Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[mymistake]

The Stranger laid out a very clear goal post.

 

 

Post 2667

"The bible is the most reliable historic book there is and so many new things have been found in late to support the historic accounts of the bible. The stories of the bible can be found and supported with many more books outside of the bible. There is no book like the bible. None."

 

"The bible was written on eye witness accounts. Show me a book more diverse and accurate than the bible."

 

Post 2678

"Actually, I have done more homework on this subject than I ever have before. The bible is older, has many more authors, and spans thousands of years, and can be verified as true in almost every regard, more so than any other book, more so with those dating back even a fraction of the bible, and we have more copies of the bible than any other historic book. I mean, these words were written down well before paper. Can you show me even one book that comes close to the diversity, age, and factual points found true than what the bible has to say. I think not. There is none. You take for truth books a fraction of the bibles age written by one author with few copies yet throw the bible as trash. Honestly, have you done your homework? There is none other that comes close to comparing."

 

 

 

In response to this Ravenstar completely destroyed this claim with solid evidence in post 2683.

 

The Stranger's response was dishonest.  He isn't going to accept the evidence.  He is going to ignore it with an "I believe" and an "is believed" in post 2696.  Then he moved the goal post to "the first printed book" and "the first books in history that are still read today".

 

Ravenstar went on to destroy his other claims using evidence, as many other people did as well.

 

 

The Stranger is not interested in discussion.  He is just preaching.

 

But Cosmic Zombie loves you and died for you to save you from himself because he hates your sin that is there because he knew a some lady eons ago would eat fruit if Cosmic Zombie left her a talking snake which he did.

[SquareOne]

 

The Stranger's response was dishonest.  He isn't going to accept the evidence.  He is going to ignore it with an "I believe" and an "is believed" in post 2696.  Then he moved the goal post to "the first printed book" and "the first books in history that are still read today".

 

The Stranger is not interested in discussion.  He is just preaching.

 

Mymistake, I think you touch on an interesting area here, that cuts to the core of Christian psychology.

 

My opinion is Stranger's belief in God is not based upon the evidence which he supplies up as evidence.  The evidence he tries to give are retrospective to his belief.

 

He believes in God.  For him it follows from this that there is evidence supports that God exists.  So he just goes and finds it, then tries to argue for it.

 

When Ravenstar and others destroy his arguments, that does not undermine his belief - which exists already - rather it slides onto alternative supposed evidence, alternative reasons.

 

The belief itself remains inviolable because it is so utterly hard-wired in his brain.

 

He's a victim of a very powerful meme, and he has my sympathy.

[Ravenstar]

It's so weird sometimes looking at it from the outside in...

 

and to remember that we were once the same... I can hardly reconcile that in my memory. It seems like another persons' memories sometimes.

 

Yes, sympathy for sure.

[deconverted]

 

 

 

Thirdly, for those who were to become wives the Israelites had a seven day cleaning ritual outside the camp, plus an allowence of 30 days was given to the woman for grieving, and if the then husband found her unlikable he had to let her go. This means worst case, there was a 37 day waiting period, and this by the way does not include the traditions of marriage, thus the period of sexual intercourse could of been quite lengthy.

 

And you think this is good?

 

So

I murder your father and your mother, and you, and then take your

virgin sister - but let her grieve for 37 days - and then she has to be

married to me (your killer) for the rest of her life.

 

You think that is moral and good?

 

I don't believe you.

 

SquareOne,

 

I think you're getting confused about this issue.

 

By definition, everything and anything God does or orders is... GOOD.

Therefore,

if God orders that people be killed - there is no wrongdoing or evil

involved, either on God's part or the part of those doing the killing in

His name....

 

BAA,

 

Your explanation of how the Christians view this issue of God and his commands being GOOD seems spot on.  Most of my friends and family would probably agree exactly with how you explained it.  You didn't give a response to this view as you were explaning it to SquareOne, but I am sure you have one or have posted one in another thread topic before.  Could you point me to your response to this Christian point of view with your current atheist/agnostic viewpoint?

 

Thanks!

[Bhim]

SquareOne, RavenStar, I have to say that I'm thinking similarly here.  On the one hand I can relate to Stranger since I too used to think like him.  On the other, when I go back and read some of my old emails to friends or notes to myself on Biblical scripture, it's like reading someone else's thoughts.  Oh, I distinctly remember writing these things.  But, to paraphrase the prophet Isaiah, I can't believe that I called good things evil and evil things good.  Such was my unquestioning devotion to the Bible that I couldn't see it for what it really is: a threat of eternal torment in hell for failure to adopt the Christian religion.


 

BAA,
 
Your explanation of how the Christians view this issue of God and his commands being GOOD seems spot on.  Most of my friends and family would probably agree exactly with how you explained it.  You didn't give a response to this view as you were explaning it to SquareOne, but I am sure you have one or have posted one in another thread topic before.  Could you point me to your response to this Christian point of view with your current atheist/agnostic viewpoint?
 
Thanks!

Just a random thought here, but this is a question that preceeds Christianity (yes, humans actually thought about things and had moral codes before Jesus).  I believe it was Plato who asked: do the gods command certain things because they are good, or are these things good because the gods command them?  In other words, does morality come from God or is it external to him?  Two people can agree on the goodness of God without agreeing on the source of his goodness.

 

This really boils down to objective morality.  Even among flat out atheists I know very few people who who reject this principle, though we will always disagree on the specifics of the moral code.  After all, we see Islamic theocracies condemn women to death by stoning and call it evil; we don't say that this is excused because it's their culture's practice.  I myself often refer to Christianity as evil, and therefore I'm assuming some moral code.

 

I'm fine with objective morality, my problem is with the claim that it comes from the New Testament.  I'm starting with the assumption that if there is some God, higher power, or whatever, then the morality he creates isn't arbitrary.  It must somehow be evident in the world.  There are a few basic ideas that most humans can agree upon: that it's wrong to murder, steal, etc.  After all, most of us get upset when these things affect us.  True, not everyone agrees even on these basic points, but there's a fairly general consensus.  If some religious text has a moral code, we can see how closely it agrees with our average understanding of morality.  So if you (by which I mean a Christian) are going to tell me that the Bible is God's Law, it has to seem reasonable or I'm going to trust my own sense of morality (and others') over it.

 

We all know that sending someone to eternal hell is wrong.  Even Christians are bothered by the concept.  When I was one, I had private discussions with Christians in which they confided in me that they were, at some level, afraid of going to hell.  They know that it isn't "God's just wrath," but they knew that it would be wrong if they went there.  They knew it'd be wrong if others they knew went there.  At this point, I'd say they should question whether the Bible is really a moral book.

 

And this gets to one of my fundamental points about Christianity.  They're so obsessed with proving the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.  That does nothing to persuade a reasonable person that he'll go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

[♦ ficino ♦]

@ Bhim:  in your last sentence, "That does nothing to persuade a reasonable person that he'll go to hell for not believing in Jesus":  wouldn't the Christian apologist say that "for" is doing the wrong work?  People don't go to hell simply for not believing in Jesus, i.e. not for an epistemological mistake as such.  We're all sinners and offensive to a holy God in the first place.  We go to hell because we merit it by our sin;  we worship the creature rather than the creator.  God therefore justly sentences sinners to hell (and glorifies himself by doing so).  Some of them he decides to save through Jesus' atonement etc.  The legal ground, we might say, of God's condemnation is the person's sin inherited from Adam;  failure to believe in Jesus is one of many outworkings of that sin nature. 

 

I don't think this is successful as an attempt to absolve the God of the Bible from accusations that He is a monster, but it might be the way an apologist would attempt to deflect the onus from God's condemnation of a mistake about doctrine to the person's nature and pattern of actions.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

@ Bhim: in your last sentence, "That does nothing to persuade a reasonable person that he'll go to hell for not believing in Jesus": wouldn't the Christian apologist say that "for" is doing the wrong work? People don't go to hell simply for not believing in Jesus, i.e. not for an epistemological mistake as such. We're all sinners and offensive to a holy God in the first place. We go to hell because we merit it by our sin; we worship the creature rather than the creator. God therefore justly sentences sinners to hell (and glorifies himself by doing so). Some of them he decides to save through Jesus' atonement etc. The legal ground, we might say, of God's condemnation is the person's sin inherited from Adam; failure to believe in Jesus is one of many outworkings of that sin nature.

 

I don't think this is successful as an attempt to absolve the God of the Bible from accusations that He is a monster, but it might be the way an apologist would attempt to deflect the onus from God's condemnation of a mistake about doctrine to the person's nature and pattern of actions.

 

I agree that the point will likely be made that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and because of that are justly deserving of his wrath. Appeals will probably be made to the supposed underpinning doctrines of the divine economy like Federal Headship, Original Sin, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or whatever other alternate doctrines might be suggested in exchange for those, depending on which theological tradition is being put forward. However, at the end of the day what separates those who go to hell and those who don’t in this economy is whether or not they believe in Jesus. The rest is just intellectual veneer in defense of this.

 

The bible itself puts this basic dichotomy quite succinctly just a couple verses down from an oft-cited passage:

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, [why?] because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

If an apologist wants to take the route you’re suggesting she’s only showing that the reasoning behind the “for” is quite complex. I think Bhim’s point stands. The Christian is still left with the rather daunting task of persuading a reasonable person that he’ll go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, for those who were to become wives the Israelites had a seven day cleaning ritual outside the camp, plus an allowence of 30 days was given to the woman for grieving, and if the then husband found her unlikable he had to let her go. This means worst case, there was a 37 day waiting period, and this by the way does not include the traditions of marriage, thus the period of sexual intercourse could of been quite lengthy.

 

And you think this is good?

 

So

I murder your father and your mother, and you, and then take your

virgin sister - but let her grieve for 37 days - and then she has to be

married to me (your killer) for the rest of her life.

 

You think that is moral and good?

 

I don't believe you.

 

SquareOne,

 

I think you're getting confused about this issue.

 

By definition, everything and anything God does or orders is... GOOD.

Therefore,

if God orders that people be killed - there is no wrongdoing or evil

involved, either on God's part or the part of those doing the killing in

His name....

 

BAA,

 

Your explanation of how the Christians view this issue of God and his commands being GOOD seems spot on.  Most of my friends and family would probably agree exactly with how you explained it.  You didn't give a response to this view as you were explaning it to SquareOne, but I am sure you have one or have posted one in another thread topic before.  Could you point me to your response to this Christian point of view with your current atheist/agnostic viewpoint?

 

Thanks!

 

Hey Deconverted!

 

Here's some info, to put you into the loop.

 

The Stranger's been active in this thread since 18 April 2010, post #355 on page 18.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/24702-why-do-you-remain-a-christian/page-18

And here we are today, 28 February 2103, message #2757 and page 138.  The stats should tell you something.  2,402 posts, 120 pages and almost three years later the Stranger is still exactly the same as he was, when he first joined this forum.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/24702-why-do-you-remain-a-christian/page-63

Here we are in may 2011, just over a year from the Stranger's first post and guess what...?

He can't (or won't) even answer a simple question. Please note the frustration on my part as I give him chance after chance to deal with me honestly.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/24702-why-do-you-remain-a-christian/page-94

Oh... lookee here!  27 June 2012 and nothing's changed!  All the usual suspects are there.  The Stranger, me, Akheia, Ficino, Centauri and others.  Were all there, trying our darndest to encourage the Stranger to use independent rational thought for once in his life...and failing, as usual.   Oh... and look!  I'm losing my patience with the Stranger again, this time in post #1869.

 

You see Deconverted, I've finally arrived at the conclusion that the Stranger does not want to and will never change.  He does not want to and will not learn.  He does not want to and will not do accept anything that conflicts with his set-in-stone beliefs.  You'd have thought that I'd have wised up sooner, wouldn't you?  But that's me... hopelessly optimistic, to the point of stupidity. 

 

Anyway, this conclusion explains why I answered SquareOne's posts in the way I did.  I messaged him privately first, to let him on what I planned to do and he gave me the thumbs up to do it.  So, I stepped into the Stranger's shoes and replied to SquareOne to demonstrate just how morally bankrupt his brand of Christianity really is.  From Ravenstar's and your reactions, it looks like I succeeded.

 

But now I must ask you two questions.

Are you still living with your family?

And, if I give you the information you ask for, how do you plan to use it?

 

I hope you appreciate my desire for caution here.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

[RipVanWinkle]

Boy, those 90 years went fast!

[mymistake]

I agree that the point will likely be made that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and because of that are justly deserving of his wrath. Appeals will probably be made to the supposed underpinning doctrines of the divine economy like Federal Headship, Original Sin, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or whatever other alternate doctrines might be suggested in exchange for those, depending on which theological tradition is being put forward. However, at the end of the day what separates those who go to hell and those who don’t in this economy is whether or not they believe in Jesus. The rest is just intellectual veneer in defense of this.

 

The bible itself puts this basic dichotomy quite succinctly just a couple verses down from an oft-cited passage:

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, [why?] because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

If an apologist wants to take the route you’re suggesting she’s only showing that the reasoning behind the “for” is quite complex. I think Bhim’s point stands. The Christian is still left with the rather daunting task of persuading a reasonable person that he’ll go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

 

And yet most apologetics will gloss right over John 3:18's direct conflict with the concept of Trinity.  They always do.  Jesus wasn't God the Son.  In the Bible Jesus was the Son of God.  All through the new testament there are hundreds of passages where the authors had an opportunity to call Jesus "God the Son" and instead chose deliberately to call him "the son of God".  Apologists don't care about the actual words in the book.  They have a theology to prop up.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

@ Bhim: in your last sentence, "That does nothing to persuade a reasonable person that he'll go to hell for not believing in Jesus": wouldn't the Christian apologist say that "for" is doing the wrong work? People don't go to hell simply for not believing in Jesus, i.e. not for an epistemological mistake as such. We're all sinners and offensive to a holy God in the first place. We go to hell because we merit it by our sin; we worship the creature rather than the creator. God therefore justly sentences sinners to hell (and glorifies himself by doing so). Some of them he decides to save through Jesus' atonement etc. The legal ground, we might say, of God's condemnation is the person's sin inherited from Adam; failure to believe in Jesus is one of many outworkings of that sin nature.

 

I don't think this is successful as an attempt to absolve the God of the Bible from accusations that He is a monster, but it might be the way an apologist would attempt to deflect the onus from God's condemnation of a mistake about doctrine to the person's nature and pattern of actions.

 

I agree that the point will likely be made that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and because of that are justly deserving of his wrath. Appeals will probably be made to the supposed underpinning doctrines of the divine economy like Federal Headship, Original Sin, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or whatever other alternate doctrines might be suggested in exchange for those, depending on which theological tradition is being put forward. However, at the end of the day what separates those who go to hell and those who don’t in this economy is whether or not they believe in Jesus. The rest is just intellectual veneer in defense of this.

 

The bible itself puts this basic dichotomy quite succinctly just a couple verses down from an oft-cited passage:

 

>John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, [why?] because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

If an apologist wants to take the route you’re suggesting she’s only showing that the reasoning behind the “for” is quite complex. I think Bhim’s point stands. The Christian is still left with the rather daunting task of persuading a reasonable person that he’ll go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

 

Good call, Hymenaeus.  My first reaction is to think that the forensic explanations given by Paul take a different tack from that given by "john" in the verse you quote.  But I'm not going to spend more time going back over this theological point.  I am instead working hard on solving two problems unsolved since they were posed in the middle ages:  how many angels can dance on the head of a pin;  could the second person of the Trinity have been incarnated as a cucumber?

[the stranger]

 Due to being way behind in responses I am going to try responding newest to oldest BUT taking scripteral and other questions first and scientific questions on the latter side. I am not sure why my laptop had instant spell check on every site except this one. LOL

 

 

 

                    Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:30 PM
                    
                

                
                
                    

Quote

Your
thoughts are not of the Jewish law. First, a virgin could be known by
the outfits worn and outside signs, something now days not known of.
Secondly, this number could of included very young girls not fit for
sexual relations. Thirdly, for those who were to become wives the
Israelites had a seven day cleaning ritual outside the camp, plus an
allowence of 30 days was given to the woman for grieving, and if the
then husband found her unlikable he had to let her go. This means worst
case, there was a 37 day waiting period, and this by the way does not
include the traditions of marriage, thus the period of sexual
intercourse could of been quite lengthy. The bible is very directly
against rape.

You're
dangerously delusional. The Bible's absolutely fine with rape. Not only
does it explicitly support rape in these verses, it supports rape in a
number of other ones. The point is that you're trying to excuse RAPE.
RAPE! A cleansing ritual of 37 days? A waiting period? A fine paid? Oh,
that makes it totally okay to RAPE A WOMAN. You're trying to twist the
Bible's words to make it sound absolutely fine. I mean, I'm a woman, and
I think that'd be just awesome. I'm sure I'd see how wonderful my
family's murderer and my kidnapper and future rapist is in that amount
of time. I'd be totally consensual by then. You're advocating for rape
and trying to say how oh no, that's totally fine, it's totally okay. Do
you even listen to yourself? Are you that utterly incapable of
recognizing barbarity when you see it?

Would you be okay with
someone doing something like this to *your* family? Kidnapping your
pre-teen daughter, holding her for 37 days, then forcing her to marry
him? Cutting her hair off, trimming her nails, taking control over the
most intimate functions of her body and controlling the smallest detail
of even her appearance? You'd be fine with that? You think there's any
circumstance under which any of this would be considered moral?

What
is so broken in you that you're actually convinced that these verses
are anything but ghastly beyond all human comprehension? If this were a
real god, do you imagine he'd get any better treatment than any war
criminal of the modern age? Your god had a chance to say "dudes, women
are fully people too, and it's not okay to sexually assault them no
matter what." And he didn't. And you're desperately splitting hairs,
moving goalposts, and reaching for straws to explain that shortcoming
away.

This religion gets more and more disgusting and repellent
to me the more its adherents try to doublespeak their way into excusing
its horrors. I'd have a lot more respect for Christians as a group if
they acknowledged its evils and did what they could to redress it.

 

 Akheia, first, there is NOT ONE scripture that I am aware that supports rape. The scripture which you have laid out is not of rape. It is of marriage at best, and does not even give direct reference to that thus leaving us guessing. I do see your point. Would a wowan ever want to concent to marriage after their family has been killed? I do think it very important to put our selves in these times. Captives of war was common practice. The assault described one on one tribe alone and was not the norm for war but in this case commanded due to the role this clan played in deceiving the Israelites. Rape, in the way we understand it and try people for it is NOT marriage, even if we do not like the situation. Rape was common in these days and now during war, but marriage not so much. Slaves were.

 

 Times of war are not times of peace and under usual circumstances things that are not allowed are allowed. Most people of the time did not "fall in love" but were given in marriage by early teen to an already known mate or family friend. Ofcourse, there were exceptions. No woman wants to be pushed to marry, no no one wants their family to be killed. No one wants to be killed or taken as a slave. Not even for a future wife. Life, however are not roses, and we do not get to choose what life brings us, but only the decisions we will make when life happens.

 

 The original command was actually that all of these woman should be put to death but seeing orders not flollowed through on a decision was made to allow these woman to remain alive, which again, most likely included young children as well.

 

War is never nice or pretty. It does however dominate a sinful world. Woman were often taken as wives just upon entering an unknown city if found desirable as the gentile nations had little to do with what most consider moral laws. These woman of this clan could not of lived happily after lifes there. Nor could they be allowed to be free.

 

 It is easy to look at what we deem as immoral in todays time in the Jewish sect but little time is spent on comparing their morals with many of the gentile neighbors. The Jewish also lived in the fallen world.

 

Let us put you as God that day. Let us put you as god today. What would you do to stop the evil heart? Would you evenge the innocent? Or would you allow the innocent to suffer with no end because it would not be humane to hurt or to punish?  Perhaps your justice would in fact be injustice.

 

 Again, it is possible that a man would have to let her go, or just to remain a slave, if she did not conceed to be a wife. It should be noted that if a woman was raped the raper was forced to marry her and was never allowed to divorce, thus in this case it could not of been rape. If this was not the law the woman may of been single for a life time with no husband to be able to support her.

 

All in all, it is what it is. We live in an unfair world and God does allow and even command justice for evil acts in order to help maintain as much fairness as possible.

 

 

 

Looks like this is directed at me (perhaps among others).  Like I
said, I understand that these responses take time.  Back when I was a
Christian, I too spent time on Internet forums carefully crafting my
posts to others in defense of the Christian faith.

 

As you prepare your own defense of the Christian faith to me, I might
suggest that you consider this.  I know that to you belive Jesus is
light, salvation, and lover of my soul.  You believe that though he was
rich, for my sake he became poor that by his poverty I might become
rich.  But keep in mind that to me, he's just a guy who's threatening to
send me and most people I know to an eternal hell unless I believe in
some random European religion and throw away all of my family's customs
and traditions.  In the Old Testament, God often talks disparagingly of
the Israelites whoring after other gods and worshiping deities that
their fathers did not know.  I'm not trying to compare Jesus to a whore,
but this is sort of the way I feel about Christianity.  Even if your
apologetic arguments were sound, this would be the major reason for my
refusal to convert.  It's easy for a European American, whose ancestry
is purely Christian, to prop up Christianity as the only true religion,
as practiced by his ancestors.  By practicing it himself he is honoring
his parents and heritage.  For someone like myself, however, conversion
to Christianity requires a rejection of identity and any cultural
affilation.  And let us not forget that the "if" concerning apologetic
arguments is purely hypothetical.  Again, no offense, but virtually
every Christian apologetic argument I've ever heard was utterly
indefensible.  The logic is poor and the proposed facts are either
misinformation or outright lies.  These are points that I'd certainly
like to hear your comments on.

 

 

 You make a valid point. This was certainly true of early Christianity. However, not always must everything be thrown out. As a muslim, there is no room for a belief in Jesus thus you are disowned, if not killed, for your belief in Jesus. Traditions that do not envolve the worship of other Gods are fine provided they are moraly acceptable and in so doing the Spirit does not condemn.

 

 But that brings another question. Why do many convert knowing they have to choose between Jesus or family? What do they have to gain if Jesus was not real? It does not sound like a sane choice unless, perhaps, there is a peace and truth found in Jesus that cannot be found in any other.

 

 I should also note though many are saved by the realization of hell most serve out of love that was first served to us. If Jesus did not show me love first would I have ever had respect or love for Him? That thinking is certainly not in my history.

 

 

 
                    
                
                
                

                     

Quote

Also
should be noted. The word hardened in Romans is interesting as all
other times it is used it implies choice. In Exodus the word used for
God hardening Pharaohs heart had the meaning of strengthen or, as I
would say, the ability to choose wrong over right. Paul also mentions
after this verse about God enduring with much patience of those destined
to wrath, again implying personel choice. The word prepare here means
also complete and is used in regards to finishing or to make ready, thus
also indication not something done from the start but something allowed
for the person to complete his own destruction. We also must remember
as the bible states that God take no pleasure in the death of the
wicked. He delights in no one spending eternity without Himself and I
know scripture is full of such facts.

Once again, you're trying to dilute God's direct manipulation into
passive onlooking, while the individual chooses to perform an action.

That's not what scripture says however.

 
Deut 2:30

But
Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy
God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might
deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

 God made his heart stubborn, he didn't just allow him to be stubborn.

If God wants to use a human as a stage prop for his glory, he has no problem in doing so.

The situation with Pharaoh is the same.

Quote

Quote

><< Numbers 21 >>
New International Version 1984
22“Let
us pass through your country. We will not turn aside into any field or
vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king’s
highway until we have passed through your territory.”
23But
Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered his
entire army and marched out into the desert against Israel. When he
reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel.
 
Stranger wrote:
A few points I think should be addressed. First, Was it said God hardened
any one's heart that was contary to the decision they wanted to make?
If not was it not more of a description of forknowledge? It is said that
God controls the hearts of Kings, and really has control over all of us
in that way, but what does this mean? Have you ever not had a choice to
accept or reject God? Have you ever really not had the choice to do the
right thing versing the wrong thing? What if God, in His control, uses
outside scources to perswade our mind and heart knowing our decisions
ahead of time and know those who have nothing but a heart bent on evil?

Well, if the king of Heshbon in Deut 2:30 was going to harden his heart all on his own, then there would have been no need for God to interfere at all.
Again, I'll go back to Rom 9 with Jacob and Esau.
Their roles were determined by God on the basis of his whim, not on the basis of them doing or choosing anything.
 
 I believe based on us being responsible for our own decisions that the term God hardened hearts can also be regarded is, based on foreknowledge, God putting things into play knowing we will harden our own hearts. Like this. I put a big rock pile on the sidewalk so Jimmie would choose to go around. In effect, one could say I made Jimmie go around though I put the rock pile there, it was still Jimmies decision. One may say this is unfair but would you also say stolen car operations run by police are unfair? Cops putting cars in a position where they know they will be stolen and then arresting the thief? Is this unfair? Not to me. It is only enabling the thief to do what he wanted to do anyway.

 

In the latter verse, again, I think it is evident of forknowledge. How could he hate even before one was born if He did not have forknowledge knowing the decisions the brother would make? God made this decision upon knowing before they were born on the choices in which they would make.
 

Quote

You picture will is God gives no choice instead of knowing in advance. You
place Him as cause but this would be against scripture in regards to
personel choice. He causes no one their downfall, though allowes all to
choose life or death.

That directly contradicts Eph 1:4-5,11 which states that God predestines all things according to his will.

Once again, you cannot establish what God does or does not control.

Predestination (aka divine determinism) is alive and well in the
Bible, much to the distress of Christians that cannot deal with it.

Perhaps you can define exactly what the words "everything" and "your will" really mean, since you're denying they mean what they so clearly say:

 Acts 4:28(NLT)

But everything they did was determined beforehand according to your will.

 You have an intense denial for the word, when it doesn't line up with what you prefer to believe.

The reason I'm flogging this issue is because so many believers
refuse to accept that scripture cannot be used to establish anything
when it contradicts itself.

You cannot claim a universal ability to choose when it is clearly undermined by scripture.

The point being that there is no way to know what God has
predestined, and only one instance of it voids claims about God giving
choice to all people.

Quote

Stranger wrote:

 In and of it's self I understand what you are saying. Again, however, if
predestined comes from forknowledge as stated earlier than there is no
counterdiction and ofcourse free will with limits remains. If all is set
in place according to His plan does that disallow free choice. In
Psalms 139 I believe it staes God knows all of our days meaning all that
will happen to everyone of us. That being said He also must know every
decision we will make just like He told David and Peter before they
sinned.
 
Again if the order is first forknowledge
and from that stems predestination than there is no contradiction.
However, He certainly does intervene but does He ever take away personel
choice thus personel freedom?
 
 Just my thoughts. Thanks for asking

There may be times when God does allow choice, but you have no way of knowing when those times are.
Jacob and Esau had no decision to make regarding who was inferior to God.
God determined that by divine whim before they were born or had done anything good or bad.
God's purpose trumped individual choice and will.
The chapter even calls it "God's sovereign choice".
Predestination made foreknowledge possible.
God determined in advance and as a result of that action, he then foreknew.
All it takes is one case of this to throw the entire issue of free will into an indeterminable funk.
                    
   Scripture however states forknowledge is first, then predestination. Why could God not predestine on the bases of forknowledge? Further more, if God places all kings on all thrones and all slaves to all fields from the beginning, not based on our own decisions, does that mean anything but that God is in control? His placement does not need be placed upon our own decisions, however, all fitting together in the great plan of God I cannot help to believe that it does, understanding this world is not our home nor our destiny                

                    

                            Edited by centauri, 25 February 2013 - 09:54 PM.
                            
                        

               

 

 

 

the stranger, on 25 Feb 2013 - 19:31, said:

Quote

 

Stranger wrote:

 

 

A

few points I think should be addressed. First, Was it said God hardened

any one's heart that was contary to the decision they wanted to make?

If not was it not more of a description of forknowledge? It is said that

God controls the hearts of Kings, and really has control over all of us

in that way, but what does this mean? Have you ever not had a choice to

accept or reject God? Have you ever really not had the choice to do the

right thing versing the wrong thing? What if God, in His control, uses

outside scources to perswade our mind and heart knowing our decisions

ahead of time and know those who have nothing but a heart bent on evil?

Stranger, this is a poor argument because according to the Christian
doctrine of total depravity, no unbeliever wants to accept God or do
God's will.  All are controlled by sin.  Only those who are stirred by
the Holy Spirit can turn to God/accept God/do what pleases God.  So "the
decision they wanted to make" in Sihon's case was by default already to
oppose God.  MM pointed this out, too.  There is no point in
scripture's adding that God hardened any unbeliever's heart except to
convey the idea that in that situation, God did something notable to
cause that person to oppose.

 

It does violence to the meaning of scripture to deny that God
hardened a heart when it says he hardened a heart.  You have to confront
the text.

 

In any case, those situations are enough to falsify any claim that God ALWAYS gives EVERYONE a chance.

 

 In every book and in every article we always must put things in prospective. What we read may not always imply what we think at first glance. (Like God created evil in KJV while every other translation of that word in KJV is clamity or such and not evil) Even everyday when telling three people the same story one could take part of what I say and give a different just because they do not have the same portion of the story as another as each portion was given for reason to help that situation. I do believe your point however has more to do with oppisites. If we cannot come to God without the Holy Spirit than certainly nothing would be wrong in the understanding of God hardening hearts.

 

 A few points however, in Ecclesiastes 3:11 God stated He has put eternity into the hearts of man, thus every man sensing they will be alive forever. Acts 17:26 declares all are put in place so we will grope, or look for God as He is not far from us all. Those who are looking for truth will find it. It will be given to them. This is found in many places in scripture. Thus, in the end, if we seek out the truth in Christ the Holy Spirit will give us this truth. This is different from the hardening of hearts in which if one is looking for an alternitive to the truth than that is what will be allowed to be revealed thus causing a hardening of the heart.

 

 

 

=====================

 

 I am still staying on and replying but am just breaking the replies up. Again, those with evidense being in question I will get to those a bit later

[Deva]

Ahh Jeezz here we go again..

[SquareOne]

I know I risk making him feel like a martyr.  But I don't care:

 

 

What a fucking idiot.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Stranger, you've got a lot of posts to contend with here!  Still, I will push the envelope and give you a link to a discussion of "foreknew" at Romans 8:29.  You put a lot of weight on an interpretation of that verse as teaching "first God foresees who will freely choose him, then He predestines those."  Wrong.  This verse does not say that God foreknew future facts about certain people.  It says He foreknew THEM.  God enters into a relationship with his elect even before they are born, and on that basis, he predestines them.  Your interpretation is also out of line with much else in scripture about God's creating human faith or unbelief.  So this link completely refutes the position you are defending:

 

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreknew.html

 

Why do I mention this?  Because I urge you to consider how monstrous is Bible God.  You yourself cannot bring yourself to believe in this character, so you twist the wording of many scriptures in order to render Bible God less awful, and thus, feel OK about pushing a system of belief in this character.  Step back and listen to yourself! 

[centauri]

 

Stranger wrote:

 

 

 

 I believe based on us being responsible for our own decisions that the term God hardened hearts can also be regarded is, based on foreknowledge, God putting things into play knowing we will harden our own hearts.

 

Yes, you've made it pretty clear you don't like the idea of God determining something in advance based on his will but on their will.

Unfortunately Stranger, the scripture specifically states "according to his will".

It (Eph 1:4-5,11) even states he determines all thing that way, i.e. according to his will.

 

Like this. I put a big rock pile on the sidewalk so Jimmie would choose to go around. In effect, one could say I made Jimmie go around though I put the rock pile there, it was still Jimmies decision. One may say this is unfair but would you also say stolen car operations run by police are unfair? Cops putting cars in a position where they know they will be stolen and then arresting the thief? Is this unfair? Not to me. It is only enabling the thief to do what he wanted to do anyway.

 

In the latter verse, again, I think it is evident of forknowledge. How could he hate even before one was born if He did not have forknowledge knowing the decisions the brother would make? God made this decision upon knowing before they were born on the choices in which they would make.

 

So you're going to stick to this apologetic that God knew Esau was going to be bad before he was born and decided to hate him because of Esau's behavior some time in the future.

The passage is titled "God's Sovereign Choice" but you've changed that to "Esau's choice which God reacts to".

 

 Rom 9:11-13

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

You've changed Rom 9:11 into this:

 

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God is according to Esau's future works, and not God's sovereign determination;)

 

centauri wrote: 

There may be times when God does allow choice, but you have no way of knowing when those times are.

Jacob and Esau had no decision to make regarding who was inferior to God.

God determined that by divine whim before they were born or had done anything good or bad.

God's purpose trumped individual choice and will.

The chapter even calls it "God's sovereign choice".

Predestination made foreknowledge possible.

God determined in advance and as a result of that action, he then foreknew.

All it takes is one case of this to throw the entire issue of free will into an indeterminable funk.

                    

Stranger wrote:  

Scripture however states forknowledge is first, then predestination. Why could God not predestine on the bases of forknowledge? Further more, if God places all kings on all thrones and all slaves to all fields from the beginning, not based on our own decisions, does that mean anything but that God is in control? His placement does not need be placed upon our own decisions, however, all fitting together in the great plan of God I cannot help to believe that it does, understanding this world is not our home nor our destiny.

 

Ok, we'll modify the scripture to make it say what you prefer.  

 

Eph 1:4-5.11

 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, his foreknowledge of what we will choose.

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his our own free will:

[mymistake]

Blah blah blah

 

Christians are not aware of the contents of the Bible because they have been reading it wrong this whole time.

 

God can demand obedience and God can strike people dead.   D   E   A   D      But God couldn't ask the men to treat women right because the men were too stubborn so God was very understanding about the men's rebellion.    That is a stupid cop out that can only fool indoctrinated people.

 

Why we can't judge God's law based on modern morals because God has infinite wisdom and is the very personification of fairness, justice, mercy, freedom, equality etc etc.  So that is why God's laws look like they were dreamed up by an ignorant, inbred, barbarian.  It's all so simple.

 

"Let us put you as God that day."

 

Dude God is suppose to be able to make new creatures out of the dust in the ground and he can give them the genetic code to do whatever he wants.  He can make all needed resources appear out of thin air as much as he wants.   Anybody with half a brian and a moral compass could make a better world for humans than the one we are in now.

 

"All in all, it is what it is."

 

And it was rape.  You see when the Bible was written women were the property of men so nobody cared what women thought.  That is why the issue of a woman consenting isn't in the Bible.  Three of the Ten Commandments are about God demanding respect but he couldn't be bothered to mention respecting a woman enough to get consent in order for sex.  Humans had to figure out that rape was wrong on our own.  We did that with our own subjective and relative morals.

 

"Why do many convert knowing they have to choose between Jesus or family? What do they have to gain if Jesus was not real? It does not sound like a sane choice unless, perhaps, there is a peace and truth found in Jesus that cannot be found in any other."

 

Because people don't have direct control over what they believe.  It's not a choice.  We don't have free will.  We do what our brains have evolved to do and what they are able to do under given conditions.

 

Christians tend to be dishonest about foreknowledge and the Problem of Evil.  They have been trained to make excuses for God so that God is not guilty but these excuses are not valid.  The reason you have the trouble is that the Old Testament writers did not see God as good.  That wasn't their theology.  God didn't love the whole Earth.  God didn't love all people.  That was why God was a genocidal monster in the Old Testament.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Stranger, you are NOT allowed (by the voice of reason) to:

1. talk about God's plan or God's being in control AND deny that God is the first cause of all effects;

2. say that humans make decisions of which God is not the first cause AND refuse to show scripture that describes human decisions as having those properties (it won't do merely to show scripture where humans make decisions, because that's not the issue);

3. try to prove assertions about God by using piss-poor, false analogies between an omniscient, omnipotent being and fallible, limited policemen, daddies, you and me... 

4. present your experiences or emotions as evidence AND refuse to allow us our experiences and emotions as evidence 

[Bhim]

Hi Stranger, thanks for your response.

 

You make a valid point. This was certainly true of early Christianity. However, not always must everything be thrown out. As a muslim, there is no room for a belief in Jesus thus you are disowned, if not killed, for your belief in Jesus. Traditions that do not envolve the worship of other Gods are fine provided they are moraly acceptable and in so doing the Spirit does not condemn.

 

I think discussions of Islam are a red herring here.  I doubt anyone on this forum has a favorable opinion of Islam (I certainly don't), and delving into this is likely detracting from the issue of conversion to Christianity.

 

Now, you talk about cultural traditions being acceptable in Christianity provided they don't involve the worship of anyone other than Jesus.  In doing so, you assume that culture and religion are separable.  This is at best naive.  Your own example from Islam is evidence that one cannot discard a religion without being seen as abandoning culture as well.  Among Jews, atheism is acceptable, whereas conversion to Christianity is not.  Why do you think that is?  Religion involves more than intellectual assent.  It also consists of religious practices, and converting to Christianity precludes these practices.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming (based mostly on statistics) that you're of some kind of Western European descent, and if so then you belong to a Christian culture and likely wouldn't be able to relate to what I'm saying very easily.  So trust me on this one; I tried being a Christian and retaining my own culture.  It doesn't work very well, precisely because of the strong connection between religion and culture.

 

But that brings another question. Why do many convert knowing they have to choose between Jesus or family? What do they have to gain if Jesus was not real? It does not sound like a sane choice unless, perhaps, there is a peace and truth found in Jesus that cannot be found in any other.

 

People convert to Christianity because they believe they can be saved by Jesus.  People also practice homeopathy because they believe it's real medicine.  Believing something doesn't, by itself, make the thing true.  Now, I'll certainly grant you that belief can be very powerful.  Remember, I did convert to Christianity and am uniquely qualified to answer this question.  Belief in Jesus doesn't give you truth, though it can give you peace.  Then again, so can drugs.  That doesn't make chemical addiction a particularly good choice either.  Lots of people disobey their family's wishes.  When people do so to use drugs, Christians call it evil.  When they do it to convert to Christianity, Christians call it good.  If I may pose a question from a previous post to you: why do Christian Republicans claim to support "family values?"  In light of what I've said this seems very hypocritical to me.

 

I don't find this line of reasoning to be particularly convincing.  The claim that peace in Jesus is unique is patently false.  I could easily compile a list of people who find peace in something else, incluidng other religions.

 

I should also note though many are saved by the realization of hell most serve out of love that was first served to us. If Jesus did not show me love first would I have ever had respect or love for Him? That thinking is certainly not in my history.

 

I don't doubt that many Christians love Jesus, but love for someone you've only met through written words doesn't demonstrate that the person being loved exists.  I don't follow a lot of gossip news, but the recent Manti Te'o case is an excellent example of this.

 

I think you may be misunderstanding here.  I don't think anyone is questioning your genuineness of belief.  That's irrelevant to whether the belief is based in reality or not.  And if you can't do that, I feel you have little business telling people of other religions to be Christians.  To someone raised in Christian culture (even if they're from an atheist household), belief in Jesus is easy.  To someone who has another religion already, you are suggesting that the person take on quite a larger burden than you yourself bear.  If you're going to ask that, you'd better be able to convince us that Jesus is who the Bible says he is.  I don't think you (or any Christian apologist) has come remotely close.

[the stranger]

 

 

Yes, it is true there are many gods or religions that share similar

stories with the bible. Does that discredit or support the bible? If all

came from a few on the ark than all would have flood stories, and they

do. Also being the Jews lived with the Greeks so long the Greeks may of

used the ideas from Israel. Read Acts where the Greek called Paul a

Greek God and Paul rebuked them, saying clearly Christianity is not part

of the Greek god system.

 

*sigh* There was no worldwide

flood. (though an ancient memory of local flooding, maybe from the

paleolithic era, is a possibility for the origin of the story) It's not physically possible - as in the Laws of Physics.

 

There are so many problems with

this story I don't even know where to start. For one, genetically, it

isn't possible for the entire human race to have descended from 8

people.. and 5 were blood related. We'd all be down's syndrome or

something worse. Only sin was not in it's full effect at the time thus why humans lived much longer thus it was not law till later in family relations. At this point there was no issues.That's not enough genetic variability. Gathering,

caring for and feeding all the animals of the world? No... not possible. Animals would of been limited as only the basics of kinds were on earth at that point

The amount of water needed to cover all the mountains of the earth? Oceans are as deep under the surface as mountains are above. Waters came from both under and above.  The

salinity problem (all the ocean life would have died out too), the

plants would have all died after so much time under water... it's so

completely ridiculous. Plant seeds survive, thus we see it every year in winter and in flood seasons. I would think all fish would die under ice but fish are built to funtion slow when needed.

 

http://ncse.com/cej/...oyage-noahs-ark

please check the citations - they aren't making shit up.

All of this site is based on current findings. We do not know how things were in that time. Many points on the site are easy to refute.

Morally, it's reprehensible.

Really.. drown every living being on the planet.. infants, children,

everyone? Why? Didn't god know this would happen before he created the

world? It doesn't logically jive with omniscience - at all. Why kill all

the animals? If this god can pop beings into existence why the heck

would he need to drown them (pretty terrifying death, no?) to get rid of

them?

 

The Flood myth comes from the

story of Sargon Of Akkad, which predates the Hebrews by a LONG time. The

Greeks (Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, etc..) can NOT have gotten

their info from the Israelites because they didn't exist yet. These

cultures were BEFORE the Hebrews. The archaeological record is very

clear on that. You aren't grasping the timelines... we are talking

thousands of years here, not 50. Good grief, the Sumerians even predate

the Egyptians.

 

Where did you conclude this (the age of the Hebrews)?

The people in Noah's day had 40 plus years to listen and be saved, longer than many humans. According to scripture, there was no one good, thus apart from Christ Jesus the bible states the same today.

 

Ravenstar, you are a very smart lady. Concerning the bible being the

oldest book in the world, It appears I was wrong. I know I would have

trouble keeping pace with your mind. It is too bad you take it your that

smart just by chance.

 

Thank you but I'm no genius. But

who said I took it as chance? The basic ability runs in my family

(Thanks mom and dad!) but I've worked damn hard to educate myself.

It's not chance at all. It didn't come out of the blue - I didn't get

my knowledge supernaturally. Now if I could just put that kind of effort

in at the gym...

LOL  it is a blessing we have so much to eat here. You are gifted for sure. My sister can read a book and remember everything in it. Me, well, in school a cheat sheet would prove much better than study.

 

 

 

You are right about my studies. I do look at Christian web sites much

more often than not for clear reasons. It does seem with Christianity

there is rarely middle ground. Between you look for ways to disproof God

and the bible or one looks for ways to proof God and the bible.

 

You seem to think that I've spent my life trying to disprove god... you are SO wrong there. I'm an EX-christian,

a whole lot of time was seeking truth within christianity. I figured

that if it was true the evidence would back it up... it doesn't. Not

even close... but I started out, and for many years, studying all this

stuff believing that it was true. I reject your sources because I've

already been IMMERSED in them. I might even know the interpretations

better than you. But...They are wrong.

What made you begain to doubt? Why or what lead you to believe one scource over another?

 

 

You did take a quick look at the links I gave for the Exodus I hope.

 

Yes.. I KNOW them, I knew them years ago.. they are wrong. So far

there is NO evidence for the Exodus.. none. If they find something I am

willing to look at it - but 2-3 million people wandering in the desert

for 40 years should leave SOME evidence. There is nothing.

Most of this time they were all looking at sites in which came from Roman Catholic tradition rather than the word, thus now there is more evidence, though it is across the other portion of the red sea. Saidia arbia (spelled wrong) even has a fence around the region and will not even allow visiters.

 

 

If you want facts, what do you do when you find some that counteract with your believes?  

 

I've already looked at both sides.. all sides..and still do, if it's a fact no matter what it is I will consider it. I don't study with a conclusion in mind.

I don't swallow other's interpretations.. and MOST christian sites and

books unfortunately are very low on scientific facts and very high on

opinions and trying to justify things instead of just taking the

evidence or lack thereof and being neutral in examining it. However... I

try very hard to be unbiased when looking at facts. I am brutal in my

expectations of scholarship. Example.. if you are trying to prove an

hypothesis about an aspect of evolution, you'd better have a background

in biology or biochemistry and be prepared to submit it for peer review.

A PH.D in Engineering ain't gonna cut it. Everyone has an opinion, can

you back it up empirically? Anecdotes and eye-witness accounts are among

the most unreliable forms of evidence (ask the FBI).  IF god interacts

with the physical world there would be SOME evidence. If he doesn't

what's the point?

 

and exactly WHERE is heaven?

The NT tells us that Jesus rose bodily... and went to Heaven. That would

make Heaven a physical place.. where? In the sky? Hubble hasn't found

it yet. If he didn't then where is the body? Why raise him physically at

all just to discard the body again? It's ILLOGICAL.

It is said flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. John saw a vision as did the OT saints. It is believed Paul saw heaven after being left for dead after being stoned. Heaven can never be found this side of life. Jesus, when arisen, did not have a body like ours. He could walk through walls and dissapear and reapear. Jesus had died and was resurrected, but had not the same body as before, thus then having access to both worlds

 

 

Later on I will get into more of some of your statements because it is

clear this has been your study for many years and you know I cannot

compete. That being said, I will be looking more into these things. When

it does revolve around the truth of the bible stories there does seem

to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them.

 

No there isn't... the

archaeological evidence does NOT back up the majority of the Bible

stories. Please cite serious studies on this - maybe I've missed

something. I would admnish you to do the same.. LOOK at the evidence.

With an open mind.

I truly will do this with as open as a mind that I can have and will be checking out both sides of every story

 

Any how, I will have to take one at a time. I can never say your

thoughts are higher than mine, as my thoughts rest in heaven, but you

certainly have been gifted with many smarts:)

 

I have to give credit to my addiction to reading, history, and teh Google.

 

 

Would you say you have sin? Let me ask that in a different light. Have

you ever done something you had wished you had not? Have you ever told a

lie? Have you ever stolen from anyone or place, even in a small regard?

 

I don't believe in 'sin', the

way christians do. Sin means 'missing the mark' in Hebrew. Here's the

rub.. there is no such thing as 'perfection' in our universe. We haven't

seen it yet.. there is such a thing as balance though and laws of the

material world. Cause and effect, yada, yada,yada... everything we know

about evolution and psychology demonstrates that nothing is perfect, it

just changes to adapt to it's environment. People do bad things, people

do good things.. it seems we are progressing to be more empathetic,

because it's a good survival technique. Science predicts these things.

We agree on one thing. perfection cannot be found upon the earth. As an ex Christian though ofcourse you know I see God as perfect thus the whole reason we need Him and His guidance. In other words, can inperfection have a law of perfection? If not, is any one's law better or should be looked at with higher regards than another? The same could be said concerning morals. Is it possible to establish morals in which all agree and all should be held accountable for apart from a higher being. No disrespect, but to me it is as letting kids raise themselves. Kids need parents for learning and structure. That is how I see humans with God.

Have I ever done things I'm not

proud of? Yes... everyone has. Have I done things I'm proud of, yes. I'm

very committed to personal growth and being a better person... I don't

feel any existential guilt for not being perfect. I fail sometimes, I

get up - dust myself off, make amends and own up to my bullcrap and

learn my lesson. I become a better person that way. I FORGIVE myself, I

take personal responsibility for my actions.  I also give myself credit

for the things I do right.

Before I was saved I quit drugs and theft, but only because I did not want to be caught. I took responsibility for my family but not without grudge or without selfish splurges. It was not until I had a change of heart where I really changed.

 

  I believe that the majority of people on earth believe they have sin

in their lives or have sinned to at least say they have not lived

perfect lives, such as God in heaven Who has no sin at all and is set

apart holy from all sin and in fact, He cannot sin. This is the reason

in which I believe most religions offer sacrifices. Not usually with

animals these days though it has been known that children in some cases

were often used. Theses days I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that

one must do things, or works, or like manner to possibly have a chance

to go to heaven. Pray three times a day, facing a certain direction. Do

good works x amount of times per week. Hike and bow to a rock some call

God. You see, most religions one must live a life of structure. A life

of costume. One must try to over come their sin, or better put have more

good come out of them than evil or bad things.

 

God is not perfect - he is a

monster. Read your darn bible. He has broken at least one 'commandment'

over and over to the tune of MILLIONS, murder. Thou shalt not kill..

really now. Or is he a 'do as I say, not as I do' parent? He has

commanded many others to commit atrocities... so he is culpable.  If you

think he is perfect you haven't read the bible. Sending people to hell

for eternity for a finite life is not JUSTICE. It's sadism.

Let us say you bought a new doggie for the holidays. You fed it, watered it, gave it attention and took it for walks. The problem is he was not a very devoted or thankful dog. He bit, growled, did his luxery on the floor and never would listen. He became a danger to all visiters and your kids. Do you have the right to have him put down? God is not human. His laws are for humans. Without God can human give life? What did your mama always tell you. I brought you into this world and I can take you outa this world. LOL Point being, how can we hold God under the rules/laws in which He gave us? Do you hold your boss under the rules of his employees or teachers under the same rules as the students? It makes no sence. There always has to be a top leader or king in order for there to be order.

The funny thing is I see no

difference between christians (or any other religion - maybe buddhism)

and other people as far as 'sin' goes. There is NO power there and they

aren't better people than anyone else - if anything christiandom is

responsible for most of the horrid atrocities throughout history. IF there was any truth to it there would be SOME evidence that being a christian makes one a better person. There is none.

People are good, people are bad... it's pretty much the same throughout

the world. Actually, secular nations are more peaceful and have a

better standard of living and human rights records. So.. the evidence is

actually kind of against it.. though not conclusive yet.

You say you believed yourself before. Did this change your life? I am convinced you can talk to any Chrstian and they will tell you the before and after life with Jesus Christ. I myself can testify greatly to this. I truly do not live life for myself any more. Knowing any day could be my last (part of why I have not been responding much as of late is due to me being quite sick right now combined with an ongoing medical condition). Ofcourse, it could be anyone's last day. I am just happy and blessed that I am at peace and I no longer have a fear of death but only a hope of the afterlife, where I can sit on the lap of the only One Who has brought me thus far. You see, I credit Jesus alone for saving my life at least five times. I should of died many moons ago. So many times our own experiences are what we learn and grow on. I truly hope this is the direction you want to go. One day soon I know the proof will be undeniable. Right now however, free will is at play.

 

 

 They make their religion as a balence being in which one must try to

out weigh the bad with the good in hopes of maybe being accepted by

their God. Also it seems the Gods I know of most are not Gods of mersy

but of revenge, always out to get the humans. Thus why the structured

religion is needed along with certain sacrifices like paying debt or

bowing down x amount of times a day, and perhaps with gifts of many

items.

 

You have NO education of comparative religion.. stop there please.

 

 

 

 Grant it, I do not speak on this subject in a mindset where I got it

all figured out as I know about Christianity but not so much about many

other religions.

 

exactly

 

 

This is where Jesus is different. First, unlike most cultures, we

believe in One God only (via the Godhead  -- The Father, Son, and Holy

Ghost) and we believe Jesus came down and took human form to take the

punishment, the curse of which was brought on with the sin of Adam,

resulting in death and suffering due to sin in the world, away. In other

words, all creation has a curse. That curse is a selfish heart and the

results from. This can be seen in babies. We are born with a thought

process that the world revilves around self. Often later when we realize

we are not in control we look for some type of God for security. This

is found more often than not, though of course, many are raised in one

religion or another.

 

The trinity is not supported by

the Bible. Child psychology is also not your forte. Babies are not

evil... sheesh. Adam.. oh crikey. Yup, it's moral to punish someone who

had NO KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. You can not make a informed choice

without knowledge.. you can't CHOOSE between good and evil if you don't

know what they are. Jesus is not unique by the way.

 

http://www.religious...rg/xmas_sel.htm

 

 

 In other religions, from what I know, because there is no cure for sin,

and no payment to justify for, the only hope is not to piss God off too

much and if we do enough good or meditate enough or bow down enough

maybe just maybe we can work ourselves into heaven with the balencing

system, not understanding that even one sin is one sin too many and the

curse is forever present.

 

 

Again.. you have NO understanding

of other religions or philosophies. You don't meditate to appease the

gods.. Buddhism in particular has no deity. Heaven doesn't even exist in

some religions. Becoming a better person is the basis of most systems..

and a worthy goal - in itself. You don't need a god for that.

 

 

 When Jesus died, He made away for us to go to heaven. He was perfect

thus the only sacrifice that would work. No other God has paid the price

for our sin. Further more, though we act differently because Jesus

lives inside of us and changes our hearts and our attitudes if allowed,

there is no payment that we must make except to live a life of

thanksgiving to the One Who saved us. This is not works but a new way of

living with the blessed Holy Spirit guiding our way. If we live by the

Spirit we are no longer under the law. You see, Jesus makes us free from

all sin. No other god has that power.

 

 Again, where is heaven? You DON'T act differently - there is no evidence to suggest christians are better people.

 

 

Now when I refere to dead Gods I most often refere to the prophets who

god went through to start their religion who has died or meaning gods

made of wood or other such things. A god that is made by humans cannot

be a living god, let alone a god, seeing that God is the Creater. This

is not to say that many do not believe in a living God. Roman did many

moons ago. In fact, they believed in so many no one could could keep

them straight.

 

 Please go to religioustolerance.org and educate yourself on the worlds religions.. please. At least start there.

 

 

 Does the God you believe in and worship give you peace inside? Does

peace like a river flow from your veins? Does joy unspeakable come from

your heart and mouth? Does your God make you want to shout for joy. Does

your God live inside of you and direct your every path. The more I

think of how many times God has saved my butt or how many times things

that looked like they would all fall apart came together after a feeling

of my prayer being answered in advance.

 

Actually I'm more peaceful now

than I was as a christian. If you really believe this then it would

follow that those who don't have god 'directing' their lives would have

worse lives. Sorry, but that's not the case.

 

 

 You see, when we say a living God, we mean a God in which day after

day, week after week, month after month, we can see Him at work in our

lives and in the world around us. Each day He draws closer to us. Each

day He becomes more and more apart of you. It is only by remembering the

goodness of God in the past that we can trust God through our test.

This was the problem in part for the Israelites. History is indeed a

great lesson. It is interesting many claim Christianity was a Greek

branch off when the Greek was not even an established nation for many a

moons after the Israelites came on the scene.

 

 What? Are you really that

ignorant?  oh crap.. timelines again. Judaism was HELLENIZED by

christianity, no one ever said it came from the Greek religion. The

Greeks were late-comers to this history but they didn't come AFTER the

Hebrews - they were contemporary, But ALL the other civilizations were

not. Sumeria, Babylonia, Akkadia, Egypt, Phoenecia, etc... predate the

Israelites by at the very least a thousand years.. closer to 2 thousand

in some instances.  PLEASE learn some history.  Here is a good start.  http://www.uncp.edu/...ancient_civ.htm

 

 

Now it may be said not everyone thinks atonement is a must for sin, but

if not, what do you have? If one thinks this earth is unfair or bad any

other place in the future that has sin allowed i it cannot be any better

so unless one has no hope for a future past this life than atonement

for sin is a must unless one would want to live in this world of

suffering for ever. I know I do not.

 

 Is your life a vale of tears? I thought you just said you have unspeakable joy?  You are contradicting yourself.

The joy is in richest unknown and peace from within. It is not of this world.

 

 

Does your religion give you what you long for? Does your god show

himself real to you? Has your god or religion changed your life in an

over whelming postitive way?

 

 No. But learning the truth has. Life is much better now.

 

 

 Like I would like to say all Christians walk the walk (as I should do

better myself at times) just as I would like all doctors to walk the

talk but we are all human for sure. Perfection as humans is a impossible

task but forgiveness and a changed heart and a direct pass to God is

very possible.

 

 

A get out of jail free card? Bought with innocent blood?... no thanks. I will accept responsibility for myself.

 

 

 Thank you for asking your question and feel free to expound upon your belief.

 

First Bill, I do thank you for your question. That is a hard question

to ask. You see, I have doubted God many times in the 15 plus years of

being a Christian though less now than ever before based on the miracles

He has done in my life and all the ways and times He has shown Himself

to be true to me. It is kind of like asking me to try to pretent my

mother was not born or I do not live on planet earth. You see, during my

questioning God I certainly looked on the other side of things for

quite a while. Fact is, I use to be quite rebellious.

 

 You have deceived yourself.

and NO, you didn't question anything - that is obvious by your decided

lack of knowledge. Stop lying. Yes, understand that we can't choose to

believe either... same same.

 

 

But please understand, I could be wrong, but I would say most of us,

no matter how hard we try, can never be truly nutral as we all have

preconceived ideas before hand. I can promise, as I always have, that I

will try to keep an open mind. When I am proven wrong I admit it, as I

had to do even upon this very posting. However, the thing you ask of me

is truly not possible. If I could be honest with you and tell you

differently I would. I think we all come to the table with atleast what

we believe we will see as the truth.

 

This is good to know... truth however has nothing to do with what we believe, or want to believe. It just is.. like facts. It's rarely comfortable... and I think many of us have paid some heavy prices for the truth.

 

 

 With all due respect, it would be like me asking you to come to the

table believing that there is a God and that He did in fact create the

world and everything in it. I am sorry my friend. I will not lie

intentally to you.

 

No.. you still don't get it.. we all DID believe at one time. Deeply. We believed just like you do now...

we were 'saved' and had the holy spirit and all of that. We've been on

your side of the fence... we said the exact things you do, felt all

those feelings, etc.. etc.. etc.. Please understand that we

aren't ignorant of your beliefs, we know them all too well - we lived

them. Our biases were yours. Read the testimonies... there's a whole lot

of pain there. And a whole lot of difficult honesty.

 

 

 

                    

                    

I will be looking further into other religions thus I can speak with a little more knowledge after the fact

                    

 

                            Edited by Ravenstar, 22 February 2013 - 10:52 AM.

                            

                       

[Astreja]

Jesus, when arisen, did not have a body like ours. He could walk through walls and dissapear and reapear. Jesus had died and was resurrected, but had not the same body as before, thus then having access to both worlds                       

 

And you saw this with your own eyes, Stranger?  I think not.  Until otherwise demonstrated, it's just a story.

 

Why do you believe such ludicrous things so uncritically?  If I scratched out "Jesus" and wrote in "Osiris" in crayon, I doubt that you would accept it as readily.

 

Are you open to the possibility that it is just a story, and that the eternal life you were promised simply won't be there when the time comes?

[SquareOne]

Why you keep copying the entire bloomin' thread?  Seems like such a waste of internets.

[raoul]

Ahh Jeezz here we go again..

Yeah - typical cult apologetic bullshit once more. I love the way they ALWAYS have some kind of answer to justify anything in the ot or even nt. The answer is, of course, irrational, illogical, and defies reality - but to them it's an answer. That's how cults are - always have an answer.

[SquareOne]

I reckon Stranger should go and spend some time as a sex slave in South East Asia.  It's culturally accepted there, so God allows it to continue.  When he's spread out on the bed, receiving his his tenth client of the night he can praise Jebus for his great understanding of men, and his mercy for allowing slavery as a concession  to human frailty.

[raoul]

I'm tempted to rebut with Aesop's Fables or Homer's Illiad but I'll refrain... LOL