a silly argument. Though to be fair, your next sentence qualifies your comment.
It's not based on numbers or safety, it is based on "doing what is right".
Still thanks for entering the discussion. I trust you have a good day.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Creation followed by a prolonged period of evolution seems pretty logical.More logical than the Middle Eastern Magic Bloke hypothesis...The one where he knocked everything together in 6 days.
I'm sure that might be the case for you. Good for you. At least there may be an acknowledgment of a creator in your thesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Indeed. It is as I have always said about the Reverend, the believability of his lies and fantasies seems to be of no consequence even when called out, he doesn't care.All that seems to count for him is whether the tale helps him rebuild the facade of his imagined greatness while just struggling to be relevant.Individuals such as the Reverend Tradesecret with narcissistic personality disorders often do not care who they manipulate or lie to or how much harm it may cause by lying.You've just described the typical trait of a narcissist. A narcissist is taken over by his ego and will never give in. He will make everything except giving in.It took me several years of deep analysis to find out that some relatives are narcissists, one of them a christian zealot. You can't imagine how tough is to put up with these people, but I took it as a challenge and I'm finally getting over it.And you're right when you say that narsissists don't care about their lies, this comment of him above shows him in his true light. You can tell me whether I'm wrong or not because I'm not a biblical expert, but I don't remember anyone in the bible saying to be pretty sure to have a place in heaven. As far as I know, there is only 144K reserved sits and this individual is pretty sure he will get there out of the 8,000 million people in the world (without considering the dead ones, haha).Moreover, according to the bible only the righteous will get eternal life (Matheus 25, 46), so this individual is calling himself righteous. Not even Jesus was so arrogant because he said "no one is good - except God alone" (Mark 10, 18).
I'm not a narcissist because I am confident I will go to heaven. That would make every Christian in the world a narcissist. And indeed most of the rest of the world's population of religious people. It simply is a generalisation that makes a mockery of real narcissists.
The Bible doesn't say that there are only 144 thousand people reserved for heaven. It tells us that a multitude that can't be counted will go to heaven.
Also the comment about righteous you make is helpful even though it is misleading. Christians agree that no one is righteous. We say - all people are sinners and DESERVE to go to HELL. Yes, that is all of us. So in one way you are absolutely correct in that none of us are righteous. I think your characterisation of Jesus is wrong though. He said - why do you call me good, only God is good. Firstly, he didn't deny he was good. He asked the question, why do you call me good. He didn't say, wrong, I am not good. His follow up line is the key here really. People like yourself - read it one way and Christians read it the opposite. You for instance have already suggested Jesus was saying he wasn't good. Christians on the other hand - see this as proof that Jesus is God. Why do you call me good? Only God is good. The conclusion is that I am GOD. That is the Christian teaching and the language doesn't refute that. If Jesus had denied he was good, then there might be evidence to support your conclusion. But it's not there.
Furthermore, it is on the basis that Jesus did not sin, that Christians are able to claim in faith - the righteousness of Christ. We call this the great exchange. On the Cross, he took the punishment for our sins. But at the same time he accredited to us his righteousness. We don't become perfect. Yet, because of this exchange, which we call justification, God looks down at people who believe in Christ and see only Christ. this is why we talk about our sins being washed. Yet it also explains how God can see us as righteous. It is a declaration made in heaven by God. Read the book of Romans, to see how it is articulated by Paul. I am not asking you to believe it, but to see how it is articulated.
Hence, Christians are saved by grace through faith. We know we don't deserve it because like everyone else we are sinners. Yet in faith, we trust that Christ's work on the cross satisfied the wrath of God against us, and also provided to us his righteousness. If Christ was a sinner like everyone else, then this justification would not take place - and Jesus would not have risen from the grave. And yet the best evidence is - that Jesus rose from the grave. Which proves the entire point that Paul made.
So, I believe that I will go to heaven, not because I am nice bloke or because I have done wonderful things. On the contrary, everything I have done - all the good things too - none of that is better than filthy rags. I deserve to go to Hell. God however in his grace has had mercy on me. He has given me grace. He has granted to me repentance for my sins. He has given to me the righteousness of Christ. And he has done this because of his own purposes. And because he is good and holy. Grace is a free and undeserved gift. It is Christ who is perfect. I trust in him. And God promises that those who trust in him will not die. I am confident God keeps his promises. That's why I am confident I will go to heaven.
So your mockery is nonsense - since it an argument of straw. You don't know me nor what the church teaches. And this is evident by the response you provided above. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work.The Watchtower I don't always agree with, besides that they, you and I are not infallible. What I use is the Bible accounts mentioned where the baptized came up out of the water.
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.
In relation to the biblical accounts mentioned by you, none were in relation to submersion, were they? Saying people went into the water and came up doesn't signify submersion. Even if you read the words, it has a pattern, they go down into the water, are baptised, and then come up from the water. I wonder if you noticed the three step process. Submersion if it means "going down under and coming up from beneath" doesn't require this three step process. That's the beauty of language here. It demonstrates that baptism is neither the going down or the coming up. Baptism is the water ceremony that is practised in the NT in some of these accounts that is within those two steps.
Of course, on the day of Pentecost, there was no river or large containers that people went to be baptised. Yet 3000 were baptised according to Acts 2:41. The interesting thing is water is not even mentioned. There are no rivers in the town. The other interesting thing about that day is: how do you baptise 3000 people in one day? There were 12 apostles. What time did they start and when did they finish? How much time was devoted to each baptism? Did the disciples ever take a break?
there's a much easier understanding of how it happened, than the very unlikely and almost impossible idea that each one was submerged, and that is that the disciples followed the ordinary manner by which the Levites anointed or baptised people - established in the OT.
There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever.I gave them.
No, you gave nothing of the sort. Don't tell me that people going into the water and coming up from the water means submersion. It doesn't mean that. Don't lie to yourself.
What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question?Public declaration.
???? firstly, where do you get that from? Secondly my question is - not what is it for, but which example of baptism in the NT is the most valuable for Christians when it comes to the mode and the meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
To be honest, I was refering to the other guy.And as for you, I dont think you're a con. I mean, what I can think of a guy who is pretty sure will go to heaven and sit right next to "God" for the eternity? Yeah, a lunatic. (or maybe a narcissist).
Well, there you go.
I am pleased you don't think I'm a con. But perhaps I am.
I don't know whether you wrote the next line about me.
I am confident I will go to heaven. I don't think I will sit next to God for eternity. I'm just a pauper compared to most of the faithful. Actually, I am confident that I won't be sitting anywhere close to God. Although, this doesn't mean I won't be in heaven. But mind you, I don't know the seating arrangements. And honestly, I think heaven is more than just sitting around. I imagine there's going to be a whole of things to be doing, work etc. It's not sitting on clouds playing harps. It's not one long church service. It's going to be a party up there. But there's going to be a whole to occupy our time. I don't know exactly, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
I am reasonably sure I am not a lunatic. And I don't fit the profile of a narcissist.
Perhaps some think of me that way. I can't help their feelings. People say lots of things. People quote things out of context. I don't care that I can't defend myself in some of those things.
In any event, have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The holy scriptures or nominally the Bible itself teaches that Christian or Christianity for that matter is man made,man made invention.Even the book that I guess is referred to as a "Christian " book shows in it was invented by man .Does this mean or prove the bible was just made up or fabricated by man?I continued to ask an individual on here has the bible been proven false?Person avoided to answer.I'll get your answers and feedback first .
So I take it you've never read 2 Timothy 3:16?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You two are Bible grandmasters.Bible grandmasters?You mean bible grandcons. 🤣
Ah I'll take that as a compliment.
I'm not a master. Tis true. But that anyone "cares" is just amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't have any desire to fight against Raymond.
As for him being a bible master or me for that matter, I think I'll pass. Raymond knows a few things. But not everything.
Take away his watchtower and he would fold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
I disagree. From the Watchtower Library, Baptism: Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”Your definition of baptism doesn't seem to comport with scripture. That means it comes from somewhere else. Personally, and I may be wrong about this, I don't think the technique is a terribly significant issue, as far as debate goes, but I would look to the scripture when contemplating the way it was done in Jesus's time.
So let's see.
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work.
There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever.
Jesus was baptised in the Jordan. This doesn't mean he was submerged. In fact the evidence is against that misunderstanding. John baptised around lots of water. How can that be evidence of submersion? He was expecting to baptise lots of people. It stands to reason he needed lots of water. And this would be the case whether submersion or sprinkling or pouring. Saying there was lots of water is simply unhelpful in this discussion and misses the point.
Have you ever been to Bangladesh? Or to a middle Eastern country? Bangladesh has lots of rivers. And lots of people bathe in them everyday. Some jump right in - that what's the kids do. But if you watch most of the adults, they simply wade into their ankles or sometimes their waste. And that's it. No further. Lots of water, having a river, doesn't prove submersion.
Your example of Philip is telling. I mentioned this before but I can see it went right over your head, no pun intended. They both went down into the water and they both came up from the water. Did they both baptise each other? Is that what you are saying?
Baptism doesn't symbolise burial. It doesn't. Baptism symbolises the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is the uniting of Christ with the believer. Romans and Colossians don't even mention water. And besides Jesus wasn't buried in the ground. He was laid in a rock cave.
What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The JWs are proved wrong because they falsely hold to the idea that baptism is SUBMERSION without any evidence to support it.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Evolution offers a better alternative to bible creationism. Let’s just have a fun debate
Okay. My premise is that there is no alternative to Bible Creationism. Hence, it is not possible for evolution to offer a better alternative, since it is not yet established as an alternative.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So do you reject direct personal experience?
I would suggest there is a further qualification to it. It is the direct personal experience to gain a spiritual or mystical knowledge that no one else has the capacity to obtain. Almost priestlike. It's the sort of spiritual knowledge that Stephen has. No one else comes to the same conclusions regarding the Bible but him. No one reading the same scriptures would ordinarily come to same conclusion unless they were led to it by him. He is a priest in that sense.
Most people simply read the Bible and come to the same conclusions about most of it. That is because most people can read at a simple level and comprehend what they are reading. Most misunderstandings about the Bible come about from not differentiating the genres involved. That's why the book of Revelation is difficult to read. And why there is so much confusion. If you read it literally, it will lead you down many roads. Understanding it is apocaplytic genre, containing lots of poetry and which is to be understood using the OT assists in understanding it.
It's the alleged secret meanings that are mystical and more gnostic like. Again, Stephen, is the arch type of this person on this site. My views are very well within the mainstream of historical Christianity. I learnt how to read different genres however in a secular school. And read a wonderful book named "How to read a Book". It's free and available on PDF for those who want to look - it's by Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Daren. I highly recommend it if you want to know how to read books properly. It's not a Christian book. it's not even religious. But the methodology they use is the type I use. It is not therefore mystical knowledge, although it is direct personal experience. That latter thing is something no one can exclude.
By the way, since I begin with the Bible, it is my starting point for theology and theological experiences. I don't start with a theological experience and let that determine my theology. That might sound silly, but for me it's a point of contention with others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
After all, we all think we are right, otherwise, we'd think something else.According to the Bible, we are all wrong.Romans 11:33 - Oh, the depth of the riches both ofthe wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments andunfathomable His ways!1 Corinthians 8:2 - And if any man think that heknoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.1 Corinthians 13:12 - For now we see through a glass,darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know evenas also I am known.Isaiah 55:8-9 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", saith the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Yes, the Bible indicates that humanity without the wisdom and knowledge of God is making his own rules and therefore wrong. That's what I said above.
But even believers think they are right, it is what everyone thinks. It is pride. And pride of course comes in many forms. This is one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Interesting question, but how would you know? And why would it matter?
After all, we all think we are right, otherwise, we'd think something else.
You think you're right. I think I'm right. Stephen thinks he's right. Best Korea thinks he's right.
All of us, whether we are right partly or wrong partly, are on a journey somewhere. Some like to think that truth is out there and all we need to do is find it. Isn't that the theme of Star Trek?
Of course, how do we know truth is out there? The modern philosopher has told us that there is no "objective" truth. Truth is subjective. We are told not to confuse facts with truth. And also facts with evidence. And if that's true (irony intended) then there is no truth out there.
Your question therefore ASSUMES or PRESUMES a modernistic worldview. You assume that "objective" truth exists. For the record, I believe in objective truth. I believe in facts and evidence etc. I think most of the people on this site do too - for most of us are older rather than younger. That's a presumption as well. And probably a generalisation too.
I think that the notion that "there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as an ABSOLUTE" is a wonderful philosophical argument and indeed proof that ABSOLUTES must exist. It is because it proves the self-contradiction of the statement. But that's me. No scientist would accept that because it doesn't meet the scientific standard of proof. It's a philosophical argument. Brilliant in its own way. But still just words. Scientists would never be able to prove that an absolute exists, even if it did. Therefore they suggest they are A-Abolustists. or they might say - we can demonstrate within a 99% percent interval that they might exist. Or not exist.
You however ask the question of absolutes, truth is an absolute in the way you posited in your OP. Yet, to the post-modern critic, your question is simply an exercise in futility. And the answers that flowed from your OP demonstrate that.
I, say truth, in the first place is a person. Whatever that means. There is in my mind, both an objective and a subjective element to truth. Hence, it originates in a divine being, so subjective, but its expression then becomes objective truth for everything else. The Garden of Eden and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was the test God gave to humanity - about truth. Humanity failed that test when it decided - that truth must be determined not by God, but by humanity. Hence, the understanding of meaning of truth has had quite a journey. And it's still going. Hence, today, everyone has their own truth.
For the Christian however, truth has revealed itself to them. Christians say God alone has the truth. And this bothers the rest of the world. Imagine having to subscribe to the teachings in the Bible, it's obviously wrong. Archaic, barbaric, etc etc etc. Just like Adam thought. God you are not right. I am right. Even Satan knows better.
Interestingly, the Christian view is neither modernistic or postmodernist. It is trinitarian. It is covenantal. that might be a bit much for the ordinary JW, but if Jesus is the truth and truth emanates from him, then he is the ultimate reality.
Still, have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The end of the world.
It's mostly a doomsday cultish thing. Or in our modern day, it's a scientific expectation of doom. Mostly meant to demonstrate that humanity is evil.
As for the Bible, I enjoyed reading some of your blurb. I think we are still living in the early days of the church personally. Well perhaps the church is more adolescent than an infant, but she certainly is not anywhere near perfect, in one sense. Yes, through Christ, perfectly justified, but practically, a lot of work to do. And from what I see, the JW are just as bad along with the Mormons.
I agree there is a lot of misunderstanding in relation to the term end of the world, or end of the age.
I take the view that Paul and Jesus and Peter were talking about two different things. Not metaphorical, but two separate events. In Mark 13 for instance, there is what will occur in the generation Jesus lived, and then there was what will take place when he returns.
The Jewish understanding of history is linear, not cyclical. Yes, there are cyclical aspects to it but overall it was linear. They talked about the end of the age, or the end of the world, and they talked about new heavens and new earth. This has occurred several times in history. For example, after Noah's flood, there was a new heaven and new earth. The old heaven and old earth had disappeared. Literally, in the Biblical image, the firmament was gone, even as the earth itself was washed away.
Jesus, death sparked another transition of old to new. His death meant God tore the curtain in the temple from top to bottom. A new age was dawning, no longer did people require a temporary high priest, for Jesus now was the eternal high priest.(Proving by the way that he was more than an angel and was not created) Yet, the rebellious priests who rejected Christ continued to practice their now defunct priestly duties, so within a generation, the temple was destroyed. Then no more sacrifices were necessary. The abomination of desolation could stop. And with the end of the temple, the covenant between Israel and God came to an end. that was the end of an age and the start of something new.
Hence, from many people's point of view, the end of the world literally took place. And a new age, the age to come, started. Hence, many Christians believe we live in the age to come that was spoken of by Jesus. Now we consider we are in the Millenium. Not a literal 1000 years, but a period of time between the first and the second comings. We say Christ is ruling from his throne, the Throne of God, also known as the Throne of David. And the proof of his sitting on that throne was Pentecost. That was the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. We knew he was there because the Holy Spirit had been poured out. The great reversal in history was happening. From the days of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were divided, now in Christ, and by the Spirit of God, the languages were being understood by all.
Of course, a day is coming when the Lord shall return and judge the world. This might happen any time, but in my poor understanding, it won't happen until the world itself is converted to Christ and the last nation converted will be Israel. This is what the book of Romans 10 and 11 tells us.
I also don't think this is likely to happen until the church grows up a bit, stops wondering about its identity and becomes salt and light in the world. At the moment, like a young teenager, it is all over the place, emotionally draining, struggling with identity, and not concerned for holiness. This of course is a generalisation and there are many parts of the church, where growth is happening, both spiritually and numerically and where salt and light and holiness is pursued. I'm thinking long term historically, not as individuals that God is certainly working with.
We should always be careful when talking about the church. It is the Bride of Christ after all, and I know that I wouldn't be too pleased if someone called my bride, heretical, apostate etc.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
After all, why would I bother discussing which god is right - if you don't believe any god exists?tons of "god(s)" "exist"your argument for "revelation" is simply an argument for GNOSIS
Are you serious or simply being ignorant?
"tons of gods exist". Okay, if that is so, who are they? And when you say they exist? Do you mean exist as in actually exist or that exist as concepts?
As for revelation being gnosis, you are going to have to articulate that further before I engage.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Christian religion - at least the Reformed part of that religion says it is impossible for someone to become a true Christian. For me, that is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Christian God. We say that people only become Christians because God reveals himself to them by revelation. Hence, it is impossible to prove his existence.i'm not sure how this could be considered a "strong argument" for christianity specificallythe question of "god(s) or not god(s)" is one thingthe question of "why this flavor of religion and not one of the thousands of other religions" is a completely different question
I'm sure you don't know how this is a strong argument for Christianity. But that in some ways proves my point. You are not a Christian. You can't become a Christian. You won't become a Christian by yourself. I have made the claim before. Prove me wrong. Become a Christian, convince me you are one and not just pretending. Do so for a sustained period of time. I dare you. But I know you won't take up the dare. You can't even if you wanted to prove me wrong, since there is more going on that you choose to admit.
If people could just become Christians, then the entire point of the gospel is nonsense. Yes, some people say they choose to become Christians. I know that people say that. But to become a Christian is not a choice. that's missing the point of what is going on. Many people don't get this. Christians and non-Christians. Our culture plays into this a lot. In some respects it's the difference between a marriage by love in the West v a marriage of arrangement in the East. Christianity is more an arranged marriage. But given Christianity's trend towards individualism in the West, many don't realise where the horse is and where the cart is. This is why I use this challenge. And why so far the lack of people proves my point.
Yes the question of God's existence and the question of which god are two different questions. For me and for millions if not billions the first question is already answered. The second one is much more provocative. Many of course - have never got through the first question. Perhaps that is you. But please keep searching. When you catch up- then we can discuss the second question. After all, why would I bother discussing which god is right - if you don't believe any god exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
You should go back and read what I wrote rather than simply guessing. I said you never proved they were the same. Now you have provided some evidence to support your claim. Secondly, you still haven't proved that Michael or Jesus was created. Calling them the same is one thing. Proving that Jesus was created is another. I will await your score on that level.
For the record, you will find that I have indicated on this debate forum that Jesus and Michael are most likely the same. I don't have an issue with that view particularly. The issue I have is in regard to an apparent creation. That is where it seems you need to sustain a reasonable argument. Not seen one yet.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Ive been atheist for a while now, but I’m just realizing that I haven’t really heard both sides of the argument. No disrespect to Alex O’Connor, but I feel like sometimes the sources I’m getting this stuff from can be a little one-sided, and what better place to hear the other side, than right here?
The question of God is not really that hard. There are lots of arguments for and against God. No one will be convinced who doesn't want to be convinced about the existence of God.
Most people deny the existence of God at least because they haven't been persuaded by any evidence put forward to them. That's a matter for them I suppose. Many of these people have grown up and been educated in public schools and universities where the philosophy is secular.
Many others deny the existence of God because it suits them not to believe in God because of some personal traumatic experience they had as a child or at some time in their past.
Others have come from other cultures and religions and deduced rightly that their religion makes no sense and therefore because of that - they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Others like yourself - have never really given it a lot of thought.
Some have given it a fair bit of thought and concluded from their own arguments that there is no god.
On the other hand - many people are theists because of culture, tradition, they grew up in a particular place etc and have believed such from a time they were old enough to appreciate it. Others have come to a theistic position out of a desperate need to have someone love them or want them or because they were in a middle of a crisis and they cried out to what they thought was God and they were delivered.
Others have converted to God since they have been convinced of the truth of God.
Others have come from other cultures and religions and seen the difference and reasonableness of another God.
Some have looked at the world about them and had the insight to question other's positions and realised that there was God.
For me, the question is not about the existence of God. That part is not too difficult for those who have looked at the creation around us. It's the question of who is God that is a complex question.
The Christian religion - at least the Reformed part of that religion says it is impossible for someone to become a true Christian. For me, that is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Christian God. We say that people only become Christians because God reveals himself to them by revelation. Hence, it is impossible to prove his existence.
The non-Reformed part of Christianity has a different take on this. They suggest that all people can come to God and reconcile themselves with God. That anyone can become a Christian simply by believing. That's why they rely so strongly on faith. The Reformed part of Christianity agrees that faith is intrinsic, yet, the faith to believe is itself a gift from God. God gives faith to people to believe. IT's a matter of his choice. Not a matter of how good or bad we are. The non-Reformed Christian finds this position unpalatable. They say that's an arrogant thing. Whereas the Reformed person would say that saying there was somehow something a person to do to come to God is arrogant.
Hence, there are all sorts of arguments for God. And his or her existence. Most atheists I find rely upon very sophisticated arguments of the highest order. Yet they wouldn't do this for other objects. They also try and rely upon scientific arguments - as opposed to the many other types of arguments that exist. Philosophical arguments are rejected for a variety of reasons.
In my view - Atheists as a general rule haven't yet considered the type of evidence they would accept as being suitable to prove God's existence. They typically run around in circles - they ask - what is God what is God like. Tell us - so that we can prove God doesn't exist. Although they don't put it that way - they spin it. They say - tell us - so that we can consider the sort of evidence that will satisfy us. It never works that way though.
Yes, there are some sincere atheists. And many ignorant ones who are half sincere. Yet there are also many militant atheists - who don't want to discuss - they just want to attack and pull down others.
I hope you are one of the sensible and sincere ones - searching for answers. All the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there.Post 13
Hmm.
Post 13 provides lots of assertions. Not a lot of proof. E.g. That Michael was created. That Michael is the Christ. That the angels - spirit beings lived for a long time before humans. You essentially gave your theological position; Jehovah's Witness. Proof is not just stating what you believe. It is also providing a reason for that assertion or belief. It may well be that you think that asserting that this is what the Bible teaches is proof. Certainly, it was entertaining.
I liked some of your ideas around the Garden of Eden. Yet in many parts, your ideas were not so dissimilar to what the church teach's today.
I'd probably use the term YHWH as the name for God, not Jehovah. Not that we can actually speak his name anyway.
I also thought the notion of God allowing Satan to test his theories was ingenious. I suppose it goes with the idea of the Divine Council - with people like Michael S Heiser. It's all rather interesting. Some also put the story of Job into that category. I haven't ruled it out - but nor have I been convinced of it - not from Heiser and certainly not from your brief assertion in post no 13.
Thanks for the attempt though. Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well, okay, here's a list of the gods in the Bible.Kind of a lame list because they confuse various words for god/s as personal name of specific gods, which is, retarded, but whatever. It's a start. Plus, it doesn't mention men and mundane objects being called gods.People are so stupid.
I agree. Some people are stupid. Do you think finding a list of all of the different names for gods mentioned in the Bible somehow proves you right? The Bible clearly indicated that there is ONE GOD. Yes, it refers to gods, and other spiritual beings. None of these are GOD. Most of the names for gods relate simply to stone objects or rock objects that many of the tribes in Ancient times worshiped. These are not even beings. They are objects made by man for man. Some are possibly the names of kings or rulers that lived and were seen as divine-like. Not because they had divine powers or were divine, but because they ruled and decided how people should live. Some are possibly names given to spiritual beings that have revealed themselves from time to time. Some are the names given to natural objects like the sun, the moon, the wind, the storm, indeed the plagues and pestilences, animals, like the frog, snake, etc.
Much in popular books about the origin of religions and deities is true. But not all of it. But they can be quite helpful. But then we come to presuppositions and people's underlying ideologies.
The God of the Bible also has many names.
Yes, there is only one Creator. And there is one Redeemer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument; to demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument. I proved, or demonstrated, the Bible to be about what I thought it to be about. That is all that means.
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Why don't you prove it?I have repeatedly.
uh okay. I still haven't seen any proof of what you say has been proven.
But hey, if that works for you, okay.
I suppose proof means different things to different people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Let's clarify. My position on Christian baptism is that it involves full immersion and your position is specifically that it isn't, meaning sprinkled with water, correct?
Your position is SUBMERSION. The fact that you qualify immersion by putting the word "full" in front demonstrates that even you understand that immersion can mean different things. My position is that the Bible teaches aspersion. In other words, you say the body is applied to the element. I say the element is applied to the body.
We are baptised with water. We are baptised with the Spirit. You say - the body is applied to water. I'm not sure how you understand baptism in relation to the Spirit. One might assume it is the same. Yet, most are inconsistent when it comes to the mode. Many charismatics would say - be baptised with the Spirit or by the Spirit rather than baptised in the Spirit.
Romans 6 doesn't really help your position since the context is talking about sanctification as opposed to regeneration and it is specifically in relation to the union of Christ with the believer.
Still, I hope that clarifies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
There is only ONE God.
The God of the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.Is it? Why don't you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How on Earth could you know that GODs are not designed?
How on earth could you not know?
The Bible indicates God is from everlasting. Eternal. Never a time before and never a time after. Hence, no time to design.
Nonetheless, within the very brief context of the past few thousand years and the even briefer context of our conditioned existences.I know that we can do nothing, other than speculate about a beginning.Though I accept your faith for what it is and what it has become.
I'm not speculating about a beginning. Beginning may well pre-suppose a design. God didn't have a beginning. Hence, no design.
Have an nice day Trade.
Thank you kindly. I hope you have a nice day too Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
I did.
I'm still waiting to see where you proved it.
Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think that Adeism and Atheism are the same?
Interesting question. no deity or no god?
I take the view that there is only one God. Yes, I understand that many religions believe in their own gods or deities or superhumans.
I take the view that the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians all reflect the idea of one God. Are they the same god or not? Good question too. In one sense yes, in other senses, no. Is the OT God the same or different from the NT God? I say an emphatic YES. The OT picture of God is holy and just. The NT God is the same. Both are kind and merciful but also prepared to judge when pressed. Jesus talks about Hell more than any OT prophet ever does. In fact Jesus talks about Hell more than anyone in the NT or the OT? The OT picture or idea of Hell seems to be a very undeveloped place compared to the manner in which Jesus talks about it.
Is it true that the Bible also talks about other gods, supreme beings etc? Again, yes. But is the Bible insisting that these other so-called gods have real power? Good question. Or that they truly exist - like the God of the Bible? I don't think it does. the book of Job, and other places, suggests that angels exist - that they held counsel with God.
Are deities gods? That's part of your question, isn't it? If they are the same, then yes. If they are not the same then, no. All Gods are deities, but are all deities Gods? Is that true or not. In some people's minds, probably. In other's, not at all.
Perhaps after all my waffle, you might suggest a definition of both? And then I can know how to respond. Thanks for the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I will not obey respect or listen to God.That is by definition, not an atheist
A modern atheist sure. But not an atheist in the ancient times. Interestingly, though the same mentality is present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, GOD itself is a representative word.
Certainly God is used often as a representative word. But not only.
So we could also say that GOD and NON-GOD are the same as design and non-design.
Okay, if you think so. Except God is not designed and his creation is. Hmmm. Interesting. Anything that is designed is therefore NOT GOD.
Perhaps you will prove the existence of God yet???
And also not achieve anything.
Well not quite. You seem to be on a roll. Keep going.
Hmmmmmm, hang on a mo.When is an outcome not an achievement?
Yeah, not sure of this non-sequitur. But please enlighten us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Firstly, not all evangelical's love trump?
Secondly, those who do are either
1, republicans or
2, prefer his policies over Biden's.
3, see his trend towards supporting some Christian policies as better than the oppositions and a glimmer of hope.
4, agree with his sentiments that the political system in broken and needs to be fixed.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
There's only one sign really.
You end up in Hell. And sadly, it's not a sign, it's a result.
Created: