Serious Question To Christians

[Deva]

Since I have repeatedly told you and others that women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul or mind which must be subservient to the spiritual mind of Christ and that any form of submission here in this age is soulical training for the next age where there will be no male of female, you are either stupid or continuing to try to dis me through ad hominem attacks. Romans 13 says plainly that every soul (male or female) must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake before God. Submission is about training the soul for the age to come as God is no respector of persons.

 

You've got to be kidding. "Women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul". That's beautiful. Why is it that women have to undergo "soulical training for the next age" and part of that is to be subservient to men in the real world? Screw that.

 

Thanks for now implying that I am stupid. How Christian of you. I will continue to "dis" your ridiculous views of male spiritual superiority. If "every" soul is subject to higher powers --you are still giving the higher power position to men over women ON THIS EARTH, not the next, that is what I object to. Who the hell knows what happens in the "age to come". You may continue to make up and air your fantasies or the fantasies of the Apostle Paul, and I will continue to challenge your erroneous and destuctive view of reality.

[Guest Cambion]

Let's just assume that God is real and he has all the power in the world to manipulate the universe as he is the creator and that we ARE his children. Also that we can become Gods, or we have his position, who knows maybe he decides that we athiests complain too much about him, and "Bruce Allmighty's" us with his powers.....

 

As a HUMAN father, I wouldn't dream of striking down my son or daughter with disease! I wouldn't gouge out their eyes blinding them. As a God I wouldn't let babies be born with spinal bifidida, or down syndrom, because if I were a human endowed with these God powers, I would cure all ailments and curses to Earth. Without having people believe who I am. I wouldn't care.

 

So, why would a HEAVENLY FATHER, decide to strike a kid with Spinal Bifidifa, or blindness, or Chron's disease, or Down Syndrom, or the dreaded Schizophrenia. or with God's powers, why doesn't he uncurse the world, with a magical wave of his hand, regardeless if people believe him or not?

 

If me a lowly Human, a sinner destined for hell as you Christians put it, can know the difference between compassion, and crultey. Why can't a God, who controls all, is all, and will be all for ever as the Alpha and Omega?

 

First of all, the fact that any of us know what compassion is, is proof in and of itself that there is a God. Otherwise, how could we evolve (assuming evolution is your explanation of existence,) into creatures that are willing to defy our natural survival instincts, so that someone else can survive?

 

Secondly, if God took care of everything for us, what reason would we have to exist? If we're supposed to leave all our problems up to God, and do nothing ourselves about them (which is why God put us in the position of creation that He did), then we have no purpose, or reason for existing; either as a species, or as individuals. That means we can just screw around and do whatever, since God's our personal diaper-changer.

 

Thirdly, when Job suffered, didn't it make his faith stronger? Didn't his faith in God's goodness and kindness - and power, - keep him from cursing God; and then, didn't it make him change his way of thinking from excuses and pity, to making up his mind to tough it out? When people choose to endure their hardships, and they gain strength from their faith in God, isn't that enough reason for people to keep believing? I'd rather be crazy, and have a reason to keep trying; than to be sane, and see no other possibility than to give up completely.

 

Finally, when people suffer because of other people, doesn't God ensure that they are compensated for what they lose; and that the people who made them suffer pay for their crimes? But then, that - in and of itself, - would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, by some.

[Kratos]

There are two Biblical principles that are not taught by the traditional church that helps me to hold to my understanding of vanity and suffering and evil as part of God's plan to make us in His image.

 

The first is the eventual salvation of all and the second is that God has worked through many ages and will continue to work with man for ages to come.

 

If I believe that it was a one shot deal and there was an eternal Hell for those who "failed the test", I would agree that my view in untenable. I do not intend to go over teaching these two principles from the Bible to prove that this is not just wishful thinking on my part as I know Bible teaching to those who do not hold the source in any regard is at best futile and at worst annoying.

But I agree wholeheartedly that when God is taught as all loving and His plan is that we suffer through life and then die and go to Hell, it is ignorance gone to seed. It does not sit right with anyone who has either a heart or a brain. If that child born blind or one who lives a short miserable life of poverty or war or disease is not raised again to another age and a better life than count me out and deconverted.

 

 

Firstly, Man was MADE in God's image. Not an ongoing process. And it IS a one shot deal:

 

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Die once then judgement.

 

You are still twisting the untenable scriptures to be acceptable to decent people.

 

You forget that many of us here have been every bit as Christian as you (a fact you will probably deny) and at the very least we've read the Bible and done our share of gymnastics to keep an untenable faith. Eventually one must either quit thinking or give up the religion.

 

If man had originally been made in God's image then Adam and Eve would have already known both good and evil and it would have been impossible for Eve to lie about what God had said about the tree. God never said they could not touch it. That was a lie and it is impossible for God to lie. The Bible says that we were precesitined to be conformed to His image, but it does not yet appear what we will be. Being made in God's image is a process.

 

It is true that we will be judged after we die, but in the Greek this is "aionian" or "age lasting" judgment. It is not eternal judgment as the KJV wrongly translates it. It is similar to coming to the end of a grade at school. You do the work of that grade and learn what you need to learn in that grade and you take your finals and receive your grade for that grade and move on. We are judged at the end of each age before we move on to the next. God is the originator of "no child left behind" and He will not lose one. Eventually, He will be All in All and we will all be like Him. That was His original plan for humankind and He will not fail to accomplish what He set out to do.

 

John

[Kratos]

Since I have repeatedly told you and others that women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul or mind which must be subservient to the spiritual mind of Christ and that any form of submission here in this age is soulical training for the next age where there will be no male of female, you are either stupid or continuing to try to dis me through ad hominem attacks. Romans 13 says plainly that every soul (male or female) must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake before God. Submission is about training the soul for the age to come as God is no respector of persons.

 

You've got to be kidding. "Women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul". That's beautiful. Why is it that women have to undergo "soulical training for the next age" and part of that is to be subservient to men in the real world? Screw that.

 

Thanks for now implying that I am stupid. How Christian of you. I will continue to "dis" your ridiculous views of male spiritual superiority. If "every" soul is subject to higher powers --you are still giving the higher power position to men over women ON THIS EARTH, not the next, that is what I object to. Who the hell knows what happens in the "age to come". You may continue to make up and air your fantasies or the fantasies of the Apostle Paul, and I will continue to challenge your erroneous and destuctive view of reality.

 

Deva,

 

Like I told you before, you can choose to participate in God's training methods or not. Just because you do not choose to participate in submission to a husband as a way to train your soul, you should not be a bigot toward those who do choose to. No one, even God, is forcing anyone. Any more that my choice to submit to government authorities is my choice though not for others. You can sign up for God's school and gymnasium or drop out at your leisure.

 

It really amazes me how those who have left oppressive religion feel the need to force their beliefs on others. You have not been placed on this earth to save Christians from their submission to God in whatever form it takes. You are only called to live your own life. If it works for you, fine. My wife can choose what works for her without needing your approval.

 

John

[florduh]

First of all, the fact that any of us know what compassion is, is proof in and of itself that there is a God. Otherwise, how could we evolve (assuming evolution is your explanation of existence,) into creatures that are willing to defy our natural survival instincts, so that someone else can survive?

 

Secondly, if God took care of everything for us, what reason would we have to exist? If we're supposed to leave all our problems up to God, and do nothing ourselves about them (which is why God put us in the position of creation that He did), then we have no purpose, or reason for existing; either as a species, or as individuals. That means we can just screw around and do whatever, since God's our personal diaper-changer.

 

Thirdly, when Job suffered, didn't it make his faith stronger? Didn't his faith in God's goodness and kindness - and power, - keep him from cursing God; and then, didn't it make him change his way of thinking from excuses and pity, to making up his mind to tough it out? When people choose to endure their hardships, and they gain strength from their faith in God, isn't that enough reason for people to keep believing? I'd rather be crazy, and have a reason to keep trying; than to be sane, and see no other possibility than to give up completely.

 

Finally, when people suffer because of other people, doesn't God ensure that they are compensated for what they lose; and that the people who made them suffer pay for their crimes? But then, that - in and of itself, - would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, by some.

 

Selfless behavior isn't unknown in the animal kingdom. Are animals made in the image of God?

 

Second, we have reason to exist simply because we do exist.

 

And don't even start on Job. Whether you take that story as historical fact or fable, it is an absurd proposition. First, God severely punishes his faithful servant who did not (even by God's standards) deserve it. And Job is not the only character in the story. What about his innocent children that were killed? Pawns in a sick game "prove that you love me no matter how badly I treat you?" How does replacing your dead children with new ones work?

 

It is a wicked man (or god) that deliberately causes infants and children to suffer and die. There is no excuse to justify it. None.

 

Also, many people endure hardship and triumph without the crutch of religion. That is not to say that faith isn't helpful for some who can believe, but it is not necessary. Go with crazy if it makes you feel better.

 

Lastly, when people suffer because of other people, usually there is no compensation from a god or justice for the perpetrators. You are dreaming if you think otherwise. Read a newspaper for Odin's sake!

[Deva]

Deva,

 

Like I told you before, you can choose to participate in God's training methods or not.

 

Hell no, I choose not to, and glad I don't. I left "God's training methods" for women behind long ago. They were oppressive.

 

Just because you do not choose to participate in submission to a husband as a way to train your soul, you should not be a bigot toward those who do choose to.

 

I don't give a damn what you decide to do at home. But when you come here and start spouting the crap, I am going to challenge you.

 

No one, even God, is forcing anyone. Any more that my choice to submit to government authorities is my choice though not for others. You can sign up for God's school and gymnasium or drop out at your leisure.

 

So what happens in the age to come if I don't cooperate with God's glorious plan for women?

 

It really amazes me how those who have left oppressive religion feel the need to force their beliefs on others.

 

Please get this straight. I am not forcing anything. You are the one coming here and trying to preach God's plan for women. Why don't you go somewhere else with your oppressive doctrine of female submission?

[SWIM]

First of all, the fact that any of us know what compassion is, is proof in and of itself that there is a God. Otherwise, how could we evolve (assuming evolution is your explanation of existence,) into creatures that are willing to defy our natural survival instincts, so that someone else can survive?

 

No, first of all there is no god, so there is no proof of god. Try that "proof" out on a scientist and see what he says, after he stops laughing of course.

 

Secondly, if God took care of everything for us, what reason would we have to exist? If we're supposed to leave all our problems up to God, and do nothing ourselves about them (which is why God put us in the position of creation that He did), then we have no purpose, or reason for existing; either as a species, or as individuals. That means we can just screw around and do whatever, since God's our personal diaper-changer.

 

Secondly, your reason to exist is no different then a bird or a rabbit. You do, simply because you do, period. Deal with it.

 

Thirdly, when Job suffered, didn't it make his faith stronger? Didn't his faith in God's goodness and kindness - and power, - keep him from cursing God; and then, didn't it make him change his way of thinking from excuses and pity, to making up his mind to tough it out? When people choose to endure their hardships, and they gain strength from their faith in God, isn't that enough reason for people to keep believing? I'd rather be crazy, and have a reason to keep trying; than to be sane, and see no other possibility than to give up completely.

 

Thirdly, if god really existed and did all that crap to the mythical "Job" he would have hated his guts for messing with him that bad for the sake of god's own ego.

 

If you are a human being, that cares, truly cares for you fellow man, you don't need a "god" to "threaten" you with hell to keep you in line. You seem to NEED a reason to not live like, or be, an ass. That's pretty shallow, and should be a reality check for you. If you "need" a reason to be a decent honorable person, you are truly a low-life inside.

 

Finally, when people suffer because of other people, doesn't God ensure that they are compensated for what they lose; and that the people who made them suffer pay for their crimes? But then, that - in and of itself, - would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, by some.

 

And finally, "god" doesn't "do" anything, since he does not exist. But, what goes around comes around. Go rob a store, it won't be "god" punishing you, it will be the law of the land.

[Taphophilia]

But Taph...those are all "brown people".

 

We are talking suffering, like the kind that really counts. You know, your Hummer broke down on the way to church. Your silly little wife maxed out your credit card so you had to use cash to pay for that combo meal at Carl's Jr.

 

Damn! I've been out of Christianity way too long. I see human beings regardless of their skin tone as being human beings. I forgot that God only loves people of Northern European descent, specifically WASP's and human rights do not extend to Ham's descendants.

 

If Christians would care as much about the people I listed as much as they do about fetuses the world would be a better place. Though, controlling women by inventing people is more of a priority than actually doing something to make the world a better place.

 

Taph

[florduh]

It is true that we will be judged after we die, but in the Greek this is "aionian" or "age lasting" judgment. It is not eternal judgment as the KJV wrongly translates it. It is similar to coming to the end of a grade at school. You do the work of that grade and learn what you need to learn in that grade and you take your finals and receive your grade for that grade and move on. We are judged at the end of each age before we move on to the next. God is the originator of "no child left behind" and He will not lose one. Eventually, He will be All in All and we will all be like Him. That was His original plan for humankind and He will not fail to accomplish what He set out to do.

 

John

 

Thank you for finally coming up with the correct interpretation of the Bible. Tens of thousands have tried before, but you finally did it! Congratulations.

[Kratos]

Please get this straight. I am not forcing anything. You are the one coming here and trying to preach God's plan for women. Why don't you go somewhere else with your oppressive doctrine of female submission?

 

C'mon, Deva, don't lie where all can read it for themselves. I NEVER brought up domestic issues or women issues even once. It is you and your cronies that asked me about what I believed and will not leave it alone. It does not matter what subject we are discussing, you and your bigotted friends interject "uppity women" and homosexuality. I have learned from this never to answer an "innocent question" about what you believe knowing that many will use what you answer against you from then on. I mistakenly thought that the members of this forum were better than that and this was my mistake.

 

The truth is that this is called a straw man argument and is a weak minded trick when you cannot handle the subject being discussed. Rather than discuss rationally what is being discussed, you build a straw man to attack based on something other than what is being discussed and then you attack the straw man's beliefs instead of the one's being discussed.

 

The truth is that I have never preached to anyone about women's roles in the home because I do not believe that it is anyone's business but the individual married couple. I was raised by a very feminist single mom who thought that submission was a dirty word. My wife taught me her convictions when we met and she has the right to live as she believes. I told you before that this is where I got my ideas of domestic order and you accused me of failing God by letting a woman teach me anything.

 

I know that you think you are being cute, but you just appear weak minded and mean when you interject your straw man into every discussion where I try to participate and it is not fair to those secure people who really want an answer from a Christian to their serious questions. And then to lie when all see what you and your cronies are doing that I am the one who keeps trying to teach others how women should live is really pitiful.

 

John

[SWIM]

Deva,

 

Like I told you before, you can choose to participate in God's training methods or not. Just because you do not choose to participate in submission to a husband as a way to train your soul, you should not be a bigot toward those who do choose to. No one, even God, is forcing anyone. Any more that my choice to submit to government authorities is my choice though not for others. You can sign up for God's school and gymnasium or drop out at your leisure.

 

It really amazes me how those who have left oppressive religion feel the need to force their beliefs on others. You have not been placed on this earth to save Christians from their submission to God in whatever form it takes. You are only called to live your own life. If it works for you, fine. My wife can choose what works for her without needing your approval.

 

John

 

OK crack-toes, before you continue to call Deva a lier, why not re-read your own garbage. I bolded it to help your pea brain.

 

C'mon, Deva, don't lie where all can read it for themselves. I NEVER brought up domestic issues or women issues even once.

[florduh]

SWIM, you don't get it. If you can omit parts of the Bible that are an embarrassment then you may also omit parts of your own writing that you'd rather forget.

 

How else can one always be right?

[Deva]

C'mon, Deva, don't lie where all can read it for themselves. I NEVER brought up domestic issues or women issues even once. It is you and your cronies that asked me about what I believed and will not leave it alone. It does not matter what subject we are discussing, you and your bigotted friends interject "uppity women" and homosexuality. I have learned from this never to answer an "innocent question" about what you believe knowing that many will use what you answer against you from then on. I mistakenly thought that the members of this forum were better than that and this was my mistake.

 

True, not directly on this particular thread Kratos, but notice nothing was said until you posted this:

 

"There are two Biblical principles that are not taught by the traditional church that helps me to hold to my understanding of vanity and suffering and evil as part of God's plan to make us in His image.

 

The first is the eventual salvation of all and the second is that God has worked through many ages and will continue to work with man for ages to come."

Possibly some on this thread are not totally familiar with what you consider to be "God's plan". I am just filling in the blanks. This subservience issue bears directly on this theme of suffering. If you had ever been in an abusive marriage, you would understand that. That I have stated your position correctly-- that women should be subservient-- is born out by your subsequent posts to me in this thread and your belligerent and insulting attitude.

 

The truth is that this is called a straw man argument and is a weak minded trick when you cannot handle the subject being discussed. Rather than discuss rationally what is being discussed, you build a straw man to attack based on something other than what is being discussed and then you attack the straw man's beliefs instead of the one's being discussed.

 

I am just stating your own position that God's plan is that women be subservient in marriage. You are the one that brought up "God's plan" in the first place. It is not off the subject and it is in fact your own position.

 

I told you before that this is where I got my ideas of domestic order and you accused me of failing God by letting a woman teach me anything.

 

I never accused you of "failing God" how could I when I don't believe in your God?

 

I know that you think you are being cute, but you just appear weak minded and mean when you interject your straw man into every discussion where I try to participate and it is not fair to those secure people who really want an answer from a Christian to their serious questions. And then to lie when all see what you and your cronies are doing that I am the one who keeps trying to teach others how women should live is really pitiful.

 

"I know you think you are being cute" Oh, now you are also a mind reader! I never lied, I just fleshed in the part of "God's plan" that you left out. You can't deny that is your positon.

[The-Captain]

Deva has cronies? I want some cronies!

 

Kratos, seems to me that with that last post you are certainly doing your part to turn this into a personal feud.

 

Enough already with the long suffering martyr antics....

 

This is the Coliseum, if there is something to be discussed or debated then do so, personal griefs have little place here.

[Kratos]

I am the one trying to keep it on track as how suffering is used by God or allowed by God. Neon and Deva again tried to hyjack the thread into my defending my beliefs about domestic order and homosexuality. I understand it is just lashing out at a token Christian for those who may have abused them in the past, but it does get old. Stating that my using the term "plan of God" when applied to pain and suffering is my coming here to tell women how to live is dishonest and weak.

 

I apologize for my part and have no more to say on the subject.

 

John

[Deva]

I apologize for my part and have no more to say on the subject.

 

Do I take it this is your apology for calling me a liar and a bigot?

[Grandpa Harley]

Deva,

 

I have never used the term "uppity women" in my life. This is your term and not mine. I do have little tolerance for mean and stupid ones though as I do for men who are the same. This is why I usually avoid the Den because this is where this kind tend to gravitate. I always hope that the "higher rooms" are frequented by more evolved thinkers who see name calling as the lowest form of human interaction. Wrong again.

 

Since I have repeatedly told you and others that women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul or mind which must be subservient to the spiritual mind of Christ and that any form of submission here in this age is soulical training for the next age where there will be no male of female, you are either stupid or continuing to try to dis me through ad hominem attacks. Romans 13 says plainly that every soul (male or female) must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake before God. Submission is about training the soul for the age to come as God is no respector of persons.

 

At least now Gman understands why Christians will not come to even the Colleseum to answer "serious questions to Christians".

 

John

 

But all you're showing there is the grotesque double think you always do, along with appalling grammar and spelling.... and quite how anyone who believes a god-man spent a paltry 4 hours nailed to a stick in some back water of the Roman Empire thinks they have something 'serious' to say defeats me...

 

O think you were better served flounced... it didn't give new opportunity to point out quite how evil and base you really are...

[Neon Genesis]

If man had originally been made in God's image then Adam and Eve would have already known both good and evil and it would have been impossible for Eve to lie about what God had said about the tree.

You've obviously never read the book of Genesis in your life. Maybe you should get away from Paul for at least a bit and read the OT for a change? Genesis 1:26 says

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness

 

God never said they could not touch it. That was a lie and it is impossible for God to lie.

Again, you've proven you've never actually read the bible in your life. Genesis 2:16-17 says

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.â€

Genesis clearly says that GOD TOLD MAN not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Come on Kratos, this is third grade Sunday school shit that every Christian kid knows by heart. You should know this by now.

 

It is true that we will be judged after we die, but in the Greek this is "aionian" or "age lasting" judgment. It is not eternal judgment as the KJV wrongly translates it. It is similar to coming to the end of a grade at school. You do the work of that grade and learn what you need to learn in that grade and you take your finals and receive your grade for that grade and move on. We are judged at the end of each age before we move on to the next. God is the originator of "no child left behind" and He will not lose one. Eventually, He will be All in All and we will all be like Him. That was His original plan for humankind and He will not fail to accomplish what He set out to do.

So it's ok for God to torture people for even minor sins like lying as long as it's not eternally since all sins are equal in God's eyes and all sins deserve equal torture?

 

Neon and Deva again tried to hyjack the thread into my defending my beliefs about domestic order and homosexuality.

How did I hijack the thread? If all I wanted to do was lash out at you, I would have just called you a homophobic bigot and left it at that. I merely asked you a genuine question about why you would deconvert from Christianity if God tortured innocent people but only if it fits into your view of innocence, in this case homosexuality and women who don't submit to men?

[DarthOkkata]

I am the one trying to keep it on track as how suffering is used by God or allowed by God. Neon and Deva again tried to hyjack the thread into my defending my beliefs about domestic order and homosexuality. I understand it is just lashing out at a token Christian for those who may have abused them in the past, but it does get old. Stating that my using the term "plan of God" when applied to pain and suffering is my coming here to tell women how to live is dishonest and weak.

 

I'd say Christian beliefs about homosexuality and domestic order are often a source of needless great suffering.

 

It's easy to say things about personal choice, when using dogma and fear tactics to subvert behavior. I'd lie and say I wanted to be someone's personal slave, sex toy, and yes man if threatened with being roasted over a pit of fire. Even that extreme of torture might not be needed to curb honesty. Just social stigma and threat of loneliness can do it.

 

I've got no place saying whether or not your wife, or anyone else's is really happy with their relationship. Especially considering it's conditioned from birth, and brainwashed into the children from the start. They might not know any better, and be completely unaware that they might like a bit more personal freedom, without a warden looming over their white picket fence mind prison.

 

I'm sure there are very loving and well adapted relationships. Some women do enjoy being dominated, at varying levels.

 

It's those who are unhappy, feel burdened, have little personal freedom, and don't think they have any place speaking about it because of dogma, or upbringing that worries me. What's good for one person, will often crush another's mind and body.

 

It's the conformity push, and idea everyone is the same because we're all made in God's image, that causes this problem. Well, all us guys are made in his image anyway. You women are just V 1.2 after all, substandard, and designed to fit the needs of the superior class of human.

 

That combine of young girls and women married off in their teens is a good example of an extreme on this subject.

 

Claiming that it's a different issue isn't really true. It's the general acceptance of the idea that causes the extreme. Sort of like how there wouldn't be Islamic fundamentalist if not for moderate Islamics. One creates the other over time, as some will cling to the literal ideas far too closely.

 

God is not an excuse for suffering, he's not giving you an answer for why it exists, and seems to cause more than he alleviates.

 

You're making stuff up, [or using ideas other -people- made up] and creating weird rationalizations to make the world fit your beliefs. I'm sure if you use a big enough hammer, that round peg will fit in that square hole, even if you'll never get it out again.

 

The issue is why suffering can exist, especially as much as it does today, if there is a loving, caring, nurturing super being watching over all of us.

 

This is a case where Occam's Razor should be applied. The simplest explanation is probably correct.

 

What is the simplest explanation?

 

Well, there's no such thing as God, and human suffering is a result of natural competition between organisms, failure to adapt, ignorance, and just plain meaness.

 

I don't see why anyone would need God to explain why living sucks sometimes, other than using him as an example of implementing suffering needlessly on others.

 

Christians have a hard on for suffering, they think of it as a good thing. Something to purposely endure and wallow in to put their own piety on a pedestal.

 

It's utterly pointless and only serves to benefit those in power.

[Kratos]

Neon,

 

Try reading what is stated before accusing someone of not reading the Bible at a third grade level. I said that it was a lie for Eve to say that they could not TOUCH the tree of knowledge not that they were not to eat of it.

 

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

 

Since this was a lie, man was not in God's image before the fall as it is impossible for God to lie. Man, also, did not yet have a knowledge of good and evil prior to the fall so they may have been innocent, but they were not like God as He surely knows this distinction. So, God MAKING man in His image is an ongoing process that is still not complete today. The NT says we were predestined to be conformed to His image not that we were conformed to His image yet. Predestined signifies that it is was still a future event at the time the NT was written not a past condition. It always cracks me up when atheists show themselves to be more fundamentalist Christian than I am.

 

Deva,

 

I do apologize for calling you stupid, but the bigot part does apply when it comes to your view of Christians. You have called me the same many times so I am sure you can take what you dish out. You show your bigotry for continuing to accuse me of wanting to dominate or keep women subservient for which you have no proof, but are just transfering onto me what other Christians have done. This is judging individuals as a group and is bigotry. Deal with it.

 

John

[DarthOkkata]

Since this was a lie, man was not in God's image before the fall as it is impossible for God to lie. Man, also, did not yet have a knowledge of good and evil prior to the fall so they may have been innocent, but they were not like God as He surely knows this distinction. So, God MAKING man in His image is an ongoing process that is still not complete today. The NT says we were predestined to be conformed to His image not that we were conformed to His image yet. Predestined signifies that it is was still a future event at the time the NT was written not a past condition. It always cracks me up when atheists show themselves to be more fundamentalist Christian than I am.

 

Actually, the bible says god can lie. 2Thess 2:11-12, Mark 4:10-12, Mat 13:10-11, 1Kings 22:23, Is 6:10.

 

It also says a lot of other bad things. We'll stick to the NT to avoid the 'invalidity of the OT' argument. Why would I use it as a moral guidepost? Why should I believe any of it at all? It's full of all sorts of wrong and disgusting ideas and beliefs. If this isn't suffering, I don't know what is:

 

It says the earth is flat, Mat 4:5-8, Luke 4:5.

That you should kill people for not loving Jesus, Luke 19:27.

Let people be evil and do what they want without resisting, Mat 5:39-45.

That you should abandon and ignore your family, Luke 14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29.

Supports slavery, Col 3:22, Eph 6:5.

That god doesn't prefer good over evil, Mat 5:45.

It says you shouldn't associate with people who don't agree with you, 2John 1:10-11. 2Cor 6:14-17.

That being smart is bad, 1Cor 1:19.

Girls are inferior, 1Cor 14:34, 1Tim 2:9-14.

Racism is okay, and Jews are superior beings, Mat 15: 22-28.

That non-christians are all evil, and out to get you, Mat 12:30, Luke 11:23.

That incest is cool, 2Peter 2:7.

That some people are just plain going to hell, Rom 8:29-30, Jude 1:4, Mat 7:13-14.

That you should hate people for calling other's fools, Mat 5:22.

 

Deva,

 

I do apologize for calling you stupid, but the bigot part does apply when it comes to your view of Christians. You have called me the same many times so I am sure you can take what you dish out. You show your bigotry for continuing to accuse me of wanting to dominate or keep women subservient for which you have no proof, but are just transfering onto me what other Christians have done. This is judging individuals as a group and is bigotry. Deal with it.

 

John

 

We aren't prejudging ahead of time, we're judging based on the contents of your previous posts. Why you've got this odd idea that judging something is bad is beyond me. You really can't function very well without doing it, you'd be a gullible moron if you didn't.

 

Christians can't comprehend that their 'don't judge' mindset is unreasonable. 'God will take care of it, I'll be judged when I die'.

 

So the rest of us, even those who don't believe in god, should just give you a pass and wait patiently for you to die, so you can get what's coming to you? Are you mental?

 

Acting like someone is clinging to a stereotype when acting or speaking based on their own personal experience is just silly. Why wouldn't one expect a certain line of thought, behavior pattern, or reaction from exposure to certain information in people of a certain mindset? How do you get through life not being able to anticipate how others might feel, react, and behave towards you? Especially when given so many examples. Most of us were part of congregations at some point, and we've had interaction with plenty of other Christians in our lives.

 

All the time I hear Christians going on about how we 'shouldn't lump them together!' What's the point of forming the little club in the first place then? Isn't that kind of the point of congregating?

 

I've seen no indication of anyone pointing a finger at you in particular for 'locking up and imprisoning someone' in this thread. It does happen though, and I don't know you. We don't agree with how lightly you seem to take the subject, as if it's a less severe problem than it really is.

 

In fact, you seem to be attempting to justify it, and I'd even go so far as to say you're encouraging it.

 

If you don't agree with a particular viewpoint, you should disassociate yourself with it, and those that propagate it. Not ignore them and wave off their rude, pushy, insensitive, and criminal behavior. Guilt by association exist whether you like the idea or not.

 

It would be stupid and unwise to ignore anecdotal evidence in favor of, 'hoping for the best' in social interaction. Just as much as it would be when working with explosives while sitting on a metal chair with an ionizer sitting on your lap.

 

Diving blind and headfirst into life is the best way to keep running into stuff and fumble along behind everyone else. If you're lucky, the people with their eyes open won't trip you up for their own amusement.

 

If you don't like being labeled and lumped with a particular group, cancel your membership or...

 

Deal with it.

[Deva]

Deva,

 

I do apologize for calling you stupid, but the bigot part does apply when it comes to your view of Christians. You have called me the same many times so I am sure you can take what you dish out. You show your bigotry for continuing to accuse me of wanting to dominate or keep women subservient for which you have no proof, but are just transfering onto me what other Christians have done. This is judging individuals as a group and is bigotry. Deal with it.

 

John

 

Nonsense. Your own positon, stated in this thread and elsewhere, is that women should be subservient to men in marriage. This is in your own words "God's training" on this very thread. Again it is your own position. Whether it carries over into your own home life I have no idea and as I said before, I don't really care. It just raises a question of hypocrisy since you are advocating a practice for others that you don't do yourself. You are advocating it and it is one of the ideas that has caused suffering in this world. This is not transferrence. I have not said any such thing to any other Christian on this board since I have been here.

 

Please supply me with a link to where I called you a bigot. I say that is a lie.

[Neon Genesis]

Since this was a lie, man was not in God's image before the fall as it is impossible for God to lie. Man, also, did not yet have a knowledge of good and evil prior to the fall so they may have been innocent, but they were not like God as He surely knows this distinction. So, God MAKING man in His image is an ongoing process that is still not complete today.

But in Genesis 2:1-2, it says

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

Nowhere does the serpent tell Eve that she cannot touch the fruit. Eve specifically says in verse 3 that GOD told her she must not eat it. Since you claim Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil before she ate the fruit, then it is impossible for what Eve said about God telling her that she cannot touch the tree was a lie since lying is evil and Eve couldn't have know how to lie since you said she didn't know evil. And what motivation would Eve have to lie by making up an extra commandment God didn't tell her to do? You seem to be implying that the serpent is the one who lied about Eve not being allowed to touch the tree, yet it was clearly Eve who said God told her not to, not the serpent.

 

It always cracks me up when atheists show themselves to be more fundamentalist Christian than I am.

I love how you accuse us of calling you names, but then you turn around and call other people names when they don't agree with you and show that you clearly don't understand anything about what a fundamentalist Christian or anything about us whatsoever. Besides, I thought you were a Christian universalist yet now you're suddenly a Christian fundamentalist? I'm confused.

 

You show your bigotry for continuing to accuse me of wanting to dominate or keep women subservient for which you have no proof, but are just transfering onto me what other Christians have done. This is judging individuals as a group and is bigotry. Deal with it.

 

John

You're either lying through your teeth or have major short-memory problems. Examples of where you've stated that women must be submissive:

I really believe that if God arbitrarily ordained that a wife is the head of her husband and a husband must submit to his wife, the wives would not want to be in authority and the husbands would not want to submit. It is about the rebellion in the heart of mankind to do the opposite of what God wants and has ordained

 

I think it is inherent in life that since we believe what we are doing is best for us that we believe others would benefit from the same.

 

God has ordained as the one who sets the ordinances that a husband is over the wife in the Lord within a godly marriage

Need I go on?

[Kratos]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject. If those who are obsessed with me and my beliefs bring up my beliefs about domestic order or homosexuality or whatever in an attempt to make every topic that I choose to participate in about me, I will ignore their manuevers and either stay on topic or walk away.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

John

[Antlerman]

First of all, the fact that any of us know what compassion is, is proof in and of itself that there is a God. Otherwise, how could we evolve (assuming evolution is your explanation of existence,) into creatures that are willing to defy our natural survival instincts, so that someone else can survive?

I'm replying to this before I've read the rest of the responses in this thread.

 

You're reasoning is faulted to the core. Going way out on a limb and assuming the majority of scientists in nearly every field of science is correct in everything they've confirmed and that evolution is a fact, how does that mean that compassion is something that contradicts evolution? That statement makes me think you don't understand how evolution works. To keep it incredibly simple, humans survive by grouping together into social groups. The ability to exercise cooperation is built into our gene pool, by virtue of sexual selection.

 

Our natural impulse is towards self-interest (which is necessary for survival). Our genetically bred ability towards cooperation allows us to set aside the 'greed' impulse for the better benefit of participation in a group. To show compassion, is a form of empathy, and a higher form of socialization on the 'cooperation curve' to coin a term. This all is nothing that "proves" a god by contradicting what evolution teaches. It is in fact very consistent with what evolution teaches.

 

God is not necessary to explain compassion.

 

Secondly, if God took care of everything for us, what reason would we have to exist? If we're supposed to leave all our problems up to God, and do nothing ourselves about them (which is why God put us in the position of creation that He did), then we have no purpose, or reason for existing; either as a species, or as individuals. That means we can just screw around and do whatever, since God's our personal diaper-changer.

Hence why if God is what you say he is, then no one will go to heaven because it's everything you said we shouldn't have.

 

What reason do we have to exist in heaven? To be worship drones?

 

When people choose to endure their hardships, and they gain strength from their faith in God, isn't that enough reason for people to keep believing? I'd rather be crazy, and have a reason to keep trying; than to be sane, and see no other possibility than to give up completely.

No one who has "given up on God" has given up "completely", that is in the sense of finding any reason to believe for the sake of enduring hardships. You are right, that if someone in fact finds 'genuine' strength from their faith and are rewarded for it, they'd have little motivation to give it up. Very true.

 

But what I think most Christians can't see, and in fact it takes a while to see it even as an ExChristian, that it's not so much that Christianity is "wrong" per se, but that it plain and simple failed to work for us. That fact is far more than one literal interpretation of the Bible as a book of science is an error, or that the Bible itself is not a divine infallible book. Just because we left Chrisitianty does not in any way meaning we "given up completely". Ironically, if it wasn't working and we had in fact given up, then we would not have left! We would have just resigned to believing that Christianity was all there was for helping us through life.

 

That's why we left. We were driven to find answers that satisfied. We were driven to find peace and understanding. We have hardly given up.

 

Finally, when people suffer because of other people, doesn't God ensure that they are compensated for what they lose; and that the people who made them suffer pay for their crimes? But then, that - in and of itself, - would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, by some.

I don't think the criticism by most people of cruel and unusual punishment has to do with people paying a penalty for their crime. What's clearly cruel and unusual is the idea that some little old lady who lived a sincere, compassionate, caring life who rarely was cruel, except for a few occasions in human weakness, is sent to burn for everlasting eternity, in endless agony and utter blackness, in full conscious awareness of her torment without reprieve for ever and ever and ever, because she just couldn't wrap her mind around the nonsense that some preacher told her about a preacher from 2000 years ago that he read about in a book that was hobbled together in church councils through political warfares, and redacted and edited, revised and modified; that she just couldn't accept Jesus as her personal lord and savior and must now be appropriately punished for her sins.

 

That's what we mean by "cruel and unusual".