Happy Easter [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Sam

04-21-2003, 05:58 PM

I researched them for you. The first two were told to Peter near the tomb. The third one was when Christ appeared to Peter in Galilee like he said he would and he told him to go to Jerusalem. The last one was when Christ appeared to the twelve in Jerusalem and he told them to stay there until the spirit came on them as predicted in the scriptures.
I have much harder questions to ask that you have yet to think of but none that can not be given a reasonable answer to.
Back to the original post. The odd of Christ fulfilling all the predictions are hard to immagine. Tell me what you think would happen if this happened.
Lets say some apparent weirdo tells everyone who will listen he is going to win the lotto the next 150 times in a row. No one would take him seriously. After one time winning folks would think it a fluke but if he kept predicting that he would win more people would listen but none would believe him. Then week after week he keeps buying one ticket and keeps winning. What would people do and think? I think they would suspect an inside job and do all they could to stop it, new balls, new people. Then they would lock him up and maybe let a friend buy the ticket for him. Then when that didn't work they would have a trusted official buy it for him and never look at the ticket till the lotto was over. Eventually he would have a group of followers listening to everything he had to say. But there would be others who would think him evil and crusify him... don't you think?

That is what Christ did and you are on the crusifying side of the equasion I am afraid.

retired

04-21-2003, 07:53 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
I researched them for you. The first two were told to Peter near the tomb. The third one was when Christ appeared to Peter in Galilee like he said he would and he told him to go to Jerusalem. The last one was when Christ appeared to the twelve in Jerusalem and he told them to stay there until the spirit came on them as predicted in the scriptures.
I have much harder questions to ask that you have yet to think of but none that can not be given a reasonable answer to.
Back to the original post. The odd of Christ fulfilling all the predictions are hard to immagine. Tell me what you think would happen if this happened.
Lets say some apparent weirdo tells everyone who will listen he is going to win the lotto the next 150 times in a row. No one would take him seriously. After one time winning folks would think it a fluke but if he kept predicting that he would win more people would listen but none would believe him. Then week after week he keeps buying one ticket and keeps winning. What would people do and think? I think they would suspect an inside job and do all they could to stop it, new balls, new people. Then they would lock him up and maybe let a friend buy the ticket for him. Then when that didn't work they would have a trusted official buy it for him and never look at the ticket till the lotto was over. Eventually he would have a group of followers listening to everything he had to say. But there would be others who would think him evil and crusify him... don't you think?

That is what Christ did and you are on the crusifying side of the equasion I am afraid.<hr /></blockquote>I am not on the crucifying side of the equation. You and I have been through this before. I don't believe the bible, you do. I respect that and wouldn't try to convince you in any way to abandon your belief. It's your belief, and not mine. We just have a different interpretation of the bible. I find it full of contradictions, absurdities, cruelty, and injustice. You accept it in a different way, and that is just fine, I don't condemn you for that. But you did post your feelings on the board, and when you do that, you should expect responses that don't necessarily agree with you.

Take care. :)

retired

04-21-2003, 08:02 PM

How many gods are there?

Is there only one god?

Dt.4:35
"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."

Dt.4:39
"The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

Dt.6:4
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

Dt.32:39
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me."

Is.43:10
"I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Is.44:8
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Is.45:5-6
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."

Is.46:9
"I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me."

Mk.12:29
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is
one Lord."

Mk.12:32
"And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there
is none other but he."

Jn.17:3
"That they might know thee the only true God."

1 Cor.8:6
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him."

But according to these passsages from the bible, there is more than one God.

Gen.1:26
"And God said, let us make man in our image."

Gen.3:22
"And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Gen.11:7
"Let us go down, and there confound their language."

Ex.12:12
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."

Ex.15:11
"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"

Ex.18:11
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."

Ex.22:28
"Thou shalt not revile the gods."

Num.33:4
"Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments."

1 Sam.6:5
"Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."

1 Sam.28:13
"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Ps.82:1
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods."

Ps.82:6
"I have said, Ye are gods."

Ps.96:4
"For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods."

Ps.97:7
"Worship him, all ye gods."

Ps.136:2
"O give thanks unto the God of gods."

Jer.10:11
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

Zeph.2:11
"The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."

Jn.10:33-34
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

1 Jn.5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Just something to think about Sam. I'm not trying to convert you to my Atheist ways, or engage you in a no-win discussion for either of us. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[ 04-21-2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

Sam

04-21-2003, 10:40 PM

Glad you seem to be doing more reading of the Bible. Explain to me this from modern times. You have North Korea that has a government that was invented by man. It sounds good to man but it is not God's plan according to Biblical principles. The north has everything going for it too, it has natural resources, people, access to waterways and trade. No reason it should not do well. The south has a system based on God's plan for mankind from the Bible. It doesn't look as good on paper to men but they do it. They do not have any iron, ore, oil, many of the other natural resources of the north. But the south is booming and the north is a hell hole. If the Bible is a fiction book why do people who have embraced the principles of it do so well. While all those who embrace principles of other religions and those who deny God do their systems do so poorly thoughout history?

To answer your above question, God is one in essence but three in persons. The gods they refer to are the man made gods such as Baal but that doesn't mean they are real.

[ 04-21-2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Sam ]

retired

04-21-2003, 10:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Glad you seem to be doing more reading of the Bible. Explain to me this from modern times. You have North Korea that has a government that was invented by man. It sounds good to man but it is not God's plan according to Biblical principles. The north has everything going for it too, it has natural resources, people, access to waterways and trade. No reason it should not do well. The south has a system based on God's plan for mankind from the Bible. It doesn't look as good on paper to men but they do it. They do not have any iron, ore, oil, many of the other natural resources of the north. But the south is booming and the north is a hell hole. If the Bible is a fiction book why do people who have embraced the principles of it do so well. While all those who embrace principles of other religions and those who deny God do their systems do so poorly thoughout history?

To answer your above question, God is one in essence but three in persons. The gods they refer to are the man made gods such as Baal but that doesn't mean they are real.<hr /></blockquote>I don't read the bible for religious purposes.

It doesn't mean they are any less real than your God. Actually I don't know why people embrace the bible, I really don't understand it, but then again as I have said, I respect the choice people make to have a belief. I don't have one, but that is my choice. :)

n567

04-21-2003, 11:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Glad you seem to be doing more reading of the Bible. Explain to me this from modern times. You have North Korea that has a government that was invented by man. It sounds good to man but it is not God's plan according to Biblical principles. The north has everything going for it too, it has natural resources, people, access to waterways and trade. No reason it should not do well. The south has a system based on God's plan for mankind from the Bible. It doesn't look as good on paper to men but they do it. They do not have any iron, ore, oil, many of the other natural resources of the north. But the south is booming and the north is a hell hole. If the Bible is a fiction book why do people who have embraced the principles of it do so well. While all those who embrace principles of other religions and those who deny God do their systems do so poorly thoughout history?<hr /></blockquote>I think South Korea's advantage is much akin to Israel's; they've enjoyed the protection and generousity of the United States. Also, there are 1 billion people who embrace Christianity, and a great portion of them live in abject poverty, they aren't doing so well. Does that mean only Americans and Europeans follow the teachings of Christ, while it is spurned en mass by those of third world nations?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To answer your above question, God is one in essence but three in persons. The gods they refer to are the man made gods such as Baal but that doesn't mean they are real.<hr /></blockquote>And to play the devil's (if he exists) advocate here, exactly how do we know the Christian god isn't man made too?

[ 04-21-2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: n567 ]

jarhead6073

04-21-2003, 11:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
<hr /></blockquote>I think South Korea's advantage is much akin to Israel's; they've enjoyed the protection and generousity of the United States.[/quote]

Kind of like the North has been supported by the former USSR and China? Though come to think of it, they didn't and aren't doing so well either...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, there are 1 billion people who embrace Christianity, and a great portion of them live in abject poverty, they aren't doing so well. Does that mean only Americans and Europeans follow the teachings of Christ, while it is spurned en mass by those of third world nations?<hr /></blockquote>I think the point was form of government, not individual religious beliefs. Though I suppose it could be interpreted as Christians are beign persecuted by evil governments which has happend throughout history. It has more to do with man than God.

n567

04-21-2003, 11:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Kind of like the North has been supported by the former USSR and China? Though come to think of it, they didn't and aren't doing so well either...<hr /></blockquote>I don't believe that North Korea recieves much support from either entity these days. On the other hand, South Korea isn't isolated from the world like North Korea is forced into. Being capitalist doesn't hurt, either, I would surmise!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think the point was form of government, not individual religious beliefs. Though I suppose it could be interpreted as Christians are beign persecuted by evil governments which has happend throughout history. It has more to do with man than God.<hr /></blockquote>Indeed, it is man, not god, that seems to create all the good and bad in this world. Though, what is a christian form of government? I mean, doesn't the bible condone monarchies?

jarhead6073

04-22-2003, 12:03 AM

retired,

Not to get in a religious debate because I'm only mabye slightly more religious than you and you know more about the bible than I do. But, it seems that many of the passages you quote are, possibly, being taken out of context.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Mt.28:10
"Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."

Mk.16:7
"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."

Lk.24:49
"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Acts 1:4
"And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."
<hr /></blockquote>It doesn't seem to me that the last two passages are even saying the same thing as the first two. The first one directly says that Jesus will be seen in Galilee, the second one seeming implies it, but the last two say nothing about "seeing" Jesus. Only to go to Jerusalem and wait to be "enduded with power from on high" and "wait for the promise of the Father".

And if they were spoken at different times as Sam says they are totally out of context.

Your second list of quotes is more intriguing. The quotes from Genesis in which God supposedly refers to "us" is interesting. I say supposedly because I've never figured out how anyone could know what God said while he was creating the earth. Though I suppose that could be a reference to the Trinity?

These sound like they are not refering to the Christian God, but to the pagan gods of the Egyptions or whoever else...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ex.12:12
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."

Num.33:4
"Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments."

Ex.22:28
"Thou shalt not revile the gods."

Num.33:4
"Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments."

1 Sam.6:5
"Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."

Jer.10:11
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

Zeph.2:11
"The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."<hr /></blockquote>This one is interesting

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 1 Sam.28:13
"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. <hr /></blockquote>This one sounds as though Jesus is questioning if the Jews in question consider themselves gods. Not that he is saying that there are multiple gods. -edit- Actualy I take that back... I'm not sure what this one means but it sounds like he's refering to old Jewish law.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jn.10:33-34
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" <hr /></blockquote>Some of the rest are too short and my lack of knowledge of the Bible keeps me from knowing what context they were written in.

I'm not necessarially disputing your interpretation of these passages but as you said to Sam "But you did post your feelings on the board, and when you do that, you should expect responses that don't necessarily agree with you." I don't think that taking the passages as you quoted them that they can be interpreted properly. As happens so often with religious books one line of one passage gets taken out of context and the whole book can get misconstrued. It happens with the Bible and the "eye for an eye" quote as if it's so barbaric. Nobody ever mentions the other half which is, one eye for one eye, not two.

[ 04-22-2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

jarhead6073

04-22-2003, 12:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
[QB][QUOTE]I don't believe that North Korea recieves much support from either entity these days. On the other hand, South Korea isn't isolated from the world like North Korea is forced into. Being capitalist doesn't hurt, either, I would surmise!<hr /></blockquote>That's right. Poor North Korea. Forced into isolation... Oh woe is them :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with their government or their choices. It's all because the US is forcing them into isolation. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And yes being capitalist is generally good for a nation's economy.

n567

04-22-2003, 12:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
[QB][QUOTE]I don't believe that North Korea recieves much support from either entity these days. On the other hand, South Korea isn't isolated from the world like North Korea is forced into. Being capitalist doesn't hurt, either, I would surmise!<hr /></blockquote>That's right. Poor North Korea. Forced into isolation... Oh woe is them :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with their government or their choices. It's all because the US is forcing them into isolation. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And yes being capitalist is generally good for a nation's economy.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I'm not taking sides, just trying to point out that following Christian doctrine isn't a deciding factor in determining outcomes.

Sam

04-22-2003, 07:59 AM

Sorry North Korea's problems has everything to do with its system of government. Isreal has a system of government based on Biblical principles and that is why they are an exporter. Lets look at South Africa. They had a semi-Biblical based government and they were isolated by most of the world. They were an exporter of goods. Some people did live in poverty but all were fed, and most of them came to South Africa to avoid starvation. Well they got a humanist government and got support from the outside. No longer are they an exporter and they can not import enough to save tens of thousands of children. So much for your theories. I challenge you to come up with a nation that has humanistic principles and prospered.

n567

04-22-2003, 01:02 PM

North Korea certainly does have a government that's been a detriment to their development, but I think you'll have trouble proving it's the sole cause of their miserable situation.

Israel gets billions of dollars every year from the United States.

South Africa... Jesus, if that's your example of a biblical government... *shivers*

Humanistic principles, by which you mean caring about the welfare of one's fellow man? Or man being free to do as he pleases (god gave us free will, did he not?) Either way, I'd point to Western Europe and North America in either case as being nations that have done rather well while embracing both of the forementioned philosophies (to lesser degrees in some cases).

[ 04-22-2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: n567 ]

Sam

04-22-2003, 05:43 PM

Socialism is a wonderful idea on paper by humanistic standards but it is not God's way in the Bible. It is only when socialism is put in practice does it show what a disaster the system is. Among every race, color, and creed all around the world, socialism has led to hunger in countries that used to have surplus food to export. South Africa and Rhodesia are the most recent examples. They have embraced a Castro Communism type of socialism. This version has killed far more innocent civilians in peace time than Hitler killed in his death camps in World War II. Nazism was another form of socialism that did not work either. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and socialism really tried to create a heaven on earth but it did not work, nor will it ever work. I know because the Bible says it will not work, buy others can learn from history.
Lets look at Psalm 33:8
Let all the earth fear the LORD ;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD ,
the people he chose for his inheritance.

I would like for someone to prove this wrong. Retired find a nation whose God is the Lord who is not Blessed and then you can be a hero and prove the Bible wrong.
I know you want to look at the Spanish Inquisition. But lets look at it. Before the Inquisition Spain was a Christian nation, following Christian values and it was blessed. They got away from those values during the time of the Inquisition, they were taken out by the British in the not too distant future.
Look at the spiritual history and the history of the Netherlands. In the late 1500's they became the center of Christianity and that tiny nation became the wealthiest country on the planet. They fell back after they fell back spiritually but to this day they are well known. This truth has been repeated throughout history. History has proven the Bible and its principles to be true over and over again. But still some choose to not believe. They will have a long time to think about their mistakes.

CinaC

04-22-2003, 11:40 PM

I'm sorry, how do you figure Israel has a biblical form of government? They're Jewish - they believe in the Old Testament, not the entire thing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Lets look at South Africa. They had a semi-Biblical based government and they were isolated by most of the world. <hr /></blockquote>They weren't isolated for their semi-Biblical government, they were isolated for their policies of apartheid and racial intolerance.

[ 04-22-2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: ciaj ]

n567

04-22-2003, 11:50 PM

Interesting History... You realize Spain created its empire by plundering and raping the land and people of a far off continent? Is that Christian?

The Netherlands in the 1500's wasn't quite the center of Christianity. It was the center for tolerance, you came to the Netherlands to make money. That's why it was so popular among the minorities of Europe during this period (I suppose you could argue this odd tolerance was indeed Christian, and quite unlike most Christian nations up to today, in fact Holland still prospers and is stil extremelely tolerant, hmmmm...).

I take it the bible doesn't like socialism? Does that mean god is for free trade? Does that then mean that god is for a system that existed before he made himself known through the bible?

As for nations that don't accept god (by way of having Christian minority, I suppose, as so many nations are secular).

How about Saudi Arabia, and a smattering of other tiny little Arab nations? Or Japan? Hong Kong? Korea? Singapore? China (before the dang Christians arrived)?

[ 04-22-2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: n567 ]

Sam

04-23-2003, 07:13 AM

Tolerance is something that is taught in the Bible. Biblical principles were handed down since the begining. The forces of darkness attacked our first parents with the temptation that they could be the determiners of good and evil. That is the same lie that the moral relativist use today. There are too many answers for me to type out now, but as I read I know what I would like to say about each example. You have to look at the conditions of the individual people in a country to determine how they are blessed. Saudi Arabia is a good example, the royal family is blessed beyond belief but there are people starving in that country. The unemployment rate of locals is almost 40%. I know a lot about the Saudis. I wish you could better understand it. Two books I suggest are 1. GOD WANTS YOU TO BE RICH
by Paul Pilzer
2. Unlimited Wealth: The Theory and Practice of Economic Alchemy
by Paul Zane Pilzer

retired

04-23-2003, 11:24 AM

Sam,

While the Bible may teach some tolerance, it also teaches "intolerance"

Intolerance in Romans

"The wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 1:18

Paul claims that the existence and nature of God is self-evident; thus, unbelievers are "without excuse." 1:20

With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" and should be killed. 1:31-32

"He that doubteth is damned ... Whosoever is not of faith is sin." 14:23

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. 16:17

And this is just from Romans. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

CinaC

04-23-2003, 12:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Two books I suggest are 1. GOD WANTS YOU TO BE RICH
by Paul Pilzer
2. Unlimited Wealth: The Theory and Practice of Economic Alchemy
by Paul Zane Pilzer <hr /></blockquote>God wants you to be rich, which is why "it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle then enter the gates of heaven"? Which is why "the meek shall inherit the earth?" :confused:

n567

04-23-2003, 03:08 PM

I believe we've reached an impass here. Whenever something good or bad happens, you consider it the work of god, I don't quite agree with that assumption. I mean, isn't that what the free will god gave us is all about? We determine our fate through our acts? I thought god waited to punish or reward us after we died.

Sam

04-23-2003, 04:50 PM

Crazy, Do not judge a book by its cover. I think he used the name to sell books. Actually after reading the book a more accurate title I think would be "God wants you to work hard and he will reward you" But which title would sell more?
Retired, look at history and see what happens to great nations before they fall. They will start to tollerate the things Paul tells us not to. We haven't felt the wrath of God yet. But when it happens you will not have to ask if it is happening... kind of like shock and awe in Iraq.
N, I suggest you read the book "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel.

I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong in History. Japan is an interesting one but I talked to a Japanese friend about it and he cited MaCarthurs belief in the Almighty and giving them a Biblical based government now as they move away from it lets see how well they are blessed.

[ 04-23-2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Sam ]

retired

04-23-2003, 05:34 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Crazy, Do not judge a book by its cover. I think he used the name to sell books. Actually after reading the book a more accurate title I think would be "God wants you to work hard and he will reward you" But which title would sell more?
Retired, look at history and see what happens to great nations before they fall. They will start to tollerate the things Paul tells us not to. We haven't felt the wrath of God yet. But when it happens you will not have to ask if it is happening... kind of like shock and awe in Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote>As we have discussed before, you're preaching the autheticity of the bible to the wrong person. I don't believe there is a God, so therefore, he has no wrath to cast. To me he is fiction, a myth, nothing more.

Sam

04-23-2003, 06:27 PM

Retired, Two parting questions. Did the Universe have a design or did it just happen?

How do you determine what is right or wrong?

CinaC

04-23-2003, 07:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, Do not judge a book by its cover. I think he used the name to sell books. Actually after reading the book a more accurate title I think would be "God wants you to work hard and he will reward you" But which title would sell more?<hr /></blockquote>Er. I'm, uh, not judging the book by its cover. I'm pointing out that Israel's government is Jewish, Jews believe in the Torah (the Old Testement), not the Bible (Old & New T's), and I'm asking you why you keep referring to their form of government as "Biblical." Would not, "Tohra-ical" be more accurate?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did the Universe have a design or did it just happen?<hr /></blockquote>I don't know I wasn't there and I don't claim to be omnipotent. Unlike Retired, I do believe in a higher power -- I'm agnostic, not athiest. However, I do not believe in the Christian form of God.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How do you determine what is right or wrong?<hr /></blockquote>Let me cut to the chase - not all of us require religion (and/or the implied wrath of an offended deity) to guide our morality. I know this will most likely incur Nite's wrath, but in my opinion, tying your moral stance in with religion can lead to situations where a strong leader can pevert the religion and a person's faith into some truly "wrong" actions.

[ 04-23-2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

retired

04-23-2003, 08:49 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Retired, Two parting questions. Did the Universe have a design or did it just happen?

How do you determine what is right or wrong?<hr /></blockquote>I am not a scientist, but I believe it was a scientific occurrence, certainly not one by a God, or a supernatural being. Genesis can't even get it right! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

How do those in parts of the world who have never been exposed to religion get things right?

[ 04-23-2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

Sam

04-23-2003, 08:51 PM

All scripture is God breathed and is profitable... So you can get Biblical principles from the Old Testament or the New or both.

The problem with no higher standard is when someone comes in power he determines what is good and evil. He will have you worship him and put pictures and statues of himself all over. He will do things like cut out your tongue, rape your children before you and toture you with acid. But who is to say he is wrong?

I hope you consider the way of Christ, you sound open minded and read my original post.

CinaC

04-23-2003, 09:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The problem with no higher standard is when someone comes in power he determines what is good and evil. He will have you worship him and put pictures and statues of himself all over. He will do things like cut out your tongue, rape your children before you and toture you with acid. But who is to say he is wrong? <hr /></blockquote>I don't know about you Sam, but I for one would say that he was wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The problem with no higher standard <hr /></blockquote>Your higher standard is God? Fantastic. However, you are making the very mistaken belief that the ONLY higher standard is God. This is incorrect.

[ 04-23-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

retired

04-23-2003, 09:38 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
All scripture is God breathed and is profitable... So you can get Biblical principles from the Old Testament or the New or both.

The problem with no higher standard is when someone comes in power he determines what is good and evil. He will have you worship him and put pictures and statues of himself all over. He will do things like cut out your tongue, rape your children before you and toture you with acid. But who is to say he is wrong?

I hope you consider the way of Christ, you sound open minded and read my original post.<hr /></blockquote>And they didn't rape and kill, and maim in the bible? There aren't statues, and pictures all over the christian religion?

Sam

04-23-2003, 09:48 PM

Retired, just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible endorses the activity. One of the judges sacrificed his daughter but that was not the Biblical thing to do, he was doing what the pagans do. What I described was the way Saddam kept people in line along with Kim Ill Jong.

jarhead6073

04-23-2003, 10:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> North Korea certainly does have a government that's been a detriment to their development, but I think you'll have trouble proving it's the sole cause of their miserable situation.
<hr /></blockquote>I didn't notice this before but I think it's completely wrong. I think it's blatantly self evident that their government is the sole cause of their current situation. What else could it be? God? The evil United States?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Did the Universe have a design or did it just happen?
<hr /></blockquote>A little off topic but I just read a really interesting (fictional but factually based) book called Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. The basic plot is that a fromer priest/scientist turned scientist prooves that Genesis is possible. It was interesting for many reasons besides that but I thought it was an interesting theory.

n567

04-24-2003, 12:29 AM

Well, Jarhead, we could argue that any one thing is the sole cause of everything (oh, wait, aren't we?). Anyway, there've been brutal dictatorships like the one in North Korea for a fairly long time, there have been communist ones too. North Korea would probably be doing better if it wasn't isolated... The only problem with North Korea is that we don't like them, that's what's causing a problem (not sure if that makes us evil, though, stop dogging on the U.S.A, Jardhead!).

And that book was quite enjoyable, though the ending really wasn't very good at all! Try reading his newest book, The DaVinci Code, it's quite a bit more enjoyable, in my opinion... And still chock full of all those fascinating little facts.

retired

04-24-2003, 02:01 AM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Retired, just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible endorses the activity. One of the judges sacrificed his daughter but that was not the Biblical thing to do, he was doing what the pagans do. What I described was the way Saddam kept people in line along with Kim Ill Jong.<hr /></blockquote>But isn't the bible the inspired word of God? Or has that changed?

Sam

04-24-2003, 07:16 AM

Yes retired it is the inspired word of God. Look at the Abrahamic covenant, Blessed are those who bless you and cursed are those who cursed you. Show me in the history of the world in the last 4,000 years where this promise has not been kept.
Retired, in Acts they tried socialism in the early church and it did not work. Does that story show that God endorses socialism or can we take it as a lesson?

jarhead6073

04-24-2003, 07:33 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by n567:
Well, Jarhead, we could argue that any one thing is the sole cause of everything (oh, wait, aren't we?).

Well we are for the blame America first crowd.

Anyway, there've been brutal dictatorships like the one in North Korea for a fairly long time, there have been communist ones too.

Yes. They weren't any better than NK. I can't think of a communist government that we've been "friendly" with so I'm not sure what your point is. I suppose you'll bring up trade w/ China but relations with them is hardly what I'd call "friendly". But regardless of what a former administration did, or didn't do, I don't think that it should have any bearing on what is acceptable for the current administration (to an extent). Just because a former president didn't take out Saddam doesn't mean in any way shape or form that it was wrong for this president to do so.

North Korea would probably be doing better if it wasn't isolated... The only problem with North Korea is that we don't like them, that's what's causing a problem (not sure if that makes us evil, though, stop dogging on the U.S.A, Jardhead!).

They would probably be better off if they weren't proliferating weapons, provking SK, kidnapping foreign nationals, starving it's own people, and provoking the US at every turn. Had the Korean War been fought just a liiiiitle bit smarter the situation to day would be much different.

And that book was quite enjoyable, though the ending really wasn't very good at all! Try reading his newest book, The DaVinci Code, it's quite a bit more enjoyable, in my opinion... And still chock full of all those fascinating little facts.

I wasn't really impressed with the ending either. A little to fantastic for my tastes but I still liked it overall.

retired

04-24-2003, 11:54 AM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Yes retired it is the inspired word of God. Look at the Abrahamic covenant, Blessed are those who bless you and cursed are those who cursed you. Show me in the history of the world in the last 4,000 years where this promise has not been kept.
Retired, in Acts they tried socialism in the early church and it did not work. Does that story show that God endorses socialism or can we take it as a lesson?<hr /></blockquote>If God is perfect, then why isn't the bible perfect, after all, it is his divine word?

Sam

04-24-2003, 05:23 PM

Retired, you are good at asking questions but haven't answered one till yet. You can save you answers for God at the Great Judgement. I have answered all your questions but you are in love with yourself and think yourself to good to think. Good bye, Nites please lock this thread.

retired

04-24-2003, 06:32 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Retired, you are good at asking questions but haven't answered one till yet. You can save you answers for God at the Great Judgement. I have answered all your questions but you are in love with yourself and think yourself to good to think. Good bye, Nites please lock this thread.<hr /></blockquote>Ahh, another example of Christian tolerance. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Sam

04-24-2003, 07:19 PM

Your last question I would expect from an eight year old. No older. Why don't you answer it, I know you know the answer I would give.
The Bible is the most historically verified ancient book hands down. The amount of corruption over years of transcription can only be categorized as amazing.
I am sure God will bring up this thread to you at the judgement seat, when you are crying you did not understand. But you will be by yourself for an eternity to think about it. You had your chance and the way was made clear yet you choose poorly my friend.

retired

04-24-2003, 07:50 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Your last question I would expect from an eight year old. No older. Why don't you answer it, I know you know the answer I would give.
The Bible is the most historically verified ancient book hands down. The amount of corruption over years of transcription can only be categorized as amazing.
I am sure God will bring up this thread to you at the judgement seat, when you are crying you did not understand. But you will be by yourself for an eternity to think about it. You had your chance and the way was made clear yet you choose poorly my friend.<hr /></blockquote>Settle down, life isn't that serious! :)

You and I just disagree about the validity of the bible, that's all. You have your belief and I have mine. It doesn't make either of us bad people. I accept your belief, why don't you try and accept mine without telling me I'll probably burn in hell? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I see conflicts and contradictions in the bible, you don't. An example is: how did Judas die?

Mt.27:5
"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18
" Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

I'm not upset with you. I just question more than you do.

Relax my friend. :)

[ 04-24-2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

n567

04-24-2003, 08:53 PM

This is a rather interesting essay...

<a href="http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/a_brief_summary_bible.htm" target="_blank">http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/a_brief_summary_bible.htm</a>

Sam

04-24-2003, 10:39 PM

Retired, As far as Judas, the thirty pieces of silver being used to buy a potters field are predicted in the old testament, go find it. Also maybe he hung himself and no one found him and after a few days or weeks the rope broke and then he busted open.
N, I would love to debate the fellow who wrote the article and I am sure no objective listener would agree with him. I wish I had time to go through it all but lets do two.
Moses telling his soldiers to kill women and children (Num. 31:15-18),
Actually at the time when invading armys were preparing to attack the women and children were sent off to foreign lands and were not to return till their men came and got them. Those people were chosen to be totally wiped out because of their degeracy. Being a moral relativist like you two are you would not understand but things like child sacrifice God doesn't play with.

God sending two bears that killed forty-two children because they were making fun of a prophet's bald head (2 Kgs. 2:23-24),
These children were 18 to 24 year old gangsters. They were not only mocking the prophet, they were mocking God and had a history of mocking God. And God will not be mocked.

and the promise that non-Christians will be sent to the eternal fires of hell (e.g., Mt. 25:41; Rev. 21:8).
This is consistant with Gods perfect Judgement and Justice. He has been plainly revealed so they are without excuse.

As far as the science, the science in the Bible has been laughed at, at various times but it eventually is shown to be correct.

Alright no more questions from you two. Time for you to answer. What do you think of near death experiences. Particularly the children who come from aethiest families where God has never been mentioned and they come back saying they saw Jesus?

CinaC

04-24-2003, 11:44 PM

Sam,

If you can provide sources to back up your claims about athiests seeing Jesus, I'll take a stab at answering (even if I am confused by your rapid attempts to change the topics). I'd be interested in reading an article, if you have one to show.

n567

04-25-2003, 12:40 AM

He has been plainly revealed so they are without excuse.

Really? When? 'Cause he's never been plainly revealed to me!

God sending two bears that killed forty-two children because they were making fun of a prophet's bald head (2 Kgs. 2:23-24),
These children were 18 to 24 year old gangsters. They were not only mocking the prophet, they were mocking God and had a history of mocking God. And God will not be mocked.

Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.
-Mark Twain

As far as the science, the science in the Bible has been laughed at, at various times but it eventually is shown to be correct.

*arches eyebrow* Stopping the sun? Evolution? Earth is only 10,000 years old?..

Alright no more questions from you two. Time for you to answer. What do you think of near death experiences. Particularly the children who come from aethiest families where God has never been mentioned and they come back saying they saw Jesus?

Bunk, in a culture inundated by Christianity, it's not surprising. Additionally, children are easily pressured into lying, to satiate the desires of adults. Remember that poor kindergarden teacher? and NDE experiances occuring in non Christian cultures rarely feature Jesus. And what does Jesus look like? Is it just any human like figure dressed in white with shining light around him? This is far too subjective.

Besides, we can create NDE experiances with LSD and Khetamine, NDE's are all inside the head.

CinaC

04-25-2003, 12:58 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />These children were 18 to 24 year old gangsters. <hr /></blockquote>Er, wait, I'm sorry. No one between those ages can be considered "children", and especially not two thousand years ago (give or take a decade or century or so), when the life expectency of a human being was so much shorter than it is today.

Sam

04-25-2003, 06:59 AM

Bunk? Read the book "Closer to the light" by Melvin Morse.

Evolution, sorry you only read the liberal media, Darwins theory is dead.

Sun standing still, may have been an euphanism that it seemed the sun was standing still.

Children, they said David was a child when he fought Goliath but he was over 20 at the time.
Look at the Hebrew word that translates into children.

As far as 10,000 years old, there could have been billions of years between vs 1 and vs 2 of Genesis 1. You see the Hebrew word says "the world BECAME with out form and void" So that leaves open the posibility that it was formed and then became that way.

If you have studied the heavens or seen a baby born and you do not believe in a higher being you are blind.

Mike Tx

04-25-2003, 07:03 AM

Why can't we just let someone wish a happy Easter to us, without have to make yet another attempt at tearing down religious beliefs?

nickg

04-25-2003, 09:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Why can't we just let someone wish a happy Easter to us, without have to make yet another attempt at tearing down religious beliefs?<hr /></blockquote>AGREED 100%

the ONE thing i don't get though is the fact that someone is SO willing to debunk the Bible because if was written 2000+ years ago but are so willing to embrace the history of Caesar or Hannibal as "gospel truth" -- i mean they all came from the same era. why is one "historical truth" and the other "a myth" or "subject to opinion" or "lost in the translation"??

typical liberal tripe -- dismiss God and Jesus Christ but totally embrace secularism. it's so easy not to have to answer to a higher power, other than the government, right?? :rolleyes:

unfortunately for them they WILL have to answer to a higher power. it is then that the Lord will reply "I never knew you." you can look that up in the Bible too, but of course i'm sure you won't believe that either. :rolleyes:

i found nothing as repugnant as seeing pictures of bill and hil holding hands and clutching a Bible while attending church. who the hell were THEY trying to kid any frikkin' way?????? :mad:

CinaC

04-25-2003, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you have studied the heavens or seen a baby born and you do not believe in a higher being you are blind. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, Sam, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I DO believe in a higher being. I just don't believe in the Christian God. You seem to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, to be quite intolerant of those not Christian. Is this what you meant by "Christian tolerance" earlier in the thread?

I like Retired's reasons: <blockquote>quote:<hr />But you did post your feelings on the board, and when you do that, you should expect responses that don't necessarily agree with you.<hr /></blockquote>Mike & Nick: if you want everyone to agree with you, I have a system that SHOULD work! Here's what you do: talk to yourself! Unless you're naturally arguementative, you should get a 100% "I AGREE WITH YOU!" response! It's perfect, dont'cha think? :)

Now, personally, I think this has been a rather interesting debate on the Bible, and the internal contradictions. If you'd like to take a stand, Sam sure seems outnumbered in this thread -- why don't you help support his arguements, instead of trying to deflect the subject by dragging in Bill and Hillary? Tell ya' what, how about I drag in some televangelists to the mix, huh? Oh, don't worry, I won't, I actually want this subject on topic.

I realize the Bible is the center of the Christian faith, but I think its a bit ridiculous to claim that Israel has a Christian form of government, that apartheid South Africa is a "semi" form of Christian government, or that people between the ages of 18-24 (especially thousands of years ago) are not just 'children' but 'gangsters'. I won't even get started on those who believe what Leviticus says about homosexuals, but who ignore what he says about working on Sundays (and what to do with those who do) or wearing clothes made from more than one thread. If you take issue with this, please, feel free to respond and offer an explanation.

Blind faith is no faith at all. If you can't question it without fearing what might result, IMO, it's worthless.

[ 04-25-2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

nickg

04-25-2003, 11:07 AM

QUOTE FROM CRAZY:
"why don't you help support his arguements, instead of trying to deflect the subject by dragging in Bill and Hillary?"

craze -- i wasn't dragging them in just for dragging's sake. i was just making a point of how they tried to look like the lovely "Christians" when people such as them are doing their best to turn us, as a country, into a "secular" nation, devoid of any God or God worship other than the almighty government.

i don't neccessarily agree with the fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalist set either, but at least they are professing the Lord -- even IF their motives may be "less" than true Christian such as "send me all of your money so your dog will continue to live" -- they are charlatans of the worst kind and are no better than nonbelievers.

Mike Tx

04-25-2003, 02:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mike & Nick: if you want everyone to agree with you, I have a system that SHOULD work! <hr /></blockquote>I didn't say I wanted everyone to agree with me, so I'll borrow one of your rather worn out lines that you regurgitate frequently, and suggest that you go back and read my post.

[ 04-25-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

n567

04-25-2003, 02:47 PM

Bunk? Read the book "Closer to the light" by Melvin Morse.

I'm not denying N.D.E's exist, Sam, I have trouble with the idea that it's actually the human soul vacating the body for a time, and then returning. N.D.E's, we don't know enough about them yet to make any concrete comment, but as the evidence trickles in, we seem to be getting closer and closer to a real idea of what N.D.E's are.

Evolution, sorry you only read the liberal media, Darwins theory is dead.

Evolution has been proved wrong? Where's the proof of this? I recommend you look into this website : <a href="http://www.creationism.com" target="_blank">http://www.creationism.com</a> , as a start on the path to enlightenment.

If you have studied the heavens or seen a baby born and you do not believe in a higher being you are blind.

How does seeing a baby born prove there's a god? I won't disagree it's an amazing thing, certainly. As for studying the heavens, I'll assume you're referring to astronomy, in which case I'll say the same thing, it is awe inspiring, but it doesn't prove god.

Sun standing still, may have been an euphanism that it seemed the sun was standing still.

Children, they said David was a child when he fought Goliath but he was over 20 at the time.
Look at the Hebrew word that translates into children.

As far as 10,000 years old, there could have been billions of years between vs 1 and vs 2 of Genesis 1. You see the Hebrew word says "the world BECAME with out form and void" So that leaves open the posibility that it was formed and then became that way.

Ahhhh, well, I suppose I've just always taken the bible too literally. if the sun standing still was just a euphimism, does that mean Moses parting the red sea was too? Or Jesus' resurrection?

Why can't we just let someone wish a happy Easter to us, without have to make yet another attempt at tearing down religious beliefs?

Well, considering where, and what he posted, it appeared he was inviting a well mannered debate (which I'd like to think Sam and I have maintained). Had he just said, happy easter, let's remember what Jesus did for us (perhaps not so abbreviated), I would not have been spurred into posting.

the ONE thing i don't get though is the fact that someone is SO willing to debunk the Bible because if was written 2000+ years ago but are so willing to embrace the history of Caesar or Hannibal as "gospel truth" -- i mean they all came from the same era. why is one "historical truth" and the other "a myth" or "subject to opinion" or "lost in the translation"??

It's alot easier to believe something doesn't involve parting oceans, rising people from the dead, and other super natural occurances. In addition, and I can't back this up (I'll certainly try), but I would be willing to guess there are more sources corraborating the history of Ceasar and Hannibal.

typical liberal tripe -- dismiss God and Jesus Christ but totally embrace secularism. it's so easy not to have to answer to a higher power, other than the government, right??

You're entitled to that opinion, but I wouldn't call the government a higher power.

unfortunately for them they WILL have to answer to a higher power. it is then that the Lord will reply "I never knew you." you can look that up in the Bible too, but of course i'm sure you won't believe that either.

I find it somewhat disburting that god would rather I be the worst human being I could strive to be, while believing in Jesus, rather than be a decent human being, and maintain a healthy level of skepticism for something he has not given me much reason to believe in.

CinaC

04-25-2003, 03:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />craze -- i wasn't dragging them in just for dragging's sake. i was just making a point of how they tried to look like the lovely "Christians" when people such as them are doing their best to turn us, as a country, into a "secular" nation, devoid of any God or God worship other than the almighty government. <hr /></blockquote>Nick,

I can't speak to their motives, but I would like to point out that just because some of us (like me!) would like to keep the government out of religion, it doesn't mean I'm all for burning down churches. Our government is secular, and our laws are secular. This doesn't mean that people aren't free to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, athiest, or what have you, just that our government is not to be religious.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i don't neccessarily agree with the fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalist set either, but at least they are professing the Lord -- even IF their motives may be "less" than true Christian such as "send me all of your money so your dog will continue to live" -- they are charlatans of the worst kind and are no better than nonbelievers.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but the Klu Klux Klan liked to profess the lord, too. Surely there is a line somewhere - (and I'm NOT saying it is here) - where a person crosses from being a Christian to merely someone using that religion to spread hate.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I didn't say I wanted everyone to agree with me, so I'll borrow one of your rather worn out lines that you regurgitate frequently, and suggest that you go back and read my post.<hr /></blockquote>I regurgitate it frequently because it is so often true. I went back, I read your post. If you don't want people criticizing or attacking your ideas, it's probably best that they not be presented in a public forum with those who disagree. Sam didn't post a "Hey, happy Easter!" He posted a sermon, and guess what? It's being questioned. :)

Mike Tx

04-25-2003, 03:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I regurgitate it frequently because it is so often true. I went back, I read your post. If you don't want people criticizing or attacking your ideas, <hr /></blockquote>You clearly either do not undestand what I said, or (more likely) are deliberatly applying a different meaning to what I said, which suits your anti-religion agenda.

I said nothing about wanting everyone to agree with me, as the words in my post clearly show. I asked a question about why can't he wish us a happy Easter without some people trying to tear down his religious beliefs. Now clearly, even to a twist and bend liberal politician, the meaning of my question would have been clear.

So again, regurgitating your tired rhetoric, maybe you need to go back and read my post.

[ 04-25-2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Watchman

04-25-2003, 03:46 PM

Sam didn't post a "Hey, happy Easter!" He posted a sermon, and guess what? It's being questioned.

Perhaps that was his way of saying "Hey Happy Easter" ?
It was a good "sermon". I liked it.

Its good to hear once in awhile. :D

[ 04-25-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

CinaC

04-25-2003, 03:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I asked a question about why can't he wish us a happy Easter without some people trying to tear down his religious beliefs. <hr /></blockquote>Retired already commented on this, and you'll notice (if you'd read my post), that I already quoted him once. I'll do so a second time for you, but only because you're cute when you're angry. "But you did post your feelings on the board, and when you do that, you should expect responses that don't necessarily agree with you." Now, see, some us don't agree with Sam. Some of us do - see, Watchman liked the sermon. The difference is the only ones bitching about people disagreeing over Sam's sermon, is, uh, you and Nick (as best as I can tell). So it just seemed prudent to offer you the solution of talking to yourself so that you don't have to be offended anymore.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Perhaps that was his way of saying "Hey Happy Easter" ?<hr /></blockquote>Short and sweet, as some say (obviously, I find it hard to keep my posts short). If Sam had posted "happy easter", who would disagree? And if they did, what would they say? "Hey, Sam, speak for yourself, a tree fell through my roof, and a giant killer rabbit ate my pit-bull and Aunt Suzie! It's not very happy here! Well, actually, Aunt Suzie is gone, so it is very happy here!"

The point I'm trying to make is that Sam's way of wishing everyone a happy easter seemed to be a discussion of the Bible, and it only seems natural for a discussion of the Bible to turn to some of the contradictions of the Bible, although I must admin, I'm not quite certain how North Korea got dragged into the whole thing.

Anyway, the point is, if pointing out contradictions in the Bible is "tearing down a person's religious beliefs", then isn't that something you should bring up with the author of the book? You know, God?

[ 04-25-2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Watchman

04-25-2003, 03:54 PM

Hey...everybody knows that its awhole lot more FUN bashing liberals than talking to oneself. :D <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :p

nickg

04-25-2003, 03:55 PM

hey craze -- i agree!! (just thought i'd throw that in since you made the "i agree" comment
:D :D )

i just think that secularist are trying to remove ALL GOD references regardless of whatever agenda they are addressing. like i've said before, to them GOD just gets in the way.

government should not be in the business of establishing "a religion" any more than "a religion" (islam as an example) should be in the business of establishing a government. but ALL religions should be accepted for what they are and no one should be offended when a religious reference is made IN government as long as it is not OF the government. make sense??

CinaC

04-25-2003, 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Hey...everybody knows that its awhole lot more FUN bashing liberals than talking to oneself. <hr /></blockquote>Is that what you tell yourself when you lick your wounds after our battles? :) And if so, you're talking to yourself!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />but ALL religions should be accepted for what they are and no one should be offended when a religious reference is made IN government as long as it is not OF the government. make sense??<hr /></blockquote>I think you and I are on the same page on this. As long as the government does not endorse one religion (which is bad), I have no problems with employees or elected officials of that same government having religious beliefs, since the base hope is that everyone recognizes the importance of a government governed by the Constitution, and not, say, the Koran.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />hey craze -- i agree!! <hr /></blockquote>Oh, gosh, look at that -- a flying pig.

[ 04-25-2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Watchman

04-25-2003, 04:06 PM

Is that what you tell yourself when you lick your wounds after our battles? And if so, you're talking to yourself!

Licking my wounds ? Yeah ...thats it...

Dang it... I though it was my secret.

BTW,I talk to myself quite abit. Sometimes it appears to be the only intelligent converstation I can get... :D

retired

04-25-2003, 04:20 PM

WM,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Is that what you tell yourself when you lick your wounds after our battles? And if so, you're talking to yourself!

Licking my wounds ? Yeah ...thats it...

Dang it... I though it was my secret.

BTW,I talk to myself quite abit. Sometimes it appears to be the only intelligent converstation I can get... :D <hr /></blockquote>But don't you find yourself disagreeing with yourself??? :confused: :confused:

Mike Tx

04-25-2003, 04:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Retired already commented on this, and you'll notice (if you'd read my post), that I already quoted him once.<hr /></blockquote>That is not what I am commenting on. I'm commenting on your deliberate twisting of what I posted, like you are still trying to do, by saying I am angry and/or offended. If you can admit that I did not say that I wanted everyone to agree with me, I will drop it, if not then I can only assume that you just want to stir up trouble by refusing to admit I did not post what you suggested I did, which I clearly did not.

[ 04-25-2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

retired

04-25-2003, 06:56 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Retired already commented on this, and you'll notice (if you'd read my post), that I already quoted him once.<hr /></blockquote>That is not what I am commenting on. I'm commenting on your deliberate twisting of what I posted, like you are still trying to do, by saying I am angry and/or offended. If you can admit that I did not say that I wanted everyone to agree with me, I will drop it, if not then I can only assume that you just want to stir up trouble by refusing to admit I did not post what you suggested I did, which I clearly did not.<hr /></blockquote>You did not post what you thought you posted, since what you posted wasn't posted properly, and your post wasn't really a post since no one suggested you posted the post, which is a debatable post to post! :D :D

Sam

04-25-2003, 07:01 PM

I am glad that some folks jumped in on my side, thanks. I would have to classify any government system that allows unbridled power over other people or is a socialist system is not Biblical.
I went the the creationist website and found that it bashed creationism but did not defend Darwinism. That is because they have been looking for the physical evidence to back it up and they have only proved it wrong. Now they say an astroid or comet hit the earth and caused an explosion of species. What a laugh!!!
They also say the Universe was started from a point the size of an atom, and they killed Christians for saying the Universe was created out of nothing in the middle ages. Now they have been proven right. Go to <a href="http://www.reason.org" target="_blank">www.reason.org</a> and check out the FAQ. Also Crazy, if you believe in a higher being, please do me a favor. Pray to him tonight and tell him you believe in him, and tell himself to reveal himself to you.

CinaC

04-26-2003, 12:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also Crazy, if you believe in a higher being, please do me a favor. Pray to him tonight and tell him you believe in him, and tell himself to reveal himself to you. <hr /></blockquote>Sam, apparently you have not read my posts. The reason I believe in a higher power, and not a Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Greek, Roman or Klingon God, is because quite frankly I consider it impossible to understand a higher power, and arrogant to believe humans beings capable of understanding. Also, I think it's rather silly to presume that a deity has a gender (minor point). Assuming you are correct, and God is the Christian version, He doesn't need me saying, "Hey, Dude, I believe in the concept of a higher being, just not you - wanna convince me?" He's omnipotent - He knows whats going on in my mind. If He has a problem with it, He can take some initiative and get in touch with me, because if He is there, He damn well knows I gave Him more than a few opportunties to change my mind before I left the faith.

Also, if you don't mind me noting, since you are apparently referring to the Christian God, you should capitalize words such as "Him" when referring to ... Him. I do that out of respect for the Christian religion, even though I do not believe it to be accurate. What does it say about you that you do not?

[ 04-26-2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Watchman

04-26-2003, 01:11 AM

CrazyinaJeep
NOT a "she";

I dont understand how we can split atoms that cause nuclear reactions that result in heat that is used to turn water into steam, yet I see the results everyday when I go to work.Just because I cant fathom it does not make it any less viable.It is reality.I cant tell you the minute details of the mathematics of nulcear physics, yet I deal with people that do.

Just because you may not understand something does not mean that others arent capable of it, and to tell you the truth, I consider that to be the height of arrogance to assume that others may not know or understand what you cannot.

Now here is a point that I cannot understand, perhaps you can clear it up for me...

How can one leave the "faith" without understanding what faith is ?

CinaC

04-26-2003, 01:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I dont understand how we can split atoms that cause nuclear reactions that result in heat that is used to turn water into steam, yet I see the results everyday when I go to work.Just because I cant fathom it does not make it any less viable.It is reality.I cant tell you the minute details of the mathematics of nulcear physics, yet I deal with people that do.<hr /></blockquote>Watchman,

How wonderful. I believe that as a human being, neither you, or I, or people that understand the minute details of the mathematics of nuclear physics are capable of understanding any higher power. Cheers.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How can one leave the "faith" without understanding what faith is ? <hr /></blockquote>Watchman,

I see. If I had faith, I never would have left it. However, if I never questioned my faith, then I would blindly believe in it and never question it, and if I never questioned it, how would I know if my faith was justified? Catch-22 if there ever was one. If you question faith, you don't have it ... but if you don't question it, you don't know if you have it. If you can't risk questioning your faith, it's no faith at all. However, as I used the term, I was referring to the "faith" of the Catholic church in specific, Christianity in not-quite-so-specific, and organized religion in general.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Just because you may not understand something does not mean that others arent capable of it, and to tell you the truth, I consider that to be the height of arrogance to assume that others may not know or understand what you cannot.<hr /></blockquote>Arrogance, Watchman, is claiming to understand God, whatever religious faith you hold. Professing an inability to understand God is not arrogance, but humility to something much greater than anything on this planet will ever be.

[ 04-26-2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Watchman

04-26-2003, 02:32 AM

No man can truly understand God, we are not capable. However, we are to seek to understanding of HIM.

So you dont undrestand him. Big deal. You make it sound like you know it cant be done so you arent even gonna try. Why not raise the white flag of surrender and admit defeat? Are you French or what?

You use your inablity to understand as an excuse for denying HIS existence while claiming to be "humble". What a crock. You berate and belittle those with the guts to attempt to learn and seek understanding just because you cant fathom the idea. You use worthless arguments with little fact or bearing in reality to try to convince others of their exercise in futility without even understanding the most basic concepts of faith.

Heres something for you...
1st Corinthians 2:5 "that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"

It obvious to those that know what "Faith" is that you dont have a clue. You got your feelings hurt by someone in a man made religion, so you dismiss it all as being unworthy of trying to understand, yet while declaring yourself "humble" for acknowledging what ever single person that ever took a breath on this earth already knows. Yeah, thats being humble alright.

By putting your faith in mankind or your own understanding, you are setting your self up for grave dissapointment. Its just a matter of time.When you wake up and realize that you dont have a clue why you were even created,or what your pitiful existence on earth is suppose to mean, let me know. I'll try to point you in the right direction. Until that day, there is no use in arguing about it. End of discussion.

Hmm...all this because a man wished you a Happy Easter. Go figure.

Sam

04-26-2003, 08:21 AM

Crazy, some how I knew you would not try my little experiment. You are too much into worshipping yourself and do not want God to get in your way even if you believe he is out there. If he is an uncaring God why do you think he keeps the world spinning and not let it slow down and kill us all? Why does he keep us in the same orbit and not pull us into the sun? I know if you would humble yourself and say my little prayer he would respond, but for you to have that little amount of faith would interfer with your religion.
I think you are afraid that it maybe the Christian God that reveals himself to you and it would crap your lifestyle.

[ 04-26-2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Sam ]

Mike Tx

04-26-2003, 09:19 AM

Of course, you meant "cramp". :D :D

CinaC

04-26-2003, 09:37 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Hmm...all this because a man wished you a Happy Easter. Go figure.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, Watchman, if Sam's post had simply been, "Happy Easter", I doubt we would have had that intriguing discussion of Biblicical inconsistencies, which has since turned into proof of Christian intolerance (not that I'm much better in the reverse, except that I don't go around showing South Africa as an example of tolerance ... oh, wait...)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It obvious to those that know what "Faith" is that you dont have a clue. You got your feelings hurt by someone in a man made religion,<hr /></blockquote>Well, you've sort of got that right. Except it isn't getting my "feelings hurt", like you so childishly disemble. Rather, I left because I was sick of being decieved into a false form of God by, you're correct, a man-made religion. And while for me the man-made religion I was being decieved by was Christianity, the same applies to every religion that claims to understand the higher power up there. I didn't go to sleep one night a Christian and wake up the next not, it was a long and agonizing decision, but in the end, I made the correct one.

There's a saying: On the seventh day, God created man, and on the eighth day, man returned the favor.

Sam - perhaps you didn't read MY post. When I was still a Christian, I gave Him a chance to, uh, "keep me" in the faith. If He didn't reply then, I really don't think He's going to bother to do so now. Also, you say I don't believe in God because it would "crap my lifestyle" (I'm with Mike, I think you meant "cramp") ... well, not really boss, I still live my life the way I did when I was Christian (well, I don't go to Church anymore). I didn't steal, rape, murder, or break the law beyond the occasional speeding ticket then, and I don't know. The difference is, unlike most Christians I know, I don't have to, shall we say, "creatively interpret" the Bible to justify how I live -- which is, it seems to me for example, what the author of those "God wants you to get rich" books was trying to do (and if you can explain how God wants you to get rich by getting past the "meek shall inherit the earth" and "it's easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle then through the gates of heaven" then I will be most impressed).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why does he keep us in the same orbit and not pull us into the sun?<hr /></blockquote>Sam, you're Christian. I'm not. I'm not denying the existance of a God, I'm denying the existance of YOUR God, something which doesn't seem to penetrating your thick skull. As I said before, I don't claim to understand the higher power, be it an It, a He, a She, or multiples of the above. Since this is the case, as I have stated very plainly, and assuming that Earth orbits the sun as a result of a deity's concious will as opposed to, say, "the law of nature", how could I know? I told you I don't claim to understand God, and here you go, asking me to understand God. I can't and I don't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I know if you would humble yourself and say my little prayer he would respond, but for you to have that little amount of faith would interfer with your religion.<hr /></blockquote>I don't have a religion, Sam, another point which you missed. Since religion is an attempt to understand God, and I don't believe we're capable of that, forming my own religion is stupid. I believe what I believe, but I don't worship whatever is up there. Also, one more time: you're a Christian. You need to capitalize references to God - it's not he, it's He.

Lastly, I am humble Sam. I'm not the one here claiming that God wants me to be rich. :)

[ 04-26-2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Sam

04-26-2003, 09:51 AM

Crazy, everyone has a god they just don't know it. I never said God wanted me to be rich, I said there was a book named that. But I know God will bless me if I do his work and follow his path.
So why are you so against my God Crazy?

CinaC

04-26-2003, 10:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, everyone has a god they just don't know it.<hr /></blockquote>If you mean there is a deity in the skies, yes, there is, however I don't believe anyone down here knows what is up there.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I never said God wanted me to be rich, I said there was a book named that.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, sorry.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But I know God will bless me if I do his work and follow his path.<hr /></blockquote>Well, then, don't let me stop you.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So why are you so against my God Crazy? <hr /></blockquote>I already answered this above.

Mike Tx

04-26-2003, 10:07 AM

Sam, if you're new to debating with liberals, let me give you a few tips.

When a liberal says, "I beleive in creative science", it means they want to figure out a way for 2+2 to be 5.

When a liberal says, "I believe in a higher power", it means the democratic party.

When a liberal says, "Where in the world did they get a gun like that?" they do NOT mean "why did he commit such a heinous crime."

When a liberal says "I already answered this above", they really mean, "I don't have an answer so I'll just pee down your back and tell you it's raining!"

And lastly, and most importantly, When a liberal says, "I support your civil rights", BOHICA!

:D

[ 04-26-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

CinaC

04-26-2003, 10:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says, "I believe in a higher power", it means the democratic party.<hr /></blockquote>I am not a member of the Democratic party.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says, "Where in the world did they get a gun like that?" they do NOT mean "why did he commit such a heinous crime."<hr /></blockquote>When I say it, I mean, "Daaaamn I want one!"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says "I already answered this above", they really mean, "I don't have an answer so I'll just pee down your back and tell you it's raining!"<hr /></blockquote>Actually, it means, I answered this above. In specific, in my post of 04-26-2003 09:37 AM, and in my post of 04-26-2003 01:30 AM.

Mike Tx

04-26-2003, 10:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CrazyinaJeep:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says, "I believe in a higher power", it means the democratic party.<hr /></blockquote>I am not a member of the Democratic party.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says, "Where in the world did they get a gun like that?" they do NOT mean "why did he commit such a heinous crime."<hr /></blockquote>When I say it, I mean, "Daaaamn I want one!"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When a liberal says "I already answered this above", they really mean, "I don't have an answer so I'll just pee down your back and tell you it's raining!"<hr /></blockquote>Actually, it means, I answered this above. In specific, in my post of 04-26-2003 09:37 AM, and in my post of 04-26-2003 01:30 AM.<hr /></blockquote>Which all means, "I voted for GORE! :D

Sam

04-26-2003, 12:40 PM

Mike thanks for filling me in. But you voted for ALgore? That is a shocker.

Crazy, I know the liberals do not want you to think it is true but they used Christian principles in the founding of this country that is for sure. Here is a few quotes to back up my contention.

"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great vital and conservative element in our system is the doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

His Prayer At Valley Forge "Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee."

"Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus. "Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian."
Patrick Henry

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."

Benjamin Franklin Address at the Constitutional Convention Thursday June 28, 1787

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

President John Adams

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

President Thomas Jefferson

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."
President John Quincy Adams

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."

John Jay, 1777 The first Chief Justice of the United States

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and the interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

James Madison

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." David Barton's book The Myth of Separation

Crazy, I know you hate facts and principles but those are truths.

Mike Tx

04-26-2003, 01:59 PM

No I didn't vote him, I was just tormenting ciaj.

Sam

04-26-2003, 02:39 PM

I did not think so... my bad, I missunderstood.

CinaC

04-26-2003, 03:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, I know the liberals do not want you to think it is true but they used Christian principles in the founding of this country that is for sure. Here is a few quotes to back up my contention.<hr /></blockquote>Sam,

My agnostic beliefs are not as a result of what "the liberals" told me, they're a result of my own introspection at my faith.

Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible? Are you aware that he did not believe in the Holy Trinity or the supernatural events of the New Testament? He didn't even like the Book of Revelations.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams... I cannot so far respect [the extravagances of the composition] as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas... What has no meaning admits no explanation... I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed." --Thomas Jefferson
to Alexander Smyth, 1825, regarding the Book of Revelations <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, I know you hate facts and principles but those are truths. <hr /></blockquote>Of course they are, Sam.

I understand that you place great faith in your religion, but what saddens me is how you can't defend any of it. You became so frustrated trying to defend against Retired's questions of biblical inaccuracies that you tried to get Nite to lock the thread. Then you've managed to spend quite some time assailing my own faith, while trying to pass yourself off as tolerant. And now you're gibbering about the founding fathers. I don't quite know how your mind works, but it strikes me that logic and reason are beyond you.
You aren't able to defend your faith without changing the subject, so perhaps if your faith is that fragile, you should keep it to yourself, yes?

[ 04-26-2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Sam

04-26-2003, 03:24 PM

I answered reasonably every one of retired questions and he did not answer ONE of mine. Typical of unbelievers. They are not comfortable enough with their unbelief to answer any questions.
Sorry you liberals try to rewrite history with your fictious second hand quotes.

CinaC

04-26-2003, 03:36 PM

If you're referring to the Thomas Jefferson quote, it is not fictious, no matter how much you may hate what he stood for.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I answered reasonably every one of retired questions and he did not answer ONE of mine. <hr /></blockquote>I answered many of your questions reasonably, and to my memory, you failed to answer me. When I get back from work, I'll dig those up and allow you the opportunity to address them.

Typical of those without the evidence or faith to support their position, you attack my sources (not that you bother to cite yours), and then start accusing people of rewriting history without evidence to support your claim. Why don't you go make this arguement to your church community, they'll all agree, and you can feel very clever with yourself. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[ 04-26-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Sam

04-26-2003, 03:59 PM

In one post you copied and pasted about 20 questions and I did not answer all of them but did a couple. Ask them one at a time like I asked of Retired. Your Jefferson quote was after the making of the government by quite a few years. Mine was during the making of the government, thank God that he did not feel the same way years later. I never said he was a Christian but understood that Christian principles work.
I will come back to answer questions one at a time.
But I wish you could prove the Bible wrong from history even if you do not believe it. But you can't.
Darwin, Nietzsche, and Marx, all prophets of modern liberalism who believed their intellect disproved the existence of God have been proven to be the fools. Nietzsche

retired

04-26-2003, 05:02 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
I answered reasonably every one of retired questions and he did not answer ONE of mine. Typical of unbelievers. They are not comfortable enough with their unbelief to answer any questions.
Sorry you liberals try to rewrite history with your fictious second hand quotes.<hr /></blockquote>Get off of your platform! I answered politely to you, and all I got was flack. You don't like it when someone questions your bible. "Typical of an unbeliever" is bull$$hit. I posted flat out contradictions and never once attacked you for your belief. In fact I said I respected your right to believe.

I could quote contradictions, intolerance, cruelty, and absurdities all day long about your bible. Why don't you try and respect the rights of others to not believe as you do?? And contrary to what you think, I am very comfortable with my non-belief.

Sam

04-26-2003, 05:30 PM

Jefferson admitted this, can either you or crazy do the same? "The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Will you agree that the principles of Christianity have worked and do work?

You put me down but I know I am right. I have supernatural proof that you would only laugh at but I am not laughing. I am conserned for your eternal soul, can you understand that too?

Retired I do not expect you to answer either of these actually, you are under the delusion you answer questions, hey prove me wrong.

CinaC

04-26-2003, 10:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Will you agree that the principles of Christianity have worked and do work?<hr /></blockquote>Sam, earlier in this thread, you upheld apartheid South Africa as an example of a Christian government. If these are the principles you speak of, if these are the principles over which our American Civil War was fought, you can keep them.

But now you're going off on a tangent, presumeably because you can't defend your faith. If you're not interested in talking about Biblical inconsistencies, you should have said so. Hell, I can defend the Biblical inconsitencies better than you can! Would you like me to? You might learn something.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Your Jefferson quote was after the making of the government by quite a few years. Mine was during the making of the government, thank God that he did not feel the same way years later. I never said he was a Christian but understood that Christian principles work.<hr /></blockquote>Hold on, I don't quite get it. You say that he wasn't a Christian, but he liked the Christian way during the writing of the Constitution, but that it's a good thing he became disillusioned years later? It's a good thing for people to become disilusioned with Christianity? I mean, I don't disagree, but you've made the wrong conclusions about Jefferson.

Jefferson didn't agree with much of the Bible, which is why he wrote his own. It's not that unsual, you know, for a Christian of one sect not to believe in everything a Christian of another sect does -- that's why we have all these different sects! Jefferson didn't believe in Revelations, he didn't believe in the Holy Trinity, and he didn't believe in much of the "supernatural" occurences related in the New Testement (and he edited those out of his own compilation). For your information, although the quote is from 1825, you'll notice that it begins, "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac." In other words, Jefferson considered it 'the ravings of a maniac' as early as 1770 ... quite a bit before he wrote the Constitution and said the quote you have in your own post. Therefore, you are wrong on both counts: you are wrong that it is a fictious quote as you claimed, and you are also wrong that Jefferson came to the above opinion after he wrote the DOI and the Constitution. :)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You put me down but I know I am right. I have supernatural proof that you would only laugh at but I am not laughing. I am conserned for your eternal soul, can you understand that too?<hr /></blockquote>Sam ... trust me, if I was putting you down, you'd know it and this thread would have been locked. If you have supernatural proof ... please enlighten me to what it is (faith is not supernatural).

Thank you for being concerned for my eternal soul, but please respect my decision in the matter as far as religion goes. If you're interested in a discussion of our opposing views, that'd be fantastic.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />but after 120 years of investigating, his theory is dead, rather than the God Theory<hr /></blockquote>Sam, you can stick your head in the sand all you want ... evolution has a lot more evidence to back it up than the God Theory :)

[ 04-26-2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Sam

04-26-2003, 11:07 PM

Aparthied was evil and wrong that had nothing to do with Christian values. They did have a semi-socialistic state that also is against the Bible. But they had a seperation of powers, power is corrupting and intoxicating, the Bible is for seperation of powers.

As far as what I saw I will not go into details. One cop is dead, one cop should be dead. That cops gun shot a bullet through the badguys heart, without aiming or pulling the trigger. That cop only was involved and survived because of supernatural means. I was one of the three guess who?

CinaC

04-26-2003, 11:13 PM

Sam,

A few months ago, an LAPD officer was killed when his Sig slipped out of its holster, fell to the ground, and discharged a round which killed him. I suppose you could make the arguement that God wanted him dead, but I think it more likely that it is possible for a gun to fire and kill a person and not have it be an act of God.

Sam

04-26-2003, 11:47 PM

I don't know I wasn't there. I was there in the other one and I am here to tell you there is a God who knows what we are doing. Go ahead and talk to him, he will listen. I don't know why I was the one choosen but I will do his will.
I have been incredibly close to God lately. A few weeks ago I put on a golf tournament and the weather was very threatening. I said a weather prayer, I knew Patton did it so I would not be in too much trouble if I did it, the tournament was for a Christian endevor anyway. Well we had no rain. The whole area had rain but there was a two square mile part of the city where it did not rain. They had hail the size of golf balls at our station about 10 miles away and 2 inches of rain. No one I talked to believed we played. I have things like this happen to me often, I have seen the light and spread the word. Some people ask me why I have to witness to everyone, I do not say why but I do say I hope the Good Lord asks me the same question when we meet face to face, I doubt he will.

retired

04-27-2003, 12:04 AM

Sam,
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Jefferson admitted this, can either you or crazy do the same? "The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Will you agree that the principles of Christianity have worked and do work?

You put me down but I know I am right. I have supernatural proof that you would only laugh at but I am not laughing. I am conserned for your eternal soul, can you understand that too?

Retired I do not expect you to answer either of these actually, you are under the delusion you answer questions, hey prove me wrong.<hr /></blockquote>I have no intention of trying to put you down. I said before I respect your right to a belief. I have no eternal soul!

But exactly what questions would you like me to directly answer, and if I can, I will?

Sam

04-27-2003, 12:15 AM

My question for you is have Biblical principles worked in history, I know you don't know them but they are for freedom, checks and balances, capitalism etc. The godless systems are basically variations of socialism.
What I want you to say is, although you like Jefferson do not believe in Christ but you can agree that the teachings they attribute to him are valid and have been proven in history.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 12:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I know you don't know them but they are for freedom, checks and balances, capitalism etc.<hr /></blockquote>Sam,

Please correct me, I see a logical error.

You make the claim that this nation was formed on Christian principles.

Now you make the claim that one of these principles was freedom.

This nation was formed with slavery being very much legal. See the problem I'm finding? Either freedom isn't a Christian principle, or the founding of this country wasn't very Christian. I don't see how it can be both at the same time.

Also, I'd like very much to know where the Bible supports capitalism.

[ 04-27-2003, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 06:46 AM

Sam says "America", ciaj says "South Africa". Lol!

Sam

04-27-2003, 08:39 AM

100% Christian principles unfortunately there are unbelievers who have to get their fingers in everything. The Christians got rid of slavery relatively fast, there still is slavery in the world today and Christians should be working to end that.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 10:23 AM

Mike,

Sam said South Africa, in his post on 04-22-2003 07:59 AM. "Sorry North Korea's problems has everything to do with its system of government. Isreal has a system of government based on Biblical principles and that is why they are an exporter. Lets look at South Africa."

Reading a thread is important before commenting on it, lest you look more than 22% homosexual.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 10:27 AM

Not in the post I was referring to.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sam, you can stick your head in the sand all you want ... evolution has a lot more evidence to back it up than the God Theory <hr /></blockquote>But why aren't apes still turning into men, or liberals for that matter?
:D

[ 04-27-2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Sam

04-27-2003, 06:09 PM

22% homosexual, am I missing something? I will dress in drag if you believe in Christ as your Savior Crazy but that is as far as I will go in that direction.

retired

04-27-2003, 06:20 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
My question for you is have Biblical principles worked in history, I know you don't know them but they are for freedom, checks and balances, capitalism etc. The godless systems are basically variations of socialism.
What I want you to say is, although you like Jefferson do not believe in Christ but you can agree that the teachings they attribute to him are valid and have been proven in history.<hr /></blockquote>Let's start with the bible and slavery and see what the bible says?

Eph.6:5
"Servants be obedient to them that are your masters."

Col.3:18
"Wives, submit yourselves uto your own husbands."

Col.3:22
"Servants, obey in all things your masters."

1 Tim.6:1
"Let as many servant as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor."
Tit.2:9

"Exhort servants to be obedient totheir won masters, and to please them in all things."

1 Pet.2:18
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

Okay, now that we see the bible condones slavery, how about cruelty and torture? What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Witch trials, the Bible wars?

How about Christian intolerance? Say towards homosexuals and abortion? And then there are the Christian cults like Jones, and Ben Yahweh.

As far as Christian principles preaching freedom and checks and balances, or capitalism, where did you get these from?

Now you show me where atheists don't have high principles and good moral character. I haven't read yet where the atheist people have tortured people for not sharing the same belief, you know, like the Christians did during the seven crusades. And how they killed and tortured the people at the witch trials!

Again Sam, have and practice all the religious belief you desire, I don't want to change your belief in the slightest. But I don't have a problem pointing out the discrepancies, absurdities, etc in the bible when you post a sermon.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 06:29 PM

Retired, I don't suppose you have ever considered that the quotes you post may be taken out of context have you? That they may have meant something different a long time ago.

retired

04-27-2003, 06:59 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Retired, I don't suppose you have ever considered that the quotes you post may be taken out of context have you? That they may have meant something different a long time ago.<hr /></blockquote>Feel free to rebutt them! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> But if they meant something different a long time ago, why would people preach them today?? :confused:

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 07:04 PM

For the same reason we still preach the Second Amendment. Just because some people refuse to understand the words does not mean we should stop. No, it means they should be made to understand.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 08:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Not in the post I was referring to.<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps you should be more specific, or not comment at all.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />22% homosexual, am I missing something?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, you are. In the "General Forum", Mike posted a website survey which will indicate how "gay" you are ... he scored 22% gay. I just enjoy ribbing him about it :)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I will dress in drag if you believe in Christ as your Savior Crazy but that is as far as I will go in that direction. <hr /></blockquote>Well, Sam, as much as I would enjoy seeing you in drag, er, that wasn't quite what I was getting at but thanks for the offer :)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For the same reason we still preach the Second Amendment. Just because some people refuse to understand the words does not mean we should stop. No, it means they should be made to understand.<hr /></blockquote>I see, so you're one of those "I'm for freedom of religion as long as it's my religion" crowd?

[ 04-27-2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

n567

04-27-2003, 08:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Not in the post I was referring to.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sam, you can stick your head in the sand all you want ... evolution has a lot more evidence to back it up than the God Theory <hr /></blockquote>But why aren't apes still turning into men, or liberals for that matter?
:D <hr /></blockquote>Two reasons off hand, first off, evolution takes millions of years for even a minor change to occur. Additionally, dilution of the gene pool is extremely important if evolution is to occur.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 08:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I see, so you're one of those "I'm for freedom of religion as long as it's my religion" crowd?<hr /></blockquote>That's not what I meant at all. I was making a comparison of anitquated modes of speaking. I apologize if it was above your level of understanding.

[ 04-27-2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Sam

04-27-2003, 08:37 PM

Retired, for one the slavery Paul talks about was not quite the same as you were thinking. In his time most people who worked were slaves. You had rich people and the people they hired were called "slaves". If you were a medical doctor you would become a slave to a rich person, he might hire you out to others but you would be a slave to him. He would pay you a salary and you were obligated to him for the period of the contract but you were not beaten and totally controlled as the slavery you are thinking of. People who were poor at that time who were not slaves wished to be slaves. It is more like contract labor now. So reread it and see if it appears in a different light.
As far as the principles of government I wish it were so simple as to read one passage but you need to study the scriptures as a whole to get these type principles. But if you are really interested read the book I suggested God wants you to be rich, or if you want to read something heavy (boring too) read Adam Smiths Wealth of a Nation. He was a wonderful Christian theologian and applied Biblical principles to government economics. He was the guru behind Reagans economic plan that gave us the longest period of prosperity in our nations history.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 08:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That's not what I meant at all. I was making a comparison of anitquated modes of speaking. I apologize if it was above your level of understanding.<hr /></blockquote>Mike, I don't believe the Second Ammendment is anitquated in any way, and I'm sorry to see that you do.

[ 04-27-2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 08:55 PM

Crazy, you must really enjoy twisting peoples words to suit your juvenile agenda. It can be clearly seen that I was talking about ways of speaking and or writing.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 09:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, you must really enjoy twisting peoples words to suit your juvenile agenda. It can be clearly seen that I was talking about ways of speaking and or writing. <hr /></blockquote>Mike, despite your feeble attempts to twist other people's words to fit whatever agenda you're following, I don't believe either the writing or the speaking of the Second Ammendment is antiquated, as you apparently do.

Now, see, what I said, was that I don't believe the Second Ammendment to be antiquated in any way. However, you yourself said that you believe the Second Ammendment is antiquated in your comparisson of it to the Bible, in your own words, "I was making a comparison of anitquated modes of speaking." The difference between you and I is that I do not believe the Second Ammendment to be an antiquated mode "of speaking and or writing."

The other difference is that you don't seem to be paying attention to what you're posting.

[ 04-27-2003, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

retired

04-27-2003, 09:21 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
For the same reason we still preach the Second Amendment. Just because some people refuse to understand the words does not mean we should stop. No, it means they should be made to understand.<hr /></blockquote>There is a big difference in what words meant a long time ago, to refusing to understand them.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 09:26 PM

Well Crazy, you are good at twisting people words to suit you, I'll give you that. But it won't work, as you must know.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 09:32 PM

There's no twisting of words going on, Mike, you are just now refusing to admit that you said that you felt that the Second Ammendment was written (or spoken) in an antiquated mode.

retired

04-27-2003, 09:36 PM

Sam,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sam:
Retired, for one the slavery Paul talks about was not quite the same as you were thinking. In his time most people who worked were slaves. You had rich people and the people they hired were called "slaves". If you were a medical doctor you would become a slave to a rich person, he might hire you out to others but you would be a slave to him. He would pay you a salary and you were obligated to him for the period of the contract but you were not beaten and totally controlled as the slavery you are thinking of. People who were poor at that time who were not slaves wished to be slaves. It is more like contract labor now. So reread it and see if it appears in a different light.
As far as the principles of government I wish it were so simple as to read one passage but you need to study the scriptures as a whole to get these type principles. But if you are really interested read the book I suggested God wants you to be rich, or if you want to read something heavy (boring too) read Adam Smiths Wealth of a Nation. He was a wonderful Christian theologian and applied Biblical principles to government economics. He was the guru behind Reagans economic plan that gave us the longest period of prosperity in our nations history.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure how you know what I am thinking, but I'll accept your gift of supernatural power, and stipulate you do. Leviticus talks about slaves and slave ownership in the same fashion as slavery was in this country for 200 years. There are many other passages that refer directly to the same mode of slavery. I can't find any reference of working people as slaves.

I hate to admit it since I despise him, but the longest and most prosperous economic period in the last 100 years was under Clinton, not Reagan. And he didn't exactly promote the best morals and priniciples.

I quote Leviticus regarding slavery:

25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

[ 04-27-2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

Sam

04-27-2003, 10:03 PM

Retired, The Reagan economy took a hit when Bush agreed to increase taxes when the dems were putting pressure on him to increase taxes, he did and it cost him the election. But the economy was on the rebound when Clintoon took office. The economy was level till the Repubs won the Senate in 1994 then it continued its climb. By the time his economic policies took hold the economy went into a major nose dive in the early part of 2000. If you want to discuss this further lets start a new thread.

In my last post I failed to point out to your question about "Christian practices" after Biblical times, I would have to point out again that those "Christians" had moved away from following Bible teachings.

In your quote of scripture from Leviticus, this one presents a different problem. At the time God apparently modified a conventional custom rather than doing away with it. His laws greatly improved the institution of slavery over pagan practices. He provided guidelines, set up ethical restrictions, and gave slaves Their dignity (see Ex 21:26-27 and Deut. 23:15-16) In many ways, the issue in ancient times would have been viewed like employer-emploee issues are viewed today. Still at this time the Biblical legal system was in the process of development throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. As a result, it is often hard for us to understand some of the inequities in the Old Testament.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 10:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />There's no twisting of words going on, Mike, you are just now refusing to admit that you said that you felt that the Second Ammendment was written (or spoken) in an antiquated mode.<hr /></blockquote>No, that is what I said, using it as a comparison to some religious text, which is why I said we need to keep preaching it, answering Retired's question, because people can't understand the words, or, in your and his case, don't want to. YOU said that I said the actual amendment is antiquated,which is not true, and it is to this that I objected, but you know rhis.

retired

04-27-2003, 10:25 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />There's no twisting of words going on, Mike, you are just now refusing to admit that you said that you felt that the Second Ammendment was written (or spoken) in an antiquated mode.<hr /></blockquote>No, that is what I said, using it as a comparison to some religious text, which is why I said we need to keep preaching it, answering Retired's question, because people can't understand the words, or, in your and his case, don't want to. YOU said that I said the actual amendment is antiquated,which is not true, and it is to this that I objected, but you know rhis.<hr /></blockquote>While I support the 2nd amendment, it was actually poorly written, and has been interpreted by many people in different ways. Most of the appeallate court decisions have ruled that it doesn't give us as individuals the right to bear arms. I may differ with them on that, but even those well educated in law disagree with its meaning. I do think that compared to how we communicate today, it is an antiquated mode of written expression.

Mike Tx

04-27-2003, 10:27 PM

C'mon Retired, no one uses the term "well regulated" like it is used in that document.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 10:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />YOU said that I said the actual amendment is antiquated<hr /></blockquote>Let's take a look, shall we?

Retired said: "But if they meant something different a long time ago, why would people preach them today??"

Mike said: "For the same reason we still preach the Second Amendment. Just because some people refuse to understand the words does not mean we should stop. No, it means they should be made to understand."

I said: "I see, so you're one of those "I'm for freedom of religion as long as it's my religion" crowd?"

You said: "That's not what I meant at all. I was making a comparison of anitquated modes of speaking. I apologize if it was above your level of understanding."

You call both the Bible, and the Second Ammendment, "antiquated modes of speaking"

I then said: "Mike, I don't believe the Second Ammendment is anitquated in any way, and I'm sorry to see that you do."

After all, you -- not I!!! -- called it an "antiquated mode of speaking"

You then said: "Crazy, you must really enjoy twisting peoples words to suit your juvenile agenda. It can be clearly seen that I was talking about ways of speaking and or writing."

Indeed, you did in fact call the Second Ammendment 'an antiquated mode of speaking.' My response simply stated that I did not believe the Second Ammendment to be antiquated in any way - in other words, I do not believe it to be an antiquated mode of speaking. You will note that I never alledged that you thought the spirit of the Second Ammendment was antiquated, but simply the language

I then said: "There's no twisting of words going on, Mike, you are just now refusing to admit that you said that you felt that the Second Ammendment was written (or spoken) in an antiquated mode."

In fact, you did say this, quite a bit, too.

You then said, this: "No, that is what I said, using it as a comparison to some religious text, which is why I said we need to keep preaching it, answering Retired's question, because people can't understand the words, or, in your and his case, don't want to. YOU said that I said the actual amendment is antiquated,which is not true, and it is to this that I objected, but you know rhis."

I NEVER said that you said, thought, think, or whatever that the Ammendment was antiquated, and you damn well know it. What I said was that I did not consider the Ammendment to be antiquated in any way -- clearly, you do believe that the Ammendment is antiquated in its writing. See? Wow! You believe the Ammendment is antiquated in a way I disagree with.

And, gasp! No where have I said you believe the Ammendment to be antiquated.

Can you say, "OWNED!" :)

Sam

04-27-2003, 10:33 PM

Compare the 200 years with the 3500 of the Bible and I think the Bible fares pretty well.

CinaC

04-27-2003, 10:44 PM

Well, not really, considering the contradictions that keep popping up.

This isn't really surprising, however, given how many times the Bible has been translated, edited, and re-translated. By the time the Bible began to be recorded on paper (after being passed down orally from generation to generation), it was written primarily in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and a dialect of Greek known as "Koine." When you consider that the Jews didn't "agree" on a canonical Torah until the first century BC, and that the Christians didn't agree on the New Testement until 400 AD, and when you consider again, among other things, the translation of the Bible into Latin, and then into English (and factoring in James' editing job), to make the claim that the Bible wasn't written in an antiquated language is ridiculous. It's most likely that no one on this forum has read the Bible in its original language -- Aramaic and Koine are both long-dead languages and very few (if any) non Jews speak Hebrew (and even then, you'd only be able to read the Old Testement).