Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

[Shyone]

 

So if God audibly told you to do something and you knew 100% that it was God you wouldn't do it if you didn't like it?

 

And we are basing this scenario on an ASSUMPTION that God would ask me to do something like this.

 

Which he wouldn't because the commandments of Jesus forbid killing and spilling the blood of babies is an especially horredous act in the eyes of God

Once again, morality advances and leaves Christians in the dust...

 

The excuse "I was only doing what I was ordered" has been shown to be wrong. Soldiers may contradict their commanders, and when a commandment is clearly immoral, it should be the duty of each human being to do what it moral or disobey an immoral command.

 

As for what God wouldn't order... Really, have you read the Old Testament? Look up Midianites and the execution of the women and male children - AFTER they were captured and in custody. I'll give you the virgins if you want to fuck them, but really killing the male children is immoral.

 

Have Christians no sense of morality? Do you not know what is right or wrong? Can you not see that killing children is wrong, whether they happen to be from your tribe or not?

 

"Happy is he that dasheth the babies of his enemies on the rocks." That's Christian morality for you.

[Ouroboros]

1. Actually if God told me to do something and I didn't do it, it would be morally corrupt if I didn't. We don't follow YOUR standard of morals we follow what God says. Would God tell me to kill a baby most likely not. Killing babies is something God really hates. But if He did tell me to do it, I would.

Then morality is NOT absolute as you said earlier.

 

For something to be ABSOLUTE it must apply all the time, everywhere, for everyone, regardless of situation or commands from any higher authority.

 

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY why people obeyed Hitler. He commanded them to kill. They thought it was okay to kill because he was in authority.

 

That's what you are. A Hitler follower. God is Hitler, and you obey what he commands.

 

To you, morality is a matter of obedience, not a matter of right and wrong. Your morality is CORRUPT.

 

2. I've nuged you away based on a hypothetical situation in which God orders me to do something? Thats pretty silly.

Your attitude, moral corruptness, and complete ignorance scare me. Your religion creates evil people. Your belief makes a worse person, not a better one. So it's definitely not silly that it nudges me away from your religion.

 

God hasn't told me to do anything of the such and the scripture says nothing like that which is why I said I would test the spirit to even see if it was (of) God or not.

How do you test the spirit? By your inner voice? Voices in your head? Flaming fingers writing in fire on the wall? Or reading tealeaves?

 

And if it was and God said go and kill such and such then yeah I would do it. That doesn't make God a God of death to babies because in a fictitious scenario God asked me to do it. That simply means that as a christian my #1 duty is to obey God.

As I said, your definition of absolute morality is to obey God's every command. That is not absolute morality. Absolute morality is when certain things are right or wrong always.

 

If you just do whatever God tell you to do, then you are not moral, you're just a robot without knowing right from wrong.

 

If people on here wish to use this scenario to promote their own anti-christian leanings that fine but taking into account that many people on here have a pre-existing bias against christianity and people have shown their unabashed loyality to that position even when its permises are provably false (ie Zietgiest) then I really question if they are even logically rationally thinking about this or just basing their opinion on emotional appeals such as this.

I'm extremely logical and rational about the things I think about. But I can tell that you are not.

 

Andrea Yates killed her children because she wanted to save them from eternal damnation. She felt that God was acting through her. She drowned her children in the bathtub. Is she a righteous and holy person? According to you, yes, she is. She obeyed God. She tested the spirit and acted according to your corrupt morality.

 

A world built upon your false and twisted morality would eventually destroy our society. I'm very happy that our law is based on secular values and reasoning and not on your sick religion.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

So if God audibly told you to do something and you knew 100% that it was God you wouldn't do it if you didn't like it?

I would not.

 

Because I consider killing a child to be wrong, regardless if God commands me or not. If morality is absolute, then it is absolutely absolute, and God can't override it. Unless you want to start that morality is relative to God's commands, and subjective to the person's interpretations, which leads to a relativistic/subjective morality and not an absolute.

 

It's either or. You can't have it both ways.

 

And we are basing this scenario on an ASSUMPTION that God would ask me to do something like this.

And since moral is absolute, God can't command it. It would be beyond the absolute morality. Hence, the Bible is lying about God commanding murders in the Bible. All those stories are lies.

 

Which he wouldn't because the commandments of Jesus forbid killing and spilling the blood of babies is an especially horredous act in the eyes of God

Exactly. He wouldn't, and therefore we know that the Flood is a false story, and so is any other story in the Old Testament where God commanded killing (or even fornication).

 

1. and my world view is ego centric? Lol. God the creator of all and you tells you to do something and because YOU feel its wrong you won't do it. Who are you to tell the all powerful, knowing, just, righteous etc etc He's wrong and you're right. Everything your pee brain scientist are trying to figure out about His creation He knows because He made it. That is simply absurd. Sure God can override or provide for exceptions. That is Gods perogative, you cannot provide for exceptions in Gods law because they are not yours to break but yours to keep.

 

2. Simply becuase God can flex His own rules doesn't mean we can. God created the laws of nature and yet He allowed for a virgin woman to give birth. The laws of nature in humans and many other mammals says you need sexual intercourse to accomplish getting pregnant but this didn't happen. Jesus told Peter to let the dead bury the dead when and didn't allow Peter to bury his dead family member. But this would fly in the face of the OT law which said that a jew wasn't to defile himself with a dead body. There plenty of instances where God can choose to bend flex or break his own rules as He is the supreme ruler of the universe has the ability and perogative to do. However when we start trying to flex bend and break the law of God, thats where we run into trouble. That isn't relativism that is still objectivity. Relativism is when each person takes what they think and applies it to their views on right and wrong, something humans have no real ability to understand.

 

3. See #2. That doesn't change the absolute nature of the Laws when God himself bends them to serve His own purpose. When man bends th rules to serve his own purpose and in effect places man in the position of God that is where relativism comes in.

 

4. Again you are missing the part where I said if he does command it I am obliged to follow it. God does command killing to the nation of Israel which was directly run by God and He used them as an instrumetn of his judgment. Midianites the Amalekites etc, that is Gods perogative how he chooses to execute his judgment. The bible condemns slavery but God raised up the babylonians to take the Israelites into captivity when they strayed from God and went after other gods. You may not like it but God can do whatever he darn well pleases. And the flood story isn't false because God commands against killing. The flood story, Sodom and Gamorrah, The Captivity of The Israelites in various nations and the destruction of their temples, and the slaughter of the worshippers of Baal prove that God has different ways of judging the wicked. Be it with armies of men, plauges or natural disasters. God can/has and will judge the wickedness of man at the time and manner of His choice. Again this isn't something people like to hear but its most definately how God is. And when did God command fornication.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Apparently not since it wasn't even Peter Jesus told to let the dead bury the dead. Luke 9:59-62

To another he said, ‘Follow me.’ But he said, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ 60But Jesus* said to him, ‘Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’ 61Another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ 62Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.’

In light of this new study that a person's beliefs in God's morals are really their morals, since FaithDefender says they would murder a baby if God willed it, is FaithDefender really saying that they would murder a baby if they willed it?

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

FaithDefender619-

 

Theoretically if someone killed a child/ baby because God told them to, I don't think you would believe them or accept that as an excuse for murder. How would you know whether or not God told another person to kill a child? How does one distinguish the voice of god in their heads from any other? This is the main point of the OP. Perhaps you are certain that you would know yourself, but in the case of another person, how could you know?

 

Thing is more than one person has killed their own children in order to secure their children's place in heaven. This makes sense, and can even be seen as a moral thing to do in accordance with the religion. If someone is completely convinced that heaven and hell are real, that this life is but a trial full of pain and suffering, that their children are innocent and will go to heaven... well isn't it then in the child's best interest to have their life ended before they have a chance to become corrupted by sin and possibly go to hell? Isn't that a noble sacrifice of the parent to put their own salvation on the line to secure their child's place in heaven? The parent in these cases often takes their own life soon after their child's and so will go to hell, but they did it all for their kids. Isn't that love?

 

To clarify I think parents who do such things are mentally ill and all the assumptions they have made to get to this point are based on lies. I think it is unbelievably tragic. But what flaws do you see in this logic? I mean the parent goes to hell, but if a parent is willing to sacrifice for their children what can you say is wrong with parents who do so?

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Actually if God told me to do something and I didn't do it, it would be morally corrupt if I didn't. We don't follow YOUR standard of morals we follow what God says. Would God tell me to kill a baby most likely not. Killing babies is something God really hates. But if He did tell me to do it, I would.

Then morality is NOT absolute as you said earlier.

 

For something to be ABSOLUTE it must apply all the time, everywhere, for everyone, regardless of situation or commands from any higher authority.

 

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY why people obeyed Hitler. He commanded them to kill. They thought it was okay to kill because he was in authority.

 

That's what you are. A Hitler follower. God is Hitler, and you obey what he commands.

 

To you, morality is a matter of obedience, not a matter of right and wrong. Your morality is CORRUPT.

 

2. I've nuged you away based on a hypothetical situation in which God orders me to do something? Thats pretty silly.

Your attitude, moral corruptness, and complete ignorance scare me. Your religion creates evil people. Your belief makes a worse person, not a better one. So it's definitely not silly that it nudges me away from your religion.

 

God hasn't told me to do anything of the such and the scripture says nothing like that which is why I said I would test the spirit to even see if it was (of) God or not.

How do you test the spirit? By your inner voice? Voices in your head? Flaming fingers writing in fire on the wall? Or reading tealeaves?

 

And if it was and God said go and kill such and such then yeah I would do it. That doesn't make God a God of death to babies because in a fictitious scenario God asked me to do it. That simply means that as a christian my #1 duty is to obey God.

As I said, your definition of absolute morality is to obey God's every command. That is not absolute morality. Absolute morality is when certain things are right or wrong always.

 

If you just do whatever God tell you to do, then you are not moral, you're just a robot without knowing right from wrong.

 

If people on here wish to use this scenario to promote their own anti-christian leanings that fine but taking into account that many people on here have a pre-existing bias against christianity and people have shown their unabashed loyality to that position even when its permises are provably false (ie Zietgiest) then I really question if they are even logically rationally thinking about this or just basing their opinion on emotional appeals such as this.

I'm extremely logical and rational about the things I think about. But I can tell that you are not.

 

Andrea Yates killed her children because she wanted to save them from eternal damnation. She felt that God was acting through her. She drowned her children in the bathtub. Is she a righteous and holy person? According to you, yes, she is. She obeyed God. She tested the spirit and acted according to your corrupt morality.

 

A world built upon your false and twisted morality would eventually destroy our society. I'm very happy that our law is based on secular values and reasoning and not on your sick religion.

 

1. No its objective because it comes from the same eternal source. God still said go and do this, thats an objective command. Doing what God says is moral because the whole definition of moral is doing Gods will. In your ego centric world view you make up what is moral but God has already laid down the laws. When Abraham was told by God to kill his son He was going to do it and God called him righteous. Why because he did what God told him to despite his own feelings. Now God stopped Him from doing it but the point is still the same. You have a warped view that places your own thoughts and feelings into what is moral but your whole idea of right and wrong and morals came from God who made you, so if your creator tells you do this or that, you should probably do it.

 

2. And again you base this on nothing more than a hypothetic situation. I'm simply attesting that I would carry out the will of God. You seem to think that you know better than God does about what is right and wrong. How is that not ego centric?

 

3. Yes because people viewed Hitler as God. However I don't view man as God i view God as God. IF he told me to kill I would BUT God in the bible makes it clear killing is wrong unless HE says otherwise. We are told to love and pray for our enemy, to offer up the other cheek if the other is slapped, we are to have peace with all men, we aren't to kill for our faith (religious wars), etc etc. Hitler never promoted these things, so the conclusions you are trying to draw are a bit trumped up and absurd at best. Nothing I wouldn't expect from an atheist however.

 

4. In the end morality is a matter of obedience. If you obey what is right you are moral and if you don't you are immoral. Simple as that. I really don't see how this can be so hard to grasp.

 

5. How to test the spirit

 

 

1 John 4

1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

 

2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

 

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

If this spirit is confessing Christ is Lord and not denying He came in the flesh then I'll listen if not I'll command it away in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

6. Oh I can tell you are extremely logical and ratioanl

 

7. Andrea Yates can claim all she want that what she did was for God, who cares. Plenty of people use the God told me to do it or the devil told me to do it defense to get out of doing something. Susan Smith tried blaming the drowing of her kids on a black man and even provided a sketch. Come to find out it was her all along. So simply because someone tries to use God to justify their wickedness doesn't make it true. And I highly doubt she tested the spirit if there was one at all.

 

8. Which is why we see the constitution being destroyed, laws being changed constantly to fit what man thinks is best, which is why the bill of rights is going down the tube and why american society beckons back to ancient rome and babylon. Good job guys.

[Guest]

 

 

Theoretically if someone killed a child/ baby because God told them to, I don't think you would believe them or accept that as an excuse for murder. How would you know whether or not God told another person to kill a child? How does one distinguish the voice of god in their heads from any other? This is the main point of the OP. Perhaps you are certain that you would know yourself, but in the case of another person, how could you know?

 

 

 

 

Excellent point! Are there any xtians out there who actually believe Andrea Yates?

[Ouroboros]

1. and my world view is ego centric? Lol. God the creator of all and you tells you to do something and because YOU feel its wrong you won't do it. Who are you to tell the all powerful, knowing, just, righteous etc etc He's wrong and you're right. Everything your pee brain scientist are trying to figure out about His creation He knows because He made it. That is simply absurd. Sure God can override or provide for exceptions. That is Gods perogative, you cannot provide for exceptions in Gods law because they are not yours to break but yours to keep.

First of all it's pea-brain and not pee brain, you poop-brain.

 

And secondly, yes, if something is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, then it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

 

Your morality sux balls.

 

2. Simply becuase God can flex His own rules doesn't mean we can.

Again: then the morality God is changing is not fixed. If morality can change, then morality can change. If morality can change, then it can change and is not static, fixed, hard, absolute, etc.

 

You are contradicting yourself!!! Listen: you claim that morality can't change when you say it's absolute, but then you say it can change, which means it is NOT absolute.

 

God created the laws of nature and yet He allowed for a virgin woman to give birth. The laws of nature in humans and many other mammals says you need sexual intercourse to accomplish getting pregnant but this didn't happen. Jesus told Peter to let the dead bury the dead when and didn't allow Peter to bury his dead family member. But this would fly in the face of the OT law which said that a jew wasn't to defile himself with a dead body. There plenty of instances where God can choose to bend flex or break his own rules as He is the supreme ruler of the universe has the ability and perogative to do. However when we start trying to flex bend and break the law of God, thats where we run into trouble. That isn't relativism that is still objectivity. Relativism is when each person takes what they think and applies it to their views on right and wrong, something humans have no real ability to understand.

You and many other Christians claim that morality cannot be seen or deduced from nature, so HOW THE FUCK can breaking the laws of nature even compare to breaking the laws of morality?

 

Or do you now consider that the laws of morality is just like the laws of nature?

 

 

3. See #2. That doesn't change the absolute nature of the Laws when God himself bends them to serve His own purpose. When man bends th rules to serve his own purpose and in effect places man in the position of God that is where relativism comes in.

I see, morality is relative and subjective. Fine. There are no absolute morality. You finally agree.

 

4. Again you are missing the part where I said if he does command it I am obliged to follow it. God does command killing to the nation of Israel which was directly run by God and He used them as an instrumetn of his judgment. Midianites the Amalekites etc, that is Gods perogative how he chooses to execute his judgment. The bible condemns slavery but God raised up the babylonians to take the Israelites into captivity when they strayed from God and went after other gods. You may not like it but God can do whatever he darn well pleases. And the flood story isn't false because God commands against killing. The flood story, Sodom and Gamorrah, The Captivity of The Israelites in various nations and the destruction of their temples, and the slaughter of the worshippers of Baal prove that God has different ways of judging the wicked. Be it with armies of men, plauges or natural disasters. God can/has and will judge the wickedness of man at the time and manner of His choice. Again this isn't something people like to hear but its most definately how God is.

God commanded Israel to break the absolute morality. Morality is then not absolute. (I will repeat this until you get it.)

 

And when did God command fornication.

The prophet Hosea: "When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: “Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the Lord.”

 

"A wife of harlotry" is a hooker, a harlot.

 

He was commanded to do this for the purpose to prove how Israel was fornicating with other gods.

 

If God wanted the analogy of Hosea and Israel to work, and it was about Israel's fornication, Hosea must have been ordered to fornicate. Right?

[Ouroboros]

1. No its objective because it comes from the same eternal source. God still said go and do this, thats an objective command. Doing what God says is moral because the whole definition of moral is doing Gods will.

And it's a bad definition.

 

In your ego centric world view you make up what is moral but God has already laid down the laws.

It's a skewed description of my view of morals. How can you tell me what I think and reason without knowing it?

 

I don't just make up morals. There is a system in place, but it's too complicated to explain to a "pee brain" like you.

 

When Abraham was told by God to kill his son He was going to do it and God called him righteous. Why because he did what God told him to despite his own feelings. Now God stopped Him from doing it but the point is still the same. You have a warped view that places your own thoughts and feelings into what is moral but your whole idea of right and wrong and morals came from God who made you, so if your creator tells you do this or that, you should probably do it.

And if Abraham had killed his son, all Christians would have cheered in joy. Another baby killed in the name of Jesus. Glory! Hallelujah!

 

2. And again you base this on nothing more than a hypothetic situation. I'm simply attesting that I would carry out the will of God. You seem to think that you know better than God does about what is right and wrong. How is that not ego centric?

And you keep on claiming that you can hear God's voice and speak for God, while no one else can. How is that NOT ego centric, hubris, and highly pretentious?

 

3. Yes because people viewed Hitler as God. However I don't view man as God i view God as God. IF he told me to kill I would BUT God in the bible makes it clear killing is wrong unless HE says otherwise. We are told to love and pray for our enemy, to offer up the other cheek if the other is slapped, we are to have peace with all men, we aren't to kill for our faith (religious wars), etc etc. Hitler never promoted these things, so the conclusions you are trying to draw are a bit trumped up and absurd at best. Nothing I wouldn't expect from an atheist however.

And I think the attitude of killing in the name of God is evil. "Gott mit uns" says it all.

 

 

4. In the end morality is a matter of obedience. If you obey what is right you are moral and if you don't you are immoral. Simple as that. I really don't see how this can be so hard to grasp.

You can't obey what is "right" or "wrong" if "right" and "wrong" changes. You said it yourself, morality to you isn't about what is right and wrong, but just to obey. And that is exactly what the people under Hitler thought.

 

5. How to test the spirit

 

 

1 John 4

1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

 

2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

 

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

If this spirit is confessing Christ is Lord and not denying He came in the flesh then I'll listen if not I'll command it away in the name of Jesus Christ.

And that is a subjective view. You decide if you heard from God or not. You test the spirit of the voices in your own head. Just like Andrea Yates and other evil psychopaths.

 

6. Oh I can tell you are extremely logical and ratioanl

Yes, I am. You are not.

 

7. Andrea Yates can claim all she want that what she did was for God, who cares. Plenty of people use the God told me to do it or the devil told me to do it defense to get out of doing something. Susan Smith tried blaming the drowing of her kids on a black man and even provided a sketch. Come to find out it was her all along. So simply because someone tries to use God to justify their wickedness doesn't make it true. And I highly doubt she tested the spirit if there was one at all.

As a person from the outside, if you went ahead and killed a baby in the name of God, I would treat you exactly the same as I would treat Andrea Yates. I would consider you delusional, mentally sick, and most likely suffering from psychosis. I would never consider you to be truly acting for God.

 

8. Which is why we see the constitution being destroyed, laws being changed constantly to fit what man thinks is best, which is why the bill of rights is going down the tube and why american society beckons back to ancient rome and babylon. Good job guys.

Exactly. You're right. The Constitution IS being destroyed--BY CHRISTIANS. The Constitution guarantee freedom of religion and speech, but Christians work their asses of to remove that.

 

The Bill of Rights is to protect us from people like you! And you are the one complaining?

 

We have the right to free speech and the right to believe whatever we want, yet you represent the group of people who wants to promote Christianity, and Christianity only, through schools, police, fire stations, and government. You are the one who constantly is challenging the Constitution.

 

FOAD pee brain.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

FaithDefender619-

 

Theoretically if someone killed a child/ baby because God told them to, I don't think you would believe them or accept that as an excuse for murder. How would you know whether or not God told another person to kill a child? How does one distinguish the voice of god in their heads from any other? This is the main point of the OP. Perhaps you are certain that you would know yourself, but in the case of another person, how could you know?

 

Thing is more than one person has killed their own children in order to secure their children's place in heaven. This makes sense, and can even be seen as a moral thing to do in accordance with the religion. If someone is completely convinced that heaven and hell are real, that this life is but a trial full of pain and suffering, that their children are innocent and will go to heaven... well isn't it then in the child's best interest to have their life ended before they have a chance to become corrupted by sin and possibly go to hell? Isn't that a noble sacrifice of the parent to put their own salvation on the line to secure their child's place in heaven? The parent in these cases often takes their own life soon after their child's and so will go to hell, but they did it all for their kids. Isn't that love?

 

To clarify I think parents who do such things are mentally ill and all the assumptions they have made to get to this point are based on lies. I think it is unbelievably tragic. But what flaws do you see in this logic? I mean the parent goes to hell, but if a parent is willing to sacrifice for their children what can you say is wrong with parents who do so?

 

You'd be right in saying that. I wouldn't believe that person if they told me God said do it. The bible doesn't provide for baby murder, the teachings of Jesus impose a stiff penality on even causing a child to slip in their faith. Nor am I saying killing babies and children is a christian duty as is trying to be constructed. What I'm saying is that the infinitely small chance that God tells me to kill a baby I would do it because GOD COMMANDED IT and as a Christian I have to do what God says.

 

How do we know if God really spoke to someone.

 

1 John 4:1-5 tells us that if the spirit or voice denies Jesus came in the flesh and doesn't confess Him as Lord then we know we are dealing with the spirit of anti-Christ. People like Ellen G White (seventh day adentist), Muhammed (prophet of Islam), Joseph Smith (Mormons), HP Blavatsky (theosopical society), Benjamin Creme (new age guru) all claim to have spoken to god but all deny this fact about Jesus that he came in the flesh (divine) and is Lord and savior. And that is how we know the weren't talking to God. The bible says for it is no marvel that satan himself can be transformed into an angel of light and his ministers ministers of rightousness. Jesus and the apostles all warned that people and "spirits" claiming to be God/Christ would come seeking to decieve.

 

I know that I would know because I have the objective standrard that God gave which would allow me to know. If I were being confronted with Godly or demonic powers posing as God.

 

Killing a child isn't a moral thing in the bible and is actually heavily denounced. God loves babies and children. Jesus said if we cause a little one to slip who believes in Him it would be better if a great millstone were hung around their neck and cast into the sea. Yes the baby would have a spot in heaven but spilling innocent blood (hands that spill innocent blood is listed as one of the 7 things God hates) isn't moral its a-moral. I mean imagine if the mother of the apostles or the OT prophets had that mindset.

 

They could also train up their children in the ways of the Lord. The bible says train up a child in the way he will go and he will not depart from it. If a child is honestly brought up to love, fear and revere the Lord and to be a person of prayer and faith then you have nothing to worry about. Yes the kid would go to heaven if it died but killing a child is still evil.

 

I guess in some sick morbid way that is "loving" but that doesn't condone killing innocnets.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

 

5. How to test the spirit

 

 

1 John 4

1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

 

2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

 

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

If this spirit is confessing Christ is Lord and not denying He came in the flesh then I'll listen if not I'll command it away in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

 

That is very interesting. You don't think that your method could possibly be deceived? I mean doesn't the bible say "Even the demons believe and tremble"? And how would you know it was an actual spirit and not a hallucination or a delusion? How could the the claims of another person's experience be tested this way?

[Shyone]

As a person from the outside, if you went ahead and killed a baby in the name of God, I would treat you exactly the same as I would treat Andrea Yates. I would consider you delusional, mentally sick, and most likely suffering from psychosis. I would never consider you to be truly acting for God.

 

Just as an aside, I think it is reasonable to say that anyone that claims to speak for God is either deluded or lying.

 

The difference in Christians is that they will believe the words came God if they agree with the message - meaning they have screened the bad and immoral actions first.

 

Of course, that requires for them to understand Good and Bad first - before they accept the will of God.

 

They will deny that they are judging the will of God, but they instead use their own morality to determine if what someone says is from God or not.

 

What do they think "By their fruits ye shall know them" means? It means use your own judgement.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

 

5. How to test the spirit

 

 

1 John 4

1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

 

2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

 

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

If this spirit is confessing Christ is Lord and not denying He came in the flesh then I'll listen if not I'll command it away in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

 

That is very interesting. You don't think that your method could possibly be deceived? I mean doesn't the bible say "Even the demons believe and tremble"? And how would you know it was an actual spirit and not a hallucination or a delusion? How could the the claims of another person's experience be tested this way?

 

1. The bible says of itself that ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctine, reproof, correction, training in righteousness that the man of God can be perfectly furnished unto good works. I don't believe this method is decieved and when we look at people like Muhammed, Joeseph Smith, Ellen G White, Benjamin Creme so on and so on the common thread is that they deny Jesus is Lord and that Jesus came in the flesh. Its quite refeshing to see how relevant the bible is in modern times. The things Christ warned about then are coming to bear fruit today (especially today).

 

2. Yes the bible does say even the demons believe and tremble but this isn't speaking of how I know or not this is God I'm talking to but rather how do I know I have real faith. I guess even in the time of James there were people saying oh well I believe in God that is enough, I don't need to do anything else I just have to believe. But James is saying thats the devils faith.

 

3. How do I know its not a hallueination or delusion? God isn't the author of confusion. If its a hallucenation or delusion and its trying to pose as God its still has to pass the test of confessing Christ and I'm not a betting man but if I were I'd wager this was demonic influence trying to creep in.

 

4. How can we test a persons claims. Scripture. Everytime you weigh what these people say against scripture its never the same. God says that He doesn't change and therefore when we look into scripture we can get an accurate picture of how God works. So when "god" talks to people who murder and maime others chances are its not from God.

 

5. Now of course the argument could be made that God commanded baby killings of the Amalekites and the Midianites. However this was in a war time situation and when God wants to destroy a people for being wicked everything must go. But god never commands an individual to kill a baby. We may not agree with the way the Lord judges people but I know for sure that God is far more knowledgeable and just than I am.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1 John 4:1-5 tells us that if the spirit or voice denies Jesus came in the flesh and doesn't confess Him as Lord then we know we are dealing with the spirit of anti-Christ. People like Ellen G White (seventh day adentist), Muhammed (prophet of Islam), Joseph Smith (Mormons), HP Blavatsky (theosopical society), Benjamin Creme (new age guru) all claim to have spoken to god but all deny this fact about Jesus that he came in the flesh (divine) and is Lord and savior. And that is how we know the weren't talking to God. The bible says for it is no marvel that satan himself can be transformed into an angel of light and his ministers ministers of rightousness. Jesus and the apostles all warned that people and "spirits" claiming to be God/Christ would come seeking to decieve.

 

How do you tell a demon who says that Jesus did come in the flesh as Lord and savior from the read thing?

 

Phanta

 

Its impossible. And when we look at the myriad of false religions like Islam, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormonism, New Ageism and we see that every one of their prophets talked to god or some angel and they always deny that Jesus is Lord and or that he was God in the flesh. Even with the Univeralist church of Sum Yung Moon he claims that he spoke to Jesus and that He himself is the second coming, ever watch a short movie called King of America.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Not all all.

 

2. I do know becuase since you have no objective standard of morality you have subjective relativistic view of them. You already said if God told u to do something you think is wrong you won't do it, which tells me u see yourself and morals as being higher than God. Plain and simple

 

3. Cite me as saying I hear God speak and that I am the only one who hears him? I'll wait.

 

4. Yes but who was god to Hitler? Certianly not the God of the bible. When you take into account his ties to groups like the Thule society, when you consider that all of his symbolism was taken straight out of the occult, when you consider that the Aryan race as hitler viewed it was a product of a Russian Mystic HP Blavatsky who was a satanist, when you take into consideration that he used astrologers to plan out his military tactics. When you take into account that most of his closest advisors occultist. It'd be plain to see that hitler wasn't a christian in the biblical sense. And as much as he persecuted christians during his reign its very doubtful if he actually practiced his christianity beyond a few scattered quotes about God. Its very apparent that his inner core was very satanic.

 

5. No but you can obey the standard giver. And the laws didn't change God bended them a few times to meet his own purposes but He never gave or inferred man could ever do such a thing as break His laws to suit their own needs.

 

6. Thats not a subjective test thats quite objective. If the spirit isn't meeting pre-set requirements then we can tell that its not of God. Nothing subjective about it. Either the spirit is or isn't of God based on this criteria.

 

7. As you should. Like I said in the improbable instance that God said kill a baby I'd do it that doesn't mean God is going to call me to kill a baby especially considering how one of the 7 things he hate are hands that spill innocent blood.

 

8. How are christians moving to destroy freedom of religion and speech pray tell?

 

Wait wait are you telling me that christians are forcing people to accept christianity in the schools? The same school system that takes prayer out of school, takes Christ out of christmas, takes God out of the pledge of alegiance and removes manger scenes because they might be offensive? You mean the same school system that will not teach creation but will teach naturalistic (atheistic) evolution as if it were fact?

 

The police? The same police who harass and trying to stop street preachers from street preaching? The same legal system that saw bible publisher zondervann sued because the NIV bible uses the word homosexual and that made a gay man feel bad? You mean the same government that is promoting New Ageism in the school system an in society as a whole? I think you atheist have a misplaced sense of persecution. Movies promoting atheism and liberal christiantiy are out and about in force. Religilous, the God that Wasn't There, For The Bible Tells Me So, Zietgiest 1&2, etc etc. Not to mention the history channel and its constant bashing of the bible in shows like Banned From the Bible. PUUUUHHHHLEASE, Oh and lets not forget everybodies favorite atheist Dawkins and his books and cult of personality movement. Gimme a break If we really had that kind of power these people wouldn't be around.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

As a person from the outside, if you went ahead and killed a baby in the name of God, I would treat you exactly the same as I would treat Andrea Yates. I would consider you delusional, mentally sick, and most likely suffering from psychosis. I would never consider you to be truly acting for God.

 

Just as an aside, I think it is reasonable to say that anyone that claims to speak for God is either deluded or lying.

 

The difference in Christians is that they will believe the words came God if they agree with the message - meaning they have screened the bad and immoral actions first.

 

Of course, that requires for them to understand Good and Bad first - before they accept the will of God.

 

They will deny that they are judging the will of God, but they instead use their own morality to determine if what someone says is from God or not.

 

What do they think "By their fruits ye shall know them" means? It means use your own judgement.

 

1. And you'd be basing that on?

 

2. How did you come up with this?

 

3. When do we "screen" the message? And what "message" do we "screen"

 

4. No we use the bible to determine if someone is from God or not. Any crack pot and even Satan himself could pose or as God or say they are sent by God but the bible will determine that or not.

 

5. And by their fruits ye shall know they is the test of a real prophet and a real christian. If you want to go to the actual test of a prophet it then you can look to the levitical laws which said that if a prophet said something and it didn't come to pass they were a false prophet or if they did say something adn it did come to pass but they were lead you after other gods that was a false prophet as well. We don't use our own judgement we use the teachings of the Lord to determine.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

7. As you should. Like I said in the improbable instance that God said kill a baby I'd do it that doesn't mean God is going to call me to kill a baby especially considering how one of the 7 things he hate are hands that spill innocent blood.

 

What do you mean in this context by "spill innocent blood"?

 

Phanta

 

Psalm 106:37-39 (King James Version)

 

37Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

 

38And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

 

39Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

 

 

innocent blood would be babies and small children.

[Kuroikaze]

 

You just said that we can observe nature and natural laws and get our morality. Lets observe hamsters and crocs, they at times eat their own young. I guess thats cool right? I mean a major talking point that atheist/homosexuals use to justify homosexuality is that its observable in nature but never are they willing to take the next logical step in saying well cannibalism, murder, fighting etc are cool as well because we observe those things in nature. You'd first have to convince me with observable evidence that evolution acutally happened before I start seeing "naturalistic and evolutionary" justifications for anything. as far as I'm concerned evolution belongs in the same basket as the easter bunny.

 

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is stacked against you, evolution belongs in the same camp with gravity, and germ theory, demonstrated with a high degree of certainty for anyone who is willing to consider the evidence in an unbiased manner.

 

Again, you are saying things that make you look like an idiot.

 

1. I would not justify homosexuality merely because it is natural, but also because it can not be demonstrated that it is hurting anyone.

 

2. While we observe murder an cannibalism in nature, to suggest they are as common place as homosexuality is laughable. Homosexuality is observed in 100% of species who have gender.

 

While the overall tendency of most species with a few exceptions is to get along with one another. Animals kill OTHER animals, but rarely kill one of their own, cannibalism is observed in to occur in rather small pockets and when observed in humans is only carried out against people from other tribes. In most tribalistic cultures ethics only extend to people within ones own tribe and not beyond. Hell, that is true for us to some extent as well. We care more about the death of an American than we do of someone from another country.

 

3. There are GOOD naturalistic reasons why murder and cannibalism do NOT become common place in nature. Killing your own kind is not conducive to the survival of the species. It is also quite unhealthy to eat animals from ones own species.

 

 

By the way, I am going to tell you this politely only once, because you could not know this before hand.

 

I have a sister who is gay, so if you compare homosexuality to cannibalism again I will cease to be civil in any way shape or form.

I suggest you drop that line if you wish to keep this civil.

[Guest]

You already said if God told u to do something you think is wrong you won't do it, which tells me u see yourself and morals as being higher than God. Plain and simple

 

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite.

 

I absolutely DO see my morals as being higher than your desert god's "morals". I am absolutely a more moral being than that particular fictional god, among others.

 

Realizing that my moral compass was easily above and beyond the xtian god is one of the biggest reasons for me rejecting xtianity as utter nonsense and insanity!

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1 John 4:1-5 tells us that if the spirit or voice denies Jesus came in the flesh and doesn't confess Him as Lord then we know we are dealing with the spirit of anti-Christ. People like Ellen G White (seventh day adentist), Muhammed (prophet of Islam), Joseph Smith (Mormons), HP Blavatsky (theosopical society), Benjamin Creme (new age guru) all claim to have spoken to god but all deny this fact about Jesus that he came in the flesh (divine) and is Lord and savior. And that is how we know the weren't talking to God. The bible says for it is no marvel that satan himself can be transformed into an angel of light and his ministers ministers of rightousness. Jesus and the apostles all warned that people and "spirits" claiming to be God/Christ would come seeking to decieve.

 

How do you tell a demon who says that Jesus did come in the flesh as Lord and savior from the read thing?

 

Phanta

 

Its impossible. And when we look at the myriad of false religions like Islam, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormonism, New Ageism and we see that every one of their prophets talked to god or some angel and they always deny that Jesus is Lord and or that he was God in the flesh.

 

I want to be clear that I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying that it is impossible for a demon or other deceiver claiming to carry God's message to affirm, even deceptively, that Jesus was God in flesh. Is that correct?

 

Even with the Univeralist church of Sum Yung Moon he claims that he spoke to Jesus and that He himself is the second coming, ever watch a short movie called King of America.

 

No. Is it available on-line? I don't have any other way to view media (no tv, vcr, or DVD player).

 

Phanta

 

Indeed. Looking at the religions that sprang up that tout a prophet that spoke to god and claim to be chrisitian or believe in jesus all deny this central point.

 

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v6528297a9ppTgRm

[Guest FaithDefender619]

You already said if God told u to do something you think is wrong you won't do it, which tells me u see yourself and morals as being higher than God. Plain and simple

 

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite.

 

I absolutely DO see my morals as being higher than your desert god's "morals". I am absolutely a more moral being than that particular fictional god, among others.

 

Realizing that my moral compass was easily above and beyond the xtian god is one of the biggest reasons for me rejecting xtianity as utter nonsense and insanity!

 

And where do you get your morals from?

[Shyone]

As a person from the outside, if you went ahead and killed a baby in the name of God, I would treat you exactly the same as I would treat Andrea Yates. I would consider you delusional, mentally sick, and most likely suffering from psychosis. I would never consider you to be truly acting for God.

 

Just as an aside, I think it is reasonable to say that anyone that claims to speak for God is either deluded or lying.

 

The difference in Christians is that they will believe the words came God if they agree with the message - meaning they have screened the bad and immoral actions first.

 

Of course, that requires for them to understand Good and Bad first - before they accept the will of God.

 

They will deny that they are judging the will of God, but they instead use their own morality to determine if what someone says is from God or not.

 

What do they think "By their fruits ye shall know them" means? It means use your own judgement.

 

1. And you'd be basing that on?

 

2. How did you come up with this?

 

3. When do we "screen" the message? And what "message" do we "screen"

 

4. No we use the bible to determine if someone is from God or not. Any crack pot and even Satan himself could pose or as God or say they are sent by God but the bible will determine that or not.

 

5. And by their fruits ye shall know they is the test of a real prophet and a real christian. If you want to go to the actual test of a prophet it then you can look to the levitical laws which said that if a prophet said something and it didn't come to pass they were a false prophet or if they did say something adn it did come to pass but they were lead you after other gods that was a false prophet as well. We don't use our own judgement we use the teachings of the Lord to determine.

1. One who claims to be speaking to an imaginary being is either deluded or lying. Q.E.D.

 

2. You know that Andrea Yates was deluded because you know if was wrong of her to kill her children. Her logic was reasonalbe theologically since killing her children would indeed secure their souls a place in heaven even at the cost of her own soul. But it was wrong - because it's morally wrong to kill your children. You then deny God told her to act that way because you know it's wrong, not because you have some special insight into God's thoughts. It just wrong. Period.

 

3. You screen all messages from those who claim to be speaking for God. Did Oral Roberts really see a 700 Foot Jesus? Did Jesus really tell him that he must collect 8 million dollars for his university or he would be "called home"? If you don't screen the messages, then you are extremely gullible.

 

4. The bible doesn't tell you which modern crackpots (such as yourself) are speaking for God or not. You have to use your judgement, and you will reject messages that are contrary to your moral code. You may justify your messages with passages in the bible, but you choose the passages based on an independent moral code.

 

5. Jesus himself had a false prophecy. He predicted His imminent return during the lives of "some of" those who were living at the time he lived. He didn't come back, and now they're all dead. All of them. Including Jesus. False prophecy from a false prophet.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

 

You just said that we can observe nature and natural laws and get our morality. Lets observe hamsters and crocs, they at times eat their own young. I guess thats cool right? I mean a major talking point that atheist/homosexuals use to justify homosexuality is that its observable in nature but never are they willing to take the next logical step in saying well cannibalism, murder, fighting etc are cool as well because we observe those things in nature. You'd first have to convince me with observable evidence that evolution acutally happened before I start seeing "naturalistic and evolutionary" justifications for anything. as far as I'm concerned evolution belongs in the same basket as the easter bunny.

 

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is stacked against you, evolution belongs in the same camp with gravity, and germ theory, demonstrated with a high degree of certainty for anyone who is willing to consider the evidence in an unbiased manner.

 

Again, you are saying things that make you look like an idiot.

 

1. I would not justify homosexuality merely because it is natural, but also because it can not be demonstrated that it is hurting anyone.

 

2. While we observe murder an cannibalism in nature, to suggest they are as common place as homosexuality is laughable. Homosexuality is observed in 100% of species who have gender.

 

While the overall tendency of most species with a few exceptions is to get along with one another. Animals kill OTHER animals, but rarely kill one of their own, cannibalism is observed in to occur in rather small pockets and when observed in humans is only carried out against people from other tribes. In most tribalistic cultures ethics only extend to people within ones own tribe and not beyond. Hell, that is true for us to some extent as well. We care more about the death of an American than we do of someone from another country.

 

3. There are GOOD naturalistic reasons why murder and cannibalism do NOT become common place in nature. Killing your own kind is not conducive to the survival of the species. It is also quite unhealthy to eat animals from ones own species.

 

 

By the way, I am going to tell you this politely only once, because you could not know this before hand.

 

I have a sister who is gay, so if you compare homosexuality to cannibalism again I will cease to be civil in any way shape or form.

I suggest you drop that line if you wish to keep this civil.

 

1. We can observe gravity. We have never observed one animal changing into another animal. We've never seen life come from non-life. I don't disagree with God programming into the genetic code something that allows for upper and lower limits of mutation but never have we seen an animal change into another kind of animal. A mouse doesn't become a bird. We've never see a bear turn into a shark. You cannot observe billions of years of evolution. So this remains in the realm of fantasy.

 

2. Who says something has to be hurting people for it to be wrong? Stealing to doesn't hurt people. It doesn't physically harm anyone. But then again who says hurting people is wrong? According to the atheistic world view its all relative.

 

3. So again because we observe it in nature its ok to do it. Killing is observed in 100% of species with LIFE. I've watched as birds stole or intimidated another bird away from its food. That must be ok. Oh but I guess since they aren't killing one of their own kind of animal that must be ok. So if a white person kills a white person thats messed up but if they kill anybody else thats perfectly fine.

 

4. Mass breeding like hamsters and rabbits do isn't exactly helpful creating more strain on the food supply and all.

 

5. You are the one who says its observed in nature, don't be a hypocrite because I list off other things observed in nature.

[Kuroikaze]

8. How are christians moving to destroy freedom of religion and speech pray tell?

 

Are you kidding me? Christians keep saying this a "Christian country" and are constantly trying to keep other view points from being heard. Don't even get me started on things like proposition 8 in California, it was a huge derailment of the democratic process enacted by your fellow Christians.

 

Wait wait are you telling me that christians are forcing people to accept christianity in the schools? The same school system that takes prayer out of school, takes Christ out of christmas, takes God out of the pledge of alegiance and removes manger scenes because they might be offensive? You mean the same school system that will not teach creation but will teach naturalistic (atheistic) evolution as if it were fact?

 

No these would be the schools where children who are atheists are ostracized and accused of all manner of things until their parents decide to home school them. The same schools where DESPITE the law stating that SCHOOL ORGANIZED prayer (individuals are still allowed to pray as much as they want under the law) is not allowed, teachers still do it all the time. And the same schools where idiots like you who ignore the mountains of evidence that evolution is a solid scientific theory, attempt to hijack the scientific process by forcing everyone to learn a set of ideas that do NOT pass the muster of scientific critique, by trying to sneak it into the school system instead of going through the peer review process that every other scientist uses.

 

By the by, I personally do not much care if "under god" is in the pledge or not, but it WAS added to the pledge in the 50's because of the red scare, it has not been there sense the beginning, the people who want in removed just want it put back the way it WAS.

 

The police? The same police who harass and trying to stop street preachers from street preaching? The same legal system that saw bible publisher zondervann sued because the NIV bible uses the word homosexual and that made a gay man feel bad? You mean the same government that is promoting New Ageism in the school system an in society as a whole? I think you atheist have a misplaced sense of persecution. Movies promoting atheism and liberal christiantiy are out and about in force. Religilous, the God that Wasn't There, For The Bible Tells Me So, Zietgiest 1&2, etc etc. Not to mention the history channel and its constant bashing of the bible in shows like Banned From the Bible. PUUUUHHHHLEASE, Oh and lets not forget everybodies favorite atheist Dawkins and his books and cult of personality movement. Gimme a break If we really had that kind of power these people wouldn't be around.

 

You mean the police who are by and large religious themselves? As most people in this culture are?

 

I do not see the government promoting "new ageism," but I can tell you as an atheist I would be against that just as much as I am against the government promoting Christianity. Which by the way, is the religion it USUALLY promotes.

 

Zietgiest is an unhistorical and uncritical piece of trash, so I do not count it for much.

The same thing with probably half the shows on the history channel, though I would say more than not they SUPPORT Christianity, or at the very least a rather unskeptical approach to religion.

I do find it interesting that you suggest if Christianity was powerful "these people" would not be around. Exactly how would you get rid of them if you are not trying to censor free speech huh? Busted much?

 

The reason all these voices have come out in recent years is not because Christians are such nice people and want to allow everyone else their say. The fact that you and your ilk have not been entirely successful at shutting us up does not prove you are not trying to do just that.

 

Yes, religion does not have as much power as it once did, but only a fool would assume it will stay that way. Throughout history when the church HAS more political power it has often been the worst offender of free expression one can find. The very reason you will not find a voice for atheism before the 18th century is because anyone who had raised their voice for it would have quickly found their head separated from their body. THAT is how the church gets things done.

 

How many atheists do you know would say this kind of thing about Christians

 

If we really had that kind of power these people wouldn't be around.

 

I know I wouldn't. If I were in charge I would continue to let you have your beliefs as long as you kept them to yourself. Apparently you do not care as much about free speech as you claim.

 

It is idiotic for Christians to try to ram their beliefs down our throats and then claim when we are persecuting them when we say "knock it off."

[Guest FaithDefender619]

As a person from the outside, if you went ahead and killed a baby in the name of God, I would treat you exactly the same as I would treat Andrea Yates. I would consider you delusional, mentally sick, and most likely suffering from psychosis. I would never consider you to be truly acting for God.

 

Just as an aside, I think it is reasonable to say that anyone that claims to speak for God is either deluded or lying.

 

The difference in Christians is that they will believe the words came God if they agree with the message - meaning they have screened the bad and immoral actions first.

 

Of course, that requires for them to understand Good and Bad first - before they accept the will of God.

 

They will deny that they are judging the will of God, but they instead use their own morality to determine if what someone says is from God or not.

 

What do they think "By their fruits ye shall know them" means? It means use your own judgement.

 

1. And you'd be basing that on?

 

2. How did you come up with this?

 

3. When do we "screen" the message? And what "message" do we "screen"

 

4. No we use the bible to determine if someone is from God or not. Any crack pot and even Satan himself could pose or as God or say they are sent by God but the bible will determine that or not.

 

5. And by their fruits ye shall know they is the test of a real prophet and a real christian. If you want to go to the actual test of a prophet it then you can look to the levitical laws which said that if a prophet said something and it didn't come to pass they were a false prophet or if they did say something adn it did come to pass but they were lead you after other gods that was a false prophet as well. We don't use our own judgement we use the teachings of the Lord to determine.

1. One who claims to be speaking to an imaginary being is either deluded or lying. Q.E.D.

 

2. You know that Andrea Yates was deluded because you know if was wrong of her to kill her children. Her logic was reasonalbe theologically since killing her children would indeed secure their souls a place in heaven even at the cost of her own soul. But it was wrong - because it's morally wrong to kill your children. You then deny God told her to act that way because you know it's wrong, not because you have some special insight into God's thoughts. It just wrong. Period.

 

3. You screen all messages from those who claim to be speaking for God. Did Oral Roberts really see a 700 Foot Jesus? Did Jesus really tell him that he must collect 8 million dollars for his university or he would be "called home"? If you don't screen the messages, then you are extremely gullible.

 

4. The bible doesn't tell you which modern crackpots (such as yourself) are speaking for God or not. You have to use your judgement, and you will reject messages that are contrary to your moral code. You may justify your messages with passages in the bible, but you choose the passages based on an independent moral code.

 

5. Jesus himself had a false prophecy. He predicted His imminent return during the lives of "some of" those who were living at the time he lived. He didn't come back, and now they're all dead. All of them. Including Jesus. False prophecy from a false prophet.

 

1. You atheist have a real flare for circular reasoning don't you.

 

2. That and God says killing children is wrong. You know...in the bible. Now its funny how atheist can get on their high horse about this when Hitler (a Darwin fanboy) killed millions in the of cleaning up the racial make up of Germany so that they can be restored to the Aryan superman. Hitler was a big eugenecist (evolutionary science taken to its most logical conclusion) even going so far as to write eugenecist in America praising their work in sterilizing blacks, handicapped and other social undesirables.

 

3. I think I've repeatedly stated that I not only screen messages supposedly coming from God but that I use the bible to do so.

 

4. No you have to use the bible. If what they say doesn't line up with what it says then they are wrong.

 

6. Really now.

 

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Matthew 17

 

1And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

 

2And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

 

3And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

 

4Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

 

5While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

 

6And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

 

7And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

 

8And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

 

They did see Jesus in His glory. 6 DAYS after He made the prophecy. LOL.