God's voice

[Not3in1]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 14 2009,20:55)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 06 2009,13:29) ONE BOOK, MANY FAITHS. Your words are not Christ's words are they? Christ said his sheep would hear him and not follow another. You are free to follow Christ or not. If you follow him, it will show in that you agree with him.

I agree; however his sheep appear to hear many differing things…..thus, many “faiths”. It's a bit confusing.

[Not3in1]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 14 2009,20:53)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 06 2009,13:28) What is false doctrine? Doctrine that contradicts the doctrine of Christ is false doctrine. Christ is the truth, and contradictory ways are not the truth. Of course we free to believe in Christ, and we are free not to. But if you say you believe, then pointing out false doctrine is a must, lest it take hold in other people and leads them astray. If you don't follow Christ, then it doesn't matter at that point because you are not teaching in his name anyway and you can say what you like.

Many teacher's teach in Jesus' name – claiming to follow his gospel… The last witness dude is just one in scads.

Sorry, but one's persons truth here, is another man's false gospel.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 14 2009,20:31)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 14 2009,17:57) When I post on the subject of the lunacy and misery of christian belief, you must believe that I am just honouring your god. Stuart For someone who doesn't believe in God (and splits his belief either that nothing created everything or the universe has always existed in some form), you seem to want to talk a lot about this God. Surely it makes me wonder why you are so compelled to talk about something you believe doesn't exist. Are you feeling threatened by the masses of people that believe in God. What exactly is it that makes you want to talk and argue about something you do not believe exists. And why do you even bother?

There is indeed a threat to everyone when people believe silly things on faith and without a scrap of evidence for them.

That is why it is important to talk about things that don't exist: people should be confronted with the absurdity of christianity and other religious fantasy stories, especially when it is used so often to make life miserable for others.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 14 2009,20:42)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2009,05:40) Quote (theodorej @ Mar. 07 2009,05:11) ……Murder is the willfull,vengefull,premeditated,malicious taking of life… As perpetrated by god, to take one example, when 'he' flooded the earth? Stuart Stu, God has the right to create life and to destroy it. He is God, you are not. You didn't create life so you have no right to destroy it either. If you built a house with your own hands and money, then you have the right to destroy it. You do not have the right to destroy your next door neighbour's house. That would be illegal, just as killing someone is illegal.

You are spineless in the face of the second biggest killer of humans of all time. Is your god, in modern times, a jealous god because Stalin was a bit more efficient at sending people to their deaths?

Christianity has misery piled on misery for humans. Of course none of the mythology is actually true, but what a shame that so many have to live under such a brutal delusion.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2009,16:37)

Hi WIT Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) WorshippingJesus, You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) I see, so it’s going to be a pick and choose post. Maybe it’s just me WIT, but it seems to me that your words “dead horse” applied to my thoughtful and time spent post is a little patronizing and condescending. No, that's not the case at all. From my post on page 20: Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 06 2009,10:02) OK.  That horse has been thoroughly beaten. My original reference to “beating a dead horse” was in reference to my own post.  I had said and re-said the same thing a number of times, and I didn't want to keep doing so.  Whenever I refer to “dead horse territory”, I am essentially saying that I would have to repeat my own arguments to address yours. However, if you believe that I am short-changing anything, please let me know.  I don't dodge on purpose, but I also don't want to waste your time by retreading the same arguments. Ok, Thanks for clearing that up. Since my answers to you will only be more of the same I am not going to beat a dead horse either. It’s obvious we will not agree so it would be a waste of time to continue. But I will answer your question. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 07 2009,03:26) This is a perfect illustration of the final point in my last post.  Let's look at that Abraham example. If a man/angel were to approach me and tell me that he was an angel of the Lord, and that the Lord wanted me to drag my two sons out into the forest and kill them, I would tell that man/angel to “go screw”, and that if the Lord wanted my sons dead, He would have to do it Himself.  Why?  Because killing my own sons, with my own hands, is beyond evil.  It is sick, demented, and dark beyond all imagination.  I would not think twice about whether or not God wanted me to do it, because if that's what God requires of His worshippers, then I can not follow God. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) Ok, so now we know your position on absolute surrender to the Living God. Don’t get me wrong but what faith are you of? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 07 2009,03:26) WWYD?  (What would you do?) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) I would hope that I would have the faith of Abraham. You see God had already spoken to Abraham and given him a promise… And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:5, 6 You see Abraham believed God and knew that even if he was to carry out the Lord’s command and “kill” his son that his God was big enough and powerful enough to not only protect his son from any pain or suffering but also could even raise his son from the dead. This is a perfect picture of the Father giving up his only unique son as a living sacrifice. If you claim to know Jesus and are saved then welcome to the world of the New Covenant, Christianity, because the truth of the scriptures is God gave his only son on the cross as the “sacrificial Lamb of God”, and his blood was spilled out for our salvation. You may not like these terms, but you are part of a blood religion, for “WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS”. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You missed my point entirely.  I did not ask you to put yourself in Abraham's shoes, or to explain Abraham's motives to me.  I asked you to respond to a very specific scenario. But you did ask me to look at Abrahams example, you said… Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 07 2009,03:26) This is a perfect illustration of the final point in my last post.  Let's look at that Abraham example. Then instead of looking at Abraham’s example of total abandonment to the Lord, you started ranting about how you would directly rebel against a direct command from the Lord and arrogantly telling the Lord he can do it himself. Maybe it’s because you do not believe God told Abraham to do it or maybe you are just being defiant, I don’t know, which is it? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) There's no promise of a great nation to come, or anything else.  Use your own history with God, and respond to the question: What would you do if an angel of God asked you to kill your children?  Would you kill your children?  (Hint: There are only two answers – yes or no.) My response addresses that very specific scenario.  If you ignore that, then you will continue to miss the point. I have answered the question, but apparently that is not good enough for you. Who says it has to be a yes or no answer? Were you there? You are asking me to give a yes or no answer to a hypothetical situation without any extenuating circumstances like those that surrounded Abraham. I can not tell you how I would react or wha t I would do if I had the experience that Abraham had. But I can tell you I wouldn’t take your attitude about it. How about the Apostle Paul who was persecuting Jesus by taking part in the torture and killing of the saints when Jesus came to him on the road to Damascus, and blinded him for three days and then totally turned him in the opposite direction. Can you absolutely say what you would do if the Lord for instance appeared to you like he appeared to Isaiah when Isaiah said “Woe is me I am a man of unclean lips”? Isa ch 6. Do you presume that you can stand in such glory and defy him as you say you would? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) Is this a game? What does “religion” and having a living relationship with God by faith have to do with each other? No.  This is no game.  The quote that I have referenced twice now has nothing to do with a religion vs “living relationship with God by faith” debate.  It is entirely about religion/belief/faith/”living relationship with God by faith” as a mechanism for good people to do bad things when they let religion/belief/faith/etc. convince them that they are doing something right which would otherwise be clearly wrong. This only becomes a game if you want to turn this into a debate about religion vs “living relationship with God by faith”.  That's not the point at all.  It's an unecessary tangent. But you ignore my point, that there are acts of evil that are committed in the name of God that are not of “True Faith”. Devils have faith and believe in God but that is not the same thing as a man acting out of “True Faith” or a direct mandate from YHWH, and not some presumption, but an absolute faith that is tied to a relationship with the living God. Do you believe there is such a thing WIT? A faith that goes beyond your reason and one that knows without a doubt the living God has spoken? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) So God chose men to write under the inspiration of his hand knowing that man would filter his truth through their limited minds and then call the scriptures inspired when in fact they are corrupted? This is circular.  Who said that God intended for men to learn of his character through scripture?  The bible?  Circular. And how is it circular, can you tell me “one thing’ that you know about the character of God that you did not get from or is not found in the Bible? I have asked this question and you haven’t answered it. Until you can give me another means by which we know his character then your point is a fallacy. If you say the Spirit, well we have seen how that works and saying that the Spirit showed you this or that does not invalidate the scriptures because the scriptures claim inspiration. So again this becomes a faith issue. You can choose to believe them or you can choose not to believe. So here is another question, what has the “Spirit” shown you personally about God’s character that is contrary to scriptures?   Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) What if God intended for people to discover Him through ALL of the tools available to them in their time?  Up until the 15th century, only a select few people were able to even read scripture.  Do you really think that God waited that long to make the primary way of getting to know Him avaliable to the masses? Where do you get your information from? There were literally thousands of manuscripts available by the 2nd century. The then known Greek and Roman world were very educated and the disciples through the Spirit and both their own writings and the writings of the OT turned the then known world upside down! What do you know about God and his character from these “tools” or the “masses” that you speak of, that are not found in the scriptures? I find it interesting that you would mention “tools” and reject the greatest tool of all, The Bible. Of course you have said with your own words that you do not know if the God of the Bible is your God, so I guess I have my answer. Remember, the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if the things the Apostles taught were true, not to see if they were false, and we know they were more noble. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) So then you do not agree with Jesus, the Apostles and the church fathers who spoke of the scriptures, quoted them and considered them inspired? Maybe you can give us some evidence that the eye witnesses or the church Fathers ever held your attitude about the scriptures. Maybe there is a church Father somewhere that claimed the Holy Scriptures as being corrupted. Call it a dead horse if you like, but you are in the wrong camp. Jesus didn't write scripture, and it's not entirely clear that any of the original 12 did either.  Most of the bible comes to us from second hand sources. To this day, there are disputes between the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions as to what is inspired and what is not.  Furthermore, in the NT itself, there are references to books as scripture that no one in the mainstream of any denomination accepts – namely the book of Enoch. You will not find a church father who lists all the books of the bible “correctly” until the third century.  Even then, it wasn't “officially settled” until the 16th century. The illusion that the question of biblical inspiration was settled early on is completely false. This is a diversion WIT, the discussion is primarily about the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the acts of God found in the Torah. (Although there are plenty of his horrendous judgments in the NT) The Hebrew Canon was settled long before the first century. Around two hundred years before Christ some 70 scholars translated the Torah into Greek, and it was available to Jesus and the Apostles. There will always be arguments about what should have been part of the NT Canon. 100s of scholars long before the 16th century translated from thousands of copies (as I have shown earlier in this thread) of the NT and in fact around 300 AD the Latin Vulgate which contained all 27 books of the NT was available. Unless you are a Hebrew or Greek scholar and have some kind of proof that the sc riptures we have are a fraud then your argument is empty. This is why it is futile and fruitless to continue dialogue on a Biblical sight with “unbelievers” in the authenticity of the scriptures. For it is too convenient that when the scripture doesn’t agree with them then they can scream corrupt or as you have done here to question whether they should even be there. That is weak at best. Why don’t you just answer the question? Do you know of any statement by Jesus or the Apostles or Church Fathers that speak of the scriptures that we have as being corrupt or takes your negative view of them? If you do, then please present your evidence, or else your argument is a red herring. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) This truly is sad that you can say that Jesus horrendous suffering by crucifixion was no sacrifice. I think you owe God an apology. Jesus suffered at the hands of evil men for no wrong by horrible beatings and then hung on the tree for 6 hours for you and your children. And you have the nerve as a believer to say that there was no sacrifice? Have you forgotten he was the sacrificial Lamb that was sent into the world by the Father for that purpose? Truly, am I talking to a believer here? The word “sacrifice” is a loaded term, and I should not have used it to make my point.  I apologize to anyone I offended by using the term loosely. So do you admit then that Jesus is the “Sacrificial Lamb” that was slain, spoken of in Revelation? For a Muslim that would be considered a human sacrifice. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) The original question was about using logic as a defense against a muslim's accusation that God cruelly sacrificed His son. From that perspective, I stand by my point that the imaginary muslim's accusation makes no sense, (i.e. is not logical).  Why doesn’t it if you tell him that God gave his unique Son to die for his sins? To that Muslim again that would be a human sacrifice. The plan of salvation was not that Jesus would die – end of story. The plan was that he would conquer death, and rule God's kingdom.  If the story ended at the cross, then the muslim would have a point.  In fact, it is in the Koran, not the bible, where Jesus dies in vain.  In the bible, God ultimately makes His son ruler of all. Without his death there is no salvation or resurrection for him or for us. Do you believe Jesus own words when he says… For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. Matt 10:45 Jesus came into the world for this purpose. Of course it doesn’t end there for he conquered death as you say, but it seems to me you are diminishing his death simply because of his resurrection. It seems that you are arguing that Jesus was not a human sacrifice, or that his suffering is lessened because of the resurrection. What is a “ransom” to you? It is the price that God paid by giving up his only Son to die in our stead. It is the Blood of Jesus that is the focus of salvation, and without it there is no hope. Just as without the resurrection there would be no hope. All the rest is simply a bonus. The Muslim has a point, in that our faith is based on the shedding of human blood and in fact the eating and drinking of his body and his blood. Again, “In fact, we can say that according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified by sprinkling with blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. ” Heb 9:22, And… “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you“. John 6:53 The Muslim would have a point. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) No he died! Then he was raised from the dead. WWYD, if that was your daughter or son and someone said “they just went through a lot of pain but ultimately they didn’t die?”. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) If my son was slated to become king of kings and be glorified for all eternity, I don't think I would quibble with anyone about whether or not he actually died. Though the process would be hard to watch, I think that I would be a pretty proud dad in the end. So what are you saying? Are you saying if you knew that your son would be glorified as King of Kings forever that you would not fight to the bitter end for your sons life? How is that any different than Abraham not fighting for his sons life but instead believing that God was powerful enough to protect his son and fulfill his promise to make his son a father of nations and that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed, no matter what God asked of him? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) So where he ended up is supposed to diminish the tremendous sacrifice that the Father and Jesus paid? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) No, it puts the sacrifice in perspective. You wrote: WorshippingJesus,Mar. wrote: This is very weak. Like many others when you do not have a response just throw a Trinity stone. We are not even talking about the Trinity. What does Jesus sacrifice have to do with your statement? It makes no sense. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) No, I was not trying to throw a Trinity stone.  I was simply trying to make a point using your own frame of reference.  Allow me to restate the point this way: If God had fully sacrificed His son, they would be permanently separated, and Christians would weep at the very mention of what Jesus did for them, (i.e. permanently remove himself from God's presence on their behalf). Or, to put it yet another way: If I told you that you had to sacrifice your son for the good of mankind, would you expect to hang out with your son three days later? Why do I feel like I am in a Sunday school class going over the first principles of the oracles of God? If Jesus sacrifice was not a “full sacrifice” then you would still be dead in your sins. Why did Jesus say “It is finished”? Paul the Apostle preached Jesus Christ and him crucified? The Gospel is not just about his resurrection but about his crucifixion. The sacrifice didn’t have to be a “permanent separation” for it was once for all… Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: “BUT THIS MAN, AFTER HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER”, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. “FOR BY ONE OFFERING HE HATH PERFECTED FOR EVER THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED”. Heb 10:9-14 Jesus was the complete and perfect sacrifice once and for all forever. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) You wrote: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2009,15:38) In my opinion you have made one of the sickest and biggest insults I have ever heard against Jesus by diminishing the eternal price he paid for all believers to be saved. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) I think that's what you intended to threaten me with by quoting Luke 18:8. No threat. Does it bother you when I quote a scripture? I noticed that you have failed to quote or mention a single scripture in all of your post. The only thing you have quoted has been a philosophical quote from Steven Weinberg condemning religion. His quote is not accurate for there are none that are good, not one, Jesus said so. And again, he also said… I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, “SHALL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH?” Luke 18:8 I think all believers including myself needs more faith, don’t you? But then again, you haven’t told us of what faith you are of, another question you didn’t answer. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) What eternal price is Jesus paying?   You misunderstood me. He paid the price that is “Eternal”. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) To continue from the scenario above, if your son showed up on your doorstep after he had been sacrificed, would you continue to mourn his “loss”? Of course not, but then I would not say to him, “That wasn’t so bad was it”? Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 10 2009,06:52) As for which one of us is sick, I await your answer to the question, “Would you kill your kids if an angel of God asked you to do so?” I have given you my answer now maybe you can answer a few of my questions. WJ

Could you not have made this post a little longer?

Stuart

[Lightenup]

Thanks Keith for you very long and thorough post…you are a die hard.

Thanks t8 for your defense of one faith.

Blessings,
Kathi

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,02:48)

Thanks Keith for you very long and thorough post…you are a die hard. Thanks t8 for your defense of one faith. Blessings, Kathi

Hi Kathi,

Do you share t8's belief system completely? Do you and him share “one faith”?

Thanks,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 16 2009,16:38)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,02:48) Thanks Keith for you very long and thorough post…you are a die hard. Thanks t8 for your defense of one faith. Blessings, Kathi Hi Kathi, Do you share t8's belief system completely?  Do you and him share “one faith”? Thanks, Mandy

Mandy,
As far as I can tell we both are on the same general page and reading the same book. I don't believe we have ever challenged each other's main beliefs. Maybe t8 sees it differently. I wouldn't have come here in the first place if I didn't agree with him on the major issues. I came here because I was glad to be likeminded with the foundation of heaven.net.

I would be very happy to have him as the teaboy (I hope that you get that-it's a joke about what he told Stu, it still makes me grin).
Kathi

[WhatIsTrue]

WorshippingJesus,

As I read through our exchange, I often get the feeling that we are speaking two completely different languages – perhaps because you are speaking the language of faith and I, for the moment, the language of reason.  Occasionally the two overlap, but clearly not enough for us to come to the same conclusions.

In any case, I appreciate your attempt to respond to my questions.  I will attempt to respond to yours while further clarifying a couple of points.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

Then instead of looking at Abraham’s example of total abandonment to the Lord, you started ranting about how you would directly rebel against a direct command from the Lord and arrogantly telling the Lord he can do it himself. Maybe it’s because you do not believe God told Abraham to do it or maybe you are just being defiant, I don’t know, which is it?

It's a little presumptuous of you to tell me what I meant by my own question, and to call my answer an unrelated “rant”.  I used Abraham as a reference point, but then I specfically detailed my own scenario.  I am sorry if that confused you, but I can pretty much assure that I meant for you and I both to address the specific scenario that I described.

So, to answer your question, I didn't delve into the Abraham story, because it was only a reference point, (i.e. that God could ask someone to kill a relative), not the focus of my question.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

I have answered the question, but apparently that is not good enough for you. Who says it has to be a yes or no answer? Were you there? You are asking me to give a yes or no answer to a hypothetical situation without any extenuating circumstances like those that surrounded Abraham. I can not tell you how I would react or what I would do if I had the experience that Abraham had. But I can tell you I wouldn’t take your attitude about it.

Again, you have missed the point.  I very clearly wrote (and you quoted):

Quote

Use your own history with God, and respond to the question: What would you do if an angel of God asked you to kill your children?

I also clearly wrote:

Quote

My response addresses that very specific scenario.  If you ignore that, then you will continue to miss the point.

Try answering the question again.  (Hint: Leave Abraham out of it!)

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

Can you absolutely say what you would do if the Lord for instance appeared to you like he appeared to Isaiah when Isaiah said “Woe is me I am a man of unclean lips”? Isa ch 6. Do you presume that you can stand in such glory and defy him as you say you would?

Again, read the actual question that I asked.  I specifically said that an “angel of God” delivered the request, because I wanted to eliminate the whole “being in the presence of God” issue.

Try answering the actual question that I am asking, as opposed to some convenient strawman version.

But, to answer your question, I have no idea what I would do in the unbridled presence of God.  Fortunately, I don't have to know in order answer the question that I was asking.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

But you ignore my point, that there are acts of evil that are committed in the name of God that are not of “True Faith”. Devils have faith and believe in God but that is not the same thing as a man acting out of “True Faith” or a direct mandate from YHWH, and not some presumption, but an absolute faith that is tied to a relationship with the living God. Do you believe there is such a thing WIT? A faith that goes beyond your reason and one that knows without a doubt the living God has spoken?

I don't think that I am ignoring your point as much as I am discounting it.

Essentially, you are saying that anyone acting on “true faith” can not be doing evil.  Therefore, if someone does evil, they simply weren't acting on “true faith”.  It's a circular definition that can't be disproven the way you have framed it.

But, are you really prepared to say that all those who participated in the Inquisition, religious wars, and witch hunts were not doing so as a result of their faith?  Do you really think that they were all secret devil worshippers who wanted to wreak havoc on their neighbors for the sheer joy of it?

Personally, I think it's fair to assume that there were many well intentioned people acting on their faith who had people tortured and/or killed.  Do you disagree?

That, to me, is the essence of faith, untempered by reason, giving birth to evils that would not otherwise have happened.

Is there such a thing as “true faith”?  I say, “yes”.  But, I do not think that true faith requires a rejection of reason.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

And how is it circular, can you tell me “one thing’ that you know about the character of God that you did not get from or is not found in the Bible? I have asked this question and you haven’t answered it. Until you can give me another means by which we know his character then your point is a fallacy. If you say the Spirit, well we have seen how that works and saying that the Spirit showed you this or that does not invalidate the scriptures because the scriptures claim inspiration. So again this becomes a faith issue. You can choose to believe them or you can choose not to believe. So here is another question, what has the “Spirit” shown you personally about God’s character that is contrary to scriptures?

I am not sure how I missed this question before, but I assure you that it was not intentional, as this is actually a very easy question to answer.

Here's my one thing: slavery is wrong!

And, here's how I know it: reason!

I know that God does not condone slavery, and does not look kindly on those who enslave men, women, and children, forcing them into manual labor.  Do you disagree?

How do I know that God does not condone slavery?  Well, if you look at the historical movements to undermine slavery, many of them were based on religious convictions.  Furthermore, there isn't a single major religious figure in modern times who condones slavery.  Reason tells me that treating another human being like property is wrong, and my conscience and spirit agree.

But, if you rely on scripture alone, you first find that chattel slavery was eshrined in the Law, as recorded in sctipture, and nothing in the NT speaks ill of it.  On the contrary, in Colossians 3:18-22, Paul casua
lly includes slavery as part of a normal Christian household.  You could try to say that the “golden rule” nullifies slavery, but the “golden rule” is just a modified version of Leviticus 19:18, (i.e. it was already in the Law), and certainly was not intended to cancel out the laws regarding slavery, (Leviticus 25:44-46).

No, slavery has become far less prominent in modern day societies because men and women have become more reasonable about how to treat each other.  If scripture had definitively compelled Christians not to own slaves, the brutal slavery practiced in the U.S. never would have taken place.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

Where do you get your information from? There were literally thousands of manuscripts available by the 2nd century.

Available manuscripts?!?!  There were also many available copies of the Gospel of Thomas.  That doesn't mean its “God's word”!

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

The then known Greek and Roman world were very educated and the disciples through the Spirit and both their own writings and the writings of the OT turned the then known world upside down! What do you know about God and his character from these “tools” or the “masses” that you speak of, that are not found in the scriptures? I find it interesting that you would mention “tools” and reject the greatest tool of all, The Bible. Of course you have said with your own words that you do not know if the God of the Bible is your God, so I guess I have my answer. Remember, the Bereans “searched the scriptures” to see if the things the Apostles taught were true, not to see if they were false, and we know they were more noble.

Again, most people could not read up until the more recent centuries.  Most people had to trust other men to read and interpret scripture for them.  They could not go home and study it for themselves.  If that's the best way to get to know God, then, at best, He was only available by proxy for most people for the last 2000+ years.

See above for the answer to your question.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

This is a diversion WIT, the discussion is primarily about the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the acts of God found in the Torah. (Although there are plenty of his horrendous judgments in the NT) The Hebrew Canon was settled long before the first century. Around two hundred years before Christ some 70 scholars translated the Torah into Greek, and it was available to Jesus and the Apostles. There will always be arguments about what should have been part of the NT Canon. 100s of scholars long before the 16th century translated from thousands of copies (as I have shown earlier in this thread) of the NT and in fact around 300 AD the Latin Vulgate which contained all 27 books of the NT was available. Unless you are a Hebrew or Greek scholar and have some kind of proof that the scriptures we have are a fraud then your argument is empty. This is why it is futile and fruitless to continue dialogue on a Biblical sight with “unbelievers” in the authenticity of the scriptures. For it is too convenient that when the scripture doesn’t agree with them then they can scream corrupt or as you have done here to question whether they should even be there. That is weak at best. Why don’t you just answer the question? Do you know of any statement by Jesus or the Apostles or Church Fathers that speak of the scriptures that we have as being corrupt or takes your negative view of them? If you do, then please present your evidence, or else your argument is a red herring.

Matthew 5:38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth [Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21].’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.“

Look closely.  Jesus quotes the law, and then says not to do it.  Why would he do that if the original was correct, (i.e. authored by God)?

Matthew 19:7-9
“They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?[Deuteronomy 24:1-4]'  He said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.'“

In the above passage, both the disciples and Jesus refer to the commandments as commandments of Moses, and, on that basis, Jesus overturns a compromise that Moses allowed.  How many other compromises are recorded in scripture that aren't clearly marked as compromises?

But it get's worse.  The following is how Moses describes the very same commandments to which Jesus is referring.

Deuteronomy 11:27 (reads in part):
“…listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today.”

So can we read any scripture, including the commandments of God, and know for sure that we are not reading a compromise?  If you read Deuteronomy 24:1-4, you certainly wouldn't get the impression that you were reading a compromise.  So how do I know for sure which parts of the bible are compromised and which aren't?  Does the NT spell out all the compromises in the OT?  How do you know?  What about compromises in the NT?  Was Paul's admonition that women should remain silent in church, and should not be permitted to have any authority over any man, (1 Timothy 12:11-12), a compromise for the culture of that day?  (Do you allow women to speak in your church?)

The next section deals with the tangent on Christianity and human sacrifice.  It should probably go in a different thread, but I will respond to it here once more – primarily answering the questions you posed.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

So do you admit then that Jesus is the “Sacrificial Lamb” that was slain, spoken of in Revelation? For a Muslim that would be considered a human sacrifice.

Yes and yes.  I think that I corrected the issue of whether or not Jesus was sacrificed.  I did not mean to imply that he wasn't, at any point.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

It seems that you are arguing that Jesus was not a human sacrifice, or that his suffering is lessened because of the resurrection. What is a “ransom” to you? It is the price that God paid by giving up his only Son to die in our stead.

Again, I did not mean to imply that Jesus was not sacrificed.

I also agree that Jesus paid a ransom.

Here's my question: What punishment awaits someone who is found guilty in God's court?  Did Jesus pay that very same penalty?

If not, I contend that he did not pay the full price, (i.e. the full ransom), for those whose place he is supposed to be taking.

For
example, if a convicted murderer is sentenced to 25 years in prison, if I am to take his place, (i.e. bear his punishment), I must spend 25 years in prison.  If I go to prison for a week and then go back to my normal life, I haven't completely fulfilled the proscribed punishment.  Someone still needs to complete the terms of the punishment, whether it be me or him.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

The Muslim has a point, in that our faith is based on the shedding of human blood and in fact the eating and drinking of his body and his blood.

At this point, I think that I will stop trying to speak for this imaginary muslim.  I am sure that you are right that a muslim would find Christian doctrine vulgar.  Given the imagery, I am not sure that I would blame him.

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

So what are you saying? Are you saying if you knew that your son would be glorified as King of Kings forever that you would not fight to the bitter end for your sons life? How is that any different than Abraham not fighting for his sons life but instead believing that God was powerful enough to protect his son and fulfill his promise to make his son a father of nations and that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed, no matter what God asked of him?

What would be the point of fighting God?  I would certainly refuse to participate in the execution of my own child, but my guess is that it would be pretty fruitless for me to try to stop God from killing my son.  Don't you?

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

Why do I feel like I am in a Sunday school class going over the first principles of the oracles of God? If Jesus sacrifice was not a “full sacrifice” then you would still be dead in your sins. Why did Jesus say “It is finished”? Paul the Apostle preached Jesus Christ and him crucified? The Gospel is not just about his resurrection but about his crucifixion. The sacrifice didn’t have to be a “permanent separation” for it was once for all… Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will WE ARE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: “BUT THIS MAN, AFTER HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER”, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. “FOR BY ONE OFFERING HE HATH PERFECTED FOR EVER THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED”. Heb 10:9-14 Jesus was the complete and perfect sacrifice once and for all forever.

Let's be a little “Berean” here.  Show me, from the OT, how Jesus's one time sacrifice fulfills the entire sacrificial system.

Now, if you are prepared to admit that there is no provision in the law for a “perfect sacrifice” to fulfill all the required sacrifices for all time, then perhaps we can get back to the original issue which is:

What punishment awaits someone who is found guilty in God's court?  Did Jesus pay that very same penalty as a substitute for the guilty?

(Incidentally, if the punishment is simply death, then we all pay that penalty ourselves at the end of our lives, since we all die.)

WorshippingJesus wrote:

Quote

No threat. Does it bother you when I quote a scripture? I noticed that you have failed to quote or mention a single scripture in all of your post. The only thing you have quoted has been a philosophical quote from Steven Weinberg condemning religion. His quote is not accurate for there are none that are good, not one, Jesus said so. And again, he also said… I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, “SHALL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH?” Luke 18:8 I think all believers including myself needs more faith, don’t you? But then again, you haven’t told us of what faith you are of, another question you didn’t answer.

No, it doesn't bother me when you quote scripture.  It just seems silly to quote scripture when the scripture itself is the subject of debate.  However, I have included some scriptures references in this post since you seem to require them in order to have a complete debate.

I am not sure if all believers need more faith.  I think some simply need to apply a little more reason.  Isn't that essentially what you come to this forum to do?  To reason with other believers so they might have a more sound faith?  Or do you simply tell them to believe whatever they believe more deeply?

In any case, my faith right now is an open question.  Debates like this one are helping me to figure it all out.  So, thanks for your contribution.

[TimothyVI]

What is true,
A very lucid and well thought out reply.

Tim

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi WIT

Just thought I would drop a line to let you know I have not forgotten our conversation.

After your last post I had to step back and take a deep breath. One reason is that you have missrepresented me again, so I have questioned whether I should continue this debate. I will explain later.

I had already written quite a bit in response to you but felt for the sake of the truth and the readers that I would give it more prayerful consideration and some more time.

Hope you will understand.

Blessings WJ

PS Just so you know, the slavery issue is not the reason at all, for there is an easy answer to that. It is just seeking the Lord for clarity in my words and a well thought out post.

As Tim has said… “A very lucid and well thought out reply”.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,10:28)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 16 2009,16:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,02:48) Thanks Keith for you very long and thorough post…you are a die hard. Thanks t8 for your defense of one faith. Blessings, Kathi Hi Kathi, Do you share t8's belief system completely?  Do you and him share “one faith”? Thanks, Mandy Mandy, As far as I can tell we both are on the same general page and reading the same book.  I don't believe we have ever challenged each other's main beliefs.  Maybe t8 sees it differently.  I wouldn't have come here in the first place if I didn't agree with him on the major issues.  I came here because I was glad to be likeminded with the foundation of heaven.net. I would be very happy to have him as the teaboy (I hope that you get that-it's a joke about what he told Stu, it still makes me grin). Kathi

Hi LU.

Thanks for this post. I can't say that I have ever had a major or even minor difference with you, but I do admit to not reading every single post on Heaven Net.

Derek Prince once said, that Christians have tended to argue over the variables and ignore the absolutes.

I think one of the differences here is the fostering of what the absolutes are, and a recognition that differences in variables are okay.

Of course not all adhere to things in this way, but it is encouraged.

BTW, how many sugars do you want in your tea?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 16 2009,16:58)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 14 2009,20:53) Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 06 2009,13:28) What is false doctrine? Doctrine that contradicts the doctrine of Christ is false doctrine. Christ is the truth, and contradictory ways are not the truth. Of course we free to believe in Christ, and we are free not to. But if you say you believe, then pointing out false doctrine is a must, lest it take hold in other people and leads them astray. If you don't follow Christ, then it doesn't matter at that point because you are not teaching in his name anyway and you can say what you like. Many teacher's teach in Jesus' name – claiming to follow his gospel…   The last witness dude is just one in scads. Sorry, but one's persons truth here, is another man's false gospel.

The gospel in scripture is the good news. So there are a number of things that are good news ans salvation and the kingdom have to be right up there. But doctrines that are not spoken of in scripture are therefore not good news, but false.

I think if you keep it simple, you cannot err.

Salvation, the Kingdom, Jesus is the messiah, the son, repentance, Jesus dying for our sin. Be baptized into Christ. If we stay with the foundation things, then all the false flash stuff won't be able to capture you. If you are willing to expose false doctrine, then yes you may need to go into some complex things, but such is not required of all of us.

Not all are teachers, therefore if one is not a teacher, he should hold onto that which is true, pure, lovely, and righteous.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (theodorej @ Mar. 09 2009,02:56)

Greetings Stu……That would come under the heading of judgement….which is the consequences of one actions… For example if you murder someone in the state of Florida and you are found guilty of muder in the first degree….your judgement will be….to be put to death…as a consequence of your willfull,premeditated,malicious taking of another human beings life….It really is pretty easy to understand that there is no malice in God….there is mercy and there is judgement…

Well done. A good answer.

[WhatIsTrue]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 07 2009,12:56)

Hi WIT Just thought I would drop a line to let you know I have not forgotten our conversation. After your last post I had to step back and take a deep breath. One reason is that you have missrepresented me again, so I have questioned whether I should continue this debate. I will explain later. I had already written quite a bit in response to you but felt for the sake of the truth and the readers that I would give it more prayerful consideration and some more time. Hope you will understand. Blessings WJ PS Just so you know, the slavery issue is not the reason at all, for there is an easy answer to that. It is just seeking the Lord for clarity in my words and a well thought out post. As Tim has said… “A very lucid and well thought out reply”.

I still check for your reply from time to time.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ April 07 2009,06:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,10:28) Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 16 2009,16:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 17 2009,02:48) Thanks Keith for you very long and thorough post…you are a die hard. Thanks t8 for your defense of one faith. Blessings, Kathi Hi Kathi, Do you share t8's belief system completely?  Do you and him share “one faith”? Thanks, Mandy Mandy, As far as I can tell we both are on the same general page and reading the same book.  I don't believe we have ever challenged each other's main beliefs.  Maybe t8 sees it differently.  I wouldn't have come here in the first place if I didn't agree with him on the major issues.  I came here because I was glad to be likeminded with the foundation of heaven.net. I would be very happy to have him as the teaboy (I hope that you get that-it's a joke about what he told Stu, it still makes me grin). Kathi Hi LU. Thanks for this post. I can't say that I have ever had a major or even minor difference with you, but I do admit to not reading every single post on Heaven Net. Derek Prince once said, that Christians have tended to argue over the variables and ignore the absolutes. I think one of the differences here is the fostering of what the absolutes are, and a recognition that differences in variables are okay. Of course not all adhere to things in this way, but it is encouraged. BTW, how many sugars do you want in your tea?

Hi t8,
I am glad to hear your view and that we agree on the absolutes.
BTW, I take no sugar on my self disciplined days and one when I think I have had too many self-disciplined days and two when I am really, really bad
LU

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 07 2009,22:14)

Quote (theodorej @ Mar. 09 2009,02:56) Greetings Stu……That would come under the heading of judgement….which is the consequences of one actions… For example if you murder someone in the state of Florida and you are found guilty of muder in the first degree….your judgement will be….to be put to death…as a consequence of your willfull,premeditated,malicious taking of another human beings life….It really is pretty easy to understand that there is no malice in God….there is mercy and there is judgement… Well done. A good answer.

Most of the Civil World has been trying to get the remaining Backward Nations to abandon the death penalty. It seems to be the most religious states that want to send people (in the case of the US mainly poor Afro-Americans) straight to their god for judgment, instead of working out how to make the world a better place by, for example, reduce their shocking gun homicide culture of fear.

What is good about theodorej's response? It is christian medieval brutality at its 'best'. t8, as you don't really care about what happens in 'this world' maybe you should leave the commentaries on social justice to others.

Stuart

[charity]

Judgment is not Justice.
when Judgment is place in the hands of acceptable murdering, the Lawless,the government without a Judge, so high not one could entertain the thought of the strength of a savor caring for the existing life
Where money is consumed on war crafts that are designed to destroy both counts of…
Inercent enemies, done by robbing their own Nation, claiming money in ever passing hand shack….Guvnor against guvnor two to their Judgment was over ruled, punishments is issued for the offense is laid on the troop.

gOD

[Stu]

The bad news is we have evolved to be highly competitive for resources, very often at the expense of other groups of humans. The good news is that despite that genetic disposition, there are intelligent and compassionate people with the skills to help us overcome the mostly trivial differences that divide us. It is those that are greedy and steal resources from others that cause wars these days: democracies don't suffer famines.

Of all the barriers we put up against one another, religious labeling seems to be the most intractable. Do fundamentalist christians have anything to offer in this regard? I can't see how they are anything other than part of the problem.

I guess that is using more words to say the same thing as charity.

Has anyone heard the voice of god on this issue? 'He', the prince of peace and one who is supposedly the arbiter of justice, is silent. Again.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Oh that is priceless Stu. Coming from a man who rants on about things he doesn't understand and tries to insult the faith and God. You are not exactly an exemplary earthing. You are waging a war against those who have faith in the true God. Is this the actions of the mastermind of world peace?

Jesus said, I will give you peace, not as the world gives it.

[Author]

Posts