My Pastor Sets Me Straight

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Moreover, if we accept that the bible means "angel" when it says "son of god," then we're right back to having no compelling reason to believe that jesus really, truly, honest injun was the "son of god."

[walterpthefirst]

26 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

I give up. Now you are back to my "bearing false witness". "Be very, very careful about what you say about me". What does that mean?

 

It means that you should be very careful not to say things like, "You would accept NOTHING I say anyway."

 

Especially when I told you that I would accept objective evidence from you in support of your claims.

 

Accepting your objective evidence would be accepting something that you say.

 

So, you are clearly wrong in claiming that I would accept NOTHING you say.

 

And repeating this is repeating something I neither said, nor even implied.

 

Doing that is bearing false witness against me, Fish.

 

You are smart enough to understand what I have just explained to you.

 

26 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

I will no longer respond to, or address your posts. There are a lot of other people you can talk to. I wish you the best. I wouldn't want to "say" something that might offend you. I mean that sincerely. If I have said anything to offend you in my other posts I apologize. I'll just talk with others for now.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven 

Matthew 22:30

 

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 6:1-2

 

So, @Fish153, can you please explain why jesus thinks angels can't get married, when Genesis 6 clearly states that "angels" came down here and fucked some bitches?

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I'm logging off now.

 

I wonder what tomorrow will bring?

 

 

[Fish153]

Redneck—-

In Jude it says that some angels “left their first estate” and sinned greatly. They are in chains. Angels are not meant to marry or have sexual relations. Perhaps that is their “first estate”. Jesus said that people will be like the “angels in  Heaven”—-not like the “angels in chains”? The fallen angels are quite different than the “angels in Heaven”.

 

We really don’t know what happened far in the past. There are many things we have not been given enough details about to understand. This one of them.

[Fish153]

Charlie Brown to some friends: “Batman was a good movie. Last night the whole football team got on a bus and went to see the movie. Linus saw them leave. It was around 8:00 last night.”

Linus: “I saw no such thing Charlie Brown! You are bearing false witness when you say that!”

Charlie Brown: “What!?? Bearing false witness?? You were right there when the bus left Linus!”

Linus: “You said “the whole team” got on the bus around 8:00”.

Charlie Brown: “Yeah, they did”.

Linus: “There are 51 players on the football team Charlie Brown. And only 50 got on the bus to go to the movie. And it was 8:30 to be exact, not “around 8:00”. You are bearing false witness about me Charlie Brown, as I never saw the whole team get on that bus, and it wasn’t 8:00 either”.

Charlie Brown: Good Grief! I wasn’t bearing false witness Linus. I was using “generalizations” when describing an event.

Linus: What are “generalizations”?

Charlie Brown: Good Grief. There is someone you have a lot in common with on one of the boards I’ve been posting on lately”.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

The fallen angels are quite different than the “angels in Heaven

So, in discussing this one passage alone (Genesis 6), we started out with the "sons of god" (which is what the bible actually says), then it was "angels" or "sons of Seth" (which is what the scholars say), and now we have arrived at "demons" or "fallen angels" (which is what you say).

 

My original point was that nothing the bible says about sons of god can be taken at face value.  You have gone to great lengths to prove my point for me, for which I am grateful.  You have demonstrated that even when the bible uses the exact phrase "sons of god" it cannot be taken to actually be talking about any actual sons of any actual god.  It could mean anything from Seth's red-headed stepchild to the very keepers of hellfire and brimstone. 

 

So, if the bible doesn't actually mean "sons of god" when it says "sons of god," how then can anything else the bible says about sons of god be taken at face value?  And if jesus is the word which was with god in the beginning and which was god and which said "sons of god" but didn't actually mean it back then, what compelling reason do I have to think he meant it later when he referred to himself?

 

It says "sons of god" but you have to read this passage in Hebrews and that verse in Habakkuk and remember that Collossians was written in Greek and didn't quite translate that one verse in Deuteronomy correctly so you need to consult with Strongs Concordance and read the exegesis by Father Donovan which also examines the culture and social structure reflected in the time period and all that just because an omniscient god couldn't just say what the fuck he actually fucking means.

 

No, son.  Either the bible means what it says, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, I have no reason to trust it or even believe the parts you tell me it does mean. 

[midniterider]

On 5/15/2022 at 6:53 PM, Fish153 said:

Sdelsolray—-

 

But deconversion has everything to do with the Bible doesn’t it? I know you no longer believe it, but you can’t study deconversion from Christianity without referring to the Bible or Abrahamic religions can you? I want to know how someone who used to believe the Bible now says it’s “make-believe”. I think that is the angle I’m looking at— but thanks for the suggestion.

 

People change over time. People are raised from birth to believe Christian nonsense that doesnt exist anywhere in reality but only in their head and the bible. After a while some people allow themselves to consider that they were indeed lied to. Adults have uncontrolled access to information. Information and knowledge is the religion killer.  

 

edit: I think you were trying to stick it to Walter and Krowb about being 'absolute' in their thinking. Well, belief in Jesus is not absolute. It's relative. A person has a certain level of faith. And a certain level of defense again intrusion by reality into their faith. These levels can and do change over time. 

 

Christian thinking can be absolute. A Christian may decide that you either are a believer or  you 'never' were really a believer....that is black and white, absolute kind of thinking. Life isnt like that. 

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Josh---

Of course the Bible says that one man, and one man alone is the Son of God. John 1 says that Jesus is the WORD made flesh. There is only ONE of Him.

 

"That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow". God in the Old Testament declares that every knee shall bow to HIM. Therefore Jesus is GOD.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the Bible CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus Himself even declares it many times. "That they might glorify the Son even as they glorify the Father". "I do only those things I see the Father do". "That I may have the glory WE SHARED before the world began (Jesus addressing the Father).

 

Why do you believe what the bible says? Why do you believe the bible has any authority at all? The bible has zero authority. 

[midniterider]

59 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

because an omniscient god couldn't just say what the fuck he actually fucking means.

 

 

That would be a really good question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[freshstart]

@fish153

Its not helpful to cite a resource (the bible) as a basis for truth if there is reason to believe that resource is a collection of mythology.

 

Are you open to taking a look at the bible (starting with the OT) through the lens of biblical scholars? (Warning: not all biblical scholars are believers.)

If so, check out this free online course from Yale on the Hebrew (Old Testament) bible.

 

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

[walterpthefirst]

It means that you should be very careful not to say things like, "You would accept NOTHING I say anyway."

Especially when I told you that I would accept objective evidence from you in support of your claims.

Accepting your objective evidence would be accepting something that you say.

So, you are clearly wrong in claiming that I would accept NOTHING you say.

And repeating this is repeating something I neither said, nor even implied.

Doing that is bearing false witness against me, Fish.

You are smart enough to understand what I have just explained to you.

 

 

Fish,

 

Please confirm that you understand what I explained to you yesterday, as quoted above.

 

Given that you can understand the subtle nuances of meaning in the bible, you should easily have understood me.

 

Well?

[Fish153]

Walter--

I have given objective evidence. The problem is the objective evidence must meet YOUR standard of what objective evidence is. It's a losing proposition. I really don't want to continue the discussion. We are going in circles.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

I have given objective evidence. The problem is the objective evidence must meet YOUR standard of what objective evidence is. It's a losing proposition. I really don't want to continue the discussion. We are going in circles.

 

Please confirm that you understand what I explained to you yesterday, Fish.

 

It means that you should be very careful not to say things like, "You would accept NOTHING I say anyway."

Especially when I told you that I would accept objective evidence from you in support of your claims.

Accepting your objective evidence would be accepting something that you say.

So, you are clearly wrong in claiming that I would accept NOTHING you say.

And repeating this is repeating something I neither said, nor even implied.

Doing that is bearing false witness against me, Fish.

You are smart enough to understand what I have just explained to you.

 

 

Once you do that, I will gladly address what you've just said about objective evidence.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For the sake of clarity...

[Fish153]

Professor--thank you for the definitions. But I understand what objective evidence is.

Walter-- I clearly told you that HUNDREDS of Experts in Biblical Linguisitcs have completely destroyed the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1. THEY are the only ones who use THEIR translation because no one else will touch it with a ten foot poll.

 

On the basis of that I can say they are WRONG about who they say Jesus is, and based on these same linguists I can say I am RIGHT in saying Jesus is the WORD who is GOD.

 

What the linguists conclude is objective evidence. If you do not accept the Bible as true you will say it is not objective, but based on the definition is IS objective evidence.

 

But Walter, that was not good enough for you. You still insist they (JW'S) can say they are RIGHT. No-- they cannot.

But I repeat what I said-- you will NEVER accept anything I say as objective or true despite the evidence because it does not meet your standard of what "objective" is.

[Fish153]

It's been interesting visiting this board again. One discussion in particular brought back vivid memories of an old classic movie.

 

Norman's Mother in scratchy old woman voice: "Norman. Norman!! NOR-MAN!!!"

 

Norman with regular voice: "Yes Mother".

 

Norman's Mother: "Tell him he'd better WATCH what he says Norman! Tell him to be VERY VERY careful what he says about you Norman!!! Tell him not to bear false witness Norman! Don't let him lie about you Norman!!"

 

Norman: "I already warned him Mother."

 

Norman's Mother: "Good boy Norman. They're filthy people Norman. Using all that bad language. And they say they're Christians! Warn him Norman."

 

Norman: "I will Mother."

Norman's Mother: "That's a good boy Norman. Do as I say and you can't go wrong".

[Fish153]

There is a HUGE difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. A Rocket Scientist can be extremely intelligent, but have no wisdom to raise his own children.

 

I see "intelligence" on this board but very little wisdom. I came back to visit here and realize I do not have the intelligence to win anal-retentive arguments. So therefore I need to rely on wisdom instead.

 

Is it wise to engage in fruitless circular arguments that only descend into negativity? Many of the visitors to the board are very good people and quite nice also. I enjoy some of the conversations.

 

But wisdom tells me to use my energy in positive pursuits. No one will ever persuade me God does not exist. He's proven to me He does. That is entirely subjective I realize, so I will never win an argument here trying to "prove" that assertion.

 

I also realize I will never persuade anyone here who has deconverted to return to their former beliefs either. Hebrews 6 says that is "impossible". The word "impossible" is pretty objective--pretty hard to define it any other way.

 

I may come back and visit again if allowed, but for now I think my energy is better used on Christian boards and blogs. I wish all of you the very best though!! Take care.

[walterpthefirst]

44 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Professor--thank you for the definitions. But I understand what objective evidence is.

Walter-- I clearly told you that HUNDREDS of Experts in Biblical Linguisitcs have completely destroyed the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1. THEY are the only ones who use THEIR translation because no one else will touch it with a ten foot poll.

 

On the basis of that I can say they are WRONG about who they say Jesus is, and based on these same linguists I can say I am RIGHT in saying Jesus is the WORD who is GOD.

 

What the linguists conclude is objective evidence. If you do not accept the Bible as true you will say it is not objective, but based on the definition is IS objective evidence.

 

But Walter, that was not good enough for you. You still insist they (JW'S) can say they are RIGHT. No-- they cannot.

But I repeat what I said-- you will NEVER accept anything I say as objective or true despite the evidence because it does not meet your standard of what "objective" is.

 

I notice that you've ignored my polite request, Fish.

 

This is a shame, because two sensible and rational adults should be able to negotiate and compromise.  As I said earlier, I will gladly address what the subject of objective evidence, but first there is the outstanding matter of you fulfilling my request.

 

Please note that I have not asked if you agree with what I wrote.  All I have asked is if you have understood what I wrote.  Here it is again.

 

It means that you should be very careful not to say things like, "You would accept NOTHING I say anyway."

Especially when I told you that I would accept objective evidence from you in support of your claims.

Accepting your objective evidence would be accepting something that you say.

So, you are clearly wrong in claiming that I would accept NOTHING you say.

And repeating this is repeating something I neither said, nor even implied.

Doing that is bearing false witness against me, Fish.

You are smart enough to understand what I have just explained to you.

 

So, please be so kind as to confirm that you understand the above.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

Professor--thank you for the definitions. But I understand what objective evidence is.

Walter-- I clearly told you that HUNDREDS of Experts in Biblical Linguisitcs have completely destroyed the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1. THEY are the only ones who use THEIR translation because no one else will touch it with a ten foot poll.

 

On the basis of that I can say they are WRONG about who they say Jesus is, and based on these same linguists I can say I am RIGHT in saying Jesus is the WORD who is GOD.

 

What the linguists conclude is objective evidence. If you do not accept the Bible as true you will say it is not objective, but based on the definition is IS objective evidence.

 

But Walter, that was not good enough for you. You still insist they (JW'S) can say they are RIGHT. No-- they cannot.

But I repeat what I said-- you will NEVER accept anything I say as objective or true despite the evidence because it does not meet your standard of what "objective" is.

 

Someone wrote down some words and called it the bible: objectively true. 

The Bible is the word of God: need some evidence for that. some things in the bible are false.

[freshstart]

28 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

There is a HUGE difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. A Rocket Scientist can be extremely intelligent, but have no wisdom to raise his own children.

 

I see "intelligence" on this board but very little wisdom. I came back to visit here and realize I do not have the intelligence to win anal-retentive arguments. So therefore I need to rely on wisdom instead.

 

Is it wise to engage in fruitless circular arguments that only descend into negativity? Many of the visitors to the board are very good people and quite nice also. I enjoy some of the conversations.

 

But wisdom tells me to use my energy in positive pursuits. No one will ever persuade me God does not exist. He's proven to me He does. That is entirely subjective I realize, so I will never win an argument here trying to "prove" that assertion.

 

I also realize I will never persuade anyone here who has deconverted to return to their former beliefs either. Hebrews 6 says that is "impossible". The word "impossible" is pretty objective--pretty hard to define it any other way.

 

I may come back and visit again if allowed, but for now I think my energy is better used on Christian boards and blogs. I wish all of you the very best though!! Take care.

 

Fish, I guess my questions have not been worth a reply. Thats ok. I wish you well on your journey.

You will likely be more comfortable surrounding yourself with people who think the same as you. It may also serve you better  (emotionally/spirtually/mentally) to avoid reading biblical experts who have come to a vastly different conclusion than yours, at least until you feel ready and willing (if at all) to try that one day.

[midniterider]

He's dipping his toe into deconversion...maybe under the guise of saving us.

 

I just wonder why he believes the bible is true. And maybe why other holy books are false?

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

No one will ever persuade me God does not exist. He's proven to me He does. That is entirely subjective I realize, so I will never win an argument here trying to "prove" that assertion.

 

 

 

How did God prove he exists?

 

Do you meet him for coffee every Tuesday? 

 

Or maybe you asked him for a sign and then saw a Jesus bumper sticker the same day?

 

I think something is majorly wrong when we look for proof or evidence that something we worship actually exists.  Or when someone appears on a forum to try to convince me that a being is real. A being that a believer has to present many excuses about why it never appears in the flesh and never clearly communicates to nonbelievers. 

 

But hey, I hope you enjoy your personal belief in God. It works for you but not for me. 

 

Wisdom is allowing people to believe as they choose. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

There is a HUGE difference between Intelligence and Wisdom.

Intelligence is understanding the world around you.  Wisdom is understanding your place in it.  It looks like you've come to understand your place is not here.

 

Well done.

[Fish153]

Thank you Professor. I only came back to ask Walter to please refer to my post where Charlie Brown and Linus have a conversation. Walter is acting just like Linus. I am not "bearing false witness" Walter (interesting you use that term when I take it you don't believe in the Bible). You seem to want to make YOURSELF the center of the subject being discussed, and I need to capitulate to YOU or you will ACCUSE ME of bearing false witness. Check out what Linus says. You are doing almost the same thing. OK I think I can leave now. Goodbye.