Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Astreja]

 

So, you guys still having fun with this ponderous thread?

 

Meh.  Stranger has nothing interesting to say.  The sheer amazement factor, caused by the horrifying realization that Stranger is blissfully oblivious to the execrable circular logic by which his whole worldview hangs, wore off long ago. 

 

'Trow da bum out, I say.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Why play in the troll's sandbox?

 

This is OUR sandbox. The troll can go to hell.... pun intended

 

And we can show lurkers how wrong his thinking is even if he is trolling, because apart from the God parents stuff, everything else is actual Christian doctrine.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

In summary....

 

Christian "X" claims to have direct interaction with something he labels "God."

 

Christian "X"  claims his experience proves the existence of his "God."

 

Christian "X" claims, essentially, that his belief in this "God" is proof that this "God" exists.

 

Normal Person "X" asks, first prove that "God" exists and then demonstrate you actually interacted with it.

 

Christian "X" always responds, "faith."

 

So, you guys still having fun with this ponderous thread?

 

Well considering that I think its a bit of a time sink now... not as much, but then I stopped responding direct to Stranger a few days ago, and instead address particular points to the lurkers that I feel may help them.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

beause apart from the God parents stuff, everything else is actual Christian doctrine.

That depends on the denomination.  That DNA nonsense would have never flown in the AG.  As an allegory, maybe; but not the magical pile of "literally born of god and have his DNA" horseshit.

[Stranger]

A situation has developed where I will not be able to respond till at least on Sunday, the 9th.  

 

Please understand.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

A situation has developed where I will not be able to respond till at least on Sunday, the 9th.  

 

Please understand.

 

Stranger

 

Totally man. Hope the situation gets sorted.

We will be here.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

A situation has developed where I will not be able to respond till at least on Sunday, the 9th.  

 

Please understand.

 

Stranger

 

That's fine. I hope it's nothing bad.

 

I plan to address your responses to me when I get a decent amount of spare time.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Why play in the troll's sandbox?

 

I spent over half my life living in the Christian sandbox, so I know firsthand how incredibly difficult it is for him to smell how crap laden it is when he's accustomed to the odor.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Well @Citsonga I don't think you made much impact on Stranger - he's just spouting out straight theological replies like any of us would have as Christians. No critical study of what you said.

 

Yeah, that's typical and not surprising, although I am somewhat surprised that he even responded at all.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Citsonga,

 

You do realize that you cannot hold the Stranger accountable to your understanding/interpretation of scripture?

Or anyone else's, for that matter.   In the end he is only answerable to himself.   (Or to god... but that dialog would be hidden from us anyway.)  

 

He's internalized what he believes is the absolute truth and he's internalized his truth-checking processes.  

So, whatever he believes god tells him - is (to him) the absolute truth.  He needs no external frame of reference with which to judge what is true and what isn't.

 

He knows the Truth.  

 

Case closed.

 

 

Yeah, I know he can't have someone who cares about truth be interpreting his book of myths for him. However, in the very unlikely event that there would be a chance that he could ever break free from his brainwashing, it appears that the only thing that could do it is problems in the Bible. Granted, he's probably too brainwashed to see even those problems, but he's definitely way too brainwashed for any other kind of problem to penetrate. 

 

[midniterider]

 

A situation has developed where I will not be able to respond till at least on Sunday, the 9th.  

 

Please understand.

 

Stranger

 

Roger that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, I see that in your replies to my posts, you skipped two of them. I'm guessing that you skipped the Virgin Birth one because you replied to readyforchange's remarks about it, so I'll take a quick look at your reply to him. The other one you skipped was No Bones Broken, which may have been accidental on your part.

 

 

Islam doesn't take things out of context.  They change them.

 

That's what taking things out of context is. It's changing them by taking them as something completely different from what was actually being said. That is exactly what the Gospel writers did with the OT.

 

 

The  virgin birth was to be expected due to the promise of the 'seed of the woman' in (Gen. 3:15) The Hebrew word used speaks to young woman of marrying age.  By implication, a virgin.    Near and far fulfillment is common in Old Testament prophecy.   

 

So, Isaiah did have a son by a young woman of marrying age.  No doubt a virgin.   But the child was the product of Isaiah.  (8:3)  But that there was to be a yet future child born who was Divine is explained in (9:6-7).     Thus the prophecy has a near and far fulfillment and Christ did and will fulfill it.  (Matt. 1:23)

 

Stranger

 

Genesis 3:15 says absolutely nothing about a virgin birth. It's talking about Eve and her descendants, which would allegedly be every human being that came after Adam and Eve.

 

There is nothing in Isaiah 7 that suggests a dual fulfillment ("near and far," as you put it). You do seem to agree that in context it's talking about Isaiah's child. Are you suggesting here that Isaiah's child was born of a virgin birth? Anyway, the child foretold in Isaiah 7 is clearly said to be a sign for Ahaz, which some Jesus born hundreds of years later could not be. The mention of another child in chapter 9 is irrelevant to the child foretold in chapter 7 and born in chapter 8. Applying Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus is taking it out of context, which is changing it from what it is actually talking about. I elaborated more in post 1044.

 

 

(Micah 5:2) is clear concerning the birth of the Messiah.  It was to be in Bethlehem.   Actually this is not a dual prophecy.   This is all future.  As (5:3) says, God gives Israel up until the time of the end.   And that is what happened.  

 

Stranger

 

Assyria ceased to exist centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, it is not a prophecy yet to be fulfilled any more than it was a prophecy fulfilled with Jesus. It simply doesn't work with Jesus.

 

 

 

All that is being alluded to by Matthew as a fulfillment of prophecy is 'out of Egypt have I called my son'.     And Jesus did go down to Egypt until the time God said it was safe.   Matthew has showed that this movement of Israel as a son was prophetic of the future Son.  

 

Stranger

 

As I pointed out in the very post you were replying to, Hosea 11:1 was looking back on the alleged history of Israel. It was not foretelling anything. There is nothing at all in that passage predicting a future Son. Using it for that is taking it out of context, which is changing it from what it actually says.

 

 

Concerning the Jews there are many instances where they can identify with (Jer. 31:15).    The killing of the infants in Christ's day was a fulfillment of that.  Do you  think the Jewish parents did not weep?   Matthew is not saying the other things did not happen.  He is saying this weeping of Rachael is fulfilled in the killing of the infants.   

 

Stranger

 

The point isn't whether or not mothers would weep for slaughtered children. Of course they would. The point is that Jeremiah 31:15 is not foretelling the slaughter at the command of Herod. I clearly spelled out why in the very post you were replying to. It's talking about the Israelites being exiled, and Jeremiah goes on in that very same chapter to say that they would return. Did Herod's slaughtered infants return to their mothers? Of course not. Claiming that Jeremiah 31:15 foretold of Herod's slaughter is taking it completely out of context, which is changing it from what it actually says.

 

 

Throughout the Old Testament Israel is referred to as a servant and son.  And God used the nation Israel, her movements in history, as prophetic of The Servant, and The Son, Jesus Christ.   

 

Stranger

 

As I detailed in the post you were replying to, Matthew claimed that the servant in Isaiah was a prophecy about Jesus, yet Isaiah repeatedly identifies the servant as the nation of Israel and never once says otherwise. In fact, Isaiah 42:18-20 says that the servant is deaf and blind to God. Do you really think that describes Jesus?

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Nothing lose about the reference to (Is.6:9)   Jesus is saying that this is fulfilled in the Jews rejection of Him as Messiah.   Isaiah is a prophet.   

 

Stranger

 

Wow, you know, you're just completely ignoring everything that's being said. In the very post you were replying to, I explained in detail why it is not a prophecy about the Jews rejecting Jesus, yet you didn't address a single point I raised.

 

That's your pattern. Ignore what's being said, don't really address the points, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had wanted to be able to have more of a conversation here, but your downright idiotic replies aren't worth my time.

 

I'll just address one other thing here:

 

 

You have demonstrated that you don't believe the New Testament, or Old for that matter.   And that you don't understand prophecy.  

 

I no longer believe it because I woke up to reality, but I DID believe it for the majority of my life. I used to be just as blinded as you are.

 

You're the one here who doesn't understand. Your reading comprehension level is downright pathetic, and no, you don't understand prophecy. It's been demonstrated for you how the NT butchered the OT, but you're so blinded by years and years of indoctrination that you can't think outside your little box.

 

So, I'm done here unless you actually attempt to address the points that are raised instead of childishly skirt them. Until then, I don't have the time or desire to be bothered with your complete and utter nonsense.

 

Enjoy your delusion.

 

[buffettphan]

@Stranger   Don't miss this:

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Stranger, I see that in your replies to my posts, you skipped two of them. I'm guessing that you skipped the Virgin Birth one because you replied to readyforchange's remarks about it, so I'll take a quick look at your reply to him. The other one you skipped was No Bones Broken, which may have been accidental on your part.

 

 

That's what taking things out of context is. It's changing them by taking them as something completely different from what was actually being said. That is exactly what the Gospel writers did with the OT.

 

 

Genesis 3:15 says absolutely nothing about a virgin birth. It's talking about Eve and her descendants, which would allegedly be every human being that came after Adam and Eve.

 

There is nothing in Isaiah 7 that suggests a dual fulfillment ("near and far," as you put it). You do seem to agree that in context it's talking about Isaiah's child. Are you suggesting here that Isaiah's child was born of a virgin birth? Anyway, the child foretold in Isaiah 7 is clearly said to be a sign for Ahaz, which some Jesus born hundreds of years later could not be. The mention of another child in chapter 9 is irrelevant to the child foretold in chapter 7 and born in chapter 8. Applying Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus is taking it out of context, which is changing it from what it is actually talking about. I elaborated more in post 1044.

 

 

Assyria ceased to exist centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, it is not a prophecy yet to be fulfilled any more than it was a prophecy fulfilled with Jesus. It simply doesn't work with Jesus.

 

 

As I pointed out in the very post you were replying to, Hosea 11:1 was looking back on the alleged history of Israel. It was not foretelling anything. There is nothing at all in that passage predicting a future Son. Using it for that is taking it out of context, which is changing it from what it actually says.

 

 

The point isn't whether or not mothers would weep for slaughtered children. Of course they would. The point is that Jeremiah 31:15 is not foretelling the slaughter at the command of Herod. I clearly spelled out why in the very post you were replying to. It's talking about the Israelites being exiled, and Jeremiah goes on in that very same chapter to say that they would return. Did Herod's slaughtered infants return to their mothers? Of course not. Claiming that Jeremiah 31:15 foretold of Herod's slaughter is taking it completely out of context, which is changing it from what it actually says.

 

 

As I detailed in the post you were replying to, Matthew claimed that the servant in Isaiah was a prophecy about Jesus, yet Isaiah repeatedly identifies the servant as the nation of Israel and never once says otherwise. In fact, Isaiah 42:18-20 says that the servant is deaf and blind to God. Do you really think that describes Jesus?

 

 

 

Concerning islam there is many differences.   Concerning the 'context' or the 'changing things',  for example, they deny the messiah will be from lsaac. they say they are found in Ishamael.   But Scripture declares that the promises are in Isaac.    Concerning Jesus Christ islam says He didn't die.   Islam says He was not the Son of God.   Though Scripture clearly says this.   In other words there is complete denial that these words are true.  

 

The New Testament does not deny any of the Old Testament.   That Judaism disagrees how Christ or the New Testament sees passages referring to Messiah or whatever, yes.   In other words, the Jews believe the verses concerning their Messiah.  They just don't believe the claim that He was Christ.   The Church also believes the verses in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, and other verses not known to the Jews at that time.   

 

My point is that islam has changed the teaching of the Old and New Testament.   Christianity has not changed the Old Testament.

 

The seed of the woman is in contrast with the seed of the serpent, that spirit being behind the serpent.   The Redeemer will come from the woman, not the union of man and woman.  

 

What I am suggesting is that the term in (Is. 7:14) speaks to a young woman of marrying age.  Buy implication a virgin.  That this spoke to a near fulfillment is seen in (Is. 8:3-4).  The woman Isiah took to wife was in all likelihood a virgin, but that doesn't mean their children were virgin born.   As is clearly stated in (8:3)     That the One spoken of in (7:14) does mean more than a near fulfillment  is indicated by His name, Immanuel, or God with us.   And so the term for young woman or virgin can also be applied.   As for the child in (Is. 9) that is in context with the prophecies of (7,8).    Read (Is,8:18)  

 

The part of prophecy which applied to the near fulfillment was not to Jesus Who was the far fulfillment. 

 

Concerning (Hos.11), I couldn't find where I said this.   I remember it, but I need the reference.

 

No, the New Testament is not saying that  (Jer. 31:15) does not speak to those Jews being carried into captivity.  So, it does not change it at all.   (Matt.2:17-18) does say that was a prophecy fulfilled in Herod's slaying of the innocents.    

 

Israel is referred to as a son, and  a servant.  But the Messiah is also a Servant and Son.   Israel is the faithless servant and son.  Messiah is the faithful Servant and Son.   Israel as a servant and son was to be the light of the world.  But she rebelled against God.   The Messiah as Servant and Son will first bring Israel back to its right relationship with God and then place Israel as the light of the world, or nations, which was the original intent.   So, those verses which speak of the rebellious son do not speak to the Son.

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

Sorry, Stranger, but you're a brick wall, and I see no point in continuing to talk to a brick wall. As I said before, enjoy your delusion.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Perhaps poster Stranger is a very clever POE.

 

Poe's Law states:

"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."   http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

 

 

 

Perhaps it is difficult or impossible for us to tell if we are addressing a real person calling himself Stranger...

 

...or the totally-brainwashed product of childhood indoctrination, calling himself Stranger?

[Stranger]

 

 

Perhaps it is difficult or impossible for us to tell if we are addressing a real person calling himself Stranger...

 

...or the totally-brainwashed product of childhood indoctrination, calling himself Stranger?

 

 

Why would you think I am not a real person?

 

Why do you assume my beliefs are the product of 'brainwashing'?    In other words, you are 'assuming' I was taught wrong.    In other words, just because I was taught about God, Christ, the Bible, does not mean I was taught wrong.   Just because I maintain that faith, does not mean I was taught wrong.   Or, in other words, just because you turned away, doesn't mean you are right.

 

Stranger

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Perhaps it is difficult or impossible for us to tell if we are addressing a real person calling himself Stranger...

 

...or the totally-brainwashed product of childhood indoctrination, calling himself Stranger?

 

I suspect it is both.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Why would you think I am not a real person?

 

Why do you assume my beliefs are the product of 'brainwashing'?    In other words, you are 'assuming' I was taught wrong.    In other words, just because I was taught about God, Christ, the Bible, does not mean I was taught wrong.   Just because I maintain that faith, does not mean I was taught wrong.   Or, in other words, just because you turned away, doesn't mean you are right.

 

Stranger

 

Note poster Stranger's use of the word "taught".  His use of this word is evidence that he was exposed to Christian indoctrination.  It also demonstrates he apparently cannot, or will not, distinguish between being taught reality and being indoctrinated with mythology.    

 

Also note that he uses the introductory phrase "in other words" three times in a clumsy attempt to change the subject and create a strawman fallacy with a side salad of false equivalence.  Classic.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

What I am suggesting is that the term in (Is. 7:14) speaks to a young woman of marrying age.  Buy implication a virgin.  That this spoke to a near fulfillment is seen in (Is. 8:3-4).  The woman Isiah took to wife was in all likelihood a virgin, but that doesn't mean their children were virgin born.   As is clearly stated in (8:3)     That the One spoken of in (7:14) does mean more than a near fulfillment  is indicated by His name, Immanuel, or God with us.   And so the term for young woman or virgin can also be applied.   As for the child in (Is. 9) that is in context with the prophecies of (7,8).    Read (Is,8:18)

 

Regardless of whether a young woman can be a virgin, the facts remain:

 

1) The OT used the word young woman instead of the word for virgin

2) The prophesy is regarding the people of its time. There is nothing explicit in the prophesy that says in centuries to come a virgin born baby named Yeshua would be the messiah. Christians have shoehorned in this "second meaning" into many prophesies to make them work. This near fulfilment and far fulfilment is another clear perversion of old Judaic writings with no justification.

 

 

 

[Astreja]

 

Why do you assume my beliefs are the product of 'brainwashing'?    In other words, you are 'assuming' I was taught wrong.    In other words, just because I was taught about God, Christ, the Bible, does not mean I was taught wrong.

 

For contrast, please consider that my parents never taught me a single thing about Christianity.  I know the Bible stories only because there was a Bible in the house and I read it myself, without "guidance" from anyone who thought it was true.  At no point in my life did I take the stories literally, and in fact have never experienced anything that could be considered religious faith.

 

From my perspective, it really does sound like you were brainwashed.

[Stranger]

 

 

For contrast, please consider that my parents never taught me a single thing about Christianity.  I know the Bible stories only because there was a Bible in the house and I read it myself, without "guidance" from anyone who thought it was true.  At no point in my life did I take the stories literally, and in fact have never experienced anything that could be considered religious faith.

 

From my perspective, it really does sound like you were brainwashed.

 

All children are taught.   

 

Did your parents teach you anything?    Was that brainwashing whatever it was they taught you and didn't teach you?

 

If the Bible is true and there is God and Christ, is it brainwashing to teach your children that?

 

In other words, Christians teaching their children about the Bible, God, and Christ is brainwashing to you because you assume it isn't true.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

 

Regardless of whether a young woman can be a virgin, the facts remain:

 

1) The OT used the word young woman instead of the word for virgin

2) The prophesy is regarding the people of its time. There is nothing explicit in the prophesy that says in centuries to come a virgin born baby named Yeshua would be the messiah. Christians have shoehorned in this "second meaning" into many prophesies to make them work. This near fulfilment and far fulfilment is another clear perversion of old Judaic writings with no justification.

 

 

 

 

The word used for young women of marrying age always speaks to a virgin in the Old Testament.  

 

Indeed the prophecy speaks to the people of its time, but also to a future time.    Which is why the term for virgin was used.

 

So you accept that it is a prophecy of it's time?  

 

Stranger

[Astreja]

 

All children are taught.   

Did your parents teach you anything?    Was that brainwashing whatever it was they taught you and didn't teach you?

 

I come from a family of scientists.  If my dad said something like "If you put pennies in a dish, add some vinegar, and then sprinkle salt on it, the pennies will turn shiny," I didn't have to take his word for it.  I did the experiment, and the mixture removed the tarnish from the pennies.  If I was told that there was a lunar eclipse that evening, we went out in the back yard and watched it.  If I didn't know whether a resistor was 4.7 ohms or 47 ohms, I plugged the leads into the volt-ohmmeter and measured it.

 

 

If the Bible is true and there is God and Christ, is it brainwashing to teach your children that?

 

That is a big, big "if."  The last time I checked, snakes did not talk and dead people stayed dead.  Literally everything I have experienced in my nearly 60 years of life points to the Bible being false, and to God and Christ being no more than fiction.

 

I dare you to make one of your prayers work, not in your indoctrinated imagination, but in my life.  I predict that you will fail totally.  You have 24 hours, ending at 7:15 p.m. on Monday, July 10, 2017.  If anything the least bit out-of-the-ordinary happens, I'll be delighted to announce it on the forum and then we can hash out what actually happened, and whether there's even a faint hope that your imaginary friend was responsible.

 

In the interests of scientific rigour I request that Ex-C regulars and lurkers refrain from praying to rival deities or resorting to anti-prayer magic of any sort until the end of the experimental period.  (We can always do that later.)