Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently, you correlate believing with that of righteousness? Imagine telling your daughter that, for not believing or being timid/fearful that she will spend all eternity having nothing to do with you. And, you would not call that being a tyrant (harsh or cruel)? You do know, that I do not believe in separation from that which created you, or brought all things into existence, right? My children will never be separated from me, as long as we are alive and well. In addition, he will never forsake anyone, given that he exists. Do you even see, how absurd your beliefs are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Reality doesn't revolve around you Jerwade. What you personally believe has no bearing on what constitutes reality. You are all about telling people what you do not believe. That seems to be why you hang out on the Christianity forum---to say 'I don't believe this or that. It's absurd.'
As far as 'righteousness' and believing goes, Paul made it clear in Romans chapters 3-5 that it is when a person believes in Jesus that God imputes or credits the very righteousness of Jesus to the one who has trusted in him for salvation. Only when a person has a righteousness equal to that of God can he spend eternity with God. Therefore when a person personally trusts in Christ Jesus for eternal life God credits that person with Jesus' perfect righteousness and he is qualified to spend the eternal future with God.
God has through his written word made the issue clear. Eternity with him or eternity without him, and the deciding factor is whether or not you have personally trusted in Jesus for eternal salvation.
That you find that to be absurd is your problem. Not mine. And that's as far as I'm going with this. I don't care to get into an endless back and forth about it.
And, you believe that you are functioning within the realm of reality? Personally, I wouldn't call demons, the devil, Satan or eternal punishment reality. Anymore than I would that fictitious place you call HELL! I have no doubt from listening to many of the extreme religious/Christian fundamentalists on this forum, (and elsewhere), that they are sick; and in need of a physician or psychologist.
Apparently, their focus is on sin and death, or how wicked they are/were in this life. They seem to view humanity as a disease to be cured. I am not talking about those who commit criminal acts or those who have legitimate medical, emotional or mental conditions. They have been convinced and/or brainwashed into believing they are unworthy. And, if they do not BELIEVE or ACCEPT certain things, then they are going to be PUNISHED or DAMNED for all eternity.
Consider that Jesus also indirectly gives credence to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 in that He directly gives credence to Peter's writings in John 14:26, 16:13; and Peter directly gives credence to Paul's writings (and Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:15-17) in 2 Peter 3:15-16; whereas Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, gives credence to the rest of all of holy scripture.
You mean those writings based on Paul's "visions" (Hallucinations) ? Scripture? really?
So seriously, one of the referrals two weeks ago was telling me about all the voices and things he hears as w he is falling asleep, although he is alone and no one is around......should he write those hallucinations down as scripture too?
Your first mistake is Paul. the canon was not formed until centuries later, and was not considered "scripture" at the time. The Torah was, but the "New Testament" is not. Nor is the "New and Improved Testament"
But IF (and that is a very hypothetical IF) the passage about ALL scripture being useful, then not only must you include the Torah, but the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita as well..for these are considered scripture, inspired by god, by many as well.
What I consider though is that "testimony" which is all the Bible is, is NOT the same as word of god and certainly not evidence of god. So why bother arguing about fiction? is Bach's Jonathon Livingston Seagull not as inspiring as well? "The only true law is that which leads to freedom," Jonathan said. "There is no other."
But when you do not try to determine what is and what is not scripture using the revelations of Jesus, you will fail. For a Christian, Jesus Christ IS God, NOT the Bible. ONLY what is compatible with Him in the Bible is the word of God. You ignore this truth at your own peril.
I consider that Jesus said that the holy scriptures are "they which testify of me" (John 5:39-40).
And I consider that it is written of Him in the entire volume of the Book (Hebrews 10:7).
Known unto God are all of His works from before the foundation of the world (Acts 15:18).
Including that work that we call the Protestant kjv of the Holy Bible.
This is the volume of the book that is spoken of in that verse; for the word of the Lord is timeless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Because the essence of eternal punishment is simply being separated from God forever at least in a spiritual sense. It does not imply being boiled in oil, or hung by your fingernails, or sentenced to pushing a boulder uphill forever, or burning in a literal fire, or whatever other tortures you might imagine. It is simply being separated from God in a place that was designed for that purpose.
God gives you your choice. Eternity with him or eternity without him. Jesus is clearly shown in the Bible sending away from his presence the 'unrighteous.'
God is not a tyrant forcing you to be in his presence forever. He gives you your choice---have an eternity with him or an eternity without him.
Good post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
You mean those writings based on Paul's "visions" (Hallucinations) ? Scripture? really?
So seriously, one of the referrals two weeks ago was telling me about all the voices and things he hears as w he is falling asleep, although he is alone and no one is around......should he write those hallucinations down as scripture too?
Your first mistake is Paul. the canon was not formed until centuries later, and was not considered "scripture" at the time. The Torah was, but the "New Testament" is not. Nor is the "New and Improved Testament"
But IF (and that is a very hypothetical IF) the passage about ALL scripture being useful, then not only must you include the Torah, but the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita as well..for these are considered scripture, inspired by god, by many as well.
What I consider though is that "testimony" which is all the Bible is, is NOT the same as word of god and certainly not evidence of god. So why bother arguing about fiction? is Bach's Jonathon Livingston Seagull not as inspiring as well? "The only true law is that which leads to freedom," Jonathan said. "There is no other."
I have no problem with counting those books as being scripture (defined as "what is written")...However, from my point of view, only the Protestant kjv of the Holy Bible is what I would call holy scripture.
You mean those writings based on Paul's "visions" (Hallucinations) ? Scripture? really?
So seriously, one of the referrals two weeks ago was telling me about all the voices and things he hears as w he is falling asleep, although he is alone and no one is around......should he write those hallucinations down as scripture too?
Your first mistake is Paul. the canon was not formed until centuries later, and was not considered "scripture" at the time. The Torah was, but the "New Testament" is not. Nor is the "New and Improved Testament"
But IF (and that is a very hypothetical IF) the passage about ALL scripture being useful, then not only must you include the Torah, but the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita as well..for these are considered scripture, inspired by god, by many as well.
What I consider though is that "testimony" which is all the Bible is, is NOT the same as word of god and certainly not evidence of god. So why bother arguing about fiction? is Bach's Jonathon Livingston Seagull not as inspiring as well? "The only true law is that which leads to freedom," Jonathan said. "There is no other."
Testimony is part of the evidence that proves the Bible is the Word of God. There is other evidence that supplement the testimony. Are you agnostic or atheist?
Testimony is part of the evidence that proves the Bible is the Word of God. There is other evidence that supplement the testimony. Are you agnostic or atheist?
Testimony is NOT evidence. Not in any case. Testimony is a statement of beliefs.
And testimony requires evidence, in the case above, there is none. Never has been and when there is, I would love to hear it.
If for example, I tell you that a leprechaun lives in my house, and daily gives me advice to impart to the world, and I tell these stories, then what I am giving is still only testimony. Now if I say that only I can see and hear this creature, I would hope someone would call my associates and tell them that one of the coworkers has finally cracked.
So to say that the scripture is testimony, no matter how good or how bad, is one thing, but to equate it with the "word of god" and all that insinuates is a fallacy.
I am interested in when the Bible stopped being a collection of scriptures and morphed into being the "word of god" It certainly was NOT in Roman or middle ages times, methinks post-Luther or even later with the formation of the restoration movement perhaps?
I have no problem with counting those books as being scripture (defined as "what is written")...However, from my point of view, only the Protestant kjv of the Holy Bible is what I would call holy scripture.
Testimony is NOT evidence. Not in any case. Testimony is a statement of beliefs.
And testimony requires evidence, in the case above, there is none. Never has been and when there is, I would love to hear it.
If for example, I tell you that a leprechaun lives in my house, and daily gives me advice to impart to the world, and I tell these stories, then what I am giving is still only testimony. Now if I say that only I can see and hear this creature, I would hope someone would call my associates and tell them that one of the coworkers has finally cracked.
So to say that the scripture is testimony, no matter how good or how bad, is one thing, but to equate it with the "word of god" and all that insinuates is a fallacy.
I am interested in when the Bible stopped being a collection of scriptures and morphed into being the "word of god" It certainly was NOT in Roman or middle ages times, methinks post-Luther or even later with the formation of the restoration movement perhaps?
In courts of law, testimony is used as evidence, did you know that? Look it up and see if its not so. Many convictions have been made solely upon witness testimony. You position on that is erroneous.
Testimony alone is not enough many times, be it in court cases or proof for God and His inspired word. So I will supply the other necessary evidence.
PREMISE #1
If the Bible possesses certain properties that could not have been produced by mere men, then it is the word of God.
PREMISE #2
The Bible does possess certain properties that could not be produced by mere men.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Bible is the word of God.
That is the basic syllogistic argument which is valid and I will set out to prove it to be a sound argument by providing evidence that will represent the "certain properties " mentioned in the two premises.
Do you have any problem with the validity of this syllogism before I go further?
Last edited by DannyKurreto; 07-19-2021 at 09:55 AM..
In courts of law, testimony is used as evidence, did you know that? Look it up and see if its not so. Many convictions have been made solely upon witness testimony. You position on that is erroneous.
Testimony alone is not enough many times, be it in court cases or proof for God and His inspired word. So I will supply the other necessary evidence.
PREMISE #1
If the Bible possesses certain properties that could not have been produced by mere men, then it is the word of God.
PREMISE #2
The Bible does possess certain properties that could not be produced by mere men.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Bible is the word of God.
That is the basic syllogistic argument which is valid and I will set out to prove it to be a sound argument by providing evidence that will represent the "certain properties " mentioned in the two premises.
Do you have any problem with the validity of this syllogism before I go further?
SO basically, it is the word of god because YOU say that it is.......your binary (either/or) thinking certainly has limited your ability to form a convincing argument or proof of an argument
Premise 1
The Bible was written entirely by the hands of humans
Premise 2 The Bible contains nothing that could not have been imagined by humans.
Let me ask you this : if you are so convinced in the Holiness of your book, or your interpretation of it, then Is it morally right and ok to own slaves? is it ok to enslave captured soldiers, or take someone from their home and families and force them to work for you, for free, and to beat them when they do not subvert?
SO basically, it is the word of god because YOU say that it is.......your binary (either/or) thinking certainly has limited your ability to form a convincing argument or proof of an argument
Premise 1
The Bible was written entirely by the hands of humans
Premise 2 The Bible contains nothing that could not have been imagined by humans.
Let me ask you this : if you are so convinced in the Holiness of your book, or your interpretation of it, then Is it morally right and ok to own slaves? is it ok to enslave captured soldiers, or take someone from their home and families and force them to work for you, for free, and to beat them when they do not subvert?
I had asked you two questions which you have ignored previously, are you an agnostic or an atheist? And the other question was dealing with the validity of my syllogistic argument. I would appreciate if you would answer my precisely stated questions with a precise answer so we can proceed efficiently.
Another question to aid to our discussion, are you familiar with logic? If you are then I will not have to oversimplify the logical process, if you are not educated in logic then I will try to accommodate you the best I can.
Your slave question, the U.S constitution allows slavery for punishment of crimes committed. Read the constitution closely (13 amendment section 1.) All prisoners are slaves of state or of the federal govt. Morality can be right or wrong depending on how/why/etc.
Before going in this direction which most uneducated people do who wish to discredit the Bible, realize that the concepts required to distinguish between morality and immorality from Biblical accounts must be taken from a comprehensive standpoint according to the basic concept of God and His divine will. An outside approach is always flawed so for now just stick with what is elementary in arguments. Crawl before walking so to speak.
Your slave question, the U.S constitution allows slavery for punishment of crimes committed. Read the constitution closely (13 amendment section 1.) All prisoners are slaves of state or of the federal govt. Morality can be right or wrong depending on how/why/etc.
.
No I was asking if slavery was morally right, and not what your interpretation of the Constitution says. So it is morally right in your opinion to hold slaves? Correct?
As for the premise you mentioned, while testimony is allowed and considered in court, testimony alone will not prove a case. Often, there needs to be additional evidence. Like the evidence of the claim that the Bible is the "word of god" There simply IS no evidence for it. Trying to make yourself sound like a master debater will not change the fact that the evidence simply is not there.
As for slavery, well, I bring this up to people who often claim that the Bible was written by/from god or is the "word of God" The Bible clearly encourages slavery, rape, beating, looting. And it goes as far as to say that someone can beat a slave so long as he does not die.
Now what concerns me is when someone just does not see the pure evil in that and lacks the moral compass to understand that it is wrong.
Often, we have DSM-V diagnoses and descriptors for some of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
