Hit And Run Xtians

[shantonu]

I was thinking the same thing......you took the words right out of my mouth L4A

 

I normally don't resort to such things (calling people names and the like), but I am just sick of LNC and how he treats people here.

 

In any case, I am glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way about him .

 

I've been reading lots of Buddhism recently. The Dhammapada teaches that the foolish person "acquires theoretical knowledge only to his own disadvantage. It destroys his better natures while splitting his head." Dhammapada Ch. 5, verse 72.

 

LNC is a good example of the "fool." I've caught him copying things directly (and sometimes indirectly) from aplogetics websites. He calls this "research." Just google "LNC" and "apologetics" and see what you come up with. He really doesn't understand the words he uses. He's like a parrot merely mouthing words without understanding.

 

This is why LNC enjoys complex argument but refuses to answer simple questions. Fools are like that. They think they can astound everyone with their speechifying. They do not answer in simple, clear terms. Rather they answer questions with questions, muddying the waters hoping that we will mistake cloudy waters for deep waters. It only works if you let it.

[Ouroboros]

Do you have evidence that would prove otherwise?

Yeah, that's a good argument.

 

What makes you think that I hate people who don't believe what I believe? Again, you make accusations for which you have no evidence. I don't believe I have shown any hate toward you or anyone else on this site. I have not called names, although I have been called names here. I have not said anything mean, although mean things have been said to me. So, actually you have made a baseless assertion. I can't control whether people believe me and it really isn't ultimately my concern. Believing me won't do anything for you, believing Jesus is the only thing that will make a difference.

Lets make it really, really simple for you: You made the false accusation that I hate God, which I explained I can't do since I don't believe in God, and you claim that I am an unbeliever because I am rebelling at this fictitious being you believe in and that's the reason why I'm an unbeliever, which is again wrong, because I don't believe in your God! So you come with false accusations, and I call that to be judgmental.

 

If you hit a ball to me, I hit it back to you the same, so here it is: you falsely accuse me of hating and rebelling against your fantasy friend, then I can just as well accuse you of hating me and humanity. Accusations can go both ways. So how does it feel to be on the receiving end? Not fun? Well, there you have it. You accuse me, and I will accuse you. You judge me, I will judge you. Simple. I just returned the favor.

 

 

Again with the names, and you say that I hate you?

You say I hate your imaginary buddy.

 

Absolutely, I am a sinner who deserves hell, just like everyone else on this earth. I rebel every day. I have broken all the 10 commandments at one time or other. I am as guilty of the death of Jesus as is everyone else on earth, we are all complicit. My rebellion merits God's wrath every day; however, I have put my trust in Jesus who promised that his death has covered my sin, and the sins of all who will trust in him.

I know that drill.

 

Why does the age of the book make a difference? Was truth different 2K years ago than it is today? Well, in the age of post-modernism in which we live, maybe truth was held in higher regard back then.

I doubt it.

 

If nature is God, it is much more vicious then your view of the God of the Bible. Nature is responsible for billions of deaths throughout the history of the universe. And, talk about genocide, nature is responsible for mass and multiple instances of genocide. Look at recent history, we have the tsunami in Asia, Katrina, earthquakes, mudslides in Central America, volcanoes, and more. And those are just a few recent instances of natures fury unleashed against life on earth.

You believe your God created nature, so your God is vicious.

 

The other problem is that you have no way of determining whether nature is a god, only speculation.

Like you. Your God is pure speculation. And you know why? Because you can't prove your God, from the simple fact that you claim that God refuse to be proven. There's no proof.

 

What evidence do you have for this belief? Have you communicated with your god?

Every second. Every breath. Every thought. When I talk to you. When I sleep. When I eat. Everything is communication with nature. Prove me wrong.

 

Does your god give you direction for your life?

Through reason, event, experience, being alive,... then yes.

 

How about morality, has your god communicated any moral standards that can be tested? No, I will stick with the God who has revealed himself personally to man and who is loving, powerful, and personally involved with his creation.

Nature is what it is, and morality arises from us existing and socializing.

[Ouroboros]

Really, when did I judge you personally? I believe that it is you who has called me a lunatic and other names. I have not called you any names or personally judged you. When did I say that you reject God. I speak in general terms, so if you have applied these statements to your life personally, that is your doing, not mine.

When you say rejecting and rebelling against God, it presupposes that somehow I would know about your God and intentionally act against better judgment, and that is accusation of me as person. And that's what you did. Don't try to slither your way out of it. You did it, and you know it.

 

It's very simple, I - Just - Don't - Believe - In - Your - God!

 

So any assumptions that I intentionally rejecting your God against better knowledge, is a false assumptions and I take it as an accusation.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that you have provided that would point away from God. I also believe that the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning, and objective morality alone are enough evidence to point to God's existence.

Well, I don't.

 

I keep hearing people on this site claiming that morality, for example, is objective, yet I haven't heard one person give me a valid reason (apart from God) why. So, I believe that the preponderance of the evidence actually points us to God.

We've given you enough evidence for you to believe in what we say, but you are intentionally rejecting our claims because you are rebelling against reason and rationality.

 

OK, in your first paragraph you accuse me of judging you by saying that you reject God and now you make the claim yourself. If you don't believe that he exists, and if he does and has said that he has given enough evidence for us to know that, then you have rejected him. You say that God is a fairy tale, yet you believe that nature is god, I don't see how you can say that this isn't a fairy tale since the nature-god has been the basis of many fairy tales. That doesn't make sense. Harry Potter is a good example of this, thanks for bringing it up. Harry Potter is based upon a pantheistic or panentheistic view of reality, but then you say that this is what you believe.

 

I don't have to judge you for rejecting God, you have done that yourself. I don't know your heart or mind, except what you reveal about yourself. It is also not my job to judge you, that is God's job. But again, it sounds like you have judged yourself.

To say that I don't believe in some supernatural being, is the same as judging that supernatural being? How old are you? You try to preach logic and yet you fail to see how dumb that argument is?

 

If you can show me evidence that I have done this, I will apologize. But, I don't remember judging you personally. So, please show me where I did this.

You can go back in the history of the posts, but I doubt it will help you, because you just don't get it.

 

And btw, if you feel that the attacks on you are unfair and uncalled for, remember this: no one is forcing you to stay here. Obviously this not the right place for you to be. You came her by your own free will, so use that free will for some better purpose and for an audience that admire and worship your wisdom, because we don't.

[Ouroboros]

I normally don't resort to such things (calling people names and the like), but I am just sick of LNC and how he treats people here.

 

In any case, I am glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way about him .

Now perhaps you understand some of the frustration that comes out as anger on this website (referring back to a discussion we had a few months back, do you remember? ).

 

Ignorance is bliss, and LNC is more blessed than others.

[Neon Genesis]

You also say that we have "door-to-door" missionary zeal; however, if you will remember it was you who were on a predominantly Christian site (where you have posted nearly 1,800 times) and who brought me over to this site on which I have posted less than 300 times. That means that you are six times more evangelistic about atheism on the Christian site than I am about Christianity on the exChristian site. I am sorry to say that you put me to shame with your zeal.

How does this prove anything about R.S.'s zeal? Of course you have less posts here than she does at the other site but it has nothing to do with her zeal. It simply means you're a newbie here and have only been posting here for a few weeks now. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here.

 

[i have not called names, although I have been called names here. I have not said anything mean, although mean things have been said to me.

I suppose claiming we have no morals and that we deserve to be tortured by God is supposed to be a compliment in your alternate universe?

 

I have broken all the 10 commandments at one time or other.

Even murder? x.X

 

Harry Potter is based upon a pantheistic or panentheistic view of reality, but then you say that this is what you believe.

Since when? I'm pretty sure JK Rowling is a Christian and a member of the Church Of England. Having read all the Harry Potter books myself, I can say with certainty that the books say nothing about religion. Have you even read the books to know what you're talking about?

[Justin]

Does anyone else ever get to thinking about arguing with LNC and want to slap themselves? I mean we are dealing with a guy who actually believes in the Genesis flood.

[LNC]

It looks like the brothers of the rich man were going to go to hell because they disagreed with the Bible. They had Moses and the Prophets (the Bible) and apparently refused to listen to what was written therein (disagreed via not believing). The end result (according to Jesus' teaching): hell. So, yes, people go to hell because they disagree with the Bible (according to the Bible, that is).

 

For example, the Bible states that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that no man can come to the father (god) but by him. I disagree with this statement because I simply do not believe it to be true. So, based on what the Bible says about Jesus, I disagree with its teachings. As a result, the Bible would say I am on the road to hell.

 

The fact of the matter is, you can say that it is man's rebellion against god that sends a man to hell, but the only way for a man to know what the Christian god demands is to get that information from the Bible. So disagreeing with the Bible is considered the same as disagreeing with god. Therefore, you are incorrect when you say that no one goes to hell for disagreeing with the Bible. According to Christian doctrine, the Bible is the only true source for who and what god is. To reject that source is to reject god himself.

 

No, the brothers of the rich man were not going to hell because they disagreed with the Bible since there was no Bible at the time. These people didn't walk around with the OT scrolls tucked underneath their arms. They were taught what Moses and the prophets said and apparently the rich man and his brothers rejected what they had to say. But, the rich man wasn't where he was because of his refusal to listen to Moses and the prophets, he was where he was because he rejected God, for all that the prophets were speaking were the revelations of God.

 

In rejecting what the Bible says about Jesus, you are in essence, rejecting Jesus. So, as much as you want to narrow it down to rejecting words on a page, you cannot stop there without rejecting the one about whom they write. Again, it is rebellion against God that ultimately merits hell.

 

You can reject God without ever having heard of or read the Bible, so it is not the rejection of God's word that sends you to hell, otherwise, those who don't have the Bible in their language would be off the hook, and clearly that is not the case from what the Bible teaches. The bottom line is that it is not "disagreeing with God" that sends a person to hell, that would not be a serious enough offense. Actually, I don't know where you find your Christian doctrine, but there are two revelations about God that we consider, the book of nature and the book of revelation (not to be confused with the Biblical book of Revelation, I am speaking about the whole of the Bible.) People disagree about parts of the Bible all the time, yet I wouldn't say that they are going to hell. Martin Luther had a real problem with the Book of James, he wanted to tear it out of the Bible, but that didn't threaten his eternal destiny.

 

No, he has not. Not in any way, shape or form. Frankly, if you think about it, virtually every single person on this forum is a person that, at one point in their life, desperately wanted to be a part of god's plan and to dedicate their lives to him. These people, myself included, sought god with all our hearts, dedicated ourselves to him, prayed, studied and looked to shore up our faith by further attempting to see god in everything all around us. Yet, despite this, the more we looked the more we found that god simply was not there.

 

Even after leaving the faith there are many here that would be willing to willingly bow the knee to a god should the evidence show that such a god exists. However, such evidence is not there. To say that god has given sufficient evidence is simply not the case.

 

One thing I have noticed in your posts (at least here in this thread), LNC, is that you state things as fact without any facts to back them up. What you are really doing is stating what you think instead of what is. While it is OK to have thoughts and beliefs, it is not OK to state them as emphatic facts if there is no evidence for such.

 

To say that God has not given enough evidence for his existence is to call him a liar. I don't know the stories of the people on this forum, so I am not the one to judge why they made the decisions that they have; all I can do is go by what is revealed by God through his word and say that he has given enough evidence and that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness. I only know that I have sought God with an open and honest mind and heart and found him.

 

I wonder, however, what type of evidence would be required by people whom you say would willingly bow the knee should the right evidence be presented. I was listening to an atheist speak recently and when asked what sort of evidence he would require, he said that if he saw "a few" resurrections happen he would believe. When asked how many "a few" would be, he couldn't give a number; yet, as I said in an earlier post, I believe "a few" for him would probably mean one more than he has seen.

 

Which facts have I stated without backing? I will be happy to back up any statement for which you feel I have not given sufficient grounds. I will challenge you with the same standard. You claim that you believe that Jesus' statement that he is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him is untrue. Can you prove that? Or, is that just your personal feeling or belief?

 

According to the Bible it is (from a human perspective). You are to have an ready answer for every man. The Bible says that no one can believe unless they hear and that this hearing comes from the one that preaches and, as a result, you are to have an answer and to proclaim to all who are "lost." Since the Bible declares that none can get saved apart from hearing the Gospel, then the hearing of the Gospel is a requirement for salvation. Since no one can hear unless one declares it, then it is necessary for the Gospel to be declared. Therefore, it is indeed the believer's job to give the unbeliever what they need in order to be saved.

 

Yes, I realize that you are coming from the perspective that it is god that ultimately saves (according to the Bible ... salvation is of the lord and all that), but the god of the Bible has declared that this is worked, not just through the drawing of his spirit, but via the foolishness of the proclamation of the Gospel. So, again, without the human proclamation of faith lost man cannot get saved (according to the Bible).

 

Yes, I have to be ready to answer for the hope that is within me (1 Peter 3:15), but that doesn't mean that I have to give you evidence for you to believe. Now, this is not to say that I don't have evidence or don't present evidence, but it is to say that I can't make you believe that evidence, or even make you believe that it is evidence. I have presented valid arguments for the existence of God on this forum and at least two people have denied that I have presented evidence. They not only reject the evidence, but also refuse to even admit that I have presented evidence or arguments. But, thanks for your encouragement. I will press on.

[LNC]

You are just interpreting the Book. That's personal opinions.

 

You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible. There's not system in which verse you pick as yours and which one you exclude. Other verses you will gladly pick, even if they were addressed to Jews, or to the disciples, or to a certain church.

 

Over and over again, you prove my point. But only you can't see it. Everyone who is reading this understands how full of bull-shit you are.

 

OK, since you seem to believe that I am wrong here, please give me the evidence. What does the Hebrew say that would indicate to you that this was a child merely mouthing off to his or her parent? I am willing to learn from you if you have the evidence to back up your claims. By the way, there is a system by which we interpret the Bible it is called hermeneutics using exegesis. Are you familiar with these concepts? They are very systematic and keep us from reading the English translation to get it to say what we want. So, if you want to exegete the passage and give me your understanding of the Hebrew, the history, the audience, and the setting, I am willing to learn from you.

 

The 10 commandments. They were written to the Jews.

 

Did Paul every tell you that it was for the Christians? Did Jesus ever tell you they were for the heathens or non-Jews?

 

You are a cherry-picker. Either the verses are in the Bible and for everyone, or not. If they're not, then you have a hard time proving that any verse is for anyone.

 

Does the golden rule apply to you? Who was Jesus talking to when he said it? Was it you? If not, then you can't claim it to be to you.

 

To tell you the truth, you are a self-centered prick, and you don't worship God, but you worship yourself and think you're the greatest ever made. And you can pat yourself on the shoulder now, because from all our conversations there's one thing that has come out of it, and that is that I find your religion even more despicable and distasteful than ever. You are just hammering the nails harder in the coffin. So when you go to Heaven, please tell God how good of soldier you were and made people despise God through your loquacious insanities. You have slain their spirits and doomed them to Hell, because you present your religion and your God in a very, very bad light.

 

OK, you got the most basic point about the 10 commandments, care to fill in a few more details? Who wrote them? From where did they come? Where do we find them in the Bible? What was the setting in which they were received? What were they for? How are they divided up?

 

Paul never indicated that they were for the Christians other than to say that they are a tutor or a guardian (Galatians 3:25) until Christ came. It was given to show our need for a savior.

 

We know to whom the verses of the Bible apply by the context, the audience, the author, the setting, and other indicators. If you believe that all verses in the Bible apply to everyone, then there are verses about women and their menstrual cycles, does that apply to guys? No, it would be foolish to say that every verse applies to every person.

 

Yes, the "golden rule" (Matthew 7:12) does apply to all people, not just the people to whom Jesus was speaking at the time. Why would you think it doesn't? His audience at the time were the people gathered with him on the mount where he was teaching. By your standard, the constitution of the U.S. doesn't apply to you since you weren't alive or there when it was written. That is not good logic. Can you explain why I shouldn't apply the "golden rule" (So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them) to my life? I think it is pretty good wisdom to live by.

 

OK, there you go with the name-calling again. You are also engaged in judging me without even knowing me. I don't hammer anyone's nails, they do that to themselves, just like we all did it to Jesus (metaphorically speaking). I am sorry that you feel that way, but I will continue to pray for you. Even though you call me names and feel anger toward me, I have appreciated our exchanges, both this time and the first time around when we discussed the origin of the universe. You seem to be a thoughtful person.

[Looking4Answers]

No, the brothers of the rich man were not going to hell because they disagreed with the Bible since there was no Bible at the time.

 

You have got to be kidding me. Right? I mean ... are you really this ignorant? Yes, there was indeed a Bible. There had been for many HUNDREDS of years. It was only what we call the Old Testament ... but they had it. It was translated into Greek about 200 years before the time of Christ so it was available in both Greek and Hebrew. And rich people often would have copies of texts for themselves, so it could very well be possible that the rich man and his brothers had copies. Assuredly the local synagogue did and certainly the temple did. So you can stop blowing your smoke, buddy.

 

These people didn't walk around with the OT scrolls tucked underneath their arms.

 

Maybe not, but entire communities would MEMORIZE entire scrolls, especially those too poor to own written ones.

 

Do you know history at all? Are you familiar with the Maccabees and that period of history? Do you recall a Greek king by the name of Antiocus? He became so angry at the Jews that one thing he did was to forbid the reading of the religious scrolls. Today, Jewish people play a gambling game with a top (a dreidel) to memorialize what happened back then. Why a gambling game? Because the Jews would gather to read the scrolls of the old testament. If a Greek soldier started to approach them they would quickly hide the scroll and pretend they were gathered to gamble. This seems to indicate that there were quite a few scrolls of the Old Testament books floating around. And this all took place back in about 165 BC.

 

Lastly, the shear number of scroll fragments of the Old Testament that still survive today is a testament to how many Old Testament scrolls there must have been back then.

 

You are sorely mistaken (again).

 

They were taught what Moses and the prophets said and apparently the rich man and his brothers rejected what they had to say.

 

And where were they taught about Moses and the prophets? From the Bible! So, again, rejection of what the Bible teaches is enough to send someone to hell.

 

In rejecting what the Bible says about Jesus, you are in essence, rejecting Jesus.

 

Do you not read? I said that! Let's look at a simple math problem:

 

Jesus = the Word (Bible)

Bible (the Word) = Jesus

 

Reject Jesus = Reject Bible

Reject Bible = Reject Jesus

 

So either statement is true. Therefore, you can stop arguing that one of them is not. If you say that no one goes to hell for rejecting the Bible, then that would be the same as saying that no one goes to hell for rejecting Jesus. Why? Because the Bible is the only source we have that teaches about who this Jesus supposedly is and what he supposedly came to do.

 

You can reject God without ever having heard of or read the Bible

 

And you can reject the Bible without ever having heard of the god of the Bible. Just because one is true does not make the other false. Again, you are missing the point. The point is that, without the Bible, there would be no concept of the Christian god at all ... NONE! You would not know about the Christian version of hell, heaven, god, Christ, etc. These concepts are found in the Bible.

 

Secondly, the man in the jungle who has never heard about the Christian god nor has ever seen a Bible cannot reject that which he does not know about. If the thought does not even enter his mind, he cannot reject it.

[Looking4Answers]

Actually, I don't know where you find your Christian doctrine, but there are two revelations about God that we consider, the book of nature and the book of revelation (not to be confused with the Biblical book of Revelation, I am speaking about the whole of the Bible.)

 

What you are talking about is what theologians call General Revelation and Specific Revelation. What is generally agreed upon by theologians is that General Revelation (god revealing himself in general via things like nature) is NOT enough information to get someone into heaven. For example, via looking at nature, a man cannot possibly come to the conclusion that a man named Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago and died upon a cross for this man's sins. Therefore, General Revelation cannot give the man the needed information to "get saved." Specific Revelation is then needed and this is supposedly what the Bible is. Therefore, once again, to reject the Bible (supposedly specific revelation) is to reject god and thus, the individual would end up in hell.

 

Again, you show that you can talk a whirlwind, but it only ends up being smoke and mirrors. You simply either don't know what you are talking about or are either too dumb to admit your mistakes or to proud.

 

People disagree about parts of the Bible all the time, yet I wouldn't say that they are going to hell.

 

Disagreeing is not the same as rejecting. Why did you suddenly go to that term? And having a problem with one book of the Bible (such as Martin Luther with James ... and he also had problems with Revelation, if I remember correctly) does not equal rejection of the entire Bible. So, again, you are grasping at air.

 

To say that God has not given enough evidence for his existence is to call him a liar.

 

No. To say that god has not given enough evidence for his existence is to call YOU a liar. I don't believe that god exists and therefore this non-existent being cannot lie at all. Only the people who believe in him can lie for him.

 

all I can do is go by what is revealed by God through his word ...

 

The same word that calls a bat a bird? The same word that talks about four-legged winged "fowls" such as the ever famous four-legged beetle, the four-legged locust and the four-legged grasshopper? Is this the word you are talking about? How about the word that talks about an incompetent god that murders an entire world full of people because it "repented" him that he made man? Is that the word you are referring to that supposedly reveals god to men? Do you mean the word that shows a god that becomes impotent before iron chariots? That word? Is that the one you are referring to? Are you referring to the same word that talks about a woman turning into salt for looking backward? Or perhaps you are talking about the word that tells us about the talking snake? Maybe you are talking about the word that tells us that god keeps a storehouse to store snow and rain in. Or perhaps you are talking about the word that tells us the proper way to own a slave, that a girl child makes the woman who bore her twice as unclean and that a rapist needs to marry the woman he raped? Is this the word you are referring to?

 

Yeah. The god of that book did a great job of revealing himself. We can see clearly what an asshole he is, how impotent he is and how abso-friggin-lutely ignorant of science he is. You can go off into a corner and bow down to him all you want. Seriously.

 

I wonder, however, what type of evidence would be required by people whom you say would willingly bow the knee should the right evidence be presented.

 

If the Bible actually didn't contradict itself that would be a start for most of us. If the Bible wasn't so flat out wrong on so many issues then that would also help. If the Bible actually had a decent moral god depicted in it instead of a despot that is desperate to be worshiped ... that might help.

 

You see, it really wouldn't necessarily take that much. But the book that is claimed to be the very word of god is so greatly screwed up that it simply takes a total mind-fuck to believe it. I know. I once was there.

 

Which facts have I stated without backing?

 

Man, go back through this thread and read. You made all sorts of statements that people showed you were wrong. For example, you said things like the Bible only labels bats as winged creatures and not as birds. I quoted the verses that showed you that you were wrong even giving you the Hebrew. You said that the Bible never commands an unruly child to be stoned to death. Again, I gave you the verses to show you were wrong. You ignored them. There are literally PAGES of stuff people have countered you with in this very thread and you ignored most of it. So, you do the leg work. We already have.

 

You claim that you believe that Jesus' statement that he is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him is untrue. Can you prove that? Or, is that just your personal feeling or belief?

 

My proof has been presented throughout this thread. The only way for a person to have come to the conclusion is that the Bible says so. However, the Bible has been proven to be a totally unreliable book. As such, the statement that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that no man can come to the father by by him cannot be proven true. The very book that it is in is so full of errors that it makes it unlikely that it is a true statement.

 

However, I will soften this a bit and say, while I recognize that I cannot "prove" that this is not the case, you cannot "prove" that it is. This is no different than me asking you to "prove" that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. You simply cannot absolutely prove this one way or the other. However, just because something cannot be proven to be absolutely false does not make it absolutely true.

 

The natural position of the average, rational person is the position of skepticism. If you were to tell me that a man just flew across the street on his own power, then I would instantly be skeptical. If I cared to, I could investigate the evidence (if any) to see if there is any validity in the statement. I might find that the statement is not supported. I might find that a movie was being filmed and what you saw was misinterpreted. The point is, it takes FACTS to move something out of the position of being implausible and move it into the realm of the plausible or possible.

 

You make a statement that Jesus is the only true way to the father. I start in the position of a skeptic and then examine the evidence. Since the primary evidence is the Bible, which is claimed to be the very word of god, then I start with my examination there. Is there any way that the Bible can move me from being skeptical and, thus, bring the concept of Jesus as the savior into the position of possible or plausible? When the Bible is examined and the errors become abundant and the contradictions mount and obviously bad things are called good, etc, then it becomes increasingly difficult to move the concept of Jesus being the only way out of the position of implausible. In fact, the more one digs, the less likely the concept becomes and being even skeptical is difficult as the subject becomes, frankly, laughable.

 

Yes, I have to be ready to answer for the hope that is within me (1 Peter 3:15), but that doesn't mean that I have to give you evidence for you to believe. Now, this is not to say that I don't have evidence or don't present evidence, but it is to say that I can't make you believe that evidence, or even make you believe that it is evidence. I have presented valid arguments for the existence of God on this forum and at least two people have denied that I have presented evidence. They not only reject the evidence, but also refuse to even admit that I have presented evidence or arguments. But, thanks for your encouragement. I will press on.

 

Again, you missed the point. Your original statement had to do with it not being your job. I simply pointed out that it was. Period.

[Ouroboros]

You are just interpreting the Book. That's personal opinions.

 

You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible. There's not system in which verse you pick as yours and which one you exclude. Other verses you will gladly pick, even if they were addressed to Jews, or to the disciples, or to a certain church.

 

Over and over again, you prove my point. But only you can't see it. Everyone who is reading this understands how full of bull-shit you are.

 

OK, since you seem to believe that I am wrong here, please give me the evidence. What does the Hebrew say that would indicate to you that this was a child merely mouthing off to his or her parent? I am willing to learn from you if you have the evidence to back up your claims. By the way, there is a system by which we interpret the Bible it is called hermeneutics using exegesis. Are you familiar with these concepts? They are very systematic and keep us from reading the English translation to get it to say what we want. So, if you want to exegete the passage and give me your understanding of the Hebrew, the history, the audience, and the setting, I am willing to learn from you.

 

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

(Deut. 21:18-21)

A synonym to the first whole sentence is: unruly (look it up if you must), which is the word I believe I used. The word rebellious (marah) is also translated "provocation" in one other verse in the NAS.

 

Give me the Bible verse that tells you that this verse does not apply to you. When did God undo this command to you? And "Someone" is everyone, just like word "world" in "so much loved God the world" means everyone. So tell me where it says that "someone" only applies to Jews when it suits you. (I think the right phrasing is: "If any man", so are you a man or are you some alien from another planet, and that's why it doesn't apply to you? Or maybe only Jewish men are real men?)

 

And exegesis is a human making human arguments for a verse. So if a hard-core fundamentalist like you do exegesis on this verse, you will of course claim it shouldn't apply to you, while a true historian understand that this was what the Jews at that time thought God commanded, and that it's a matter of anthropology, religious history, and religious evolution rather than God's word.

 

Btw, look up "exegesis" in the thesaurus, and you'll find "interpretation" there. Isn't that what I basically said?

[Neon Genesis]

You can reject God without ever having heard of or read the Bible, so it is not the rejection of God's word that sends you to hell, otherwise, those who don't have the Bible in their language would be off the hook, and clearly that is not the case from what the Bible teaches. The bottom line is that it is not "disagreeing with God" that sends a person to hell, that would not be a serious enough offense. Actually, I don't know where you find your Christian doctrine, but there are two revelations about God that we consider, the book of nature and the book of revelation (not to be confused with the Biblical book of Revelation, I am speaking about the whole of the Bible.) People disagree about parts of the Bible all the time, yet I wouldn't say that they are going to hell. Martin Luther had a real problem with the Book of James, he wanted to tear it out of the Bible, but that didn't threaten his eternal destiny.

So you can cherry pick the bible all you want but if you "reject" Jesus, in other words, if we disagree with you, then we're going to hell? If you can cherry pick the bible without rejecting Jesus, why bother with believing the bible at all since you apparently only want to believe in the parts of it that are convenient for you? And who died and made you God to decide which people can still get into heaven and which ones aren't? What happened to judge not lest ye be judged?

 

To say that God has not given enough evidence for his existence is to call him a liar. I don't know the stories of the people on this forum, so I am not the one to judge why they made the decisions that they have; all I can do is go by what is revealed by God through his word and say that he has given enough evidence and that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

If you don't know enough about us to judge us, then why did you just now judge us? It's hypocritical for you to say you aren't judging us, but then turn around and claim we're "suppressing" the truth. Isn't that a judgment? And how are we "suppressing" anything? Have we banned you yet? Have we restricted your freedom of speech any? No, we've done none of those things. So don't you dare make a false claim about us that you have no evidence for. Isn't bearing false witness a sin in the bible? Why don't you pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pluck the shard out of ours?

 

I only know that I have sought God with an open and honest mind and heart and found him.

If you're so honest and open minded, why do you keep making false claims about us and ignoring our posts? You're exactly like the Pharisee who prays to God and thanks him for making him so perfect and not like a tax collector.

 

I wonder, however, what type of evidence would be required by people whom you say would willingly bow the knee should the right evidence be presented. I was listening to an atheist speak recently and when asked what sort of evidence he would require, he said that if he saw "a few" resurrections happen he would believe. When asked how many "a few" would be, he couldn't give a number; yet, as I said in an earlier post, I believe "a few" for him would probably mean one more than he has seen.

I'd believe if you can drink poison and survive like it says in Mark 16:17-18

These signs will accompany those who have believed: (V)in My name they will cast out demons, they will (W)speak with new tongues;

 

18they will (X)pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will (Y)lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

According to these verses, it says that true Christians will be able to drink poison and survive. If you can do that, then that means you're a true Christian and what you're saying is right. If you can't drink poison and survive though, then that means you are not a true Christian and I see no reason why I should believe what you say. So, how about it? If you believe you have the truth, why don't you try drinking poison and surviving? If you can't do that, then don't claim to know the truth because the scriptures say you're not a true follower of Jesus.

[chefranden]

Well I'm done with Long Noodle Christian. His noodle is just to long for me. I'm old so I don't have time to keep sucking on the noodle until I get to the end. Besides the sauce is not very tasty.

 

 

I advise you all to stop playing "you're stupid!", "no you're stupid!" with this child. LNC wouldn't know evidence if he shat it out his butt hole and smeared it all over himself.

[Neon Genesis]

Well I'm done with Long Noodle Christian. His noodle is just to long for me. I'm old so I don't have time to keep sucking on the noodle until I get to the end. Besides the sauce is not very tasty.

He must have bought a cheap bootleg version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ramen. Making crappy noodles is truly an unforgivable sin.

[Ouroboros]

I advise you all to stop playing "you're stupid!", "no you're stupid!" with this child. LNC wouldn't know evidence if he shat it out his butt hole and smeared it all over himself.

Yeah. You're right. It doesn't seem to be any way to have a dialogue with this guy. It's a lost cause.

[shantonu]

Does anyone else ever get to thinking about arguing with LNC and want to slap themselves? I mean we are dealing with a guy who actually believes in the Genesis flood.

 

It's like talking to a space alien. As far as I can tell LNC believes that all all the animals in the world were on a tiny boat--much smaller than modern ULCCs. That makes no sense. You can't really have conversation with such a person because their views differ so wildly from our own. The Azande believe (reportedly) believe that their souls can be stolen by witchcraft and get very depressed if this happens. Witchcraft forms an important part of their daily lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azande

 

The Azande are not stupid. But they not part o fthe modern world either. You can't really understand them or come to terms with them because their conception of the world is so different from the modern conception of the world. LNC has, for whatever reason, decided that the modern world, with it's modern notions of justice, skepticism, and empirical observation is simply not for him. He's withdrawn into his own world of magic and superstition. This he calls "faith," and he can call it whatever he wants, but he's not part of the modern world. It makes about as much sense talking to him as it would trying disuade an Azande from believing in witchcraft.

[LNC]

Try this section of the Bible:

 

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

 

OK, he is technically stoned for violating the 5th commandment which ultimately is to rebel against God. But, the distinction as listed below between unruly and rebellious are minor enough that I will give you that one. But, again, the rule behind the rule is that to rebel against the authority of parents is ultimately to rebel against the authority of God as God established it for them.

 

Unruly: not submissive or conforming to rule; ungovernable; turbulent; intractable; refractory; lawless: an unruly class; an unruly wilderness.

 

Rebellious: defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate; inclined to rebel.

 

Now, that you have established that you don't like this rule, is that your opinion or do you base your belief on something more objective?

[LNC]

You see? You're even arguing with other Christians!!! But... all of you should have the truth? No? So which church should I go to, Yoyo's or yours? Which one of you is telling the ultimate, absolute, undeniable truth? I vote for neither. I have to follow my heart and my mind, because your mind is most definitely extremely screwed up.

 

Know this. Just know one thing from our discussion here, I respect Yoyo 100 times more than I respect you. So if anyone ever have a chance to talk to me about religion in a sane way, it's him. So remember that when you want to put another gold star on your "proselytizing" score-card. You're just as bad as the Westboro Baptists. Complete nutcases driving people away from faith. They're trying to hard to be correct that the fail in winning people over.

 

Christians have argued doctrine for a long time, that is healthy, it helps to hone in on the truth. It is not much different in science as scientists argue theories all the time. The fact that people argue doesn't mean that there is no truth to be found, does it? If so, then you are sounding like a post-modern.

 

I am not concerned about your opinion of me as I am about being right in God's eyes. I am curious as to what you like about YoYo's theological positions?

[Ouroboros]

You don't get it. Yoyo does.

[Pandora Moon]

LNC. I have a question for you, you say that the bible has no contradictions?. Well could you help me understand how this isn't a contradiction.

 

It says clearly in Exodus 20:13 that "you must not murder" and yet in Ecclesiates 3:3 that there is "a time to kill..."

 

Now in case you're wondering the bible that I'm refering to is the New World Translation version since it's the only full bible I have but I've found that most bibles are the same it's the interpretation that is different.

 

Thanks in advance

[Looking4Answers]

Unruly: not submissive

 

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ...

 

If part of the definition of "unruly" is to not submit (per your words) then not submitting is not obeying, right? Could we not reinterpret the portion of the verse quoted above as:

 

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which is not submissive to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ..."

 

What you are really doing is picking at gnats here and arguing against HanSolo's choice of the word "unruly" over "rebellious." I am sure that HanSolo would be just as upset over someone being stoned to death for being "rebellious" as well as being "unruly." The point is not which word is used (rebellious or unruly) but the unjust and extreme punishment for the "crime" from a supposedly just deity. And the point was that you said it was not the case (and stated it rather emphatically) when, in fact, the Bible did. So, you were wrong. Period.

 

To all others in this thread:

 

Yes. I am guilty. I am beating a dead horse here. I know ... I know ... sorry ... sorry ...

[Ouroboros]

Ooooh, he was just arguing about the choice of that particular word! I see, okay, lets have a look at the dictionary:

 

Unruly: disorderly and disruptive and not amenable to discipline or control

 

Synonyms: disorderly, rowdy, wild, unmanageable, uncontrollable, disobedient, disruptive, undisciplined, restive, wayward, willful, headstrong, irrepressible, obstreperous, difficult, intractable, out of hand, recalcitrant; boisterous, lively, rambunctious, refractory; archaic contumacious.

 

 

Then look at the phrase: "who does not heed them when they discipline him" from Deut 21.

 

Now, the question is, does "not heed when disciplined" (from the Bible quote) mean the same as "not amenable to disciple?" (from the dictionary for "unruly") Yes, I do think so.

 

And that I even had to explain this to this detail show how impossible it would be for us to continue to discuss. This is beyond ludicrous.

 

But then also, look at synonyms for rebellious: a rebellious adolescent defiant, disobedient, insubordinate, unruly, mutinous, wayward, obstreperous, recalcitrant, intractable; formal refractory.

 

Do we find the same words in the two lists? Yes, we do. So "unruly" is a valid reformulation of what is said in the Bible quote.

 

But to top it off with the final touch, lets have the translation from the Douay-Rheims translation:

21:18

If a man have a stubborn and unruly son, who will not hear the commandments of his father or mother, and being corrected, slighteth obedience:

[Neon Genesis]

And if he's arguing from mistranslations here, how does he support his belief in hell? According to the Hebrew version of the OT, the word for hell is Sheol, which refers to the grave. The concept of hell as a place of eternal torture is a Christian invention that they stole from the Greeks. So, if LNC is going to be consistent with using correct translations, then he shouldn't believe in hell. Why does he cherry pick the Hebrew version of the bible when it comes to supporting the beliefs he agrees with but not when it comes to things that would be too inconvenient for him? And how does he explain the mistranslation of the word virgin in the Isaiah prophecy?

[Ouroboros]

And if he's arguing from mistranslations here, ...

First of all, it's not a mistranslation, but a matter of poor knowledge in English. I just added the Douay-Rheim's translation, which use the word "unruly." I knew one of them had it, I just couldn't figure out if it was another verse or another translation. The verse was in my head with the word "unruly," because that's Kenneth Copeland used in one of his sermons (probably one I heard 20 years ago).

 

The words in Strong's are:

 

Carar:

to rebel, be stubborn, be rebellious, be refractory

1. (Qal)

1. to be stubborn

2. stubborn, rebel (subst)

and

Marah:

to be contentious, be rebellious, be refractory, be disobedient towards, be rebellious against

 

1. (Qal) to be disobedient, be rebellious

1. towards father

2. towards God

2. (Hiphil) to show rebelliousness, show disobedience, disobey

 

So perhaps LNC would be happier if I said "refractory?"

[agnosticator]

I'm amazed by your perserverance Hans and looking4a.