Question For The Christians

[centauri]

God's pronouncement of judgment is not considered genocide, anymore than a judge condemning a man to the death penalty is considered to be murder.

The judgment is subjective, based on the whims of the deity.

Any mass extermination can be justified by claiming that “God” authorized it.

 

In the case of Jesus, since when is the cursing of a plant considered immoral?

It’s destruction of property that Jesus didn’t own.

Killing a fruit tree goes against God’s standards (Deut 20:19).

Fruit trees are considered a blessing to the land.

 

I cut my lawn every week during the summer, am I guilty of herbacide? Some do think that cutting plants is equivalent to committing some type of crime, but I'm not one of them.

Well, the Bible God is one of them and your lawn doesn’t bear fruit.

Jesus destroyed property that didn’t belong to him and scorned God’s instructions to save fruit trees from harm.

 

BTW, Jesus cursing of the fig tree was an indictment against the Jews who were fruitless in their ministries, it wasn't some type of temper tantrum as you imply.

So…the god-man curses part of his father’s creation in order to indict the Jews.

That’s punishing the innocent and showing a disregard for God’s instructions concerning fruit trees.

This incident has the elements of an emotional outburst by a hungry man rather than a seminar in Jewish fruitlessness.

 

Jesus upheld and even strengthened the Law (Matt. 5)

Jesus undermined the law in Mark 7.

He also added additional rituals that were not part of the law.

Adding or subtracting from the law is a major violation of God’s rules.

[bornagainathiest]

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

What is this discussion about the Martian canyon? I have to admit, I have not followed that particular thread of discussion.

 

My understanding is that Valles Marineris was formed by either (or a combination of) floods of water, floods of lava, or perhaps even a collision with a large celestial body.

 

Not true.

I asked Ray to perform a comparison between the Noctis Labyrinthus Trough on Mars and the Grand canyon on Earth. He refused to do so.

OB > BAA had asked about my thots on the formation of a particular Martian canyon - which supposedly has impact on the formation of our Grand Canyon, which...???

 

I provided 2 or 3 lengthy posts on flood geology, but I ended up by saying that I do not know how that specific Martian Canyon was formed - how could I know?

 

But, I went to the link he provided - and like you, I found that a Martian canyon [Chasma Boreale(?)] had evidence of being formed by a huge flood of water. However, BAA was interested in a different Martian canyon, also listed on that site.

 

Also, not true.

The link directed to the Noctis Labyrinthus trough.

Ray, sunstituted the Chasma Boreale, to avoid making the comparison mentioned above.But for the life of me - I can't figure out the big deal. But since I had agreed to answer his question - well, I did some reading and provided my thots.

 

Trust you're having a good Thanksgiving weekend.

 

I haven't got the time now, OB.

 

But next week I will show you the relevant posts and we will see Ray's lies exposed and brought to light.

 

Till then.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Can you show evidence that they were all written from the same story? I don't think that there is any scholarly support for that assertion. Yes, Matthew and Luke are believed to have relied on the source Q (which is speculation, not confirmed evidentially, although it is sound speculation), but Mark and John are not believed to have relied on that source and their sources are independent of Q and each other.

First of all, many scholars believe none of the Gospels are first hand documents. Secondly, Luke was obviously not an eyewitness. John's Gospel is dangerously close to Gnostic and seemingly influenced by Philo's writings, and dated so late that it's even more likely than Mark and Mathew to be a secondary writing. None of them are eyewitnesses.

 

It's up to you to prove the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I believe they are not. I believe they are constructs of hearsay and of cultural and local religious influences. Can you prove me wrong?

 

Who, besides you, believes that Romeo and Juliette were actual people? You logic doesn't follow in this case, nor your historical analysis.

 

LNC

You clearly missed my point.

 

What a waste of time and space...

[Ouroboros]

I haven't got the time now, OB.

 

But next week I will show you the relevant posts and we will see Ray's lies exposed and brought to light.

 

Till then.

 

BAA.

Don't worry about it. I just wondered what the discussion was about.

[Mister Pappy]

Adding or subtracting from the law is a major violation of God’s rules.

You actually did it Centauri ... I must admit, I doubted that you could get them playing your game for a wile. Awesome work.

[Crazy Donna]

But this brings up an interesting question; for you, what is the final arbiter of Truth?

Maybe time.

 

A guy once told me that he saw a house that had burned down and the only thing which remained standing was the chimney. He said, "The chimney is the truth."

 

Cogitumus ergo sumus. Lingua est a secui nostrum.

My uncle had to knock down a chiminey once when his house burned down, before the insurance agent got there, so that he could claim that the house was totally destroyed, and they'd pay out his policy.

 

Crowbars. Not just for bashing christians.

[bornagainathiest]

Answer the questions put to you. Show the logic of your arguments. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Refute my criticisms. Cite chapter and verse and explain how these support you.

You have a lot of work to do and any further requests about where my theology comes from will be met with the same answer as before. No!

No more evasions, delays or dodges, please.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

I've already done so - from Luke 16, Philippians 1, II Cor 5 & 12, the thief on the cross, etc.

 

Cite where you've done so and I'll cite where I've refuted you. See? Impasse.

You can break the logjam by doing what I've asked above. Not just in Luke, Philippians and II Corinthians. Don't just stick to the New Testament. Deal with my OT quotes as well. Show us how Abraham et al expected to go right on up to Jesus when they died. Come on. The Bible's one unified body of work, isn't it? So the OT shouldn't contradict the NT, should it?

 

And what's this nonsense that I don't believe in the physical resurrection of the dead at the final judgement, because I most certainly do.

 

Nice! But no cigar, Ray.

The point under debate between us is the physical resurrection of the Christian dead at the final judgement - not just the physical resurrection of the dead.

Vital difference, as you well knew and decided to try and dodge by dropping the word, 'Christian'.

 

Your stated position is that all true Christian believers go directly to Jesus' presence on the moment of their death. Remember these?

 

"I'm happy to have anyone look at these verses - it's obvious that having passed from this life, believers are in paradise, God's presence."

" ...and we also see in the experience of Lazarus - that after physical death there is a conscious existence in Paradise, in the Lord's presence."

No soul-sleep. 'Beam me up, Gabriel!" Scripture disagrees with you Ray. I've cited the examples, now defend your position.

 

The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Exactly Ray!

 

I've shown where Abraham, Isaac and many others, all the way to Paul and John - they all expected this soul-sleep of the dead. None of them expected to arrive on the heaven's transporter pad once they expired.

 

Which is bogus, proven from Scripture and by your cowardice to list its proponents, whom you must know to be untrustworthy. Are you protecting them from 'lil ol' me?"

Are they whiny little children who cannot defend their own firmly held beliefs?

 

It's all about the size of one's 'nads, with you, isn't it? (Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've seen in a long time.)

 

"Don't ask again", I said to you, remember? Then what do you do, in another futile attempt to drag this thread away from the flaws in your theology? You go and ask again!

 

This isn't about anyone else. It's about the contradictions in your beliefs. The ones you wont defend. The ones you'll try any trick and twist to avoid having to justify. The ones you won't be held accountable for. The ones you won't be pinned down on.

Now then, stop dodging and meet my challenge.

 

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

 

OB's asked me to play it cool on this and not go to the trouble of proving (again) that you dodged what I asked you to do, back in June. So, until you toe the line, you'll wait forever. Impasse, again.

 

 

BAA.

[Destinyjesus3000]

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Another annoying video with just pictures, music, and slow text to read... I lost interest in 10 seconds.

 

Can you give us a transcript instead. Because, one of the problems (another problem than fancy cups) is that people steal our time and can't speak plainly and directly.

 

It took me less than a minute to type this post, and the video isn't even done.

[Antlerman]

That was a great Humanist message. Thanks for sharing.

[Crazy Donna]

Wow! A link with no explanation!

 

You obviously have a strong desire to see us all converted back to your ghastly religion, since you went to so much effort. I mean, selecting the web address, holding down CTRL and C, then opening this window and pressing CTRL and V. Your hands must be so tired from cutting and pasting that link. I can tell you put so much effort into it. You should go lie down and have a cup of tea.

 

Do you really think any of us are going to click on your potentially virus laden link?

 

Why don't you change your name to "World's laziest, most apathetic evangelist"?

 

This forum is for discussion, not for your post and run spiritual masturbation. You want to talk to us, come back and talk. Don't just post links to get your jesus lovin' jollies, coward.

[Mister Pappy]

Destiny,

 

That was a very meaningful video - a true message that we all can gain something from, regardless of our differences in belief. I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.

 

Pappy

 

 

[Thackerie]

Another annoying video with just pictures, music, and slow text to read... I lost interest in 10 seconds.

 

Can you give us a transcript instead. Because, one of the problems (another problem than fancy cups) is that people steal our time and can't speak plainly and directly.

 

It took me less than a minute to type this post, and the video isn't even done.

 

 

Maybe it's annoyingly slooooooooooow because people who need to be told that being kind and loving is a good thing can't read very fast?? Dunno. I stuck with it for the entire painful 3.32 minutes. I found it trite as well as boring.

[Antlerman]

I'm actually going to make some technical challenges to this little video. As a connoisseur of better coffees, I take exception to the statement that the cup does not enhance the coffee. It very much does. To drink a brewed, $69/lb coffee from a dirty Styrofoam cup, which has the tactile feel of hot grit, detracts from the experience of the coffee. Have the same coffee in a proper cup, and the experience of your coffee will be enhanced by many times.

 

The same holds true for the environment you drink it in. Drinking coffee in a travel mug while being jostled about on a bus with screaming children climbing all over their parent next to you, makes the coffee less enjoyable as well, if not even potentially threatening. Eliminating distractions, setting the mood, using better utensils, a better cup, all these things contribute to the overall experience of a fine bean.

 

The beans I normally buy (typically Indonesian), run around $24-$32/lb at a specialty shop I frequent, so I damn well hope to control the environment to get the most out of my experience of it. Why should I compromise what I drink it from?

 

Just some food for thought when claiming the cup doesn't matter.

 

An additional thought: If the cup didn't matter for this professor's coffee, then he was serving shit-coffee to his guests, and this video should be about treating others with honor and respect by serving them good coffee. Instead, he chooses to lecture them about their choices in cup, when it rather should have been them lecturing him about offering a proper cup of coffee to them, instead of some violent outhouse brew. And that about sums it up.

[Ouroboros]

Just some food for thought when claiming the cup doesn't matter.

Very good point, A-man.

 

The same goes for drinking wine, beer, whiskey, and cognac. The glass can take away or enhance the aroma and taste.

 

An additional thought: If the cup didn't matter for this professor's coffee, then he was serving shit-coffee to his guests, and this video should be about treating others with honor and respect by serving them good coffee. Instead he chooses to lecture them about their choices in cup, when it should have been them lecturing him about offering a proper cup of coffee to them. And that about sums it up.

I think the video producer should respond "touché."

[Antlerman]

Just some food for thought when claiming the cup doesn't matter.

Very good point, A-man.

 

The same goes for drinking wine, beer, whiskey, and cognac. The glass can take away or enhance the aroma and taste.

Absodamnlutly! There was something about that video that was bugging me. Even though is was offering simple little platitudes, it was technically not correct as a vehicle of communication. Drinking a 30-year aged cognac at $129 a bottle out of a Dixie cup is not at all the same as drinking it from a finely made piece of expensive glassware. His thoughts completely strip culture out of the equation and make it more like pigs eating corn in their own filth. It's all about the corn baby! Bullshit.

 

An additional thought: If the cup didn't matter for this professor's coffee, then he was serving shit-coffee to his guests, and this video should be about treating others with honor and respect by serving them good coffee. Instead he chooses to lecture them about their choices in cup, when it should have been them lecturing him about offering a proper cup of coffee to them. And that about sums it up.

I think the video producer should respond "touché."

I think an apology to humanity itself is in order.

[Ouroboros]

Absodamnlutly! There was something about that video that was bugging me. Even though is was offering simple little platitudes, it was technically not correct as a vehicle of communication. Drinking a 30-year aged cognac at $129 a bottle out of a Dixie cup is not at all the same as drinking it from a finely made piece of expensive glassware. His thoughts completely strip culture out of the equation and make it more like pigs eating corn in their own filth. It's all about the corn baby! Bullshit.

And the shape is important too.

 

I drink certain beers from goblets because they provide a better breathing of the aroma. I haven't seen any papergoblets yet.

 

I think the video producer should respond "touché."

I think an apology to humanity itself is in order.

Then I can say "touché."

 

Tall order though, ask humanity for forgiveness. If we all come together and give the producer a good whack with the club-by-four, perhaps it will suffice.

[Antlerman]

Absodamnlutly! There was something about that video that was bugging me. Even though is was offering simple little platitudes, it was technically not correct as a vehicle of communication. Drinking a 30-year aged cognac at $129 a bottle out of a Dixie cup is not at all the same as drinking it from a finely made piece of expensive glassware. His thoughts completely strip culture out of the equation and make it more like pigs eating corn in their own filth. It's all about the corn baby! Bullshit.

And the shape is important too.

 

I drink certain beers from goblets because they provide a better breathing of the aroma. I haven't seen any papergoblets yet.

That was the other thing about it that bugged me. That smug professor assumed it was everyone wanting a better mug than anyone else. It's my thought that they simply wanted to be able to enjoy the coffee, and not accept the shit cups he put on the table which in the end would serve better as spittoons for the shitty coffee he served them. I'm sure this also offended them on their host's lack of care in what he would choose to place before them for coffee.

 

It was a natural reaction to take the better cups, out of a desire to feel respected by their otherwise cloddish host, who not only put crap tableware in front of them, served them substandard refuse-coffee, but then proceeded to insult their sense of self worth with all these judgmental platitudes spoken in such smug self-assurance, whilst the whole while his guests took the high road in their polite response instead.

 

I'm sure that was his last party, once the word got out about this overbearing prig.

[Ouroboros]

To go a little deeper in the video message. My interpretation of the message is that whatever is external does not define or improve what is internal.

 

I'm not so sure about that this holds true.

 

I do feel more enjoyment driving a whole, nice, clean car than a rusty, faltering, dirty car. Perhaps it doesn't really define who I am, but it does however affect my own feeling about myself to some extent. It's true that we can live a happier life if we do not put too much attention of what is outside and instead put more importance to what is inside. But does this mean that whole and clean clothes means nothing to a person? Or a house without leaks?

[Phanta]

So who was Lazarus? Are you saying that Jesus resurrected him AFTER his own resurrection? How about Tabita (spelling, or was that her name, don't remember), wasn't she dead and resurrected by Jesus? Or the people the prophets resurrected from the dead in the Old Testament?

 

So they basically didn't believe their own holy scriptures or the events they just had experienced?

 

Or perhaps you are saying that those stories never happened, and only Jesus's resurrection is historical. Well, congratulations, you have now decided that a big chunk of the Bible is just a story without historical backing.

 

 

Lazarus was Martha and Mary's brother. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life before his (Jesus') crucifixion. Tabitha was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9). Yes, people were restored to life by the prophets Elijah (1 Kings 17) and Elisha (2 Kings 8). In those cases, the person wasn't dead as long as Lazarus was, so Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus was considered a greater miracle.

 

Maybe those weren't actual miracle resurrections, but rather the first documented instances of CPR. God's prophets were as advanced as modern healers (EMTs)!

 

(Boy, I would make a fierce apologist...)

 

I think Hans' point is that in this post you stated, "The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection". Hans was surprised that you think they didn't literally believe in the resurrections described in the OT.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Your stated position is that all true Christian believers go directly to Jesus' presence on the moment of their death. Remember these?

 

"I'm happy to have anyone look at these verses - it's obvious that having passed from this life, believers are in paradise, God's presence."

" ...and we also see in the experience of Lazarus - that after physical death there is a conscious existence in Paradise, in the Lord's presence."

No soul-sleep. 'Beam me up, Gabriel!" Scripture disagrees with you Ray. I've cited the examples, now defend your position.[/color]

 

The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Exactly Ray!

 

I've shown where Abraham, Isaac and many others, all the way to Paul and John - they all expected this soul-sleep of the dead. None of them expected to arrive on the heaven's transporter pad once they expired.

 

Which is bogus, proven from Scripture[/color]

 

Interesting string of thoughts, BAA! I've read the last couple of posts and found all but one of your example-argument combos compelling.

 

Ray - I'd love to see you reply to the actual scripture. Well, I'd love to see a reply to the scripture that addresses the context and intent of each scripture. I would not like to see a list of completely different scripture with no relation to BAA's scripture.

 

Do you think Abraham, Isaac, Paul, John, et. al. were wrong in their ideas about sleep after death? Were they confused?

 

Phanta

[Antlerman]

To go a little deeper in the video message. My interpretation of the message is that whatever is external does not define or improve what is internal.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I do feel more enjoyment driving a whole, nice, clean car than a rusty, faltering, dirty car. Perhaps it doesn't really define who I am, but it does however affect my own feeling about myself to some extent. It's true that we can live a happier life if we do not put too much attention of what is outside and instead put more importance to what is inside. But does this mean that whole and clean clothes means nothing to a person? Or a house without leaks?

Absolutely, our environment affects our psychological and emotional well being. It cannot create or define our internal experiences, as we could live in a palace with servants to cater to our every whim, yet be miserably because of some internal lack. However, if we are seeking a place to develop higher mind, and are constantly under assault by some military force that shells our towns and villages, the carnage of bodies around you would definitely negatively impact your ability to exercise and develop that aspect of yourself. Same thing with a house full of screaming children, or a negative relationship, or a bad job, or financial problems, etc. All these are external things which affect or impact your inner development in some fashion, even though perhaps positively as it could give the internal will a chance to exercise in having something to work through with internal strengths - if you can't change the environment, you change your response to it. In other words, there is an interactive relationship in all of this. You cannot escape that relationship. The goal is to integrate and grow.

 

Now regarding that relationship, the external environment itself becomes affected by the internal state, to the point that when you see disarray, poor hygiene, dysfunctional behaviors, etc, these are external manifestations of an internal dysfunction. It's a two-way relationship, the environment impacting the mind, and the mind impacting the environment. The wisest words my father said to me in my troubled youth as this, "We create our own environments". This is largely true. We affect the world, even thought we can never fully control it. We have greater control over our own space in how we respond, and how we respond, impacts not only the internal self, but the eternal as well, which feeds back to the internal, which moves out to the world, and so on. (This is why I am very much in disagreement with the determinist and the reductionist, by the way).

 

 

So bottom line, I think the professor showed a dysfunction within himself by even offering dirty cups to his guests. It wouldn't surprise me if he had failed to bathe that week as well.

[Ouroboros]

There's nothing I can add to that.

[bornagainathiest]

Your stated position is that all true Christian believers go directly to Jesus' presence on the moment of their death. Remember these?

 

"I'm happy to have anyone look at these verses - it's obvious that having passed from this life, believers are in paradise, God's presence."

" ...and we also see in the experience of Lazarus - that after physical death there is a conscious existence in Paradise, in the Lord's presence."

No soul-sleep. 'Beam me up, Gabriel!" Scripture disagrees with you Ray. I've cited the examples, now defend your position.[/color]

 

The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Exactly Ray!

 

I've shown where Abraham, Isaac and many others, all the way to Paul and John - they all expected this soul-sleep of the dead. None of them expected to arrive on the heaven's transporter pad once they expired.

 

Which is bogus, proven from Scripture[/color]

 

Interesting string of thoughts, BAA! I've read the last couple of posts and found all but one of your example-argument combos compelling.

 

Ray - I'd love to see you reply to the actual scripture. Well, I'd love to see a reply to the scripture that addresses the context and intent of each scripture. I would not like to see a list of completely different scripture with no relation to BAA's scripture.

 

Do you think Abraham, Isaac, Paul, John, et. al. were wrong in their ideas about sleep after death? Were they confused?

 

Phanta

 

Thanks Phanta!

 

Would you be so kind as to say which of my example/argument combos failed to make the cut and why you thought so? Any helpful input would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks again.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Note to Ray:

This message is a reply to Phanta and not an invitation for you to use any of it's content to drag this thread away from the point in question - namely your response to my challenges about soul-sleep. I'm sorry that I have to write this, but you've proven yourself untrustworthy and apt to take any chance to avoid answering questions put to you.

 

Please respond to Phanta's request.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Phanta]

Would you be so kind as to say which of my example/argument combos failed to make the cut and why you thought so? Any helpful input would be much appreciated.

 

Sure!

 

First let me describe what I think you are doing in these posts. I think you are showing the the Jewish idea of the afterlife according to scripture does not resemble Ray's claim about the afterlife-- who goes where and when. Your claim is that the Jews believed that, after death, the soul went to sleep in Shoel until the day of resurrection. Yes? Ray doesn't agree with some aspect of that...YOU seem to be saying that he thinks Shoel is a metaphor, but I can't find where he directly addressed the Shoel verses... (Maybe one of you can point me to it).

 

If that's correct, then the minor point that I found a bit weak is here:

 

Genesis 37: 29-36.

(Here's a preface for you Ray - so that you know that this the literal truth and not a metaphor. Ok? I know you have a problem distinguishing reportage from metaphor, so here's a helping hand. Please read on...)[/color]

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

"...I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning?"

 

What? Not up to heaven? But you say that all true Christian believers immediately go up to Christ's presence in heaven. Isn't that right, Ray? Isn't that what would happen, if the what Jesus said to the thief, was literally true? So why's Joseph talking about going down to Sheol? Is this a metaphor, perhaps? Nope. Can't be. The preface, 'Joseph sold by His Brothers' tells us that it must be the literal truth - a totally and absolutely accurate and perfectly reliable account of historical events. Not a metaphor at all. Can you resolve this contradiction please?

 

It is actually possible that:

 

1. Joseph was confused about what happens after death.

or

2. Joseph was using some kind of metaphor "going down to Shoel" to refer to grief/death.

or

3. Biblical theology changed significantly time in between the writing of this manifestation of Genesis and the time Ray learned his ideas about the afterlife.

 

Your other examples suggest that #2 is not a real possibility. However, Joseph making a statement does not make Ray's idea of Heaven and Biblical reporting untrue in itself. Biblical characters are often illustrations of mistakes. They present difficult interbeing conundrums, morally abmiguous situations, and misunderstanding. #1 could still be argued by Ray and the Bible would remain consistent. In order to be truthful, the Bible need only report truthfully the real feelings of its characters, flawed though they may be. He could also argue that all references to Shoel are metaphoric. Or....?

 

Without your supporting evidence, it still could be metaphor spoken by Joseph and true recounting by the Bible.

 

Phanta

 

Edited: to get back on track.