I made a comment for you on that article. I have said it before but it was worth repeating:
* No such thing as an Ex-Christian
There is no such thing as an ex-Christian there are only false converts (stony ground hearer). If you can lose your salvation, then what do you do with John 10:28 where Jesus says he gives eternal life and the sheep will NEVER perish? If you can lose it then Jesus should have said, "and they may perish..." or "they CAN perish." But he said, THEY WILL NEVER PERISH. So, will they never perish? Or can they?
A true Christian cannot turn away from God. Here is why. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Now look at 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED if they were really Christians to begin with.
Now a question for you. Are you saying that the Spirit begins the work of salvation in us and that we work it out and complete it by remaining faithful? That IS what you are saying, that we get saved and keep it by the effort of our works, right? Check this out. Galatians 3:1-3 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
Jesus taught it. He said those with eternal life will NEVER PERISH. John 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. " Well, will they perish or not? Jesus says those with eternal life will NEVER perish. I believe Him. Do you?
Your use of the Gospel of John is high problematic in the use of the word “will not parish” (Greek: apollumi). Thus, the famous Christ evangelization quote of John 3:16 is one such failed promise in that had orginally promised that since God loved the cosmos, all who believed in Jesus would not die, but have life eternal as a Theios Aner. The Greek word “apollumi” is defined in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2ed, Chicago, 1979 as primarily “ruin, destroy” as in death. Compare its use in other New Testament passages as Matt. 8: 25, 26: 52, Mark 4: 38, Luke 8: 24, 13: 3&5, Romans 2: 12. If not taken in this sense, the idea that the wicked can escape Hell / The Lake of Fire by simply becoming nothing totally runs counter to Jesus’ statements about Hell in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Revelation. On the other hand, that the wicked simply “perish” is a strong claim for atheism. According to the Bible the, both the lost and saved have life eternal, be it in Heaven or the Lake of Fire.
Your suppositions and implied faith in the NT passages you quote, would suggest that John could never have been a "True Christian" in the first place if he now renounces the "Faith". One other possibility you seem to not have considered is that John Loftus has, like so many others, falsified the passages you are quoting; i.e. he did have a real "True Christian faith" & has subsequently rejected it as a man-made religion like all other man-made religious constructs.
In other words: He was a "True Christian" & now is he is NOT. The passages you quote are therefore clearly in error and are not God-breathed truths after all. They are nothing more than pseudo-authoritative religious declarations of humans pretending and hoping that they understand the workings of God in the world.
John Loftus has falsified the veracity of these passages. He has demonstrated that your scriptures are in error & I suppose that is disturbing to you. On the other hand this could be your opportunity to consider how many other passages in the Bible are also falsifiable.
In the end you might come to the obvious conclusion that it's a man-made construct from Genesis to Revelation.
Wishing something to be true doesn't make it so.
Good luck in your search for truth (- you are a seeker aren't you?)
Actually the word you used parish translates to Ενορία meaning a local church community but i understand what you are saying. Interesting point of view though. I do agree we will all live for eternity and it is our choice as to where we will spend it. But you might be misunderstanding the use of the word "perish". Perish, I believe, relates or is another term for the second death in Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.". If considered a second death then we can plainly see that it is the same as perish. You do agree/understand there is no such thing as a formal Christian though, right?
If we understand the parable in Mark 4:3-13 then it unlocks the secret to all parables: Foolish virgin=false convert Wise virgin=Genuine conversions. The good fish, the bad fish. The man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand. The one who built his house on sand is the one who hears the word of Jesus but doesn't keep them. False Convert.
6 characteristics of a False Convert:
1. Mark 4:5 - Lack depth of understanding. Immediate results impressive changes occur quickly then false convert will fall away from their faith over time and the results and changes disappear.
2. Luke 8:6 - False convert lack moisture in other words they lack the life-giving and life-sustaining power of God's word. To a false convert the Bible is dry and uninteresting and struggles with daily devotions.
3. Matthew 13:6 - False convert have no roots like a plant that dries up when the heat comes because it's roots aren't deep enough to reach water to sustain it. So is the false convert who's faith dries up where persecution comes his roots of faith don't run deep enough to reach the life sustaining water of God's word and Holy Spirit.
4. Mark 4:16 - False Converts receive the word with gladness. Hears the gospel message with gladness and really seems to latch on to it. He may express, for example, with tear filled eyes of joy. How this is the answer he's been looking for. When any test or trials comes his way, excuses become his trademark he falls away from following Jesus.
5. Matthew 13:20 - Repeats that same point false convert receive the word with joy (at first)
6. Luke 8:13 - Because they do believe for a season this is the one that fools the most people because they do believe, for a short time, the Gospel message. These false converts walk and talk a very good game. They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.
My point is there is a certain contingency to become a Christian that many never reach but believe they have. For years I made a decision and believed in Jesus and thought I was a Christian but I was never repentant of my sins so I went along believing that I was saved but I wasn't bearing fruit of one. I have pointed this out before.
What fruit will grow in a True Christians life:
1. Repentance - A 180 degree turn away from sinful behavior and towards Godly behavior.
2. Thankfulness - A thankful heart that is grateful for what God has done... and shows itself in a cheerful disposition.
3. Good Works - A life that becomes others centered (helping the aged, feeding the poor, teaching children, etc.) Not self centered (all free time consumed in personal hobbies and interests)
4. Fruit of the Spirit - An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.
5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind.
We are here to get fruit bearing Christians not decisions for Christ to fill pews.
Dan, how is it that "good behavior", living a pious life, having a sunny disposition and being grateful indicate a "true Christian faith" in this instance yet indicate absolutely NOTHING when referring to the fact that many Hindus and Buddhists and even non-believers live the same sort of lives (if not better in many instances)?
You can't have it both ways.
By the way I take it you're a Calvinist from your reiterations of the "Perseverance" part of TULIP? How, then, do you explain this passage:
Hebrews 6:4-6 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
How does a member of the "non-elect" share in the Holy Spirit, exactly? How can one be brought "back" to repentance if they were never there in the first place? The Bible doesn't support your Calvinist theory, although I suppose it's a more hopeful idea (at least if you believe yourself to be one of the lucky "elect").
I am repeating myself here but I am one to believe that doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism. Also I would like to mention darkness makes you unhappy? Abandon hope; give up hope; lose heart; is the definition of despair, correct?
But to make the point clear lets look at the apostles and what they, not to mention the 250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such. They were put through prosecutions, tribulation, and great turmoils. Yet they kept their Hope and honor and never wavered in their faith.
The Bible talks a great deal of doubt as you know.
Deuteronomy 28:66 "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:" Matthew 14:31 "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Luke 12:29 "And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind." Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Doubting belief systems and entire denominations/religions (man made) is healthy I feel. We are after all in Jesus' rest and not much is required of us Christians because all the work had been done already.
We must not trust our own lying wickedness and make sure we are not pushing our own agendas over or replacing God's. The thrust of my point though is about leaving God entirely and abandoning Him.
To doubt God Himself or that Jesus is not Lord is so damaging that this atheism is a move from light to darkness. This is the point that 2 John the 7th verse it is clear about.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I beg all of you not to depend on, or lose faith because of, anything that mankind had done. We must have faith that God's plan is true and sound and no one will get to heaven without Jesus as it says in His Word as the authority we should all live by.
Dan: “They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.”
In light of your creedal address for faith then, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholics, Orthodox faith, Church of Christ, and similar sects and cults would ALL be true believers as they all fall into your statement of faith and hold fast to it and yet none of the above group would accept you as a believer nor one another as a Christians, but view you and each other as an apostate or heretic. The closest to accepting one another would be the Catholics and Orthodox but even they excommunicated (cut off from salvation) each other in about 1072.
Dan, have you ever seen a Baptist preach in a Lutheran church? Hey, both are Protestant and believe in the historical doctrines of Christ and yet, they do not trust each in their pulpits. In this context, Christianity has over 20,000 sects and cults and is still ballooning out of control!
Lets put it this way, ask any Christian which is worst: an Atheist or a Heretic? And Christians will most always state a Heretic is worst; that is a Heretic has your creedal statement of faith in the historical doctrines of the Bible and yet even that faith held throughout their life, that faith is worst than an Atheist!
Remember Dan, Protestants and Catholics did not burn Atheist at the stake, they burnt each other as fellow believer in your Christ!
Because I am quite lazy right now and don't have time I have C/P this one for an answer to your question:
How, then, do you explain this passage: Hebrews 6:4-6
"One interpretation holds that this passage is written not about Christians but about unbelievers who are convinced of the basic truths of the gospel but who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. They are intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted.
According to this interpretation, the phrase “once enlightened” (verse 4) refers to some level of instruction in biblical truth. However, understanding the words of scripture is not the same as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. For example, John 1:9 describes Jesus, the “true Light,” giving light “to every man”; but this cannot mean the light of salvation, because not every man is saved. Through God’s sovereign power, every man has enough light to be held responsible. This light either leads to the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ or produces condemnation in those who reject such light. The people described in Hebrews 6:4-6 are of the latter group—unbelievers who have been exposed to God’s redemptive truth and perhaps have made a profession of faith, but have not exercised genuine saving faith.
This interpretation also sees the phrase “tasted the heavenly gift” (Hebrews 6:9) as referring to a momentary experience, akin to Jesus’ “tasting” death (Hebrews 2:9). This brief experience with the heavenly gift is not seen as equivalent to salvation; rather, it is likened to the second and third soils in Jesus’ parable (Matthew 13:3-23), which describes people who receive the truth of the gospel but are not truly saved.
Finally, this interpretation sees the “falling away” (Hebrews 6:6) as a reference to those who have tasted the truth but, not having come all the way to faith, fall away from even the revelation they have been given. The tasting of truth is not enough to keep them from falling away from it. They must come all the way to Christ in complete repentance and faith; otherwise, they in effect re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously. Those who sin against Christ in such a way have no hope of restoration or forgiveness because they reject Him with full knowledge and conscious experience. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. It is impossible to renew such to repentance."
If Jesus as the NT and Christianity present him is a myth, then there is no such thing as a true Christian. So I would have to agree with Dan that there is no such thing as an Ex-Christian, only those who have chosen to leave the Christ Myth Cult.
Gosh Dan, as much as I hate to tell you this, we were all lied to, this includes me, you, your parents, your grandparents, Geo. Bush, Billy Graham, the Pope, etc.etc.
If this nation was build upon Christian principles, how come there are very few Native American Indians around?
If the Christian religion is based upon love, with affirmations such as, "Love thy neighbor as one's self." "Do unto others as you would have done to you." "Turn the other cheek."
Howcome the christian pilgrims could not live peacefully with the Indians? Why are there very few Indians living today? Why are there no Indian Christian churches? Have you ever bought a parsel of land from an Indian?
We were all lied to Dan, the white settlers used the Bible to justify the killing of the infidel nonbeliever human beings.
Just as you're using the Bible to justify your pious self-righteous beliefs. By your support of the Bible, you're as guilty of murder of the first human beings that were here first (the Indians) labeled by Christopher Columbus, because he was wrong, he had not discovered the West Indies, nor had he discovered a new land, it had already been discovered by the red-skinned human beings already here.
They were not heathen infidels, they were human beings.
The Bible gives people artificial titles so it can spew hatred, cause wars and derision between peoples, ak, human beings.
Just as you're using the Bible to spew your self-righteous hatred towards people whom do not believe as you do, in your mind you would love to see Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Communists, Buddhists, Atheists, Gays, sent to a flaming hell simply on the basis that we do not adhere to the brainwashed nonsense that you choose to believe, because your religion makes you feel superior to other human beings.
Simply put, we all were lied to.
Christianity is the white man's religion, it was brought over here by the white man along with his less than human being slaves.
The Bible was written by Arabs, in which a white man would'nt give an Arab the time of day. Yet he insists that the Arabs had a divine intervention.
Dan, it's high time you learned something, get off of your high-horse of self-righteousness and become a real truthful human being, but I know you would much prefer to feel superior than other people, guess what? You're Not!
Before the white settlers arrived, there had not been a Bible or church, nor black people on this land, and the human beings that were already here had no use for such things, yet you persist in believing in such nonsense.
Let's just make it simple: A TRUE Christian is one who never abandons the Christian faith. Ergo, those who claim to have once been Christians and now aren't, never were. Cut through all the verbiage and that--effectively a tautology--is all the Christian defenders here are saying.
Isn't that convenient? The contrary implications of genuine apostasy can therefore be casually dismissed and don't have to be dealt with. The evidence presented is Scripture, something those of us who no longer believe don't accept. That might make believers more comfortable, but from the perspective of an atheist it's pretty sorry argumentation.
To anyone who claims that I did not profess the Christian belief system and that I never had a feeling that I had a close personal relationship with God, I simply say that's only one of your delusions. They are so many more. Of course, I cannot now claim that I did have a close personal relationship with God, because I don't think God exists. But I had the same expreiences that believers do now, and I professed the same beliefs they do now.
john, I don't think dan is saying that you did not profess Christianity, only that you were not a TRUE Christian because you eventually changed your mind. See, TRUE Christians believe what they are told, and to Hell with their lying eyes. Since you had the temerity to change your mind, you were never a TRUE Christian. And to prove it, he uses (what else) scripture, begging the question that God exists; God inspired the Bible; the inspiration was correctly transcribed; the original manuscript was correctly copied many, many, many times; the copy was correctly translated; and the correct books were all placed into the compilation that was handed to him as a child. But all of these assumptions (many of which, like "correctly copied" and "correctly translated", can be empirically refuted) engender no doubt in dan, for "doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism", and atheism requires admitting you don't know everything that's important to know, which is unbearable to dan.
However, even though so many professing Christians are obviously not TRUE Christians, dan has no problem citing some statistic that "250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such". This is typical apologetic slight-of-hand; Christianity is exclusive when it serves their purpose, but inclusive when they need to impress with large numbers. But dan, of these 250 million, a not-insignificant number will renounce their faith at some point, proving that they were never TRUE Christians, so you cannot count them in your stats. And of those 250 million, a very large number will not present all of the fruits you require for TRUE Christians, so you must leave them out as well.
While I do think that reasonable freedom of worship is essential for a free society, it hurts your credibility to state that "250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such." That is false, and now that you know it is false you will be guilty of lying if you repeat it as true.
As a fair disclaimer the 250 million number was gathered for 2007 figures. I have yet to find the number for 2008 for Christian persecution since the year hasn't ended and figures are not in. BTW that news of 250 million Christians persecuted is plastered all over the internet. You don't have to go far to find out what is being done in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China
There is now even a top ten list of countries that Christians are being persecuted the most in.
2008 World Watch List
1. North Korea 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Iran 4. Maldives 5. Bhutan 6. Yemen 7. Afghanistan 8. Laos 9. Uzbekistan 10. China
Since we are on the subject, I am curious about your statement:
"The number of these that will actually be harmed for their beliefs is much, much, much, etc. smaller"
Can you please back that statement up with data. Did you just pull that out of thin air, as a guess, or do you actually have observational data that can be verified? If not isn't that a hypocritical statement since atheists, such as yourself, need scientific proof of everything. Aren't you guys claiming that we are pulling things out of the air? Tisk, tisk, Wake up!
John,
Like I said I had a belief in Jesus, like you, for years and almost ended up in hell. It wasn't until I surrendered to His authority and placed my entire life in His hands and conscientiously stopped intentionally sinning, did I receive the Holy Spirit and I know with out doubt in my mind that I am saved forever. Remember that Hot Iron analogy I went from a belief (that you had) to an experience (that I now have) of God's Hot Iron of salvation.
I am not looking down at any of you but I stand among you looking up.
You are critical of someone questioning your numbers & challenge them bring forth supporting data.
You go on to say: "Like I said I had a belief in Jesus, like you, for years and almost ended up in hell."
Can you back any of this with Data? How do you know you almost ended up in Hell? Have you seen, tasted, heard or felt Hell? Do you have any instruments that detect the presence of Hell? Has anyone you know gone there & reported back with their findings?
I guess not - because it's all based on a complex faith-based paradigm that has no basis in reality. Your one source of information, the Bible, is similarly approached only through the a priori lens of an unsupported belief in its inerrancy. I used to share that paradigm & belief under the misapprehension that faith in the Bible & Jesus was a a rational faith. It wasn't until later in life that I dared to look with an open mind to discover that "rational faith" is an oxymoron.
Dan Marvin said: "5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind."
Dan, do you have you even seen a child disobey his parents? Do you know anyone that is a homosexual? Did you "do the right thing according to the way God denfines it in his word" and pick up a rock and beat that person with it until they perished? No? Why not? Let me guess. You defined Gods word differently in your own mind?
Don't ask me to obey the Bible if you're not willing to obey it yourself.
"But I had the same expreiences that believers do now, and I professed the same beliefs they do now."
you can claim to have the same experiences, however what you can't do is say it is the "same" experiences as other believers, you simply wouldn't know that.
A friend who I suspected is a Fundy sent this reply:
Einstein was a total ASSHOLE !!!...and you know where he is, knowing all his life he did not believe in GOD..he is in HELL stoking the furnaces !!!! ..good for him..
According to Dr. Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries) in his audio tape course on “Eternal Security”, people CAN NOT loose their Salvation: “Once Saved, Always Saved!”
The late fundamentalist Baptist preacher Dr. John R. Rice (a popular speaker at Bob Jones University Bible Conferences) and editor of “The Sword of the Lord” news paper said (during his earthly ministry) that, at the time of the Lord’s return (the Rapture), the roofs off the houses of prostitution will be torn off as “Saved”, but “Back Slidden” Christians are called up to met their Lord in the air.
So, even as an Atheist, I (and the others former Christians who post here) are just in a terrible “Back Slidden” condition, but are still Christians who have simply been deceived and beguiled by the things of the world (Oh, ye foolish Galatians...Galatians 3:1).
As pseudo-Atheists (since Christians CAN NOT loose their salvation), we too will be there in Heaven with you Dan, but (saved as by fire; I Corth. 3: 13-15), where, without works, we just won’t have our crowns of righteousness. You see, God has delivered our flesh (our minds) over to Satan in order that our souls will be Saved (I Corth. 5:5).
Dan said: "Because Don doesn't understand proper Hermeneutics."
Oh. So you are saying that even though Leviticus 18:22 in my bible clearly says "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties", I need to interpret that to find out what that really means?
Is that true of the rest of the bible as well? Does it apply to the verses you quoted earlier? How do I know which interpretation is correct?
I know you believe your interpretation is the correct one, and therefore you think that there is no such thing as a 'former' christian.
I believe that if there were a "correct" interpretation, God would have made it clear. And it's not. So now we need to rely on fallible humans to interpret.
Are you willing to stake your eternity on what humans "think" God said? I'm not.
So I'll keep seeking the truth. I hope you do too!
If Christians are "once saved always saved" then why do they continue to go to church? There's nothing else there for them, the set goal is final, sealed in heaven.
Yet the churches are filled mostly with self-professing christians. Why? What else is there for them to receive?
If the Christian theme is "Love thy neighbor as oneself."
If all men are created equal in the eyes of god.
How come churches never openly invite Atheists, nonbelievers, Communists, Muslims, gays, alcoholics, murderers, rapists, etc. to persuade more converts to christ?
I think someone mentioned earlier that in all reality, the christians do not believe it themselves. It's all just a front to save face, for appearances just in case it all turned out to be true. An imaginary metaphysical insurance policy, paid for by a premium of imaginary faith.
Much as I am amazed at the volleying of bible verses and interpretations you all are handling with this dan marvin guy, has anyone thought of just going straight for the scrotum with this guy?
Dan - Look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Then, just for good measure, look up 'fallacy' so that you have no excuse for not knowing that your entire argument is sunk right out of the gate.
So you think Christians are still under the Mosaic law...?"
I think Christians are under whatever law they choose.
And I have yet to meet one that chooses to obey Mosaic law. Which is odd considering that Jesus said "if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments". This assumes that Jesus actually existed and that his words were accurately recorded, neither of which are proven to my satisfaction.
Some christians believe that they are no longer under the law because of what Jesus did on the cross. Do they mean all laws? Or just Mosiac law? Do they still need to obey Jesus' commandments? I don't know.
I have yet to meet a christian that obey's all of Jesus' commandments. For example, why do people like Dan say that John Loftus was never a christian when Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Are you willing to lend me whatever money you have? Because I want to borrow from you. Jesus says that you should lend to those who want to borrow from you. Will you obey him?
Hmmm. I didn't think so.
This means that you pick and choose whichever biblical commandments and laws you want to obey.
How do you decide? Is your logic better than Jesus's? Or Gods?
Does Jesus's act on the cross exempt you from HIS commandments? How about from his commandment that you keep God's commandments?
So, if you are a christian, subject yourself to whatever law you like.
I'm glad I don't need to worry about this kind of stuff anymore.
Ok, let me get this straight: just because somebody thinks that they are a true christian (like Dan and Jason do) and do all of the things that christians do, ie. go to church, pray to jesus, except the bible as god's word, etc., etc., they may not actually be true christians but, in reality, are only false converts.
Wouldn't this make all christians potentially false converts? Maybe Dan and Jason just think that they are true christians just like John did?
Dan has already admitted that he changed his mind once regarding his beliefs. Couldn't he be just as wrong now as he was then?
I think there's an even bigger question here tho: why is it that god doesn't do anything to turn false converts into true converts?
I mean its one thing for him to sit back and twiddle his thumbs while a billion Budhists, Hindus, Pagans and other assorted Democrats get bulldozed into a blazing pit of endless torture - heck, they never had a chance to begin with - but to flip off all of those people who really wanted to walk with the lord just because they weren't "perfect" enough seems a bit, oh I don't know, evil, heartless, merciless, sadistic and cruel.
I mean, what does he expect us to have? Mustard seeds the size of Montana?
Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Matthew 24:13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
Just as Jesus said, God is “testing us”. But there are two terms on my test I don’t understand: “Endureth” and “The End”. What are we to “endure” and just what is the “end”…the end of life, till Jesus comes, the end of exactly what? But then, if God is “testing us” then God Himself does not really have total knowledge and thus, He must test us.
When I worked with vacuum tubes in electronics back in the sixties and seventies, I used a tube tester to check to see if the tube was good. You would plug the tube into the tester and push “TEST” and the pointer on the scale would read “Bad” “?” “Good”. Since I had no knowledge whether or not a tube was good or bad, I had to use a tube tester. And if the tube tester could not descide, it would read the feared "?"!
So is God using a “Salvation Tester” where He will plug our souls into “The Lamb’s Book of Life” and to see if we are “Bad” equals Hell, or “Good” equals Heaven (Revelation 20:15: If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 21:27: There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.)
But, OH MY GOD! What if we come up with the feared “?”, then what?!
Based on your answer then, in that Christians are under the new law, there's no reason why you should expect, or ask, Dan to pick up a rock and "beat that person with it until they perished".
Our commenter, Mr. Dan Marvin, has two Blog sites entitled: “Hermeneutics” and another entitled “Exegete Truth”. In the comment section to both these sites, Dan lays out his rules for anyone who comments. He states:
I actually do welcome all comments good or bad although I have some quirky rules for keeping it up in the comments like:
1.Anyone who advertises their anti-God blog I will delete it. 2.Any cussing or blasphemy, I will delete it. 3. Anything contrary to glorifying God will be deleted. 4. Anything that causes someone to stumble with their walk with Jesus I will delete it. (even something I write) 5. Anything else that I see fit to delete I will.
My question is the final part of rule number 4.
Dan, exactly why would you (as controller of your own blog site) write a comment only to delete it? this makes not sense at all! What’s the point of this statement?
I’m I missing something here?
If you really believe the Bible, then if you yourself writes something that offends God, why don’t you do exactly as Jesus commanded in Mark 9:43?
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.”
Based on your answer then, in that Christians are under the new law, there's no reason why you should expect, or ask, Dan to pick up a rock and "beat that person with it until they perished"."
You are absolutely right, thus proving my point that christians interpret the bible however they want, and will believe whatever they want to believe.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Since the writer of I Timothy says that there are “Doctrines of Devils”, can anyone here tell me where I can get a copy of a Systematic Theology on the Doctrines of Devils?
I got a copy of Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”, but he is simply an atheist who believes in neither God nor Satan.
I figure this might be on the order of Karl Barth’s “Church Dogmatics” only be written from the hermeneutical point of view of Devils.
I do know that during the Holiday Season (at Christmas time), there are 3 “seducing spirits” that affect most people.
These 3 Spirits are: A. The Holy Spirit (lives in the Christian’s heart) B. The Evil Spirit (Lives in this world) and C. The Distilled Spirit (lives in bottles at the liquor store).
I can testify that the Holy Spirit can be over come by the Distilled Spirit and, with too many Distilled Spirits, people tend to speak in unknown tongues without even trying!
Maybe it isn't the false converts who are to blame at all. Maybe there are a whole lot of diffective bibles out there that are misinterpreting themselves!
Jason, maybe the bible interprets itself according to Christadelphianism, but not according to orthodox Christianity. According to them the Holy Spirit in each Christian helps to interpret scripture.
The Bible is a collection of books and letters and it can be interpreted in many ways depending on what rules you choose.
Man, I haven't heard anything from the Christadelphians in nearly 20 years. They had a seminar at my local library that a friend and I went to. It was pretty deceptive, we could have left a whole lot sooner if they had opened with "we deny thew trinity and particularly the divinity of Christ."
Of course I deny all those things now, but back then I sure didn't.
Jason: “The Bible interprets itself. This is why believers don't follow the Mosaic law.”
So are the Seventh Day Adventist wrong to keep dietary laws and the Seventh Day as the Lord’s day?
Jason is this why there are now over 20,000 Christian cults and sect and still growing since the Bible is self-interpreting?
Is this why the Bible based Southern Baptist fired all their women professors and you (as a Bible based Christadelphian) can not even relate to that attack on the female gender at their seminaries?
Is that why you are a Christadelphian who appears to be the ONLY true sect of the 20,000 plus Christian sects who has the correct understanding of the Bible?
Jason, is this why most Christians consider a heretic worst than an atheist since heretics some how misunderstand a self-interpreting Bible?
Jason, have you been a member of any Christian sect other than a Christadelphians? Exactly why don't all Christian sects "jump ship" and join the Christadelphians? When will you, with all you “Christadelphian Biblical self interpreting TRUTH”, be teaching a Sunday school class at a Southern Baptist church?
Do you think if Jesus were here, he’d make a “bee line” straight to the Christadelphians and praise your sect’s doctrines as trulty Biblical?
If the Bible interprets itself (as you claim), what do the Christadelphians claim is wrong with the Church of Christ as a Bible as a ONLY based sect?
Please allow me to show you how we learn God's word.
We are all wicked so we can't trust ourselves or mankind to teach us. Just look at all the denominations out there. pathetic!
OK I am going to quote Scripture but it's because I am showing you what the Bible says about us learning the Word.
Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"
But it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us, not God's Word, but God Himself: John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
We must stay in the Word to understand Him: John 8:31-32 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
1 John 4:6 "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."
I believe the verse that nails it on the head is 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
tigg13 made a good point " Maybe there are a whole lot of (defective) bibles out there that are misinterpreting themselves!"
As far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). You might want to read a more conservative translation to understand God's Word, but that is just my advice.
Lets forget the English versions for now and please answer the following general questions:
A. Which text is the inspirited word of God during the time of Jesus; the un-pointed Hebrew text or the Septuagint (LXX) text?
B. Dan, the early Semitic churches which used (and still use) the Aramaic / Syraic text and the Ethiopian church which uses the ancient Ge’ez text which differ in many major points from the traditional Hebrew text (MT), have these texts been corrupted? If they have, please tell me exactly how an unpointed Hebrew word like “DBR” which can have 5 meanings in the unpointed Hebrew text can truly be translated correctly? How exactly does God keep the text pure. If, as you claim, man is evil and corrupted, just how can we trust a Massoretic text whose words are given meaning as “pointed” by man? The Hebrew text has the ages of men in Genesis decreasing from close to a 1000 years (as in the case of Adam and Enoch) to shorter years (3 score and 7) while the LXX text has these same men starting with Adam getting older or just the opposite of the Hebrew text. So, again, which text – Semitic or Greek- is the true word of God? If the Hebrew text is the true and inspired text for the Old Testament, pray tell exactly why Jesus, Paul and about 99% of the quotations from the Old Testament as cited in the New Testament are quoted from the Septuagint?
C. Did God inspire the Massoretic traditions of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali? Is the standard Massoretic text as found in “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” by the German “Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1977 the inspired world of God?
D. Dan, please tell me if the sub-linear vowel pointing system in the Massoretic Hebrew text is more inspired than the Tiberian or supra-linear vowel system?
E. Dan, please tell me why the Samaritan Torah differs from the Massoretic Torah text?
Fact is Dan, you can play games with apologetics all you want to about how evil and corrupt man is, but with out the “human factor” in the preservation of these texts (and the fact that even Jesus uses and misquotes these texts (let me know and I’ll give you some hard core examples of this in the Gospels)), we would have no Bible today!
"But it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us, not God's Word," So, Dan, the Holy Spirit is God's back up plan for a really crappy User's Manual for our lives? We can't take it literally because it is not literally true and we are too imperfect, inherently, to interprete it ourselves, so the Holy Spirit tutors us through it? Yeah, THAT makes sense. So I guess the fact that there are so many varied interpretations means not that the Holy Spirit is a crappy tutor, but that we . . . let me guess. . . are too imperfect to listen to him well enough. Well, that is a new one to me and I am sure after I am over how shocking ridiculous it is, it will amuse me.
You are cracking me up. So those are "general" questions, huh? You are too funny. I could take a month researching and answering them, so i won't for now. I will say this though. The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly. The Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Interestingly, now with manuscripts predating the medieval period, we find these texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text.
You do have it all wrong though if you think mankind had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God alone lead men to do His will. It was God's authority that gave us todays Bible intact. There are slight variations like I was saying from conservative to liberal but God's Word is still intact. The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today (good tree bears good fruit)
Remember though we cannot/shouldn't prove anything in the Bible by evidence. Let's just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.
Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions' den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?
Look at what Paul said about how he persuaded men about God: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1) Why didn't Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Bible scholars who have studied his letters tell us that he was extremely capable intellectually. First Corinthians 2:5 tells us why he deliberately stayed away from worldly wisdom: "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it whenever a respected scholar reports that 'the bones of Jesus" have been found. However if sinners are converted by "the power of God," they will be kept by the power of God. No intellectual argument will cause them to waver because they will know the life-changing reality of their conversion, and their faith will be secure in the eternally solid and secure Rock of Ages.
"that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?" No Dan, you cannot prove this BUT you can tell us how the version of human creation where God made plants then animals then both Adam and Eve together can be reconciled with the OTHER version in the next chapter where God makes the earth then the single man then the garden for him then the animals to be his companions then when none is found to be suitable, God makes woamn out of his rib. It doesn't matter specific wording because those are very different stories with the plant-animals-humans version closely matching the order of evolution and the other being a totally different story. Did God put those two versions in there? Why? Or did humans get one version wrong at some point? Or, more likely, they are both made up stories, myth, legend, not true at all. Ah, you are so intensely invested in your myths that none of what anyone here says will shake you foolish blind faith. "For Him"? All you do then, in all your life, is for a myth.
"Or did humans get one version wrong at some point?"
Now goprairie,
Do you really believe it's all made up? Doesn't two versions of a story Like Mark and Matthew, for example, is a testament to the validity?
Like if we were to both watch fireworks and some reporter asked us to describe what we saw. You described all the colors and I described all the shapes. What about Mary Magdalene finding the tomb empty after Jesus died. You know how people felt about woman back then. Men were more credible by far. For it to be very believable a man would be written as to who found it empty. But that wouldn't be the truth because Mary was the actual person who found that tomb empty.
"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."(carm)
Nice try dan, you cut and pasted from one of your canned sites of baloney. yes, it is all made up. every last bit of it. sorry. just like santa and the tooth fairy and zeus and the sun god and leprachauns and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and hansel and gretel and aesop's fables and the native american one about earth being made of mud on turtle's back. nice try on the fireworks thing, but we are not talking two perspectives, we are talking two timelines and i have heard your silly explanation but lay it all out verse for verse and it just does not wash. different people wrote down a word-of-mouth story and as is wont to happen with those things, when told and retold, they get mixed up a little. like which year santa brought my sister and I chatty cathy dolls. But at least the chatty cathy family story is based on a real occurance. the creation story is myth. and i have never in my limited exposure, met anyone as determined to twist and wind and contort to make things work, but, sorry, they never will. i could find other things in your good book that contradict, as others have here and will continue to, but you will stubornly refuse to open your eyes. at some point, you will run back to your refuge of 'i can't prove it to you because it has to be taken on faith' - and you will make vague threats of 'we'll see in the end who is right' and then you will pray for us. spare us those steps. please.
Dan, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but quoting Apologetics 101 to us isn't exactly a new tactic 'round these parts. Many of us made these identical arguments years ago when we still bought into the whole Christianity deal.
Generally when one recaps a story they don't get the order all mixed up.
This is where you lost me "Remember though we cannot/shouldn't prove anything in the Bible by evidence." Dan, Christianity is entirely based upon one giant piece of shifting evidence and it actually is the Bible. You make this statement after mentioning what? The biggest haul of evidence of the Bible, tbe Dead Sea Scrolls.
"The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly."
Dan, I don't believe you. I choose to believe a biblical scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) that says that there are no 2 versions of scripture found to be the same. Just think of it, of the thousands of scraps and chapters, verses and even whole manuscripts, not any 2 of them are the same. In fact, he says that there are more errors in the collection of ancient scriptures than the number of copies themselves. That's thousands of errors. You are either ignorant, lying, or have been deceived. If I were you, and I once was, I would go check this out. But from the sound of your jibber jabber I don't think you will be inclined to do so. Good luck with your make believe facts. Comfort yourself with the words of scripture that say God uses the foolish to confound the wise. You’re sounding foolish but I don't see anyone getting confounded around here.
Harry said: So are the Seventh Day Adventist wrong to keep dietary laws and the Seventh Day as the Lord’s day?
Since you're well aware these laws fall under the Mosaic Law, I'll assume this question is either rhetorical or argumentative. Which is it?
Jason is this why there are now over 20,000 Christian cults and sect and still growing since the Bible is self-interpreting?
Gosh Harry, I don't know. But you sure are smart! Look at you just pulling big numbers out of your hat!
Is this why the Bible based Southern Baptist fired all their women professors and you (as a Bible based Christadelphian) can not even relate to that attack on the female gender at their seminaries?
Who knows? Have you tried asking them directly?
Is that why you are a Christadelphian who appears to be the ONLY true sect of the 20,000 plus Christian sects who has the correct understanding of the Bible?
You think we appear to be correct? Er, thank you! Although I'm not sure why we need to be the ONLY ones...?
Jason, is this why most Christians consider a heretic worst than an atheist since heretics some how misunderstand a self-interpreting Bible?
Probably. After all, this would fit with Scriptural teachings on judgment.
Jason, have you been a member of any Christian sect other than a Christadelphians?
Nope :)
Exactly why don't all Christian sects "jump ship" and join the Christadelphians?
Exactly why do you think people need to "join" Christadelphians?
When will you, with all you “Christadelphian Biblical self interpreting TRUTH”, be teaching a Sunday school class at a Southern Baptist church?
As soon as they return my phone calls.
Do you think if Jesus were here, he’d make a “bee line” straight to the Christadelphians and praise your sect’s doctrines as trulty Biblical?
Er, why would he? He'd make a beeline to the nearest believer and praise their dedication and faith.
If the Bible interprets itself (as you claim), what do the Christadelphians claim is wrong with the Church of Christ as a Bible as a ONLY based sect?
Silly Harry! That all depends on what they believe!
"different people wrote down a word-of-mouth story and as is wont to happen with those things, when told and retold, they get mixed up a little."
Actually I would have to agree with you if it were legends like some civilizations. That is If you were talking about word of mouth instead of things written down, but that wasn't the case. Australian Aborigines had a legend of a great flood (imagine that), that was passed down to each generation but some left the "God" part out and the generations lost the teaching of our Lord.
Actually you do understand that it only takes one generation to skip the teaching of God for that generation and the ones after to be lost right. That is why it was so important to write it down. Incidentally did you know before the invention of the press it took someone to, painstakingly, copy the Bible an entire year. This was no small task by any stretch. So the Bibles that people had were cherished and priceless. If you believe they were slapped together any old way you have misunderstood the times and the facts.
It all goes right around to presuppositions you will scour the universe to back up your beliefs and whoever agrees with your viewpoint you will listen to them and I will try my very best to explain things biblically from God's Word with my vary fallible mind. We all have free will to chose the truth or reject it. God is truth.
Dan: “You are cracking me up. So those are "general" questions, huh? You are too funny. I could take a month researching and answering them, so i won't for now.”
The answer is simple Dan. The Biblical text has been preserved by sinful man; peroid. If you object to this, then you’ll have to answer the above historical questions in detail to defend you God only inspired Bible.
Dan: “I will say this though. The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly.”
Dan, I hate to rain on your parade, but ONLY the books of the Hebrew Bible where found and not the New Testament. Plus, you over shot your facts again since the book of Esther was not found at any of the 11 caves in Qumran area.
Dan: “The Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Interestingly, now with manuscripts predating the medieval period, we find these texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text.”
The Essenes had non Biblical texts they consider inspired by God. Why do you reject these texts?
Dan: “You do have it all wrong though if you think mankind had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God alone lead men to do His will. It was God's authority that gave us todays Bible intact. There are slight variations like I was saying from conservative to liberal but God's Word is still intact.”
So, again Dan, why did Jesus and Paul quote from the LXX and not the Hebrew text at Qumran? FACT! All the Hebrew texts from Qumran are in the unpointed Hebrew script. Without the diacritical points given to the text by sinful man, how is the text read by none speakers of ancient Hebrew? The Qumran text is not the Massoretic text.
Dan: “The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today (good tree bears good fruit).”
Dan, exactly when did the Holy Spirit leave the Church Councils? Was the Holy Spirit at Vatican I and Vatican II?
Dan, please answer this. If Jesus is God in flesh and knows all things, especially his inspired text of the Old Testament, why, pray tell, exactly why does Jesus think the Psalms are the Torah / Law? In John 10:34 Jesus thinks Psalm 82:6 is the Torah and again, in John 15: 25 Jesus thinks Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 are parts of the Torah. If Jesus was in Bible College he would miss both these quotes on a Bible exam. But I’m sure you can bail Jesus out of his mistake, so go ahead and lets hear it.
"That is If you were talking about word of mouth instead of things written down, but that wasn't the case." Dan, when do you think Genesis was written? In the lifetimes of Adam and Eve?
Dan needs to explain the extra canonical writings of the Old Testament.
So, according to the non-canonical work entitled “The Secrets of Adam and Eve” these suckers could and did write AND THEY DID JUST THAT! Evidently, God created Adam and Eve with a built in DNA gene to automatically be able read and write! But wait! Apologetically, we need to have an excuse as to why it was not transferred to their sons; hum… evidently, they lost it the expulsion from the Garden. How does that sound? I can defend that!
But damned if I know, Enoch sure wrote a hell of a lot too! First, Second, and Third Enoch… now that boy sure knew his Greek (All text were originally written in Greek)!
I mean, OH MY God! Don’t tell me! Surely someone would not… I mean surely a Holy Man of God being moved by the Holy Spirit would not forge a Biblical text and claim to be someone he is not to fool God’s people! NO! God would not let that happen!!!
Please Dan, please; tell me God would NOT have let this happen! Tell me that 1, 2, 3, are all indeed written by the written by the real Enoch! Please!
I don't for a moment doubt Dan's sincerity -- both in his statements and his being sincerely wrong -- but I do wonder at how dumb apologists can make themselves out to be...
First, the "no such thing as an Ex-Christian" nonsense.
Just like there's no such thing as an ex-Yankee? No true Scotsmen?
Kiss our ass. Just because we are not now perpetrators of the Christian faith does not mean that we could never have been, nor does it mean that our sincerity or conviction were diminished in any way. You are out of line for suggesting such a thing.
The use of scripture to "support" the no true Scotsman routine is just as baffling -- are converts no longer able to sin? Is not one possible sin the sin of apostacy? Heresy?
Is the act of sinning not "turning away from god"? Does this not mean that "basic" sins such as lying are also "turning away from god"?
Your logic is self-defeating.
As to your aside regarding legends, different perspectives providing incomplete descriptions of events, etc., you screwed yourself again -- twice.
First, your supposition that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are analogous to descriptions of a fireworks display, one by a color-blind geometry instructor, and the other by an art instructor with pattern recognition impairment, belies the fact that both descriptions are incomplete, and that neither includes the sound of the display, the duration, etc. Without a complete description of the event, we are left to speculate as to the details, or to use our investigative faculties to deduce the nature of the display.
Since we find the remnants of spent fireworks of a particular type, we can make certain determinations about the nature of the display which are not included in either provided description. We recognize that although we were told that the display included ellipses in its array of shapes, these were more likely circles, but the particular vantage point was not perpendicular to the plane(s) of the circle(s).
The colors we are provided are likewise subjective, as the choice of "sky blue" may well have been "periwinkle", and there are mitiganting [atmospheric] factors which could have caused the actual color(s) of the display to become distorted with respect to the observer on record. The smoke from one burst could very well have obscured and shifted the spectra from the next burst.
So no, the two descriptions do not agree directly, so yes, we can assume they are different perspectives on a similar event, but we can equally well assume that they are flawed perspectives of the same event, or that they are similar versions of the same legend. Since Moses was (according to you) the one to have written these things down, then unless we have evidence of previous writings about which I am unaware, we must assume that until he took the time to write them that the stories were oral in nature, which you admit is prone to considerable error and/or embellishment. Hence: legend, myth, folklore.
Second, you showed yourself to be as inept as Jason when it comes to quoting sources or linking to cherry-picked Google search results. You chose to cite this site in support of the Australian aboriginal legend of a Noachian(esque) flood, despite this statement in that specific section on that site:
This legend is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia.
Oops!
It helps if you actually read the sources you cite... At least you haven't, to my knowledge, resorted to blatant plagiarism, but is basic research so foreign to you guys?
You are a very silly man and I was entertained by your response. That whole post modern subjective explanation of the smoke changing burst colors. priceless.
But have you read the link yourself? There is a plethora of examples of the "Flood" story all over the world. These cannot be just coincidences.
and I also provided that link as a direct point I was making about goprairie's comment "when told and retold, they get mixed up a little."
"The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time." (emphasis added)
Then you say "oops!" like I made a mistake. Look truth is truth and I cited a source that was more truth then others, I could have scoured the internet looking for a website that agrees with whatever point I was making (as many atheists do) but I was just finding truth whatever it is. I thought you could appreciate that but I guess not. If you just want to be fed lies then I cannot be a part of that. I am trying not to deceive or coerce you into a false belief, I am trying with my very fallible mind to help all of you understand that God is the truth and He did do as it says in His Word. That the Judgement is near with a plea to go find truth before it is too late. If I failed you I apologize for that because, as you know, I do believe God is who is He says He is and does what He said He will do.
God Himself admonished Ezekiel of the need to warn the lost, He said,
“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. (Ezekiel 3:17-18)
Strange, Dan, but your initial citation sure didn't sound like you were making the point you now claim. Even if you were, your point is diminished by your rhetoric:
Australian Aborigines had a legend of a great flood (imagine that)
"Imagine that"? If your "point" was that the legendary stories of the bible permeated virtually every [seemingly] isolated culture, I think you'd have better served your purpose if you had noted that the site itself recognizes that the aboriginal flood story originated from the missionaries' telling of the Genesis flood legend.
So yeah, "imagine that", the aborigines developed a global flood legend after, and in accordance with the biblical description as told to them by the missionaries and other Christians they encountered. Imagine that.
I admire the desire to include even negative references -- it is a display of honesty -- but it doesn't help if you couch it in terms which make it sound like your intention was that the negative reference was instead a positive one.
You did make a mistake; either that or you're dense. I'll assume the former.
You even make our point when you re-quote the same site with the following:
"The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record)..."
We agree! The flood legend origins were two-fold:
1) They were a direct result of the introduction of the legend by travellers and/or missionaries, and the details were edited by the culture to become more their own.
2) They were independent legends describing separate (in all but an extreme minority of cases) local floods -- it's not like the Israelites had a realistic concept of anything outside of the "fertile crescent"; other societies were no different.
Of course, we've both ignored the other possibility here, that flood legends (local or global) had common roots, but that the root itself needn't be the bible, as you so gallantly claim. There is no reason to elevate the bible to divine inspiration over any other civilization's supernatural legends.
So, you again cherry-pick as you will evidently only accept those legends of ancient civilizations which support biblical claims, while dismissing any of their legends which you find distasteful, morally or theologically. I don't think any of their supernatural legends are true, either.
As to the fireworks display analogy -- that was your choice. I just took what you chose, and showed how the argument that different incomplete perspectives of the same event do not necessarily make either remotely accurate. I didn't really like it either, and I had to amuse myself by making the observers take on humorous traits. Obviously, those traits are unnecessary -- all that is required is that for whatever reason one observer omits details that the other observer includes, and vice versa. The fact is that the bible is inconsistent with itself in its opening passages -- at least some of the competing religious accounts can avoid that inconsistency.
Whatever.
You cloud the issue anyway; I was merely pointing out holes in your logic, and mistakes in your rhetoric.
The point is that many of us -- though indeed, quite likely not "all" -- were "true" Christians. Our devotion should not and cannot be questioned, unless you want to move back to Salem in 1692, or to find yourself under investigation by the Inquisition. "By their fruits you shall know them", you mentioned, and indeed, my fruits (at the time) made my conviction and devotion quite well known.
John and others were [ordained] ministers, so it stands to reason that they had congregations, and that they were directly responsible for converting people to Christianity (as I was, even though I was not a minister). Do you also question the devotion of our converts now? Certainly, we haven't deconverted all of them, so do you question their status as "true" Christians?
For that matter, shouldn't everyone's claim of Christianity be suspect, since for the past 1900 years or so, Christianity has been spread by word-of-mouth, with varying levels of assistance from a collection of texts? If some of those initial Christians were not "true" Christians, then perhaps their adherents, too, are not "true" Christians...
Your notion is as absurd as this discourse.
The truth is that we were Christians, but we are no longer. We found compelling evidence in science, life, logic, etc., that the god of the bible is as false as every other god, and made the painful decision (in most cases) to abandon it as such. All of the evidence available points away from the god described in the bible -- the only reason the religion continues is because of its highly effective use of its power over people.
If religion would cease re-defining itself or its terms to keep up with the prevailing scientific theories and evidence, cease persecuting those who seek the true nature of things (yes, I'm claiming Christianity persecutes atheists), cease the blatant encouragement of ignorance, and cease the forced indoctrination of its youth, then it would cease also to grow and flourish -- indeed, it would die.
Imagine that, you made sense enough that I understand your point and I agree I may have made a mistake... Imagine that.
John and others were [ordained] ministers, so it stands to reason that they had congregations, and that they were directly responsible for converting people to Christianity (as I was, even though I was not a minister).
But their fruit as well as yours is fruit of unbelief, correct? If it was a tree of Christianity you would bear the fruit of a believer, i.e. Repentance,Fruit of the Spirit,Fruit of Righteousness. So therefor you were never Christians.
It also made me think of something else. I was just talking on a different blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism:
1 Pet 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Pet 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God for forgiveness of sins in the NT.
One of my favorites is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.
God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.
The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.
Unlike you Stan the espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness. If you were Christians you would satisfy the demands of the Holy Law and Honor Christ, which you don't so you were never Christians...yet. The great part is that it isn't too late.
So, we were never True Christians ®, because if we were True Christians ® we would have never fallen away. Hmmm...I'm flashing back to my old logic class.
False conversion, wow I'd never even thought about that. You're right!
Oh, wait, no you aren't. I used to make these exact same arguments. My Christian walk bore Christian fruit, then one day I woke up and realized how ludicrous it was to believe that out of the many one-true-faiths I actually had the one-true-faith. The same can be said for many of us here.
Again Dan, Was Jesus a true God in flesh ro simply a confused believer himself?
As I requested earlier Dan, please answer this:
If Jesus is God in flesh and knows all things, especially his inspired text of the Old Testament which He gave to his children, why, pray tell; exactly why does Jesus think the Psalms are the Torah / Law? In John 10:34 Jesus thinks Psalm 82:6 is the Torah and again, in John 15: 25 Jesus thinks Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 are parts of the Torah. If Jesus was in a Bible College class on the Pentateuch he would have missed both these quotes on a Bible exam.
But I’m sure you can bail Jesus out of his mistake. So was Jesus simply confused or flat out wrong?
Does it really matter to you? Would your entire presupposition about Jesus (God) change if you found an adequate answer? Would it make a difference to your personal relationship with God?
I do remember reading something about some of the psalms are classified as Torah Psalms though, but I'm unsure if they are related to what you are saying.
Remember he said Law not the word Torah. Torah as you know is the first five books, but theTaNaKh is the Bible used in Judaism.
Torah (tor-AH) -- The Law, also called the Pentateuch (Greek for "five books" Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)
Nebiim ( neh-veh-EEM) -- The Prophets The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, The Twelve (Minor Prophets) Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecariah, Malachi
Ketubim (keh-tu-VEEM) -- The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles)
One can safely conclude he said the Law as in TaNaKh.
Dan: “Does it really matter to you? Would your entire presupposition about Jesus (God) change if you found an adequate answer? Would it make a difference to your personal relationship with God?”
Dan, one of us is wrong in our understanding of Jesus. It’s not what I believe or what you believe, but it’s a “Go” / “No Go” Question with Jesus. This is the reason why I rejected Jesus and the Bible. In lihgt of this, why do you claim the Bible is total truth?
Dan: “I do remember reading something about some of the psalms are classified as Torah Psalms though, but I'm unsure if they are related to what you are saying.
Remember he said Law not the word Torah. Torah as you know is the first five books, but the TaNaKh is the Bible used in Judaism.”
Hold on Dan! The inspirited Word of God for the original language in the New Testament is Greek (not Hebrew). Jesus uses the Greek vομος and in no way does vομος equal TaNaKh, but is only 1/3 of the term or Ta = Torah. The term Torah never once occurs in the New Testament as Jesus and the rest New Testament quote only from the LXX. The LXX uses vομος as a direct Greek synonym for the Hebrew “Torah” of the Jews. One can safely conclude he said the “Law” is in the TaNaKh, but the entire TaNaKh is no way the vομος.
Fact is Dan, Jesus DID KNOW the difference between the Law (vομος) and the Psalms a he stated in Luke: David himself says in the book of Psalms, “The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand,…(Luke 20:42) And He said to them, "This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Gentiles, and sing psalms in honour of Thy name." (Luke 24:44)
The problem is Dan, to kept the New Testament without error, you must twist and pervert Jesus’ very words…shame on you!
Since most of the Psalms are corrected to King David, you have put David in the place of Moses and now claim Jesus agrees with this / your error. Dan, two wrongs don’t make a right!
You claim atheists pervert the true of the Bible however, based on your last explanation, you're simply a pot calling the kettle black and worst, the very Bible you claim to beleive is without error, you now pervert and deny the face value reading to protect it!
Adam Clarke agrees with what I said about this verse: "Verse 34. Is it not written in your law The words which our Lord quotes are taken from #Ps 82:6, which shows that, under the word law, our Lord comprised the Jewish sacred writings in general."
Matthew Poole seems to agree with what I said also: "Ver. 34. This was written, #Ps 82:6. The whole Scripture of the Old Testament, being wrote by holy men, inspired of God, and directive of men’s conversation before men, and towards God, is sometimes called the law, #Ps 19:7. It was spoken concerning magistrates, and the governors of God’s people, who, being God’s deputies and vicegerents, intrusted to execute the judgments and vengeance of God, are dignified with the name of gods."
I will have to study it more to give a definitive answer that is satisfying for you.
John Calvin adds: "He clears himself of the crime charged against him, not by denying that he is the Son of God, but by maintaining that he had justly said so. Yet he adapts his reply to the persons, instead of giving a full explanation of the fact; for he reckoned it enough for the present to expose their malice. In what sense he called himself the Son of God he does not explain fully, but states indirectly. The argument which he employs is not drawn from equals, but from the less to the greater."
People that claim Christianity like myself is, by default, a theologian because of the concerns that people like you have Harry. I do hope you understand though your presupposition will now allow you to know the truth. Remember a fallible man such as myself or any other man cannot answer fully as the Holy Spirit can. There are many that can get you very close to your goal but not fully answer everything. All wisdom and knowledge about the Word can be achieved through the Holy Spirit if you allow it to happen. If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you. But the doubting and defensive posture that you hold will not get you anywhere in finding truth. I hope you understand that you must approach the Bible with a mindset that truly wants to learn and understand Him. If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11 , Romans 1:18-32)
Dan: “All wisdom and knowledge about the Word can be achieved through the Holy Spirit if you allow it to happen. If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you. But the doubting and defensive posture that you hold will not get you anywhere in finding truth. I hope you understand that you must approach the Bible with a mindset that truly wants to learn and understand Him. If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.”
Dan, I attended the L.D.S. “Mormon” Church for 20 years while at the some time I was teaching a Southern Baptist Sunday school class. Your statement: “If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you.” Could have come directly from a Mormon missionary about the Book Mormon and Joseph Smith. As for as “If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.”; the official stances of the Mormon Church is that if you are not a Mormon, you are all ready under a “strong delusion” by being a member of a counterfeit church of which Jesus Christ told Smith not to join. The Elders told me that people like you are in a faith lead by Satan himself.
Since you believe the Bible is without error, here’s another problem for you to solve. This taken from “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” 2 nd ed. by Bruce M. Metzger.
Concerning Matt. 27:9 he states: “The reading Iερεμιου is firmly established,… Since, however, the passage quoted by the evangelist is not to be found in Jeremiah, but seems to come from Zechariah (11.12-13), it is not suprising tha several witnesses (22, syr, arm.) substitute Zαχαριου, while others omit the name entirely. Curiously, two witnesses (21 it) read “Isaiah” -- perhaps because, as the most prominent of the prophets, his name is met with most frequently in the New Testament.” P.55.
So Dan, we have another long time problem in the New Testament itself that scribes who though as you do tried to correct the mistake by changing the text itself! However, as the famous textual scholar Bruce Metzger points out, the mistake in Matthew stands despite attempts to falsify the reading by scribes to keep Christians believing in an inerrant Bible.
Dan, this is exactly where I, as an atheist, am more honest than most Christians in dealing with the Bible.
As for as your claim that “ God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.” here is a perfect example of Christian believers trying to deceive other Christian believers over a mistake in the Gospel of Matthew. Again, this proves the hand of man in the creation of the Bible both in this mistake in Matthew and the attempts by scribes to correct it.
So Dan, how many more problems do I need to point out and you try to explain away?
I've enjoyed all the comments, but Harry McCall got a belly laugh out of me, with his "God as the Tube Tester in the Sky". How appropriate! I, too, had a tube tester back then. And I have never again had a system with such bass response as my old push-pull parallel amp with four 6V6's and electrodynamic speakers. Those were the days!
I see that our apologists are still picking cherries. Not only picking, but dyeing, cooking, and genetically manipulating them, to fit their recipes. And of course their particular recipes are the "right" ones, and anyone who cooks differently is simply "wrong". Didn't some wise man once say "there is nothing new under the Sun"?
Morning, the only difference is we are cooking with flour and eggs and proper ingredients you are cooking with sand and mud. One works and creates a tasty cake the later doesn't. Now I'm getting hungry (for the Word) Y'all need to stop starving yourselves like some anorexic Olsen kid and get the nourishment of the Word. Feed that soul.
Well done, I stand corrected but remember only God can create such things. Are you saying you are God?
Look deep in your conscience to find God. Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves? That wanting is natural and pure, stop fighting it so much and give in to His authority as our Father. Honor your Father by understanding His guidence. It is quite simple really. It will be vastly apparent once we move on from this existence into the next. We will all understand the motives behind His ways and understand Him fully. I am begging all of you not to miss on the greatest gift that is given to us, and that is the complete understanding of the entire universe through and eternity of life in/with Him. What a glorious day that will be when we pass from this broken wretched life unto the most glorious life that we could ever imagine. This life here will make you bitter but the next will be glorious but we must submit to Him before we can even begin to understand. His rules, not ours.
I was simply pointing out that according to the Bible your bad ingredients weren't so bad. What's the old children's saying? "God made dirt, so dirt don't hurt?"
Certainly I don't think I am the Christian God, nor a god of any kind. I'm not that arrogant.
I spent the better part of more than 20 years looking deep into my conscience and deep into the Bible to find God. I truly thought I had too. For years I literally prayed without ceasing, my every thought held captive to the obedience of Christ. I no longer hold those beliefs, but I am not angry or bitter towards those who do. Most of my friends, and even my fiancée are Christians.
"Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves?" No, Dan, we don't all have that innate wanting, and even if we did, not everyone would fulfill it the same way.
"This life here will make you bitter..."
Dan, I am the least bitter I have ever been. My deconversion was truly like being born again. You have no idea how amazing it is to realize that you don't have to be the member of an exclusive club, the one true religion club. I beg you to experience the freedom of giving up your dogma and truly being able to love and respect someone for who they are and not just in the name of some deity. I used to love to sign my letters, "In Christ's name' or "In his name." Now that seems cheap to me. I don't love people in Christ's name, now I just love people. It is an incredible thing to be able to leave the tyrannical god of the OT behind, and stop trying to make him fit with the mostly loving, kind god of the NT. Note that I did not write the word "god" with a lowercase "g" out of any disrespect, but simply because I wasn't using it as a proper name.
Now I am truly free to experience the possibility of a god without the chains of Christian or any dogma.
Heya Dan! How's tricks? Funny riposte, and I do enjoy my palatschinken for breakfast (Viennese crêpes made of flour, eggs, and milk), but I limit my picking of cherries to cherry trees- picking them out of books stains the pages, blotting out words so you can't read them properly any more. You ask:
Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves?
This is an excellent question, and I have to say "yes". Luckily, I do belong to many things larger than myself: my family, my friends, the human race, all life, the solar system, and the whole Universe. I get the warm fuzzies just thinking about all these large somethings I belong to.
"Dan, I am the least bitter I have ever been. My deconversion was truly like being born again. You have no idea how amazing it is to realize that you don't have to be the member of an exclusive club, the one true religion club. I beg you to experience the freedom of giving up your dogma and truly being able to love and respect someone for who they are and not just in the name of some deity. I used to love to sign my letters, "In Christ's name' or "In his name." Now that seems cheap to me. I don't love people in Christ's name, now I just love people. It is an incredible thing to be able to leave the tyrannical god of the OT behind, and stop trying to make him fit with the mostly loving, kind god of the NT. Note that I did not write the word "god" with a lowercase "g" out of any disrespect, but simply because I wasn't using it as a proper name.
Now I am truly free to experience the possibility of a god without the chains of Christian or any dogma."
I too would echo these words. Since my deconversion, I feel a lot more free to accept people as they are & not have to defend the indefensible aspects of the Bible or the Christian faith. What a relief it is.
You seem more traveled then I ever was in the military and I went to many places including Thailand, Hong Kong, Iraq/Iran, Philippines, Hawaii (5 times), and my favorite Australia and many more. Welcome buddy
Don,
Believer - God + God = 0 + God
Believer = God
That was what my Dad would call "creative accounting" but it was funny none the less. That is the same as "Christ like", correct?
Dan, what are *you* without God?
I would be a sinner that cannot find salvation ultimately ending up in hell and tormented forever for all my wickedness that I selfishly caused, I would believe against so many people but actually, to God Himself. When I lied, I lied to God himself and when I dishonored my parents, I was actually dishonoring God Himself. Which reminds me of a point I just made please forgive me if I am repeating myself.
I was just talking on a blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism:
1 Pet 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Pet 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God (Jesus)for forgiveness of sins in the NT.
My favorite is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.
God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.
The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.
The espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness.
Dan- I'm not as well-traveled as you: of the places you mention, I've only been to Hawaii. And my travels through the Universe have all been telescopic. But as Azver says in Tales from Earthsea, "Miles can be years". Conversely, years can be miles. I hope I'm not making sense.
Dan, please explain something to me. You talk about converting to christ as being a "simple" thing to do. Yet earlier in this very post you give not one, but two lists of ambiguous prerequisites that one must attain before becoming a "true" christian.
This sort of thing has always driven me nuts. Proselytizers like you who just go on and on about how quick and easy conversion is and how wonderful everything will magically become as soon as you accept their theology as absolute truth.
But, if it doens't happen to work - well, you've got a bucket full of excuses for why its not your fault of god's fault or the bible's fault.
Why should anyone have any trust in what you say when you are as inconsistant and contradictory as the bible you preach from?
What gives, Dan? Have you some strange sort of photographic memory with a severe short-term deficiency?
You said, at ~6:30pm (Local time?) on May 18:
It also made me think of something else. I was just talking on a different blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism...
Then, at ~2:15am on May 21:
I was just talking on a blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism...
Following the above, the next four or five paragraphs in each case are identical.
While you can be forgiven for repeating yourself, what you have done here is more along the lines of copying yourself.
Let me repeat myself. Although the offense of reiteration can be overlooked, the current transgression is actually duplication.
Do you see the difference in what I did to repeat myself, and what you did?
Copy/Paste is not mere repetition. It's disingenuous spam in the form of a veritable double-post -- except you did it intentionally, while offering a concurrent apology, unless you either have such a short-term memory deficiency that you really don't remember posting exactly the same thing three days earlier. If you can't remember because you've posted the same thing on so many blogs and forums that you aren't sure which have heard it and which haven't, then I recommend reading the thread in question before you post. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but to that end, I do not accept your apology. If you feel the need to restate your position, please do so, but if you're just going to re-copy and re-paste from the same text document (which I sincerely hope you actually authored), don't bother. We can scroll up and re-read it, or you can restate it in a different manner.
Anyway, in either iteration, I fail to see what your copied/pasted aside has to do with the price of tea in China. With the sheer number of available topics here at DC, surely you can find one where this canned reply actually has some bearing on the topic.
You've also been caught using sources which directly contradict the claims you make, while simutaneously citing that source as supporting your claims, and now, you've been caught copying and pasting yourself -- assuming the original material is indeed your own (a cursory Google search yielded no results on the quoted phrase above, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) -- and the copied text in question has yet to have been remotely on-topic.
Your views are welcome, but I don't feel as though you've yet shown us any of your views per se. Since the vast majority of us atheists/agnostics have already tried Christianity and found it lacking, we are highly unlikely to heed your advice to "[h]onor [our] [f]ather by understanding [h]is guidence [sic]."
Instead, as others have suggested, I challenge you to consider the alternatives to Christianity (in the form of competing religions), and seek specifically the literature of non-Christian religions in which they denounce Christianity. Seek this information out, read it, and ask yourself if their positions against Christianity are any different from your position toward them.
Do this, and answer the question honestly, and you will have taken a great step toward becoming as one of us. We have each done something very similar to this, if not exactly like it, and it is in part this realization which leads us to deny all of the various competing religions.
For myself, it's not just the logical recognition that religion fails, but it's also conscious defiance: I will not worship a thing which would subject any of its creation to eternal torment.
Such a being is evil, and anyone who would knowingly worship such a being is therefore evil, ignorant, or both.
"unless you either have such a short-term memory deficiency that you really don't remember posting exactly the same thing three days earlier."
Maybe some of both. I thought I did write it but I wasn't sure I did, so I searched my notes as to what I said to y'all and couldn't find it. I searched my G-mail and couldn't find it so I thought I might of missed it. It related to the point I wanted to make about the Ten Commandments so I copied it but please accept my apology. I didn't mean to just paste the same thing over and over again but I just wanted to make the point clear. I am fallible to say the least.
I searched [everywhere but the blog on which I was posting] as to what I said to y'all and couldn't find it.
(Next time, try perusing the blog comments -- especially your own -- and if you post the same material on so many different blogs/forums, you may consider adding a note in the text file itself telling you on which sites you've placed the canned statement.)
Seriously, now, when you're prepared to acknowledge that the way Christianity treats other religions -- even other sects/denominations of Christianity -- is exactly as justified as the way those religions/sects/denominations treat [your brand of] Christianity, then we'll be making progress.
You see, I do the same, but with all religions, and, I'll argue, with a lot more respect. Certainly more respectful than the anti-Mormonism cartoon I watched in my church youth group, or the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses tape I borrowed from my father.
You see, we don't require that you give in to any particular dogma or doctrine, or that you accept on faith any of a veritable plethora of dubious historical/mystical accounts. We won't condemn you for eternity for disagreeing, and we promise no eternal reward, either.
All you have to do is [temporarily] alter your perspective. Do that, and it will become abundantly clear that not only are all those "other" religions wrong, but so is yours.
Agnosticism is, as John puts it, the default position, and to it you should return. Once there, you may objectively determine the plausibility of any of the available personal philosophies, and odds are quite good that if you stray from agnosticism, you will head toward atheism. Either of these two is leaps and bounds more probable and rational than any other religious position.
93 comments:
I made a comment for you on that article. I have said it before but it was worth repeating:
* No such thing as an Ex-Christian
There is no such thing as an ex-Christian there are only false converts (stony ground hearer). If you can lose your salvation, then what do you do with John 10:28 where Jesus says he gives eternal life and the sheep will NEVER perish? If you can lose it then Jesus should have said, "and they may perish..." or "they CAN perish." But he said, THEY WILL NEVER PERISH. So, will they never perish? Or can they?
A true Christian cannot turn away from God. Here is why. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Now look at 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED if they were really Christians to begin with.
Now a question for you. Are you saying that the Spirit begins the work of salvation in us and that we work it out and complete it by remaining faithful? That IS what you are saying, that we get saved and keep it by the effort of our works, right? Check this out. Galatians 3:1-3 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
Jesus taught it. He said those with eternal life will NEVER PERISH. John 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. " Well, will they perish or not? Jesus says those with eternal life will NEVER perish. I believe Him. Do you?
Peace,
Dan
Dan,
A quick note is due here.
Your use of the Gospel of John is high problematic in the use of the word “will not parish” (Greek: apollumi). Thus, the famous Christ evangelization quote of John 3:16 is one such failed promise in that had orginally promised that since God loved the cosmos, all who believed in Jesus would not die, but have life eternal as a Theios Aner. The Greek word “apollumi” is defined in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2ed, Chicago, 1979 as primarily “ruin, destroy” as in death. Compare its use in other New Testament passages as Matt. 8: 25, 26: 52, Mark 4: 38, Luke 8: 24, 13: 3&5, Romans 2: 12. If not taken in this sense, the idea that the wicked can escape Hell / The Lake of Fire by simply becoming nothing totally runs counter to Jesus’ statements about Hell in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Revelation. On the other hand, that the wicked simply “perish” is a strong claim for atheism. According to the Bible the, both the lost and saved have life eternal, be it in Heaven or the Lake of Fire.
I love how the commenters in that newspaper are already quoting Scripture at you.
I'm sure you've thought about your position ALOT more than they have.
For Dan Marvin,
Your suppositions and implied faith in the NT passages you quote, would suggest that John could never have been a "True Christian" in the first place if he now renounces the "Faith". One other possibility you seem to not have considered is that John Loftus has, like so many others, falsified the passages you are quoting; i.e. he did have a real "True Christian faith" & has subsequently rejected it as a man-made religion like all other man-made religious constructs.
In other words: He was a "True Christian" & now is he is NOT. The passages you quote are therefore clearly in error and are not God-breathed truths after all. They are nothing more than pseudo-authoritative religious declarations of humans pretending and hoping that they understand the workings of God in the world.
John Loftus has falsified the veracity of these passages. He has demonstrated that your scriptures are in error & I suppose that is disturbing to you. On the other hand this could be your opportunity to consider how many other passages in the Bible are also falsifiable.
In the end you might come to the obvious conclusion that it's a man-made construct from Genesis to Revelation.
Wishing something to be true doesn't make it so.
Good luck in your search for truth (- you are a seeker aren't you?)
-evan
Harry,
Actually the word you used parish translates to Ενορία meaning a local church community but i understand what you are saying. Interesting point of view though. I do agree we will all live for eternity and it is our choice as to where we will spend it. But you might be misunderstanding the use of the word "perish". Perish, I believe, relates or is another term for the second death in Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.". If considered a second death then we can plainly see that it is the same as perish. You do agree/understand there is no such thing as a formal Christian though, right?
If we understand the parable in Mark 4:3-13 then it unlocks the secret to all parables: Foolish virgin=false convert Wise virgin=Genuine conversions. The good fish, the bad fish. The man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand. The one who built his house on sand is the one who hears the word of Jesus but doesn't keep them. False Convert.
6 characteristics of a False Convert:
1. Mark 4:5 - Lack depth of understanding. Immediate results impressive changes occur quickly then false convert will fall away from their faith over time and the results and changes disappear.
2. Luke 8:6 - False convert lack moisture in other words they lack the life-giving and life-sustaining power of God's word. To a false convert the Bible is dry and uninteresting and struggles with daily devotions.
3. Matthew 13:6 - False convert have no roots like a plant that dries up when the heat comes because it's roots aren't deep enough to reach water to sustain it. So is the false convert who's faith dries up where persecution comes his roots of faith don't run deep enough to reach the life sustaining water of God's word and Holy Spirit.
4. Mark 4:16 - False Converts receive the word with gladness. Hears the gospel message with gladness and really seems to latch on to it. He may express, for example, with tear filled eyes of joy. How this is the answer he's been looking for. When any test or trials comes his way, excuses become his trademark he falls away from following Jesus.
5. Matthew 13:20 - Repeats that same point false convert receive the word with joy (at first)
6. Luke 8:13 - Because they do believe for a season this is the one that fools the most people because they do believe, for a short time, the Gospel message. These false converts walk and talk a very good game. They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.
Even,
My point is there is a certain contingency to become a Christian that many never reach but believe they have. For years I made a decision and believed in Jesus and thought I was a Christian but I was never repentant of my sins so I went along believing that I was saved but I wasn't bearing fruit of one. I have pointed this out before.
What fruit will grow in a True Christians life:
1. Repentance - A 180 degree turn away from sinful behavior and towards Godly behavior.
2. Thankfulness - A thankful heart that is grateful for what God has done... and shows itself in a cheerful disposition.
3. Good Works - A life that becomes others centered (helping the aged, feeding the poor, teaching children, etc.) Not self centered (all free time consumed in personal hobbies and interests)
4. Fruit of the Spirit - An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.
5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind.
We are here to get fruit bearing Christians not decisions for Christ to fill pews.
Dan, how is it that "good behavior", living a pious life, having a sunny disposition and being grateful indicate a "true Christian faith" in this instance yet indicate absolutely NOTHING when referring to the fact that many Hindus and Buddhists and even non-believers live the same sort of lives (if not better in many instances)?
You can't have it both ways.
By the way I take it you're a Calvinist from your reiterations of the "Perseverance" part of TULIP?
How, then, do you explain this passage:
Hebrews 6:4-6
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
How does a member of the "non-elect" share in the Holy Spirit, exactly? How can one be brought "back" to repentance if they were never there in the first place? The Bible doesn't support your Calvinist theory, although I suppose it's a more hopeful idea (at least if you believe yourself to be one of the lucky "elect").
- James
John,
Remember to act angry, spiteful and miserable so as not to disavow any of our stereotypes.
Hi Dan,
what do you do with those christians that have that "nagging doubt" that never goes away like mother teresa?
In my view, it follows from the christian view (because of gods property of omniscience), that if one has any doubt at all, one is necessarily sunk.
Lee,
I am repeating myself here but I am one to believe that doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism. Also I would like to mention darkness makes you unhappy? Abandon hope; give up hope; lose heart; is the definition of despair, correct?
But to make the point clear lets look at the apostles and what they, not to mention the 250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such. They were put through prosecutions, tribulation, and great turmoils. Yet they kept their Hope and honor and never wavered in their faith.
The Bible talks a great deal of doubt as you know.
Deuteronomy 28:66 "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:" Matthew 14:31 "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Luke 12:29 "And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind." Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Doubting belief systems and entire denominations/religions (man made) is healthy I feel. We are after all in Jesus' rest and not much is required of us Christians because all the work had been done already.
We must not trust our own lying wickedness and make sure we are not pushing our own agendas over or replacing God's. The thrust of my point though is about leaving God entirely and abandoning Him.
To doubt God Himself or that Jesus is not Lord is so damaging that this atheism is a move from light to darkness. This is the point that 2 John the 7th verse it is clear about.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I beg all of you not to depend on, or lose faith because of, anything that mankind had done. We must have faith that God's plan is true and sound and no one will get to heaven without Jesus as it says in His Word as the authority we should all live by.
Dan: “They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.”
In light of your creedal address for faith then, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholics, Orthodox faith, Church of Christ, and similar sects and cults would ALL be true believers as they all fall into your statement of faith and hold fast to it and yet none of the above group would accept you as a believer nor one another as a Christians, but view you and each other as an apostate or heretic. The closest to accepting one another would be the Catholics and Orthodox but even they excommunicated (cut off from salvation) each other in about 1072.
Dan, have you ever seen a Baptist preach in a Lutheran church? Hey, both are Protestant and believe in the historical doctrines of Christ and yet, they do not trust each in their pulpits. In this context, Christianity has over 20,000 sects and cults and is still ballooning out of control!
Lets put it this way, ask any Christian which is worst: an Atheist or a Heretic? And Christians will most always state a Heretic is worst; that is a Heretic has your creedal statement of faith in the historical doctrines of the Bible and yet even that faith held throughout their life, that faith is worst than an Atheist!
Remember Dan, Protestants and Catholics did not burn Atheist at the stake, they burnt each other as fellow believer in your Christ!
James,
Because I am quite lazy right now and don't have time I have C/P this one for an answer to your question:
How, then, do you explain this passage: Hebrews 6:4-6
"One interpretation holds that this passage is written not about Christians but about unbelievers who are convinced of the basic truths of the gospel but who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. They are intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted.
According to this interpretation, the phrase “once enlightened” (verse 4) refers to some level of instruction in biblical truth. However, understanding the words of scripture is not the same as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. For example, John 1:9 describes Jesus, the “true Light,” giving light “to every man”; but this cannot mean the light of salvation, because not every man is saved. Through God’s sovereign power, every man has enough light to be held responsible. This light either leads to the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ or produces condemnation in those who reject such light. The people described in Hebrews 6:4-6 are of the latter group—unbelievers who have been exposed to God’s redemptive truth and perhaps have made a profession of faith, but have not exercised genuine saving faith.
This interpretation also sees the phrase “tasted the heavenly gift” (Hebrews 6:9) as referring to a momentary experience, akin to Jesus’ “tasting” death (Hebrews 2:9). This brief experience with the heavenly gift is not seen as equivalent to salvation; rather, it is likened to the second and third soils in Jesus’ parable (Matthew 13:3-23), which describes people who receive the truth of the gospel but are not truly saved.
Finally, this interpretation sees the “falling away” (Hebrews 6:6) as a reference to those who have tasted the truth but, not having come all the way to faith, fall away from even the revelation they have been given. The tasting of truth is not enough to keep them from falling away from it. They must come all the way to Christ in complete repentance and faith; otherwise, they in effect re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously. Those who sin against Christ in such a way have no hope of restoration or forgiveness because they reject Him with full knowledge and conscious experience. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. It is impossible to renew such to repentance."
If Jesus as the NT and Christianity present him is a myth, then there is no such thing as a true Christian. So I would have to agree with Dan that there is no such thing as an Ex-Christian, only those who have chosen to leave the Christ Myth Cult.
Gosh Dan, as much as I hate to tell you this, we were all lied to, this includes me, you, your parents, your grandparents, Geo. Bush, Billy Graham, the Pope, etc.etc.
If this nation was build upon Christian principles, how come there are very few Native American Indians around?
If the Christian religion is based upon love, with affirmations such as, "Love thy neighbor as one's self." "Do unto others as you would have done to you." "Turn the other cheek."
Howcome the christian pilgrims could not live peacefully with the Indians? Why are there very few Indians living today? Why are there no Indian Christian churches? Have you ever bought a parsel of land from an Indian?
We were all lied to Dan, the white settlers used the Bible to justify the killing of the infidel nonbeliever human beings.
Just as you're using the Bible to justify your pious self-righteous beliefs. By your support of the Bible, you're as guilty of murder of the first human beings that were here first (the Indians) labeled by Christopher Columbus, because he was wrong, he had not discovered the West Indies, nor had he discovered a new land, it had already been discovered by the red-skinned human beings already here.
They were not heathen infidels, they were human beings.
The Bible gives people artificial titles so it can spew hatred, cause wars and derision between peoples, ak, human beings.
Just as you're using the Bible to spew your self-righteous hatred towards people whom do not believe as you do, in your mind you would love to see Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Communists, Buddhists, Atheists, Gays, sent to a flaming hell simply on the basis that we do not adhere to the brainwashed nonsense that you choose to believe, because your religion makes you feel superior to other human beings.
Simply put, we all were lied to.
Christianity is the white man's religion, it was brought over here by the white man along with his less than human being slaves.
The Bible was written by Arabs, in which a white man would'nt give an Arab the time of day. Yet he insists that the Arabs had a divine intervention.
Dan, it's high time you learned something, get off of your high-horse of self-righteousness and become a real truthful human being, but I know you would much prefer to feel superior than other people, guess what? You're Not!
Before the white settlers arrived, there had not been a Bible or church, nor black people on this land, and the human beings that were already here had no use for such things, yet you persist in believing in such nonsense.
What are you? Dense in the head?
Let's just make it simple: A TRUE Christian is one who never abandons the Christian faith. Ergo, those who claim to have once been Christians and now aren't, never were. Cut through all the verbiage and that--effectively a tautology--is all the Christian defenders here are saying.
Isn't that convenient? The contrary implications of genuine apostasy can therefore be casually dismissed and don't have to be dealt with. The evidence presented is Scripture, something those of us who no longer believe don't accept. That might make believers more comfortable, but from the perspective of an atheist it's pretty sorry argumentation.
To anyone who claims that I did not profess the Christian belief system and that I never had a feeling that I had a close personal relationship with God, I simply say that's only one of your delusions. They are so many more. Of course, I cannot now claim that I did have a close personal relationship with God, because I don't think God exists. But I had the same expreiences that believers do now, and I professed the same beliefs they do now.
john, I don't think dan is saying that you did not profess Christianity, only that you were not a TRUE Christian because you eventually changed your mind. See, TRUE Christians believe what they are told, and to Hell with their lying eyes. Since you had the temerity to change your mind, you were never a TRUE Christian. And to prove it, he uses (what else) scripture, begging the question that God exists; God inspired the Bible; the inspiration was correctly transcribed; the original manuscript was correctly copied many, many, many times; the copy was correctly translated; and the correct books were all placed into the compilation that was handed to him as a child. But all of these assumptions (many of which, like "correctly copied" and "correctly translated", can be empirically refuted) engender no doubt in dan, for "doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism", and atheism requires admitting you don't know everything that's important to know, which is unbearable to dan.
However, even though so many professing Christians are obviously not TRUE Christians, dan has no problem citing some statistic that "250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such". This is typical apologetic slight-of-hand; Christianity is exclusive when it serves their purpose, but inclusive when they need to impress with large numbers. But dan, of these 250 million, a not-insignificant number will renounce their faith at some point, proving that they were never TRUE Christians, so you cannot count them in your stats. And of those 250 million, a very large number will not present all of the fruits you require for TRUE Christians, so you must leave them out as well.
Not to mention that your stats are highly misleading. 250 million are the estimated number (by the self-proclaimed "Voice of the Persecuted Church" that seems to have its heaviest involvement not in human rights but in prosetylization) of Christian believers in countries that, in one form or another, do not allow total freedom of Christian worship. The number of these that will actually be harmed for their beliefs is much, much, much, etc. smaller--probably in the tens to hundreds of thousands. For those playing along at home, that's three to four orders of magnitude; analogous to saying a football field is about one third of an inch long.
While I do think that reasonable freedom of worship is essential for a free society, it hurts your credibility to state that "250 million people just this year, had or will have to endure and the torture and arrests and be-headings and such." That is false, and now that you know it is false you will be guilty of lying if you repeat it as true.
Shygetz,
As a fair disclaimer the 250 million number was gathered for 2007 figures. I have yet to find the number for 2008 for Christian persecution since the year hasn't ended and figures are not in. BTW that news of 250 million Christians persecuted is plastered all over the internet. You don't have to go far to find out what is being done in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China
There is now even a top ten list of countries that Christians are being persecuted the most in.
2008 World Watch List
1. North Korea
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Maldives
5. Bhutan
6. Yemen
7. Afghanistan
8. Laos
9. Uzbekistan
10. China
Since we are on the subject, I am curious about your statement:
"The number of these that will actually be harmed for their beliefs is much, much, much, etc. smaller"
Can you please back that statement up with data. Did you just pull that out of thin air, as a guess, or do you actually have observational data that can be verified? If not isn't that a hypocritical statement since atheists, such as yourself, need scientific proof of everything. Aren't you guys claiming that we are pulling things out of the air? Tisk, tisk, Wake up!
John,
Like I said I had a belief in Jesus, like you, for years and almost ended up in hell. It wasn't until I surrendered to His authority and placed my entire life in His hands and conscientiously stopped intentionally sinning, did I receive the Holy Spirit and I know with out doubt in my mind that I am saved forever. Remember that Hot Iron analogy I went from a belief (that you had) to an experience (that I now have) of God's Hot Iron of salvation.
I am not looking down at any of you but I stand among you looking up.
Peace
Keep in mind this 250 million number is each year that Christians are being persecuted.
In 1996, 200-250 million were being persecuted and 400 million lived under "non trivial restrictions on religious liberty."
The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy By Elliott Abrams
Dan,
You are critical of someone questioning your numbers & challenge them bring forth supporting data.
You go on to say:
"Like I said I had a belief in Jesus, like you, for years and almost ended up in hell."
Can you back any of this with Data? How do you know you almost ended up in Hell? Have you seen, tasted, heard or felt Hell? Do you have any instruments that detect the presence of Hell? Has anyone you know gone there & reported back with their findings?
I guess not - because it's all based on a complex faith-based paradigm that has no basis in reality. Your one source of information, the Bible, is similarly approached only through the a priori lens of an unsupported belief in its inerrancy. I used to share that paradigm & belief under the misapprehension that faith in the Bible & Jesus was a a rational faith. It wasn't until later in life that I dared to look with an open mind to discover that "rational faith" is an oxymoron.
Faith is not rational - it defies reality.
-evan
Dan Marvin said: "5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind."
Dan, do you have you even seen a child disobey his parents? Do you know anyone that is a homosexual? Did you "do the right thing according to the way God denfines it in his word" and pick up a rock and beat that person with it until they perished? No? Why not? Let me guess. You defined Gods word differently in your own mind?
Don't ask me to obey the Bible if you're not willing to obey it yourself.
Don,
Why would Dan have to "pick up a rock and beat that person with it until they perished"?
Jason,
Because Don doesn't understand proper Hermeneutics
John Loftus
"But I had the same expreiences that believers do now, and I professed the same beliefs they do now."
you can claim to have the same experiences, however what you can't do is say it is the "same" experiences as other believers, you simply wouldn't know that.
Sent this out to select people in my e-mail yesterday with some other stories on other topics with the subjec: "Like it takes a genius":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080513/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionsciencejewseinstein;_ylt=AqG8BW321usuRaYxTEiblKADW7oF
A friend who I suspected is a Fundy sent this reply:
Einstein was a total ASSHOLE !!!...and you know where he is, knowing all his life he did not believe in GOD..he is in HELL stoking the furnaces !!!! ..good for him..
Dan, here are some general observations.
According to Dr. Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries) in his audio tape course on “Eternal Security”, people CAN NOT loose their Salvation: “Once Saved, Always Saved!”
The late fundamentalist Baptist preacher Dr. John R. Rice (a popular speaker at Bob Jones University Bible Conferences) and editor of “The Sword of the Lord” news paper said (during his earthly ministry) that, at the time of the Lord’s return (the Rapture), the roofs off the houses of prostitution will be torn off as “Saved”, but “Back Slidden” Christians are called up to met their Lord in the air.
So, even as an Atheist, I (and the others former Christians who post here) are just in a terrible “Back Slidden” condition, but are still Christians who have simply been deceived and beguiled by the things of the world (Oh, ye foolish Galatians...Galatians 3:1).
As pseudo-Atheists (since Christians CAN NOT loose their salvation), we too will be there in Heaven with you Dan, but (saved as by fire; I Corth. 3: 13-15), where, without works, we just won’t have our crowns of righteousness. You see, God has delivered our flesh (our minds) over to Satan in order that our souls will be Saved (I Corth. 5:5).
Dan said: "Because Don doesn't understand proper Hermeneutics."
Oh. So you are saying that even though Leviticus 18:22 in my bible clearly says "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties", I need to interpret that to find out what that really means?
Is that true of the rest of the bible as well? Does it apply to the verses you quoted earlier? How do I know which interpretation is correct?
I know you believe your interpretation is the correct one, and therefore you think that there is no such thing as a 'former' christian.
I believe that if there were a "correct" interpretation, God would have made it clear. And it's not. So now we need to rely on fallible humans to interpret.
Are you willing to stake your eternity on what humans "think" God said? I'm not.
So I'll keep seeking the truth. I hope you do too!
Don,
So you think Christians are still under the Mosaic law...?
Oh, by the way:
The word hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermeneuō), which roughly translates to "this can't be right"...
If Christians are "once saved always saved" then why do they continue to go to church? There's nothing else there for them, the set goal is final, sealed in heaven.
Yet the churches are filled mostly with self-professing christians. Why? What else is there for them to receive?
If the Christian theme is "Love thy neighbor as oneself."
If all men are created equal in the eyes of god.
How come churches never openly invite Atheists, nonbelievers, Communists, Muslims, gays, alcoholics, murderers, rapists, etc. to persuade more converts to christ?
I think someone mentioned earlier that in all reality, the christians do not believe it themselves. It's all just a front to save face, for appearances just in case it all turned out to be true. An imaginary metaphysical insurance policy, paid for by a premium of imaginary faith.
Much as I am amazed at the volleying of bible verses and interpretations you all are handling with this dan marvin guy, has anyone thought of just going straight for the scrotum with this guy?
Dan - Look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Then, just for good measure, look up 'fallacy' so that you have no excuse for not knowing that your entire argument is sunk right out of the gate.
Better luck next time...
Jason said... "Don,
So you think Christians are still under the Mosaic law...?"
I think Christians are under whatever law they choose.
And I have yet to meet one that chooses to obey Mosaic law. Which is odd considering that Jesus said "if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments". This assumes that Jesus actually existed and that his words were accurately recorded, neither of which are proven to my satisfaction.
Some christians believe that they are no longer under the law because of what Jesus did on the cross. Do they mean all laws? Or just Mosiac law? Do they still need to obey Jesus' commandments? I don't know.
I have yet to meet a christian that obey's all of Jesus' commandments. For example, why do people like Dan say that John Loftus was never a christian when Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Are you willing to lend me whatever money you have? Because I want to borrow from you. Jesus says that you should lend to those who want to borrow from you. Will you obey him?
Hmmm. I didn't think so.
This means that you pick and choose whichever biblical commandments and laws you want to obey.
How do you decide? Is your logic better than Jesus's? Or Gods?
Does Jesus's act on the cross exempt you from HIS commandments? How about from his commandment that you keep God's commandments?
So, if you are a christian, subject yourself to whatever law you like.
I'm glad I don't need to worry about this kind of stuff anymore.
Ok, let me get this straight: just because somebody thinks that they are a true christian (like Dan and Jason do) and do all of the things that christians do, ie. go to church, pray to jesus, except the bible as god's word, etc., etc., they may not actually be true christians but, in reality, are only false converts.
Wouldn't this make all christians potentially false converts? Maybe Dan and Jason just think that they are true christians just like John did?
Dan has already admitted that he changed his mind once regarding his beliefs. Couldn't he be just as wrong now as he was then?
I think there's an even bigger question here tho: why is it that god doesn't do anything to turn false converts into true converts?
I mean its one thing for him to sit back and twiddle his thumbs while a billion Budhists, Hindus, Pagans and other assorted Democrats get bulldozed into a blazing pit of endless torture - heck, they never had a chance to begin with - but to flip off all of those people who really wanted to walk with the lord just because they weren't "perfect" enough seems a bit, oh I don't know, evil, heartless, merciless, sadistic and cruel.
I mean, what does he expect us to have? Mustard seeds the size of Montana?
Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Matthew 24:13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
Just as Jesus said, God is “testing us”. But there are two terms on my test I don’t understand: “Endureth” and “The End”. What are we to “endure” and just what is the “end”…the end of life, till Jesus comes, the end of exactly what? But then, if God is “testing us” then God Himself does not really have total knowledge and thus, He must test us.
When I worked with vacuum tubes in electronics back in the sixties and seventies, I used a tube tester to check to see if the tube was good. You would plug the tube into the tester and push “TEST” and the pointer on the scale would read “Bad” “?” “Good”. Since I had no knowledge whether or not a tube was good or bad, I had to use a tube tester. And if the tube tester could not descide, it would read the feared "?"!
So is God using a “Salvation Tester” where He will plug our souls into “The Lamb’s Book of Life” and to see if we are “Bad” equals Hell, or “Good” equals Heaven (Revelation 20:15: If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 21:27: There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.)
But, OH MY GOD! What if we come up with the feared “?”, then what?!
Don,
Based on your answer then, in that Christians are under the new law, there's no reason why you should expect, or ask, Dan to pick up a rock and "beat that person with it until they perished".
Our commenter, Mr. Dan Marvin, has two Blog sites entitled: “Hermeneutics” and another entitled “Exegete Truth”. In the comment section to both these sites, Dan lays out his rules for anyone who comments. He states:
I actually do welcome all comments good or bad although I have some quirky rules for keeping it up in the comments like:
1.Anyone who advertises their anti-God blog I will delete it.
2.Any cussing or blasphemy, I will delete it.
3. Anything contrary to glorifying God will be deleted.
4. Anything that causes someone to stumble with their walk with Jesus I will delete it. (even something I write)
5. Anything else that I see fit to delete I will.
My question is the final part of rule number 4.
Dan, exactly why would you (as controller of your own blog site) write a comment only to delete it? this makes not sense at all! What’s the point of this statement?
I’m I missing something here?
If you really believe the Bible, then if you yourself writes something that offends God, why don’t you do exactly as Jesus commanded in Mark 9:43?
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.”
Unless you are a member of Landover Baptist you are not a True Christian (tm).
LandoverBaptist.org
I wonder what the stats are for atheists becoming Christians verses Christians becoming atheists?
I've been sending the landover link and betty bowers to people for some time:
http://www.bettybowers.com/
Jason said... "Don,
Based on your answer then, in that Christians are under the new law, there's no reason why you should expect, or ask, Dan to pick up a rock and "beat that person with it until they perished"."
You are absolutely right, thus proving my point that christians interpret the bible however they want, and will believe whatever they want to believe.
In the Pastoral Epistle of I Timothy 4:1 we read:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Since the writer of I Timothy says that there are “Doctrines of Devils”, can anyone here tell me where I can get a copy of a Systematic Theology on the Doctrines of Devils?
I got a copy of Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”, but he is simply an atheist who believes in neither God nor Satan.
I figure this might be on the order of Karl Barth’s “Church Dogmatics” only be written from the hermeneutical point of view of Devils.
I do know that during the Holiday Season (at Christmas time), there are 3 “seducing spirits” that affect most people.
These 3 Spirits are:
A. The Holy Spirit (lives in the Christian’s heart)
B. The Evil Spirit (Lives in this world) and
C. The Distilled Spirit (lives in bottles at the liquor store).
I can testify that the Holy Spirit can be over come by the Distilled Spirit and, with too many Distilled Spirits, people tend to speak in unknown tongues without even trying!
I think I may have figured out a way to separate the 'true' christians from the heretics.
Visit www.true.com. If you meet their criteria, you are a true christian.
Don,
The Bible interprets itself. This is why believers don't follow the Mosaic law.
Jason said , "The Bible interprets itself."
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Maybe it isn't the false converts who are to blame at all. Maybe there are a whole lot of diffective bibles out there that are misinterpreting themselves!
(Stupid bibles!)
Jason, maybe the bible interprets itself according to Christadelphianism, but not according to orthodox Christianity. According to them the Holy Spirit in each Christian helps to interpret scripture.
The Bible is a collection of books and letters and it can be interpreted in many ways depending on what rules you choose.
Man, I haven't heard anything from the Christadelphians in nearly 20 years. They had a seminar at my local library that a friend and I went to. It was pretty deceptive, we could have left a whole lot sooner if they had opened with "we deny thew trinity and particularly the divinity of Christ."
Of course I deny all those things now, but back then I sure didn't.
Jason: “The Bible interprets itself. This is why believers don't follow the Mosaic law.”
So are the Seventh Day Adventist wrong to keep dietary laws and the Seventh Day as the Lord’s day?
Jason is this why there are now over 20,000 Christian cults and sect and still growing since the Bible is self-interpreting?
Is this why the Bible based Southern Baptist fired all their women professors and you (as a Bible based Christadelphian) can not even relate to that attack on the female gender at their seminaries?
Is that why you are a Christadelphian who appears to be the ONLY true sect of the 20,000 plus Christian sects who has the correct understanding of the Bible?
Jason, is this why most Christians consider a heretic worst than an atheist since heretics some how misunderstand a self-interpreting Bible?
Jason, have you been a member of any Christian sect other than a Christadelphians? Exactly why don't all Christian sects "jump ship" and join the Christadelphians? When will you, with all you “Christadelphian Biblical self interpreting TRUTH”, be teaching a Sunday school class at a Southern Baptist church?
Do you think if Jesus were here, he’d make a “bee line” straight to the Christadelphians and praise your sect’s doctrines as trulty Biblical?
If the Bible interprets itself (as you claim), what do the Christadelphians claim is wrong with the Church of Christ as a Bible as a ONLY based sect?
Please allow me to show you how we learn God's word.
We are all wicked so we can't trust ourselves or mankind to teach us. Just look at all the denominations out there. pathetic!
OK I am going to quote Scripture but it's because I am showing you what the Bible says about us learning the Word.
Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"
But it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us, not God's Word, but God Himself: John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
We must stay in the Word to understand Him: John 8:31-32 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
1 John 4:6 "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."
I believe the verse that nails it on the head is 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
tigg13 made a good point " Maybe there are a whole lot of (defective) bibles out there that are misinterpreting themselves!"
As far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). You might want to read a more conservative translation to understand God's Word, but that is just my advice.
Thanks for the time,
Dan
Some general questions for you Dan.
Lets forget the English versions for now and please answer the following general questions:
A. Which text is the inspirited word of God during the time of Jesus; the un-pointed Hebrew text or the Septuagint (LXX) text?
B. Dan, the early Semitic churches which used (and still use) the Aramaic / Syraic text and the Ethiopian church which uses the ancient Ge’ez text which differ in many major points from the traditional Hebrew text (MT), have these texts been corrupted? If they have, please tell me exactly how an unpointed Hebrew word like “DBR” which can have 5 meanings in the unpointed Hebrew text can truly be translated correctly? How exactly does God keep the text pure. If, as you claim, man is evil and corrupted, just how can we trust a Massoretic text whose words are given meaning as “pointed” by man? The Hebrew text has the ages of men in Genesis decreasing from close to a 1000 years (as in the case of Adam and Enoch) to shorter years (3 score and 7) while the LXX text has these same men starting with Adam getting older or just the opposite of the Hebrew text. So, again, which text – Semitic or Greek- is the true word of God? If the Hebrew text is the true and inspired text for the Old Testament, pray tell exactly why Jesus, Paul and about 99% of the quotations from the Old Testament as cited in the New Testament are quoted from the Septuagint?
C. Did God inspire the Massoretic traditions of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali? Is the standard Massoretic text as found in “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” by the German “Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1977 the inspired world of God?
D. Dan, please tell me if the sub-linear vowel pointing system in the Massoretic Hebrew text is more inspired than the Tiberian or supra-linear vowel system?
E. Dan, please tell me why the Samaritan Torah differs from the Massoretic Torah text?
Fact is Dan, you can play games with apologetics all you want to about how evil and corrupt man is, but with out the “human factor” in the preservation of these texts (and the fact that even Jesus uses and misquotes these texts (let me know and I’ll give you some hard core examples of this in the Gospels)), we would have no Bible today!
"But it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us, not God's Word,"
So, Dan, the Holy Spirit is God's back up plan for a really crappy User's Manual for our lives? We can't take it literally because it is not literally true and we are too imperfect, inherently, to interprete it ourselves, so the Holy Spirit tutors us through it? Yeah, THAT makes sense. So I guess the fact that there are so many varied interpretations means not that the Holy Spirit is a crappy tutor, but that we . . . let me guess. . . are too imperfect to listen to him well enough.
Well, that is a new one to me and I am sure after I am over how shocking ridiculous it is, it will amuse me.
Harry,
You are cracking me up. So those are "general" questions, huh? You are too funny. I could take a month researching and answering them, so i won't for now. I will say this though. The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly. The Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Interestingly, now with manuscripts predating the medieval period, we find these texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text.
You do have it all wrong though if you think mankind had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God alone lead men to do His will. It was God's authority that gave us todays Bible intact. There are slight variations like I was saying from conservative to liberal but God's Word is still intact. The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today (good tree bears good fruit)
Remember though we cannot/shouldn't prove anything in the Bible by evidence. Let's just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.
Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions' den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?
Look at what Paul said about how he persuaded men about God: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1) Why didn't Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Bible scholars who have studied his letters tell us that he was extremely capable intellectually. First Corinthians 2:5 tells us why he deliberately stayed away from worldly wisdom: "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it whenever a respected scholar reports that 'the bones of Jesus" have been found. However if sinners are converted by "the power of God," they will be kept by the power of God. No intellectual argument will cause them to waver because they will know the life-changing reality of their conversion, and their faith will be secure in the eternally solid and secure Rock of Ages.
For Him +†+,
Dan
"that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?"
No Dan, you cannot prove this BUT you can tell us how the version of human creation where God made plants then animals then both Adam and Eve together can be reconciled with the OTHER version in the next chapter where God makes the earth then the single man then the garden for him then the animals to be his companions then when none is found to be suitable, God makes woamn out of his rib. It doesn't matter specific wording because those are very different stories with the plant-animals-humans version closely matching the order of evolution and the other being a totally different story. Did God put those two versions in there? Why? Or did humans get one version wrong at some point? Or, more likely, they are both made up stories, myth, legend, not true at all. Ah, you are so intensely invested in your myths that none of what anyone here says will shake you foolish blind faith. "For Him"? All you do then, in all your life, is for a myth.
"Or did humans get one version wrong at some point?"
Now goprairie,
Do you really believe it's all made up? Doesn't two versions of a story Like Mark and Matthew, for example, is a testament to the validity?
Like if we were to both watch fireworks and some reporter asked us to describe what we saw. You described all the colors and I described all the shapes. What about Mary Magdalene finding the tomb empty after Jesus died. You know how people felt about woman back then. Men were more credible by far. For it to be very believable a man would be written as to who found it empty. But that wouldn't be the truth because Mary was the actual person who found that tomb empty.
"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."(carm)
Nice try dan, you cut and pasted from one of your canned sites of baloney. yes, it is all made up. every last bit of it. sorry. just like santa and the tooth fairy and zeus and the sun god and leprachauns and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and hansel and gretel and aesop's fables and the native american one about earth being made of mud on turtle's back. nice try on the fireworks thing, but we are not talking two perspectives, we are talking two timelines and i have heard your silly explanation but lay it all out verse for verse and it just does not wash. different people wrote down a word-of-mouth story and as is wont to happen with those things, when told and retold, they get mixed up a little. like which year santa brought my sister and I chatty cathy dolls. But at least the chatty cathy family story is based on a real occurance. the creation story is myth. and i have never in my limited exposure, met anyone as determined to twist and wind and contort to make things work, but, sorry, they never will. i could find other things in your good book that contradict, as others have here and will continue to, but you will stubornly refuse to open your eyes. at some point, you will run back to your refuge of 'i can't prove it to you because it has to be taken on faith' - and you will make vague threats of 'we'll see in the end who is right' and then you will pray for us. spare us those steps. please.
Dan, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but quoting Apologetics 101 to us isn't exactly a new tactic 'round these parts. Many of us made these identical arguments years ago when we still bought into the whole Christianity deal.
Generally when one recaps a story they don't get the order all mixed up.
This is where you lost me "Remember though we cannot/shouldn't prove anything in the Bible by evidence." Dan, Christianity is entirely based upon one giant piece of shifting evidence and it actually is the Bible. You make this statement after mentioning what? The biggest haul of evidence of the Bible, tbe Dead Sea Scrolls.
Mike said: According to them the Holy Spirit in each Christian helps to interpret scripture.
Really? Does the Bible say the Holy Spirit is needed to interpret Scripture...?
The Bible is a collection of books and letters and it can be interpreted in many ways depending on what rules you choose.
I find that an honest reading, taking into account context, works best. :)
"The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly."
Dan,
I don't believe you. I choose to believe a biblical scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) that says that there are no 2 versions of scripture found to be the same. Just think of it, of the thousands of scraps and chapters, verses and even whole manuscripts, not any 2 of them are the same. In fact, he says that there are more errors in the collection of ancient scriptures than the number of copies themselves. That's thousands of errors.
You are either ignorant, lying, or have been deceived. If I were you, and I once was, I would go check this out. But from the sound of your jibber jabber I don't think you will be inclined to do so.
Good luck with your make believe facts. Comfort yourself with the words of scripture that say God uses the foolish to confound the wise. You’re sounding foolish but I don't see anyone getting confounded around here.
Harry said: So are the Seventh Day Adventist wrong to keep dietary laws and the Seventh Day as the Lord’s day?
Since you're well aware these laws fall under the Mosaic Law, I'll assume this question is either rhetorical or argumentative. Which is it?
Jason is this why there are now over 20,000 Christian cults and sect and still growing since the Bible is self-interpreting?
Gosh Harry, I don't know. But you sure are smart! Look at you just pulling big numbers out of your hat!
Is this why the Bible based Southern Baptist fired all their women professors and you (as a Bible based Christadelphian) can not even relate to that attack on the female gender at their seminaries?
Who knows? Have you tried asking them directly?
Is that why you are a Christadelphian who appears to be the ONLY true sect of the 20,000 plus Christian sects who has the correct understanding of the Bible?
You think we appear to be correct? Er, thank you! Although I'm not sure why we need to be the ONLY ones...?
Jason, is this why most Christians consider a heretic worst than an atheist since heretics some how misunderstand a self-interpreting Bible?
Probably. After all, this would fit with Scriptural teachings on judgment.
Jason, have you been a member of any Christian sect other than a Christadelphians?
Nope :)
Exactly why don't all Christian sects "jump ship" and join the Christadelphians?
Exactly why do you think people need to "join" Christadelphians?
When will you, with all you “Christadelphian Biblical self interpreting TRUTH”, be teaching a Sunday school class at a Southern Baptist church?
As soon as they return my phone calls.
Do you think if Jesus were here, he’d make a “bee line” straight to the Christadelphians and praise your sect’s doctrines as trulty Biblical?
Er, why would he? He'd make a beeline to the nearest believer and praise their dedication and faith.
If the Bible interprets itself (as you claim), what do the Christadelphians claim is wrong with the Church of Christ as a Bible as a ONLY based sect?
Silly Harry! That all depends on what they believe!
Nice try goprairie,
"different people wrote down a word-of-mouth story and as is wont to happen with those things, when told and retold, they get mixed up a little."
Actually I would have to agree with you if it were legends like some civilizations. That is If you were talking about word of mouth instead of things written down, but that wasn't the case. Australian Aborigines had a legend of a great flood (imagine that), that was passed down to each generation but some left the "God" part out and the generations lost the teaching of our Lord.
Actually you do understand that it only takes one generation to skip the teaching of God for that generation and the ones after to be lost right. That is why it was so important to write it down. Incidentally did you know before the invention of the press it took someone to, painstakingly, copy the Bible an entire year. This was no small task by any stretch. So the Bibles that people had were cherished and priceless. If you believe they were slapped together any old way you have misunderstood the times and the facts.
It all goes right around to presuppositions you will scour the universe to back up your beliefs and whoever agrees with your viewpoint you will listen to them and I will try my very best to explain things biblically from God's Word with my vary fallible mind. We all have free will to chose the truth or reject it. God is truth.
Peace,
Dan
Dan: “You are cracking me up. So those are "general" questions, huh? You are too funny. I could take a month researching and answering them, so i won't for now.”
The answer is simple Dan. The Biblical text has been preserved by sinful man; peroid. If you object to this, then you’ll have to answer the above historical questions in detail to defend you God only inspired Bible.
Dan: “I will say this though. The Dead Sea Scrolls put all that to rest when they found out every singe word in the Bible was duplicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls exactly.”
Dan, I hate to rain on your parade, but ONLY the books of the Hebrew Bible where found and not the New Testament. Plus, you over shot your facts again since the book of Esther was not found at any of the 11 caves in Qumran area.
Dan: “The Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Interestingly, now with manuscripts predating the medieval period, we find these texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text.”
The Essenes had non Biblical texts they consider inspired by God. Why do you reject these texts?
Dan: “You do have it all wrong though if you think mankind had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God alone lead men to do His will. It was God's authority that gave us todays Bible intact. There are slight variations like I was saying from conservative to liberal but God's Word is still intact.”
So, again Dan, why did Jesus and Paul quote from the LXX and not the Hebrew text at Qumran? FACT! All the Hebrew texts from Qumran are in the unpointed Hebrew script. Without the diacritical points given to the text by sinful man, how is the text read by none speakers of ancient Hebrew? The Qumran text is not the Massoretic text.
Dan: “The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today (good tree bears good fruit).”
Dan, exactly when did the Holy Spirit leave the Church Councils? Was the Holy Spirit at Vatican I and Vatican II?
Dan, please answer this. If Jesus is God in flesh and knows all things, especially his inspired text of the Old Testament, why, pray tell, exactly why does Jesus think the Psalms are the Torah / Law? In John 10:34 Jesus thinks Psalm 82:6 is the Torah and again, in John 15: 25 Jesus thinks Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 are parts of the Torah. If Jesus was in Bible College he would miss both these quotes on a Bible exam. But I’m sure you can bail Jesus out of his mistake, so go ahead and lets hear it.
"That is If you were talking about word of mouth instead of things written down, but that wasn't the case."
Dan, when do you think Genesis was written? In the lifetimes of Adam and Eve?
Goprairie,
Dan needs to explain the extra canonical writings of the Old Testament.
So, according to the non-canonical work entitled “The Secrets of Adam and Eve” these suckers could and did write AND THEY DID JUST THAT! Evidently, God created Adam and Eve with a built in DNA gene to automatically be able read and write! But wait! Apologetically, we need to have an excuse as to why it was not transferred to their sons; hum… evidently, they lost it the expulsion from the Garden. How does that sound? I can defend that!
But damned if I know, Enoch sure wrote a hell of a lot too! First, Second, and Third Enoch… now that boy sure knew his Greek (All text were originally written in Greek)!
I mean, OH MY God! Don’t tell me! Surely someone would not… I mean surely a Holy Man of God being moved by the Holy Spirit would not forge a Biblical text and claim to be someone he is not to fool God’s people! NO! God would not let that happen!!!
Please Dan, please; tell me God would NOT have let this happen! Tell me that 1, 2, 3, are all indeed written by the written by the real Enoch! Please!
Harry, you are not MOCKING and GOADING our troll are you???
I just think Dan is very sincere...very sincerely wrong!
I don't for a moment doubt Dan's sincerity -- both in his statements and his being sincerely wrong -- but I do wonder at how dumb apologists can make themselves out to be...
First, the "no such thing as an Ex-Christian" nonsense.
Just like there's no such thing as an ex-Yankee? No true Scotsmen?
Kiss our ass. Just because we are not now perpetrators of the Christian faith does not mean that we could never have been, nor does it mean that our sincerity or conviction were diminished in any way. You are out of line for suggesting such a thing.
The use of scripture to "support" the no true Scotsman routine is just as baffling -- are converts no longer able to sin? Is not one possible sin the sin of apostacy? Heresy?
Is the act of sinning not "turning away from god"? Does this not mean that "basic" sins such as lying are also "turning away from god"?
Your logic is self-defeating.
As to your aside regarding legends, different perspectives providing incomplete descriptions of events, etc., you screwed yourself again -- twice.
First, your supposition that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are analogous to descriptions of a fireworks display, one by a color-blind geometry instructor, and the other by an art instructor with pattern recognition impairment, belies the fact that both descriptions are incomplete, and that neither includes the sound of the display, the duration, etc. Without a complete description of the event, we are left to speculate as to the details, or to use our investigative faculties to deduce the nature of the display.
Since we find the remnants of spent fireworks of a particular type, we can make certain determinations about the nature of the display which are not included in either provided description. We recognize that although we were told that the display included ellipses in its array of shapes, these were more likely circles, but the particular vantage point was not perpendicular to the plane(s) of the circle(s).
The colors we are provided are likewise subjective, as the choice of "sky blue" may well have been "periwinkle", and there are mitiganting [atmospheric] factors which could have caused the actual color(s) of the display to become distorted with respect to the observer on record. The smoke from one burst could very well have obscured and shifted the spectra from the next burst.
So no, the two descriptions do not agree directly, so yes, we can assume they are different perspectives on a similar event, but we can equally well assume that they are flawed perspectives of the same event, or that they are similar versions of the same legend. Since Moses was (according to you) the one to have written these things down, then unless we have evidence of previous writings about which I am unaware, we must assume that until he took the time to write them that the stories were oral in nature, which you admit is prone to considerable error and/or embellishment. Hence: legend, myth, folklore.
Second, you showed yourself to be as inept as Jason when it comes to quoting sources or linking to cherry-picked Google search results. You chose to cite this site in support of the Australian aboriginal legend of a Noachian(esque) flood, despite this statement in that specific section on that site:
This legend is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia.
Oops!
It helps if you actually read the sources you cite... At least you haven't, to my knowledge, resorted to blatant plagiarism, but is basic research so foreign to you guys?
Better luck next time, genius.
--
Stan
Stan,
You are a very silly man and I was entertained by your response. That whole post modern subjective explanation of the smoke changing burst colors. priceless.
"Second, you showed yourself to be as inept..."
I chose that website as an example of the story.
But have you read the link yourself? There is a plethora of examples of the "Flood" story all over the world. These cannot be just coincidences.
and I also provided that link as a direct point I was making about goprairie's comment "when told and retold, they get mixed up a little."
"The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time." (emphasis added)
Then you say "oops!" like I made a mistake. Look truth is truth and I cited a source that was more truth then others, I could have scoured the internet looking for a website that agrees with whatever point I was making (as many atheists do) but I was just finding truth whatever it is. I thought you could appreciate that but I guess not. If you just want to be fed lies then I cannot be a part of that. I am trying not to deceive or coerce you into a false belief, I am trying with my very fallible mind to help all of you understand that God is the truth and He did do as it says in His Word. That the Judgement is near with a plea to go find truth before it is too late. If I failed you I apologize for that because, as you know, I do believe God is who is He says He is and does what He said He will do.
God Himself admonished Ezekiel of the need to warn the lost, He said,
“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. (Ezekiel 3:17-18)
Take care all of you,
Dan
Strange, Dan, but your initial citation sure didn't sound like you were making the point you now claim. Even if you were, your point is diminished by your rhetoric:
Australian Aborigines had a legend of a great flood (imagine that)
"Imagine that"? If your "point" was that the legendary stories of the bible permeated virtually every [seemingly] isolated culture, I think you'd have better served your purpose if you had noted that the site itself recognizes that the aboriginal flood story originated from the missionaries' telling of the Genesis flood legend.
So yeah, "imagine that", the aborigines developed a global flood legend after, and in accordance with the biblical description as told to them by the missionaries and other Christians they encountered. Imagine that.
I admire the desire to include even negative references -- it is a display of honesty -- but it doesn't help if you couch it in terms which make it sound like your intention was that the negative reference was instead a positive one.
You did make a mistake; either that or you're dense. I'll assume the former.
You even make our point when you re-quote the same site with the following:
"The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record)..."
We agree! The flood legend origins were two-fold:
1) They were a direct result of the introduction of the legend by travellers and/or missionaries, and the details were edited by the culture to become more their own.
2) They were independent legends describing separate (in all but an extreme minority of cases) local floods -- it's not like the Israelites had a realistic concept of anything outside of the "fertile crescent"; other societies were no different.
Of course, we've both ignored the other possibility here, that flood legends (local or global) had common roots, but that the root itself needn't be the bible, as you so gallantly claim. There is no reason to elevate the bible to divine inspiration over any other civilization's supernatural legends.
So, you again cherry-pick as you will evidently only accept those legends of ancient civilizations which support biblical claims, while dismissing any of their legends which you find distasteful, morally or theologically. I don't think any of their supernatural legends are true, either.
As to the fireworks display analogy -- that was your choice. I just took what you chose, and showed how the argument that different incomplete perspectives of the same event do not necessarily make either remotely accurate. I didn't really like it either, and I had to amuse myself by making the observers take on humorous traits. Obviously, those traits are unnecessary -- all that is required is that for whatever reason one observer omits details that the other observer includes, and vice versa. The fact is that the bible is inconsistent with itself in its opening passages -- at least some of the competing religious accounts can avoid that inconsistency.
Whatever.
You cloud the issue anyway; I was merely pointing out holes in your logic, and mistakes in your rhetoric.
The point is that many of us -- though indeed, quite likely not "all" -- were "true" Christians. Our devotion should not and cannot be questioned, unless you want to move back to Salem in 1692, or to find yourself under investigation by the Inquisition. "By their fruits you shall know them", you mentioned, and indeed, my fruits (at the time) made my conviction and devotion quite well known.
John and others were [ordained] ministers, so it stands to reason that they had congregations, and that they were directly responsible for converting people to Christianity (as I was, even though I was not a minister). Do you also question the devotion of our converts now? Certainly, we haven't deconverted all of them, so do you question their status as "true" Christians?
For that matter, shouldn't everyone's claim of Christianity be suspect, since for the past 1900 years or so, Christianity has been spread by word-of-mouth, with varying levels of assistance from a collection of texts? If some of those initial Christians were not "true" Christians, then perhaps their adherents, too, are not "true" Christians...
Your notion is as absurd as this discourse.
The truth is that we were Christians, but we are no longer. We found compelling evidence in science, life, logic, etc., that the god of the bible is as false as every other god, and made the painful decision (in most cases) to abandon it as such. All of the evidence available points away from the god described in the bible -- the only reason the religion continues is because of its highly effective use of its power over people.
If religion would cease re-defining itself or its terms to keep up with the prevailing scientific theories and evidence, cease persecuting those who seek the true nature of things (yes, I'm claiming Christianity persecutes atheists), cease the blatant encouragement of ignorance, and cease the forced indoctrination of its youth, then it would cease also to grow and flourish -- indeed, it would die.
Love and hugs,
--
Stan
Stan,
Imagine that, you made sense enough that I understand your point and I agree I may have made a mistake... Imagine that.
John and others were [ordained] ministers, so it stands to reason that they had congregations, and that they were directly responsible for converting people to Christianity (as I was, even though I was not a minister).
But their fruit as well as yours is fruit of unbelief, correct? If it was a tree of Christianity you would bear the fruit of a believer, i.e. Repentance,Fruit of the Spirit,Fruit of Righteousness. So therefor you were never Christians.
It also made me think of something else. I was just talking on a different blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism:
1 Pet 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Pet 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God for forgiveness of sins in the NT.
One of my favorites is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.
God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.
The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.
Unlike you Stan the espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness. If you were Christians you would satisfy the demands of the Holy Law and Honor Christ, which you don't so you were never Christians...yet. The great part is that it isn't too late.
With an uncomfortably long hug,
Dan
Dan,
So, we were never True Christians ®, because if we were True Christians ® we would have never fallen away. Hmmm...I'm flashing back to my old logic class.
False conversion, wow I'd never even thought about that. You're right!
Oh, wait, no you aren't. I used to make these exact same arguments. My Christian walk bore Christian fruit, then one day I woke up and realized how ludicrous it was to believe that out of the many one-true-faiths I actually had the one-true-faith. The same can be said for many of us here.
Again Dan, Was Jesus a true God in flesh ro simply a confused believer himself?
As I requested earlier Dan, please answer this:
If Jesus is God in flesh and knows all things, especially his inspired text of the Old Testament which He gave to his children, why, pray tell; exactly why does Jesus think the Psalms are the Torah / Law? In John 10:34 Jesus thinks Psalm 82:6 is the Torah and again, in John 15: 25 Jesus thinks Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 are parts of the Torah. If Jesus was in a Bible College class on the Pentateuch he would have missed both these quotes on a Bible exam.
But I’m sure you can bail Jesus out of his mistake. So was Jesus simply confused or flat out wrong?
Harry,
Does it really matter to you? Would your entire presupposition about Jesus (God) change if you found an adequate answer? Would it make a difference to your personal relationship with God?
I do remember reading something about some of the psalms are classified as Torah Psalms though, but I'm unsure if they are related to what you are saying.
Remember he said Law not the word Torah. Torah as you know is the first five books, but theTaNaKh is the Bible used in Judaism.
Torah (tor-AH) -- The Law, also called the Pentateuch (Greek for "five books" Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)
Nebiim ( neh-veh-EEM) -- The Prophets
The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, The Twelve (Minor Prophets) Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecariah, Malachi
Ketubim (keh-tu-VEEM) -- The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles)
One can safely conclude he said the Law as in TaNaKh.
Dan: “Does it really matter to you? Would your entire presupposition about Jesus (God) change if you found an adequate answer? Would it make a difference to your personal relationship with God?”
Dan, one of us is wrong in our understanding of Jesus. It’s not what I believe or what you believe, but it’s a “Go” / “No Go” Question with Jesus.
This is the reason why I rejected Jesus and the Bible. In lihgt of this, why do you claim the Bible is total truth?
Dan: “I do remember reading something about some of the psalms are classified as Torah Psalms though, but I'm unsure if they are related to what you are saying.
Remember he said Law not the word Torah. Torah as you know is the first five books, but the TaNaKh is the Bible used in Judaism.”
Hold on Dan! The inspirited Word of God for the original language in the New Testament is Greek (not Hebrew). Jesus uses the Greek vομος and in no way does vομος equal TaNaKh, but is only 1/3 of the term or Ta = Torah. The term Torah never once occurs in the New Testament as Jesus and the rest New Testament quote only from the LXX. The LXX uses vομος as a direct Greek synonym for the Hebrew “Torah” of the Jews. One can safely conclude he said the “Law” is in the TaNaKh, but the entire TaNaKh is no way the vομος.
Fact is Dan, Jesus DID KNOW the difference between the Law (vομος) and the Psalms a he stated in Luke:
David himself says in the book of Psalms, “The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand,…(Luke 20:42)
And
He said to them, "This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Gentiles, and sing psalms in honour of Thy name." (Luke 24:44)
The problem is Dan, to kept the New Testament without error, you must twist and pervert Jesus’ very words…shame on you!
Since most of the Psalms are corrected to King David, you have put David in the place of Moses and now claim Jesus agrees with this / your error. Dan, two wrongs don’t make a right!
You claim atheists pervert the true of the Bible however, based on your last explanation, you're simply a pot calling the kettle black and worst, the very Bible you claim to beleive is without error, you now pervert and deny the face value reading to protect it!
Adam Clarke agrees with what I said about this verse: "Verse 34. Is it not written in your law The words which our Lord quotes are taken from #Ps 82:6, which shows that, under the word law, our Lord comprised the Jewish sacred writings in general."
Matthew Poole seems to agree with what I said also: "Ver. 34. This was written, #Ps 82:6. The whole Scripture of the Old Testament, being wrote by holy men, inspired of God, and directive of men’s conversation before men, and towards God, is sometimes called the law, #Ps 19:7. It was spoken concerning magistrates, and the governors of God’s people, who, being God’s deputies and vicegerents, intrusted to execute the judgments and vengeance of God, are dignified with the name of gods."
I will have to study it more to give a definitive answer that is satisfying for you.
John Calvin adds: "He clears himself of the crime charged against him, not by denying that he is the Son of God, but by maintaining that he had justly said so. Yet he adapts his reply to the persons, instead of giving a full explanation of the fact; for he reckoned it enough for the present to expose their malice. In what sense he called himself the Son of God he does not explain fully, but states indirectly. The argument which he employs is not drawn from equals, but from the less to the greater."
People that claim Christianity like myself is, by default, a theologian because of the concerns that people like you have Harry. I do hope you understand though your presupposition will now allow you to know the truth. Remember a fallible man such as myself or any other man cannot answer fully as the Holy Spirit can. There are many that can get you very close to your goal but not fully answer everything. All wisdom and knowledge about the Word can be achieved through the Holy Spirit if you allow it to happen. If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you. But the doubting and defensive posture that you hold will not get you anywhere in finding truth. I hope you understand that you must approach the Bible with a mindset that truly wants to learn and understand Him. If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11 , Romans 1:18-32)
Dan: “All wisdom and knowledge about the Word can be achieved through the Holy Spirit if you allow it to happen. If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you. But the doubting and defensive posture that you hold will not get you anywhere in finding truth. I hope you understand that you must approach the Bible with a mindset that truly wants to learn and understand Him. If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.”
Dan, I attended the L.D.S. “Mormon” Church for 20 years while at the some time I was teaching a Southern Baptist Sunday school class. Your statement: “If you humble yourself and pray about it the answer will come clear to you.” Could have come directly from a Mormon missionary about the Book Mormon and Joseph Smith. As for as “If not you are just spinning your wheels as God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.”; the official stances of the Mormon Church is that if you are not a Mormon, you are all ready under a “strong delusion” by being a member of a counterfeit church of which Jesus Christ told Smith not to join. The Elders told me that people like you are in a faith lead by Satan himself.
Since you believe the Bible is without error, here’s another problem for you to solve.
This taken from “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” 2 nd ed. by Bruce M. Metzger.
Concerning Matt. 27:9 he states: “The reading Iερεμιου is firmly established,… Since, however, the passage quoted by the evangelist is not to be found in Jeremiah, but seems to come from Zechariah (11.12-13), it is not suprising tha several witnesses (22, syr, arm.) substitute Zαχαριου, while others omit the name entirely. Curiously, two witnesses (21 it) read “Isaiah” -- perhaps because, as the most prominent of the prophets, his name is met with most frequently in the New Testament.” P.55.
So Dan, we have another long time problem in the New Testament itself that scribes who though as you do tried to correct the mistake by changing the text itself! However, as the famous textual scholar Bruce Metzger points out, the mistake in Matthew stands despite attempts to falsify the reading by scribes to keep Christians believing in an inerrant Bible.
Dan, this is exactly where I, as an atheist, am more honest than most Christians in dealing with the Bible.
As for as your claim that “ God will send strong delusion so you believe in the lies.” here is a perfect example of Christian believers trying to deceive other Christian believers over a mistake in the Gospel of Matthew. Again, this proves the hand of man in the creation of the Bible both in this mistake in Matthew and the attempts by scribes to correct it.
So Dan, how many more problems do I need to point out and you try to explain away?
Hi all! Haven't been here in a long time.
I've enjoyed all the comments, but Harry McCall got a belly laugh out of me, with his "God as the Tube Tester in the Sky". How appropriate! I, too, had a tube tester back then. And I have never again had a system with such bass response as my old push-pull parallel amp with four 6V6's and electrodynamic speakers. Those were the days!
I see that our apologists are still picking cherries. Not only picking, but dyeing, cooking, and genetically manipulating them, to fit their recipes. And of course their particular recipes are the "right" ones, and anyone who cooks differently is simply "wrong". Didn't some wise man once say "there is nothing new under the Sun"?
zilch,
"to fit their recipes"
Morning, the only difference is we are cooking with flour and eggs and proper ingredients you are cooking with sand and mud. One works and creates a tasty cake the later doesn't. Now I'm getting hungry (for the Word) Y'all need to stop starving yourselves like some anorexic Olsen kid and get the nourishment of the Word. Feed that soul.
All chefs claim to be cooking with just the right ingredients, but the fact is that no set of ingredients are perfect.
Sand and mud was good enough for God to make humans out of.
Touché Mike
Well done, I stand corrected but remember only God can create such things. Are you saying you are God?
Look deep in your conscience to find God. Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves? That wanting is natural and pure, stop fighting it so much and give in to His authority as our Father. Honor your Father by understanding His guidence. It is quite simple really. It will be vastly apparent once we move on from this existence into the next. We will all understand the motives behind His ways and understand Him fully. I am begging all of you not to miss on the greatest gift that is given to us, and that is the complete understanding of the entire universe through and eternity of life in/with Him. What a glorious day that will be when we pass from this broken wretched life unto the most glorious life that we could ever imagine. This life here will make you bitter but the next will be glorious but we must submit to Him before we can even begin to understand. His rules, not ours.
Dan,
I was simply pointing out that according to the Bible your bad ingredients weren't so bad. What's the old children's saying? "God made dirt, so dirt don't hurt?"
Certainly I don't think I am the Christian God, nor a god of any kind. I'm not that arrogant.
I spent the better part of more than 20 years looking deep into my conscience and deep into the Bible to find God. I truly thought I had too. For years I literally prayed without ceasing, my every thought held captive to the obedience of Christ. I no longer hold those beliefs, but I am not angry or bitter towards those who do. Most of my friends, and even my fiancée are Christians.
"Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves?" No, Dan, we don't all have that innate wanting, and even if we did, not everyone would fulfill it the same way.
"This life here will make you bitter..."
Dan, I am the least bitter I have ever been. My deconversion was truly like being born again. You have no idea how amazing it is to realize that you don't have to be the member of an exclusive club, the one true religion club. I beg you to experience the freedom of giving up your dogma and truly being able to love and respect someone for who they are and not just in the name of some deity. I used to love to sign my letters, "In Christ's name' or "In his name." Now that seems cheap to me. I don't love people in Christ's name, now I just love people. It is an incredible thing to be able to leave the tyrannical god of the OT behind, and stop trying to make him fit with the mostly loving, kind god of the NT. Note that I did not write the word "god" with a lowercase "g" out of any disrespect, but simply because I wasn't using it as a proper name.
Now I am truly free to experience the possibility of a god without the chains of Christian or any dogma.
Heya Dan! How's tricks? Funny riposte, and I do enjoy my palatschinken for breakfast (Viennese crêpes made of flour, eggs, and milk), but I limit my picking of cherries to cherry trees- picking them out of books stains the pages, blotting out words so you can't read them properly any more. You ask:
Don't we all have a certain innate wanting to belong to something larger then ourselves?
This is an excellent question, and I have to say "yes". Luckily, I do belong to many things larger than myself: my family, my friends, the human race, all life, the solar system, and the whole Universe. I get the warm fuzzies just thinking about all these large somethings I belong to.
Mike- Bravo. Cheers from rainy Vienna.
Greetings Zilch!
Cheers from predominantly rainy Ohio! ;-)
Well said Mike...
"Dan, I am the least bitter I have ever been. My deconversion was truly like being born again. You have no idea how amazing it is to realize that you don't have to be the member of an exclusive club, the one true religion club. I beg you to experience the freedom of giving up your dogma and truly being able to love and respect someone for who they are and not just in the name of some deity. I used to love to sign my letters, "In Christ's name' or "In his name." Now that seems cheap to me. I don't love people in Christ's name, now I just love people. It is an incredible thing to be able to leave the tyrannical god of the OT behind, and stop trying to make him fit with the mostly loving, kind god of the NT. Note that I did not write the word "god" with a lowercase "g" out of any disrespect, but simply because I wasn't using it as a proper name.
Now I am truly free to experience the possibility of a god without the chains of Christian or any dogma."
I too would echo these words. Since my deconversion, I feel a lot more free to accept people as they are & not have to defend the indefensible aspects of the Bible or the Christian faith. What a relief it is.
-evan
Dan Marvin said... "Are you saying you are God?"
I've heard dozens of believers claim to be God.
They say "Without God I am nothing."
In other words, when you take the Believer and subtract God you are left with nothing, as in:
Believer - God = 0
Going back to 8th grade algebra, add God to both sides of the equation:
Believer - God + God = 0 + God
And now reduce the equation to it's simplest form:
Believer = God
Dan, what are *you* without God?
Well put don!
As I've said before: If you want to see God; just look in the mirror!
zilch,
You seem more traveled then I ever was in the military and I went to many places including Thailand, Hong Kong, Iraq/Iran, Philippines, Hawaii (5 times), and my favorite Australia and many more. Welcome buddy
Don,
Believer - God + God = 0 + God
Believer = God
That was what my Dad would call "creative accounting" but it was funny none the less. That is the same as "Christ like", correct?
Dan, what are *you* without God?
I would be a sinner that cannot find salvation ultimately ending up in hell and tormented forever for all my wickedness that I selfishly caused, I would believe against so many people but actually, to God Himself. When I lied, I lied to God himself and when I dishonored my parents, I was actually dishonoring God Himself. Which reminds me of a point I just made please forgive me if I am repeating myself.
I was just talking on a blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism:
1 Pet 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Pet 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God (Jesus)for forgiveness of sins in the NT.
My favorite is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.
God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.
The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.
The espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness.
Dan- I'm not as well-traveled as you: of the places you mention, I've only been to Hawaii. And my travels through the Universe have all been telescopic. But as Azver says in Tales from Earthsea, "Miles can be years". Conversely, years can be miles. I hope I'm not making sense.
Dan, please explain something to me. You talk about converting to christ as being a "simple" thing to do. Yet earlier in this very post you give not one, but two lists of ambiguous prerequisites that one must attain before becoming a "true" christian.
This sort of thing has always driven me nuts. Proselytizers like you who just go on and on about how quick and easy conversion is and how wonderful everything will magically become as soon as you accept their theology as absolute truth.
But, if it doens't happen to work - well, you've got a bucket full of excuses for why its not your fault of god's fault or the bible's fault.
Why should anyone have any trust in what you say when you are as inconsistant and contradictory as the bible you preach from?
What gives, Dan? Have you some strange sort of photographic memory with a severe short-term deficiency?
You said, at ~6:30pm (Local time?) on May 18:
It also made me think of something else. I was just talking on a different blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism...
Then, at ~2:15am on May 21:
I was just talking on a blog about how in the OT there were shadowy prophecies for the NT. For example baptism...
Following the above, the next four or five paragraphs in each case are identical.
While you can be forgiven for repeating yourself, what you have done here is more along the lines of copying yourself.
Let me repeat myself. Although the offense of reiteration can be overlooked, the current transgression is actually duplication.
Do you see the difference in what I did to repeat myself, and what you did?
Copy/Paste is not mere repetition. It's disingenuous spam in the form of a veritable double-post -- except you did it intentionally, while offering a concurrent apology, unless you either have such a short-term memory deficiency that you really don't remember posting exactly the same thing three days earlier. If you can't remember because you've posted the same thing on so many blogs and forums that you aren't sure which have heard it and which haven't, then I recommend reading the thread in question before you post. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but to that end, I do not accept your apology. If you feel the need to restate your position, please do so, but if you're just going to re-copy and re-paste from the same text document (which I sincerely hope you actually authored), don't bother. We can scroll up and re-read it, or you can restate it in a different manner.
Anyway, in either iteration, I fail to see what your copied/pasted aside has to do with the price of tea in China. With the sheer number of available topics here at DC, surely you can find one where this canned reply actually has some bearing on the topic.
You've done little here other than assert that there are no True Christians™®© except current Christians, and even they are suspect, as they may become former Christians, in which case they never were True Christians™®©.
You've also been caught using sources which directly contradict the claims you make, while simutaneously citing that source as supporting your claims, and now, you've been caught copying and pasting yourself -- assuming the original material is indeed your own (a cursory Google search yielded no results on the quoted phrase above, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) -- and the copied text in question has yet to have been remotely on-topic.
Your views are welcome, but I don't feel as though you've yet shown us any of your views per se. Since the vast majority of us atheists/agnostics have already tried Christianity and found it lacking, we are highly unlikely to heed your advice to "[h]onor [our] [f]ather by understanding [h]is guidence [sic]."
Instead, as others have suggested, I challenge you to consider the alternatives to Christianity (in the form of competing religions), and seek specifically the literature of non-Christian religions in which they denounce Christianity. Seek this information out, read it, and ask yourself if their positions against Christianity are any different from your position toward them.
Do this, and answer the question honestly, and you will have taken a great step toward becoming as one of us. We have each done something very similar to this, if not exactly like it, and it is in part this realization which leads us to deny all of the various competing religions.
For myself, it's not just the logical recognition that religion fails, but it's also conscious defiance: I will not worship a thing which would subject any of its creation to eternal torment.
Such a being is evil, and anyone who would knowingly worship such a being is therefore evil, ignorant, or both.
Which are you?
--
Stan
Thank you Stan,
"unless you either have such a short-term memory deficiency that you really don't remember posting exactly the same thing three days earlier."
Maybe some of both. I thought I did write it but I wasn't sure I did, so I searched my notes as to what I said to y'all and couldn't find it. I searched my G-mail and couldn't find it so I thought I might of missed it. It related to the point I wanted to make about the Ten Commandments so I copied it but please accept my apology. I didn't mean to just paste the same thing over and over again but I just wanted to make the point clear. I am fallible to say the least.
Heh.
I searched [everywhere but the blog on which I was posting] as to what I said to y'all and couldn't find it.
(Next time, try perusing the blog comments -- especially your own -- and if you post the same material on so many different blogs/forums, you may consider adding a note in the text file itself telling you on which sites you've placed the canned statement.)
Seriously, now, when you're prepared to acknowledge that the way Christianity treats other religions -- even other sects/denominations of Christianity -- is exactly as justified as the way those religions/sects/denominations treat [your brand of] Christianity, then we'll be making progress.
You see, I do the same, but with all religions, and, I'll argue, with a lot more respect. Certainly more respectful than the anti-Mormonism cartoon I watched in my church youth group, or the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses tape I borrowed from my father.
You see, we don't require that you give in to any particular dogma or doctrine, or that you accept on faith any of a veritable plethora of dubious historical/mystical accounts. We won't condemn you for eternity for disagreeing, and we promise no eternal reward, either.
All you have to do is [temporarily] alter your perspective. Do that, and it will become abundantly clear that not only are all those "other" religions wrong, but so is yours.
Agnosticism is, as John puts it, the default position, and to it you should return. Once there, you may objectively determine the plausibility of any of the available personal philosophies, and odds are quite good that if you stray from agnosticism, you will head toward atheism. Either of these two is leaps and bounds more probable and rational than any other religious position.
--
Stan
Post a Comment