Veteran++
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr0
I'll rephrase. I don't think you think its "okay" for those kinds of things to happen to other people.
You fear that those things may happen to you. And if they did, you would possibly doubt your faith.
Don't you fear that those things may happen to others? And if they did, shouldn't you doubt your faith? Whether these things happen to you specifically shouldn't matter.
|
We are having a discussion in the "How to convert an Unbeliever" thread that answers this in my mind. Check it out.
|
|
|
Veteran++
|
I bring up an interesting point I thought of when I was posting an answer to something else.
It is not God himself who hurts and starves people. It is us. If everyone followed the teachings of Christ to the letter, no one would starve, no one would fight. We would all be in peace with one another, all of us brothers and sisters of the World.
I will mention something I said to you in an email. God is like our mother and our father.
Assume for example you decide to drink alot of alcohol and drive. As a result of this you hit someone else and kill them. Do you say to yourself, why didnt my dad stop me from doing this? Why didnt my mother stop me from making a mistake and hurting other people?
It is not your parents who is at fault here, it is you for making a bad decision.
God is like our parents in many ways. He lays down what he wants from us, he gives us the ability to know right from wrong, and he expects us to follow it. It is not God's fault if we decide not to.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby
Jews do not believe that everyone that isn't Jewish is damned.
|
So the first two commandments of the 613 they have (Aseret ha-Dibrot) are merely suggestions?
I am the Lord, thy God. Thou shalt have none other before me.
That's what it says. They don't believe in hell or Satan as far as I know, but there are probably plenty of different ways to be "damned."
Also: Christians get the laughable religion award of the day for not being smart enough to handle the other 603 commandments.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sipher77
God
|
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGBR
So the first two commandments of the 613 they have (Aseret ha-Dibrot) are merely suggestions?
I am the Lord, thy God. Thou shalt have none other before me.
That's what it says. They don't believe in hell or Satan as far as I know, but there are probably plenty of different ways to be "damned."
Also: Christians get the laughable religion award of the day for not being smart enough to handle the other 603 commandments.
|
Those are commandments for the children of Israel, not for the entirety of mankind.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stilgar
See, Moses was a capper.
That I get.
But what mod was Jesus playing?
Sure wasn't base.
|
I think I am gonna make this a shirt...
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Wait, you are in the army? Do your commandments have an off switch when going to kill some ragheads?
You explain your faith/religion/values/opinions in such detail that it is obvious you are attention whoring every religion thread.
You probably read your posts out loud getting off thinking Jesus will give you pats on the back for being such a good little christian
|
|
|
Veteran++
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrakiller
Wait, you are in the army? Do your commandments have an off switch when going to kill some ragheads?
You explain your faith/religion/values/opinions in such detail that it is obvious you are attention whoring every religion thread.
You probably read your posts out loud getting off thinking Jesus will give you pats on the back for being such a good little christian
|
I justify my occupation by citing the parable of the Centurion's slave. Jesus healed the Centurion's slave and was surprised by how much faith the Centurion had in him and God.
He did not mention anything of the Centurion's occupation.
Some Centurions were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." This is from Luke btw.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
How convenient for you.
You follow Jesus teachings, do you believe he would join an army and be able to kill someone?
|
|
|
Veteran++
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrakiller
How convenient for you.
You follow Jesus teachings, do you believe he would join an army and be able to kill someone?
|
His mission in this life was not to command and army and kill, even though that was his right.
Unfortantely, because of my sins I am unable to follow Christ's teachings to the letter, but with forgiveness from the Lord and the Holy Spirit guiding me, I believe that he will guide my life as he sees fit for whom am I to question him?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
There will always be some loophole in some parable or story, so that self-righteous christians can skip the most simple of commandments.
Pulling the "I am a sinner" defense, way to dodge.
|
|
|
Veteran++
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrakiller
There will always be some loophole in some parable or story, so that self-righteous christians can skip the most simple of commandments.
Pulling the "I am a sinner" defense, way to dodge.
|
I do not mean this as a jibe, but if you could cite an example of a parable having some sort of loophole, i would want to know so I can ask the question to someone more informed then I for the answer.
Also I am not self righteous. I am righteous in Christ because only through him can I truly be righteous.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Sipher, how do you apologize for the discrepancy in the two creation stories? Specifically, what is your response to the conflicted chronology between the creation of man and the creation of animals in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis?
Or do you acknowledge that there are, in fact, two independent creation stories being told by two different people that were joined together by a redactor?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
His claims about what the actual Hebrew text says are wrong. Not only is the author an amateur apologist, but he's a liar as well.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Sipher - *AAAACHhoooooo*
Dooby - "When you die, nothing happens."
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharnal
Sipher - *AAAACHhoooooo*
Dooby - "When you die, nothing happens."
|
gay hay!
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby
The two of you seem to be making two different points.
LGBR seems to be saying that there is zero historical evidence that any of Jesus's miracles occurred, thus leading to a conclusion that if there was a Jesus, it certainly wasn't the Jesus portrayed in the synoptic gospels.
ZOD seems to be saying that evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus falls short of be convincing.
The former is absolutely correct, while the latter is naive. Given that what we understand about the conditions in which Jesus would have lived, and the manner in which he died, it is unlikely that there would be any historical evidence at all. But we have Roman and Jewish historians writing about him less than a 100 years after his death, and that's not to mention he's being written about in religious canon almost immediately after his death. This evidence is plenty sufficient for historians, which is why you won't find a historian, not even one from a secular school, that outright claims that the historicity of Jesus is questionable. Even Doherty -- one of the more well known folks that generally supports the Jesus myth hypothesis -- doesn't outright make such a positive claim. Robert Price also generally supports the hypothesis, but from a different perspective: he suggests that the doctrine has deviated so far away from what would have been the life of Jesus that it's no longer intellectually honest to claim that the doctrine is talking about the same Jesus that physically existed in history ... but note that he doesn't say that no such person ever existed. Why? Because relative to contextual evidence of other historical figures, that's a dumb thing to say; that's why.
|
After the fact is not good enough especially when you take into account the meticulous record keep of the Romans during the same period. Sorry, written text after the fact is not sufficient for me. So I say it is a fabrication until it is otherwise proven to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOD
After the fact is not good enough especially when you take into account the meticulous record keep of the Romans during the same period. Sorry, written text after the fact is not sufficient for me. So I say it is a fabrication until it is otherwise proven to my satisfaction.
|
Pray tell, what do you actually know about Roman record keeping?
And as I mentioned in another thread, the only written accounts of Alexander the Great that we have come over a hundred years after his death ... and those accounts only exist because some guy 400 years after his death decided to copy that. In other words, we only actually have text that can be dated to 400 years after his death. So by logical extension of contextual evidence, you must necessarily be of the opinion that Alexander the Great did not exist, right?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
And I would imagine that the same holds true for Socrates, right?
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09.
|