Continued Discussion Rayskidude On Spong

[Neon Genesis]

His authority went away because Moses murdered someone. If Moses just committed an act of self-defense and was just in his actions, why did he run away if he had nothing to hide? And again, what justifies Moses murdering the Isrealites after they worshiped the golden calf and what justifies God's actions of murdering innocent babies in the tenth plague?

[rayskidude]

His authority went away because Moses murdered someone. If Moses just committed an act of self-defense and was just in his actions, why did he run away if he had nothing to hide?

 

Did you not read what I wrote in this regard? I already answered this.

 

And again, what justifies Moses murdering the Isrealites after they worshiped the golden calf and what justifies God's actions of murdering innocent babies in the tenth plague?

 

Stay on topic - we agreed to address the Spong book issues.

 

And Spong says re: "camel thru the eye of a needle" - that it's a mixed metaphor. Well, Hugh Schonfeld, the Dan Brown of the 70's (except that Schonfeld was a linguist, and archeologist, and historian focussed on the Jewish influence in Christian beginnings) disagrees. Schonfeld wrote The Passover Plot and was fluent in ancient languages - not just a seminary student. In Schonfeld's own translation of the NT from Greek, he says that this "was a proverbial saying, meaning to achieve the impossible. It is otherwise found in ancient Jewish literature with the substitution of 'elephant' for 'camel.' SO we see that Spong again is ignornant of Jewish colloquial language - as is Bartmeam.

 

What Spong says about the translation and use of Hebrew in Isa 7:14; that the Heb word "almah" is never used for "virgin" - this is utter nonsense, the meaning 'virgin' can be seen in each of its several uses in the OT. Spong says that "betulah" is the specific word for virgin - but though this word has its primary meaning as 'virgin' it has also been translated as town or state, or a young man's virility (Duet 32:25), or daughter (Israel, but even pagan nations; Isa 23, 47 & Jer 46) >> depending on the context! Spong is way wrong!

 

And the Syriac version of the OT does use the word 'betualh' in Isa 7:14 >> and the Septuagint, OT translated by 70 Jewish scholars into Greek hundreds of years BC used 'parthenos' - very specific Greek word for virgin. And also, Matthew used 'parthenos". And please read Isa 7:14 in context of Isa chaps 7-9; there is a very special child to be born! And his birth would be a sign (miraculous). How does a young woman bearing "Immanuel" as sign? But if a 'virgin' bears the son "Immanuel" >> absolutely a miraculous sign. Spong is again very wrong.

 

Spong says Moses lied to Pharoah about his intentions - asking to go 3 days journey to worship God. He quotes Ex 5:1 and 8:27 (tho the book says 9:27 - a typo). Nonsense - imagine a woman enslaved by a overbearing workaholic husband. She desires to leave, but to prove the guilt of her husband, she asks for and records requests for small concessions >> knowing that he will not grant even small things. So her request is sincere, but asked with the intent to prove the guilt of her husband. So Moses proved the cruelty of Pharoah and his court, by showing that Pharoah would not allow even simple freedoms to Israel. Can Spong not think beyond simplistic thoughts?

 

Then Spong says that the Jews stole jewelry, silver, gold & clothing from the Egyptians - as he cites Ex 12:35,36. God had predicted that the Egyptians would "pay" Israel to leave, and thus the Jews asked for and received from the Egyptians many of their precious things. In this sense, Israel "plundered" Egypt. But here, Spong is guilty of the very literalism that he decries. Believers all understand that the Egyptians were more than happy to 'pay' Israel to leave, so that the plagues against the false Egyptians gods and wicked people would cease. SO the effect was that Egypt was plundered, by no theirvery happened - the Jews asked and received freely. Here, Spong is just plain stupid.

 

Let me close my critique of chap 1 by saying that Spong is very concerned about the Bible. He wants to "lift the Bible from prejudices and cultural biases of bygone eras" >> only to now apply his own prejudices and cultural biases to judge the Bible. He believes the Bible is "doomed to be cast aside as both dated and irrelevant", >> Oh, boo-hoo, the poor Bible. This kind of nonsense was stated by the RCC when many wanted to translate the Scripture into several vernaculars, and by Enlightment philosophers, and Enver Hoxha and other communist rulers, etc.

 

Spong says the Bibliocal God is One he cannot worship or respect, who offends his 'higher modern sensibilities' - whose needs and prejudices are as bad as his own - who is not viable.

 

WOW - The Biblical God should really be worried. Some people don't like Him. Oh, holy gee-willickers, Batman! this looks bad for God and His followers!

 

What hogwash! God had always worked throug a remnant. DO a study on that word throughout Scripture, and learn something Shelby. Despite the fact that God's poeple have always been a weak minority >> yet, by God's grace, they have accomplished God's will of furthering God's Gospel & kingdom for 6,000 years.

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

 

Oh yeah - Spong decries 'election" by God of the Jews >> funny though, Spong never mentions Rahab the harlot, Ruth (both ancestors of King David), Nebuchadnezzar, the great city Nineveh, Naaman the Syrian general - and Solomon's prayer for the foreigners that would come to the temple to worship God. SPong is dishonest in his presentation of "Biblical truth."

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Stay on topic - we agreed to address the Spong book issues.

And this is an issue that Spong brings up in this book. One of Spong's objections to a literal interpetation of the bible is God's immoral actions when he murders all the first born babies in Exodus. How is God justified murdering innocent babies?

 

And Spong says re: "camel thru the eye of a needle" - that it's a mixed metaphor. Well, Hugh Schonfeld, the Dan Brown of the 70's (except that Schonfeld was a linguist, and archeologist, and historian focussed on the Jewish influence in Christian beginnings) disagrees. Schonfeld wrote The Passover Plot and was fluent in ancient languages - not just a seminary student. In Schonfeld's own translation of the NT from Greek, he says that this "was a proverbial saying, meaning to achieve the impossible. It is otherwise found in ancient Jewish literature with the substitution of 'elephant' for 'camel.' SO we see that Spong again is ignornant of Jewish colloquial language - as is Bartmeam.

Schonfeld also believed Paul thought he was the messiah which even secular scholars like Spong reject as nonsense, so do you really want to accept him as a reliable authority? You scoff at Swaggard for being a heretic but you accept a heretical Jew like Schonfeld as reliable?

 

 

And the Syriac version of the OT does use the word 'betualh' in Isa 7:14 >> and the Septuagint, OT translated by 70 Jewish scholars into Greek hundreds of years BC used 'parthenos' - very specific Greek word for virgin. And also, Matthew used 'parthenos". And please read Isa 7:14 in context of Isa chaps 7-9; there is a very special child to be born! And his birth would be a sign (miraculous). How does a young woman bearing "Immanuel" as sign? But if a 'virgin' bears the son "Immanuel" >> absolutely a miraculous sign. Spong is again very wrong.

I have read the context of Isiah 7, the context is that it's a prophecy given to King Ahaz about a present day event, not some far-off event in the future. Read the rest of the chapter, mainly Isaiah 7:18-25

On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thorn bushes, and on all the pastures.

 

20 On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.

 

21 On that day one will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, 22and will eat curds because of the abundance of milk that they give; for everyone that is left in the land shall eat curds and honey.

 

23 On that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns. 24With bow and arrows one will go there, for all the land will be briers and thorns; 25and as for all the hills that used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not go there for fear of briers and thorns; but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread.

Does this part of the prophecy sound anything remotely like the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus?

 

 

Spong says Moses lied to Pharoah about his intentions - asking to go 3 days journey to worship God. He quotes Ex 5:1 and 8:27 (tho the book says 9:27 - a typo). Nonsense - imagine a woman enslaved by a overbearing workaholic husband. She desires to leave, but to prove the guilt of her husband, she asks for and records requests for small concessions >> knowing that he will not grant even small things. So her request is sincere, but asked with the intent to prove the guilt of her husband. So Moses proved the cruelty of Pharoah and his court, by showing that Pharoah would not allow even simple freedoms to Israel. Can Spong not think beyond simplistic thoughts?

But the point still stands that bearing false witness was a sin. When Moses got angry and threw his staff at rocks, God became furious with Moses and refused to let him enter the promised land after all Moses did for him just for that minor incident. Why did God get angry over a minor issue like that but permitted Moses to lie in one particular instance?

 

Then Spong says that the Jews stole jewelry, silver, gold & clothing from the Egyptians - as he cites Ex 12:35,36. God had predicted that the Egyptians would "pay" Israel to leave, and thus the Jews asked for and received from the Egyptians many of their precious things. In this sense, Israel "plundered" Egypt. But here, Spong is guilty of the very literalism that he decries. Believers all understand that the Egyptians were more than happy to 'pay' Israel to leave, so that the plagues against the false Egyptians gods and wicked people would cease. SO the effect was that Egypt was plundered, by no theirvery happened - the Jews asked and received freely. Here, Spong is just plain stupid.

So in other words, it's ok for God to murder the innocent babies of the Egyptians in order to steal their money?

[NotBlinded]

Neon, I wish you the best with this. Not everyone is at a level to where they can understand what Spong is saying and they will deny it with zest. The brainwashing runs too deep...

[bdp]

...so Ray's still a dumbass...

[Neon Genesis]

Neon, I wish you the best with this. Not everyone is at a level to where they can understand what Spong is saying and they will deny it with zest. The brainwashing runs too deep...

If Ray doesn't care that the majority of humanity is going to hell for not believing the bible according to his doctrines, why is he evangelizing the gospel?

[NotBlinded]

Neon, I wish you the best with this. Not everyone is at a level to where they can understand what Spong is saying and they will deny it with zest. The brainwashing runs too deep...

If Ray doesn't care that the majority of humanity is going to hell for not believing the bible according to his doctrines, why is he evangelizing the gospel?

It's a "spit in your face" kind of deal. You know, a great big ego trip.

[Ouroboros]

It's also a matter of getting the gold stars in Heaven. Jesus will move his seat a little closer for every person he proselytizes to. It doesn't matter how he shares the Gospel, as long as he just does it.

[NotBlinded]

It's also a matter of getting the gold stars in Heaven. Jesus will move his seat a little closer for every person he proselytizes to. It doesn't matter how he shares the Gospel, as long as he just does it.

What have you done with Hans? I'm going to have to wup you outta him!

 

Although...I do like that symbol.

 

Can I still call you Hans?

[Ouroboros]

What have you done with Hans? I'm going to have to wup you outta him!

 

Although...I do like that symbol.

 

Can I still call you Hans?

You can call me whatever you like.

[dagnarus]

It's also a matter of getting the gold stars in Heaven. Jesus will move his seat a little closer for every person he proselytizes to. It doesn't matter how he shares the Gospel, as long as he just does it.

 

Another possibility is the desire to confirm his own beliefs by convincing other's of them. This kind of behaviour was shown by the Jehovah Witnesses when each of their failed end times prophecies resulted in an evangelism explosion.

[par4dcourse]

I read this thread because I'm reading Spong's "Eternal Life, A New Vision." So far this discussion has been reasonable, well thought-out arguments and counter-points......and Ray.

[Neon Genesis]

I read this thread because I'm reading Spong's "Eternal Life, A New Vision." So far this discussion has been reasonable, well thought-out arguments and counter-points......and Ray.

How has that book been? I've been wanting to read it but I haven't been able to find it at the bookstore yet.

[par4dcourse]

How has that book been? I've been wanting to read it but I haven't been able to find it at the bookstore yet.

Very thought provoking thus far, as Spong's books are. It'was at my local library: Score one for the backwoods town.

[rayskidude]

It's also a matter of getting the gold stars in Heaven. Jesus will move his seat a little closer for every person he proselytizes to. It doesn't matter how he shares the Gospel, as long as he just does it.

 

Sorry for my absence, my old PC died - and I decided to go with Mac, so I'm still learning the new system.

 

But this comment shows a serious misunderstanding of Biblical Christianity. Scripture clearly teaches salvation is by grace - completely undeserved, given as a gift from God to believers. And though the Bible speaks sparingly of rewards, yet there aren't injunctions to "perform" to obtain greater rewards. Christians do what they do out of a desire to see God glorified, out of thanksgiving for their gracious salvation, out of love for God and Man, out of the desire to serve God & Man, no believer is more saved for doing works and less saved for not. The goal is to be Christ-like - did Jesus reach out with the Gospel? Yes.

 

Is there any hope of salvation apart from the Gospel? No

 

Would love for fellow man include a pleading to come to Christ to receive God's salvation by grace? Yes.

 

Would ignoring the plight of unbelievers be loving - even at their insistence? No - no more than ignoring a dying addict, at his own insistence, would be loving.

 

My prayer to God for you and plea to you all is for your salvation. What did the Prodigal Son do to merit his father's love? He considered his father as dead, took whatever benefits he could, ran with them and wasted his life in profligate living. Yet, when he came to his senses - he realized the extent of his sin, returned to his father to confess and serve. And the father, a picture of our Heavenly Father, saw him at a distance and ran to embrace His wayward son. God rejoices at the repentance and faith of the lost! As do His followers - in seeing another sinner saved by grace. As such, the father dressed his son in the best robe and with rings and killed the fattened calf and there was singing & dancing. Read Luke 15 to see this great picture of God's love and blessing to all who come to Him.

 

Please, do not come short of God's grace to us in Jesus Christ. No one is too far away. No one is beyond God's Grace & love - He stands ready to forgive.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' date='11 January 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1263265677' post='521807']

 

And Spong says re: "camel thru the eye of a needle" - that it's a mixed metaphor. Well, Hugh Schonfeld, the Dan Brown of the 70's (except that Schonfeld was a linguist, and archeologist, and historian focussed on the Jewish influence in Christian beginnings) disagrees. Schonfeld wrote The Passover Plot and was fluent in ancient languages - not just a seminary student. In Schonfeld's own translation of the NT from Greek, he says that this "was a proverbial saying, meaning to achieve the impossible. It is otherwise found in ancient Jewish literature with the substitution of 'elephant' for 'camel.' SO we see that Spong again is ignornant of Jewish colloquial language - as is Bartman.

 

Schonfeld also believed Paul thought he was the messiah which even secular scholars like Spong reject as nonsense, so do you really want to accept him as a reliable authority? You scoff at Swaggard for being a heretic but you accept a heretical Jew like Schonfeld as reliable?

 

I only acknowledge that Schonfeld has done his homework in this instance, and he has done real research - while Spong is obviously ignorant of Jewish colloquialisms. And so Bishop Spong (BS) draws incorrect conclusions about Scripture and God. BS is wrong and you have not addressed that point - you just denigrate Schonfeld.

 

I have read the context of Isiah 7, the context is that it's a prophecy given to King Ahaz about a present day event, not some far-off event in the future.

 

Here again you make the same mistake - why limit the context to chap 7? The chapter divisions are ma-made to help us access passages - they're not inspired. Read the context of this one who is spoken of as Immanuel - you'll see in 8:13-15 and 9:1-7 and it's fairly obvious that these things cannot be limited to Isaiah's son born in 8:1.

 

But the point still stands that bearing false witness was a sin. When Moses got angry and threw his staff at rocks, God became furious with Moses and refused to let him enter the promised land after all Moses did for him just for that minor incident. Why did God get angry over a minor issue like that but permitted Moses to lie in one particular instance?

 

The point is >> Moses did not lie - this is an inference that you draw from the text - not what the text states. The other instance you allude to is when God instructed Moses to again speak to the Rock for water, but Moses clearly disobeyed God and struck the Rock with his staff. Moses disobeyed God in a very insolent way (as believers are not yet delivered from the influence of sin & Satan, we can still sin in grievous ways - note Davis's sin). Do you consider blatant insolence minor? Do your local law enforcement or judicial authorities consider blatant insolence minor?

 

So in other words, it's ok for God to murder the innocent babies of the Egyptians in order to steal their money?

 

Once again you fail to address the point that BS is just wrong, but re: whether God is justified in how He deals with Mankind >> God often deals with people in groups. The most obvious case - Adam's sin and sin nature imputed to every descendant. Now I can fight against this - rage against the machine! - or I can acknowledge that this is true, that all men are sinners. And I can seek God for the cure.

 

But - when our Pres, or Congress, or Supreme Court, or governor, or mayor - when anyone in authority makes stupid decisions/laws/regulations/etc >> all citizens suffer. IS that fair? Am I guilty? Yes - in a way. We're all part of this society, and as a society we've chosen to live certain ways with certain mores and governing rules, etc. So we all benefit together and suffer together. Even babies in the womb suffer from the immorality of their mother or the Supreme Court. So what do you do about this?

 

Granted this is an insufficient analogy >> but the truth is there. As a race, we incur the misery that our humanity brings upon us; and because of this, innocents suffer. But at least with God, we have a Heavenly Father who is holy, gracious, merciful, loving, and righteous - and one day He will make right all the wrongs.

[rayskidude]

Neon, I wish you the best with this. Not everyone is at a level to where they can understand what Spong is saying and they will deny it with zest. The brainwashing runs too deep...

 

Wait a minute - are you saying BS is difficult to understand? Really? Wow! Because in actuality he is no more than just 'old liberalism' warmed-over. So many of these issues were easily refuted 100 years ago by men like BB Warfield and J. Gresham Maecham, et al. Have you read "Re-inventing Jesus " by Kozmolzewski and Wallace? Get educated!

 

What is hard to understand here?

 

BS states in chap 2; "Am I false to Jesus? False to Jesus' interpreters? False to God? I pray not!" Then in chap 3, BS says; "We must think about God in the light of our perceptions of divinity... and find meaning and divinity, not always so much in an external God... We discover transcending spirit within ourselves... communicating with other forms of intelligent life in the universe (I kid you not - read it yourself!)... God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us (OMG!!!). The sense of God as the sum of all that is... We modern Christians grapple with these ideas..." Blah, blah, blah...

 

Allow me to explain - it's not difficult. BS is false to the Biblical Jesus and false to Biblical God. God is external to us, to the whole of Creation, God transcends the universe and all that is! This is the clear teaching of the Bible. We are not God, BS simply espouses pantheism and New Age crapola. This is not Christianity.

[rayskidude]

It's a "spit in your face" kind of deal. You know, a great big ego trip.

 

Yes, and my ego is so frail - please be gentle.

 

Now onto BS and his continued lack of comprehension. In chap 3 - he states the Bible is not a science book, and I agree. Then BS says Jesus could not have known about Einstein's relativity theory - this is sheer blasphemy. As I say, BS is not a Christian, he does not believe the simple Bible truth that Jesus is the Theanthropic Person, the God-Man, who came to redeem sinful man from his well -deserved punishment. Read Hebrews 1:1 - 2:18.

 

BS says the Earth is not flat - I agree. And the Bible says the Earth is spherical - Job 25:10. The Bible never says the Earth is the center of the physical universe.

 

BS states that our colloquial language fuels "a deep sense of human anxiety that refuses to allow us to embrace the vastness of space and our insignificance and loneliness on this planet... The mythology of the Bible serves that conspiracy." Again, what sheer nonsense! Christians revel in and rejoice in the wonders of the universe - each new discovery reveals more about the power and glory of our Creator God. We're continually amazed by intracacy and diversity and vastness and symbioses and whatever else is out there. Creation is one of our primary motives fro worship read Revelation chap 4. How is BS so ignorant of the Bible and Biblical Christianity?? And yet - he is regarded as something of an expert. This is baffling.

 

BS cannot resolve Genesis 1 with Gen 2 >> which reveals his inability to think and analyze text and context. These chapters simply present 2 aspects of God creating His universe. In Gen 1 - we have the overall sketch of the progress and timeframe. Then in Gen 2 we get the details of God creating Man as male & female. Any supposed problem with reconciling these accounts arises only from inferences forced upon the text.

 

But also, BS just doesn't understand Scripture. Example; BS says; "Then God rested on the seventh day to validate the Jewish custom... so that life would have a rhythm and all days would not have a monotonous procession." I can only say that I've never heard a dumber interpretation than this.

 

God rested on the seventh day to 'establish' the world-wide custom of the week; establishing a rest for Man, such that men would not work that day and learn to trust God, that God would provide for man's needs. God is teaching Man to have faith in Him, that He is our Heavenly Father - and He will provide for our needs. Not any supposed validation of Jewish custom or need to prevent monotony. Question for you: honestly, has Sunday removed monotony from your life? These kinds of statements by BS reveal his ignorance of Scriptural teachings.

 

BS states; "Neither the scientific nor cultural suppositions of these creation narratives are accepted, believed, or acted upon by people in this century." Is BS serious??? There are thousands of scientists across the globe with advanced degrees in various physical science disciplines who hold to Creationism - both from Scripture and from the data we see and experience everyday. Get the book, "The New Creationism" or read any of the several books on Intelligent Design; there are a plethora of philosophers and scientists who have come the the conclusion that evolution is pseudo-science - actually that evolution is more religion than science.

 

This is akin to the nonsense that the debate on global warming is over - which ignores the lack of actual data. the weakness of the data cited by proponents, and the fact that so many scientists don't believe it and have challenged this theory repeatedly - only to have their challenges unanswered. Did you see where NASA was challenged and had to revise their statement that 1998 was the hottest year? Now NASA admits 1934 was the hottest. Well, Bs employs the same intellectual dishonesty.

 

Gotta go - I'll write more later.

[Ouroboros]

It's also a matter of getting the gold stars in Heaven. Jesus will move his seat a little closer for every person he proselytizes to. It doesn't matter how he shares the Gospel, as long as he just does it.

 

Sorry for my absence, my old PC died - and I decided to go with Mac, so I'm still learning the new system.

Jesus didn't protect your computer? What sins did you commit to deserve that?

 

But this comment shows a serious misunderstanding of Biblical Christianity. Scripture clearly teaches salvation is by grace - completely undeserved, given as a gift from God to believers. And though the Bible speaks sparingly of rewards, yet there aren't injunctions to "perform" to obtain greater rewards. Christians do what they do out of a desire to see God glorified, out of thanksgiving for their gracious salvation, out of love for God and Man, out of the desire to serve God & Man, no believer is more saved for doing works and less saved for not. The goal is to be Christ-like - did Jesus reach out with the Gospel? Yes.

Yeah, sure, that's what you can tell yourself. But I think that deep down you're doing it to impress rather than love.

 

Is there any hope of salvation apart from the Gospel? No

Except for other religions. If you want to be saved in Judaism, there are other requirements.

 

Would love for fellow man include a pleading to come to Christ to receive God's salvation by grace? Yes.

 

Would ignoring the plight of unbelievers be loving - even at their insistence? No - no more than ignoring a dying addict, at his own insistence, would be loving.

 

My prayer to God for you and plea to you all is for your salvation. What did the Prodigal Son do to merit his father's love? He considered his father as dead, took whatever benefits he could, ran with them and wasted his life in profligate living. Yet, when he came to his senses - he realized the extent of his sin, returned to his father to confess and serve. And the father, a picture of our Heavenly Father, saw him at a distance and ran to embrace His wayward son. God rejoices at the repentance and faith of the lost! As do His followers - in seeing another sinner saved by grace. As such, the father dressed his son in the best robe and with rings and killed the fattened calf and there was singing & dancing. Read Luke 15 to see this great picture of God's love and blessing to all who come to Him.

It's a story.

 

I thought Avatar was a great story too.

 

Please, do not come short of God's grace to us in Jesus Christ. No one is too far away. No one is beyond God's Grace & love - He stands ready to forgive.

I think it's all based on stories. There's no God you need to be saved from or by, and there's no Jesus do to it, and there's no golden streets or afterlife. It's all children stories to make you feel good. But I grew up. I don't drink milk anymore. Instead, I can eat meat.

[par4dcourse]

My prayer to God for you .....

So you're willing to actually close your eyes and think to the invisible sky-daddy for us, since we are obviously incapable of doing that? What a sacrifice.

[Shyone]

Please, do not come short of God's grace to us in Jesus Christ. No one is too far away. No one is beyond God's Grace & love - He stands ready to forgive.

It is unreasonable to expect people to believe that which is contrary to Nature. There is no sense in believing something that has no proof. This epistemology is what leads to suicide bombing.

 

When belief is more important than proof, skepticism is not only appropriate, but necessary. You have abandoned your mind to myth and legend, and you desparately wish us to do the same. Well, Mr. Marshall Applewhite, I'd just as soon miss the Jesus Spaceship behind the comet. However sincerely you may believe, indirect (or direct) metaphysical threats are not intimidating to those of us who have already discarded those beliefs as false.

 

I not only don't believe that God will reward me after death in heaven or punish me in hell, I don't believe in God. I don't even believe in Heaven or Hell. I don't even believe in an afterlife. And I guess you know where that leaves Jesus.

 

And forgive me for what? There is no forgiver, and I have not done anything immoral that requires forgiveness.

[NotBlinded]

Allow me to explain - it's not difficult. BS is false to the Biblical Jesus and false to Biblical God. God is external to us, to the whole of Creation, God transcends the universe and all that is! This is the clear teaching of the Bible. We are not God, BS simply espouses pantheism and New Age crapola. This is not Christianity.

Of course it's what you discern as the clear teaching of the bible. You are a fundamentalist. But, it's not really so clear when you can go way back to early Christianity and look at a more mystical, and much more fulfilling, aspect of it. There is an underlying truth that runs beyond the words of the literalist "crapola".

 

You can say we are not God over and over all you want, but that doesn't prove a thing. I can claim we are and that still doesn't prove anything.

 

New Age? I think you need to educate yourself on some early Theologians which were mystics.

[Shyone]

Allow me to explain - it's not difficult. BS is false to the Biblical Jesus and false to Biblical God. God is external to us, to the whole of Creation, God transcends the universe and all that is! This is the clear teaching of the Bible. We are not God, BS simply espouses pantheism and New Age crapola. This is not Christianity.

Of course it's what you discern as the clear teaching of the bible. You are a fundamentalist. But, it's not really so clear when you can go way back to early Christianity and look at a more mystical, and much more fulfilling, aspect of it. There is an underlying truth that runs beyond the words of the literalist "crapola".

 

You can say we are not God over and over all you want, but that doesn't prove a thing. I can claim we are and that still doesn't prove anything.

 

New Age? I think you need to educate yourself on some early Theologians which were mystics.

Actually, Rayskidude's description of God is the one that has survived questioning atheists over the eons, not the one depicted in the Old Testament, or even the New.

 

He used to come to High Places like Mount Sinai as a cloud. He was a cloud that followed the ark as the Israelites walked. He "abode" in the tabernacle.

 

Skeptics chased his ass clean into the firmament.

 

That's where Jesus thought the Mansions and streets of gold were, but scientists chased his ass and found nothing in the skies; no streets, no gods, no reason to even suspect a god.

 

That's when God really disappeared. No cloud, or light; wandered clear out of the universe. "Transcends" - good word for a meaningless place of existence. All those fancy adjectives we use now like immaterial and transcendent are the product of atheists asking, "Where is this being?"

 

The answer is deafening silence.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

Here again you make the same mistake - why limit the context to chap 7? The chapter divisions are ma-made to help us access passages - they're not inspired. Read the context of this one who is spoken of as Immanuel - you'll see in 8:13-15 and 9:1-7 and it's fairly obvious that these things cannot be limited to Isaiah's son born in 8:1.

But how are the prophecies described in the verses I quoted sound anything like Jesus? Even if you could somehow prove that Matthew's virgin birth myth isn't based on a mistranslation, the only thing it proves is that Matthew went back and read the OT and wrote a story to fit it. How is that a miraculous prophecy? It's like those people who claim Nostradamus predicted 9/11 but all they're doing is just going back and reading all his old prophecies and trying to make them fit into 9/11.

 

 

 

The point is >> Moses did not lie - this is an inference that you draw from the text - not what the text states. The other instance you allude to is when God instructed Moses to again speak to the Rock for water, but Moses clearly disobeyed God and struck the Rock with his staff. Moses disobeyed God in a very insolent way (as believers are not yet delivered from the influence of sin & Satan, we can still sin in grievous ways - note Davis's sin). Do you consider blatant insolence minor? Do your local law enforcement or judicial authorities consider blatant insolence minor?

So, Moses throwing a temper tantrum is deserving of punishment but God murdering the innocent babies in Egypt is justice?

 

 

Once again you fail to address the point that BS is just wrong, but re: whether God is justified in how He deals with Mankind >> God often deals with people in groups. The most obvious case - Adam's sin and sin nature imputed to every descendant. Now I can fight against this - rage against the machine! - or I can acknowledge that this is true, that all men are sinners. And I can seek God for the cure.

 

But - when our Pres, or Congress, or Supreme Court, or governor, or mayor - when anyone in authority makes stupid decisions/laws/regulations/etc >> all citizens suffer. IS that fair? Am I guilty? Yes - in a way. We're all part of this society, and as a society we've chosen to live certain ways with certain mores and governing rules, etc. So we all benefit together and suffer together. Even babies in the womb suffer from the immorality of their mother or the Supreme Court. So what do you do about this?

What does the U.S. government have to do with the OT? God murdered the innocent babies of Egypt who did nothing to deserve the punishment. You're essentially saying God is justified murdering the babies because it was punishment towards the parents. How is this justice in any sense of the word? It'd be like arguing since a parent committed an injustice to you, you're justified in murdering the parent's child. How is this loving your enemies and turning the other cheek in any sense of the phrase? If God was using the babies as some sort of punishment for justice, why didn't God punish the parents instead of punishing the children? What you're doing is rationalizing taking out vengeance on innocent children who have nothing to do with the actions of their parents. I thought Jesus was against an eye for an eye?

 

 

Granted this is an insufficient analogy >> but the truth is there. As a race, we incur the misery that our humanity brings upon us; and because of this, innocents suffer. But at least with God, we have a Heavenly Father who is holy, gracious, merciful, loving, and righteous - and one day He will make right all the wrongs.

So why wasn't God able to bring justice to the Isrealites without murdering innocent babies? Why couldn't have God used his miracles to teleport the Isrealites to Canaan? Why couldn't have God just punished the Egyptian government instead of the babies? The fact that I can come up with dozens of alternative solutions to how God could have rescued the Isrealites without murdering any babies just proves that the bible is a human-made book, not divinely inspired by God.

 

Now onto BS and his continued lack of comprehension. In chap 3 - he states the Bible is not a science book, and I agree. Then BS says Jesus could not have known about Einstein's relativity theory - this is sheer blasphemy. As I say, BS is not a Christian, he does not believe the simple Bible truth that Jesus is the Theanthropic Person, the God-Man, who came to redeem sinful man from his well -deserved punishment. Read Hebrews 1:1 - 2:18.

So, you're saying Jesus is not the messiah, Jesus was a scientist who studied Einstein theories in universities? I can just imagine Jesus wearing nerd glasses while sitting in a science lab wearing a white coat with his experiments.

 

BS says the Earth is not flat - I agree. And the Bible says the Earth is spherical - Job 25:10. The Bible never says the Earth is the center of the physical universe

Job says the Earth is a circle, not a sphere. Circles are flat, like pancakes and frisbees. If the bible teaches a spherical Earth and that the Earth is not the center of the universe, why are there no Christian writings about it before the time of Copernicus and Galileo? Why was Galileo persecuted for his science if the bible taught all along the Earth revolved around the sun? If the Earth revolves around the sun in the bible, how was Joshua able to stop the sun in the sky?

 

BS cannot resolve Genesis 1 with Gen 2 >> which reveals his inability to think and analyze text and context. These chapters simply present 2 aspects of God creating His universe. In Gen 1 - we have the overall sketch of the progress and timeframe. Then in Gen 2 we get the details of God creating Man as male & female. Any supposed problem with reconciling these accounts arises only from inferences forced upon the text.

How can you reconcile the two accounts? In Genesis 1, God creates the animals first and then creates Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2, he creates Adam first, then the animals, then Eve. Genesis 1 also says it takes place in six days whereas Genesis 2 says it takes place all in one day. If these are supposed to be literal scientific theories about the origins of the universe, why are they so different from each other? Try reading the accounts side by side and see if you can reconcile the accounts besides the usual apologetic response that Genesis 2 is just a "recap."

 

There are thousands of scientists across the globe with advanced degrees in various physical science disciplines who hold to Creationism - both from Scripture and from the data we see and experience everyday.

Which scientists are these?

[rayskidude]

My prayer to God for you .....

So you're willing to actually close your eyes and think to the invisible sky-daddy for us, since we are obviously incapable of doing that? What a sacrifice.

 

Actually, you're very capable of prayer - and I would urge you all to pray to the Biblical God. God hears and answers prayer, He delights to love and bless >> He is Creator of all, and Heavenly Father to all who seek Him.