The Gospel

by UnDisfellowshipped 143 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Farkel

    Shelby, my dearest friend:

    You said some nice things may happen to me later, but you really didn't address what I said.

    I think the whole notion of life and human experience is whimsical and not pretictable. There is no "plan" here: people get murdered, raped and screwed out-of-the-blue.

    On the otherhand (and as I've said to you) there are "no accidents: everything has a purpose."

    This confuses the heck out of me, because I'm a student in serious need of a teacher. I just don't want a teacher who thinks GOD speaks to them. Such people have caused more horror in human history than all the atheists put together.

    Yet, I'm not an atheist.

    I'm just Doug, with a big headache over all of this stuff. You can do nothing to help me, Shel. Your stuff is just as goofy (in my humble opinion) as all the stuff I've read over many decades.

    I guess I'll just vote for Larry Flint, then!


  • AGuest

    Perhaps you're right, that I did not address what you said. Well, not all of it. But, heck, what do I know? You are right: you are a serious student in need of a teacher... and I cannot teach you. But I don't think I've ever claimed that I could... teach you... or anyone else. That is not why I am here... and I think I HAVE said and addressed that:

    To tell you about the One who CAN teach you... who IS the true teacher... and HOW he teaches.

    That's all I can "bear witness" to, dear one. Other than that, I am merely a messenger. Because there are MANY "false" christs, dear Farkeled One... do NOT listen to me... for I can neither teach you... nor save you! I can only tell you about the One who can.

    May you have ears to hear... and get the sense of that, dear one... and to hear him... IF you truly wish to be taught.

    The greatest of love and peace to you!

    YOUR servant, friend... and a slave of Christ,


  • UnDisfellowshipped

    Abaddon said:

    *sigh* No, it doesn't matter what I mean by objective, or what you mean by objective. Objective has it's own meaning reagrdless of what use people might put it to. It's why we have dictionaries. In this sense Mirriam Webster defines objective as;

    expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    I apologize. I should have just gone with the dictionary's definition. My main point was that I was not sure what YOU meant by "objective", because other people on this Website have had some different ideas about that. I was trying to find out if you wanted me to only get my information from certain sources (like non-Christian Websites for example).

    By the way, that is a great definition of "objective".

    I always try my best to make sure the information I post is from objective, unbiased sources.

    Abaddon said:

    Is this the Christian way of discussing something? Accuse someone of disregarding evidence without even investigating it without any proof?

    I really want to apologize for that statement. The reason I said that is because I was recently on another JWD Thread where some Atheists said that they would not believe anything taken from a Christian Website because it was "too biased", and they requested that Christians post evidence and proof taken from non-Christian Websites only. I should never ever accuse anyone of being that way before I make sure.

    I truly am sorry for that I ask your forgiveness.

    I try to make sure that I never accuse anyone of being a certain way until I know for sure, and I also try to never use generalizations, such as "all Atheists act this way" or "all Christians act this way".

    Please do not take me as an example of how all Christians act. I am certain that there are many, many Christians who are living more holy lives than I am.

    Also, if I ever sound like I'm being rude or insulting anyone, please let me know, because I do not ever want to insult or hurt anyone.

    Abaddon said:

    (Quoting UnDisfellowshipped:) I would probably be at least a little suspicious of info taken from Atheist Websites. (End of Quote)
    I think you would be better of doing a little background research FIRST before making fatuous assumptions based upon source regarding the validity of evidence presented.

    I do not try to have any preconceptions when I look at evidence and proof. The only reason why I would probably be a little suspicious of Atheist Websites is because of some of the Atheist Sites I have seen in the past have contained falsehoods, but I am sure the same could be said about certain Christian Websites.

    Abaddon said:

    If you agree to look into the evidence that I provide without preconceptions (see the meaning of objective above), I assure you I will look at the evidence you provide.

    I like that idea, and I agree with it 100%. That sounds extremely fair.

    Abaddon said:

    I note that rather than deal with the specific points I raise regarding Biblical 'accuracy', you instead raise a question. This is a very old technique employed by people who can't deal with the points that have been raised, but have something 'up their sleeve' they believe to be impressive clinching evidence. In this instance, I hope you will address the issues regarding creation, the flood, Babel and 40 years in the wilderness with no camp sites later on; you seen to have achariot wheel up your sleeve though, so let's deal with that first;

    Basically, I was posting the "chariot wheels" statement as a sort of joke (not a very good one), and I should have added "lol" after it.

    Kind of like saying "But have you heard the one about the Rabbi?".

    I honestly have not done any research into the "chariot wheels", except that I had remembered seeing that WorldNetDaily article.

    I have not yet had enough free time to "deal" with the specific points you raised.

    It has taken me a few days to even have enough free time to make this reply.

    I've been working really late into the night (sometimes I don't even get home until 2 or 3 AM). So, if I do not respond for a while, please do not think that I am ignoring you, I am just extremely busy.

    Abaddon said:

    As regards sexual biology, the Bible essentially reccomends monogamy and isn against men sleeping with other men's women. If one looks at the biological adaptations of the human species, one find the following;
    Testicle size when compared to other primates indicates a natural sexual biology somewhere between the chimp and the gorilla; chimps have huge balls, as the females engages in vast gang-bangs when fertile, and the more sperm a male chimp has the more likely it will succeed in fertilising an egg. Gorillas have harems that they have exclusive sexual access to and have tiny balls. Human males have medium sized balls and thus would seem to have developed in a environment where there was some sperm competition between males as sexual access was not exclusive.
    This is backed-up by the fact that a man will ejaculate far more than usual when he has been away from his regular sexual partner for a fe days - even if he has had sex or masturbated since seeing her. This would serve to hopefully flush out any other males sperm. Some sperm are also apparently 'anti-sperm sperm', and ride defence against other male's sperm.
    All of these adaptations show that humans are adapted for a non-monogamous sexual environment. If we were created to be monogamous we would not have adaptations to protect us from non-monogamy. The Bible asks us to be mongamous. This is clear proof that whoever drafted the sexual mores in the Bible didn't know anything about human biology.
    In other words, rather than it being god's word, it's some cultures ideas that have been handed down to us disguised as god's word.

    I have not done any research at all into that subject, so I'm not going to comment much on it until I do research on it, except I'll make a couple of statements, which are my own opinions, based on the what I've read in the Bible.

    I don't think that would matter about whether or not the Bible is true. God could have, if He had wanted to, created human males with any size testicles He desired, and if it was His Law that men only have one wife, then that would be His Law no matter what size testicles a human male has.

    Also, there is absolutely no way of knowing Adam's testicle size (and he was the only human male who was perfect, except Jesus), so there's no way of knowing how God created Adam in regards to that.

    According to the Bible, humans inherited corrupted, sinful flesh after Adam sinned. So who knows about testicle sizes?

    Also, according to the Bible, yes, it was always God's purpose for human males to only have one wife. However, it was humans who originated polygamy. Then, under the Mosaic Law, God tolerated that sin, just like He tolerated other sins. When I say "tolerated", I mean He allowed it to happen without immediately punishing people for it.

    When Jesus Christ came to earth, He showed clearly that marriage is between one husband and one wife, and they will become one flesh.

    Abaddon said:

    Oh, but they are facts, I said;
    The Old Testament is, when viewed objectively, nothing more than a modarately bloodthirsty quasi-historical account of the history of the Jews, with the Christian God of love approving of violence, bloodshed, misogyny, ethnic cleansing, child murder, sexual slavery of minors, and is thus indistinguishable from the quasi-historical accounts of other races of people.
    Have you forgotten about god directing the invasion of what is modern day Israel, authorising the Israelites to wage war to gain land, ejecting or killing the indigenous people, which included at times even killing boy children and only keeping virgin girls alive to be made into slaves? If that happened as discribed in the Bible, then it happened with god's approval. If my tweleve year-old daughter can figure out unprompted what the likely fate of those girls was, I am sure you can. Rape, after having their entire families killed in front of them. Given this treament of females, if you really want to discuss further whether the Bible is misogynistic (there's so much in it in both Old and New Testaments), I'm happy to, but unless you really want to will assume that this is accepted.

    It is still your opinion that what God did was "bloodthirsty".

    It is also your own (false) opinion that God approved of "ethnic cleansing" -- according to the Old Testament, God ordered certain CITIES [not whole races] destroyed BECAUSE of their wicked and evil acts, NOT because of their race. The people inside the CITIES that were destroyed, were involved with either child-sacrifice, idol-worship, fornication, or other gross, evil sins.

    God, being the Creator of humans, can punish anyone He deems worthy of it with capital punishment, old or young, male or female.

    The Bible says God reads the minds and hearts, and He knows the entire past, present, and future of man's existence. So, there is no better judge than God Almighty.

    I have heard so many times the OPINION about those "virgin girls" being "raped". That is absolutely your OWN OPINION and nothing more than that. No where in the Bible does it say that they were raped, NOR does the Bible even say that they were taken as wives.

    I do agree that it is a possibility that some (or even all) of those virgin girls became wives of Israelites, however, the Bible does not even give details about whether or not that happened. But they certainly were not raped (at least not with the blessing of God).

    Also, you claimed that the Bible has so many different interpretations that there's no way to understand it, but then you claim that your 12-year-old child can understand it (and can even elaborate on what supposedly happened to people, even though the Bible does not say).

    RAPE was absolutely forbidden under the Mosaic Law with the DEATH PENALTY being punishment for it. If God and/or Moses were in favor of rape, then why would the Mosaic Law condemn rapists to death (at the mouth of ONE WITNESS -- the victim!)???

    Also, another part that you are overlooking, is VERY IMPORTANT! Twent-three thousand Israelites had just been DESTROYED by God BECAUSE they had sex with the Midianite women, and worshiped their gods.

    Notice, the New Testament shows this fact:

    1st Corinthians 10:8 (New King James Version): Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;

    So, God punished His people BECAUSE they had SEX with the Midianite women (and worshiped their gods), but then, God turns around and tells His people to take Midianite girls and rape them?????

    No where does the Bible say that.

    Man, I think you need to do some re-thinking on that theory.

    Numbers 31:15-18: Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Yahweh. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    Note: God told them to kill the women BECAUSE they had sex with His people and drew them into false worship!

    That is why only the virgin girls were saved, because they did not commit fornication with God’s people. The determining factor for deciding which girls or women "who have not known man by lying with him", was probably whoever was under a certain age, either that, or the Israelites recognized which women had had sex with the Israelites and which did not.

    At other times in other wars, God told the Israelites to take men and boys to be slaves, do you claim that the Israelites raped them too?

    You claim that the entire Bible is "misogynistic".

    I do not agree with that at all. Definition of "misogynistic": "Of or characterized by a hatred of women."

    Nope. I do not see "hatred of women" by God or by God's people. I do see hatred of women by certain wicked individuals in the Bible (the Pharisees are one example).

    I do see women not being treated equally the same as men, and that was what God ruled in the Garden of Eden.

    However, the Bible is clear that in God's eyes, men and women are EQUAL when it comes to being saved [Born Again]:

    Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Also, the Bible says that men AND women were created "in God's Image":

    Genesis 1:27: So God created man in His [own] Image, in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

    There are also numerous women who received special privileges and honor from God in the Bible.

    Also, as I mentioned before, when a woman was raped and no one was around, the rapist was to be stoned at the mouth of the victim (after a thorough investigation) -- no other witnesses required.

    Also, I can show you Verses from the Old Testament which prove that women did indeed have freedom to choose who they married.

    Abaddon said:

    The face of a supposed god of love is further besmeared by inaction in the face of millenia of human suffering on account of god having so little self confidence he takes part in contests with the devil (whom he created).
    Okay, what is your explanation of 'the fall of man', the trials of Job, why Jesus came? If it's not a contest with the devil to determine god's rights, what is it?

    Basically, I have not done a lot of research into that subject since I left the JW's, but I can guarantee you that God does not "need" to do any "contests" with the Devil. However, God has in the past, at certain times, allowed Satan to test some of his people to see if they would remain faithful to God.

    The Bible also shows that God is All-Powerful, and that He has even used Satan and the demons to cause His will to be done. So, God definitely does not "need" or "have" to prove anything to anyone, but He does do so if He desires.

    Jesus came to save us from sin and death by dying in our place on the Cross and being raised up on the third day.

    You claim that God has been "inactive for millenia". Well according to the Bible He is never inactive. He is always working, and in fact, He is the One who holds the Universe together and gives life to all things, and causes the sun to shine even upon wicked people. God is the One who put your soul inside of your body before you were born.

    God has been causing people to be Born Again, and have life-changing experiences ever since Abel.

    Do you mean "inactive" in the sense of not intervening and destroying wicked people? Well, up above you accused God of being "bloodthirsty" because He DID intervene and destroy wicked people.

    According to you, God is "bloodthirsty" when He does intervene to destroy wicked people, but yet God is "inactive" and "low on self-confidence" when He does not intervene to destroy wicked people.

    Basically, I think some people would complain about God no matter what He did or did not do.

    Abaddon said:

    Regarding the proof of Christ; go on then, prove it.

    I'll do my best to provide the factual info ASAP. I actually have done quite a bit of research into this subject.

    Abaddon said:

    Whilst you are at it, please include evidence to show that the Gospels represent what he actually said and what happened.

    What kind of "evidence" for that are you requesting? Even today, how do you get "evidence" that a person really said what a reporter says he did? The only way (other than video or audio tape) to know for sure is to ask the person who is reported to have made the statement.

    So, that is what I suggest you do -- I suggest you ask Jesus Christ whether or not He truly said what the Gospels report that He said.

    Abaddon said:

    For me the clincher is the total lack of supporting evidence for dead people coming out of their tombs when Jesus died; this would have been reported by contemporary sources and the fact its not show at least part of the Gospel story is myth - and that there is no way of determining what is myth and what is fact.

    First of all, there are a good number of Christians who believe that those people were taken into Heaven (into "the Holy City"), and the Jerusalem. Whatever the case, there are most likely several records from that time period that we have not even discovered yet.

    I heard that evidence of Pontius Pilate's existence was not found until recently (I haven't done research into that yet -- I think it was the 1960's), and yet he was a Roman GOVERNOR! So, if we could not find secular evidence for a Roman Governor until recently, then how much evidence do you think we have not yet found about other people of that period?

    Here are the Verses:

    Matthew 27:51-53: And behold, the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had passed away were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared to many.

    Even if they did go into Jerusalem, it doesn't say who they appeared to, it just says "many". They were "saints", so most of them were Jews, and they most likely would have appeared to other Jews.

    There might have been logical reasons why Roman people would not have wanted to report on that -- it would cause people to believe in Jesus Christ! Do you think Rome really wanted that to happen?

    Or, the Romans might not have even believed that Jewish people had been resurrected -- they might have viewed it like we view the National Enquirer's stories.

    Abaddon said:

    So, if it is written down it is true? This means that the Book of Mormon, the Bagahadva Vita, the Quran, and a large number of other texts that claim sacred status must also be true. You cannot take a written account as evidence of anything unless there is evidence to back it up; otherwise you have to accept all UFO stories and book your holidays to Scotland next year to see Nessie.

    No. My point was, I believe in the Bible, so therefore, I believe in the resurrections and miracles, and since you don't believe the Bible, you don't believe the miracles either.

    I do agree completely with this statement you made: "You cannot take a written account as evidence of anything unless there is evidence to back it up".

    I believe the Bible because (1) Jesus Christ opened my mind and my eyes to see the wonderful truth and (2) because of the research I've done into the different parts of the Bible.

    (Bt the way, the Book of Mormon and the Quran contradict the Bible)

    Let me explain a few things:

    I used to be a jerk. I used to not really care about other people. I used to be rude and mean sometimes. I used to NOT have love for most other people. I used to fear and dread Armageddon and demons. I used to sin all of the time. I used to be very afraid of the "Watchtower god". I used to be a very selfish person.

    Then, one day in July 2001, I prayed directly to Jesus Christ for the first time in my life. I repented of all my past sins; I told Him I believed in Him and His Sacrifice, and that I now put ALL of my faith, trust, and hope in Him, and I asked Him to come and live inside of my heart. I was Born Again by the Holy Spirit.

    There was a supernatural change that occurred in my life -- a change that cannot be explained away as "a delusion" or as "a myth". In fact, I would be delusional if I tried to DENY what had happened to me!

    I no longer feared Armageddon or demons. I no longer was afraid of God.

    I now have love for everyone in the world! Now, all I want to do is HELP others -- and not for any selfish reason at all -- I want to help them because I love them! That is why I am on this Website. For over a year, I have been posting here for 3 reasons -- (1) To share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others, (2) to help people in any way I can (JW's and Ex-JW's and non-JW's), primarily by showing the REAL TRUTH about the Watchtower Society (mainly by providing Quotes), and (3) to help the SilentLambs (JW Child Abuse Survivors).

    I now try to always do to others what I want them to do to me. I always try to love others as I love myself. I always try to love people who hate me. In fact, I now feel that I would be willing to die in order to protect other people, even other people I do not know, even people who hate me.

    Believe me, I would not have done all this to help people before I was Born Again.

    I'm not trying to brag about myself. I'm bragging about what Jesus Christ has done for me and to me.

    I cannot fully explain the change in my life with words. I encourage you to look at the example of the 1st Century Jewish Pharisee named Saul.

    Saul was helping to kill Christians left and right, then, all of a sudden, he sees the light -- the blinding light of the glorious resurrected Jesus Christ in Heaven! Saul is temporarily blinded, and forever changed!

    Saul becomes Paul, possibly the greatest Christian of all time.

    My change was not close to the experience of Paul, who actually got to see Jesus before going blind, but I actually can "see" Jesus, because I now have a personal relationship with Him. I now KNOW (that's how strong my faith is) that He has forgiven all of my sins, and that He died for me on the Cross, and that He lives in my heart, and that I am going to live in Heaven, worshiping Jesus forever and ever.

    My life has been changed forever.

    I would be delusional and I would be in denial to claim that this never happened.

    Abaddon said:

    I love the nest bit; I say that textual interpretation of the Bible is effcetively infinate and unresolvable, you say; Once again, that is your opinion, not a "FACT".
    I produce as evidence thousands of different Christian faiths ALL BASED ON THE SAME BOOK, ALL WITH DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS. I also produce as evidence the USA, a single country which can resolve differences in interpretation of its founding documents so succesfully as to remain a single country.
    If you do some reading you will see that the interpretation of the Consititution is aided by its wording and structure; the 'right to bear arms' is the major fault in it, as due to the poor syntax and grammar used it is interpretable in different ways. Normally the framers of the Consititution were more careful in their choice of words. This cannot be said for the Bible.

    Well, that part was actually half fact and half opinion.

    It is a fact that there are a large amount of different interpretations of the Bible. It is your opinion that "textual interpretation of the Bible is effcetively infinate and unresolvable".

    Have you actually read the whole Bible? Have you done studies and research into the Bible in order to try to interpret it correctly? Have you examined Hebrew and Greek words in order to discover their meanings? If not, then how can you possibly know whether or not the Bible CAN be interpreted correctly?

    I am certain that even a 7-year-old child who reads the New Testament, can see that the MAIN, MOST IMPORTANT THING is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Lord, to save people from their sins if they put their faith in Him, and that no one can be saved by doing any works.

    The Bible itself clearly shows what people MUST believe in order to saved:

    Acts 8:35-38: Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached to him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, [here is] water; what hinders me from being baptized?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

    John 3:3-7: Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus says to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound pf it, but cannot tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

    John 20:31: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His Name.

    1st John 5:1: Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone who loves Him who begat loves him also who is begotten of Him.

    John 8:24: I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

    John 8:28: Then Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you shall know that I AM, and [that] I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things."

    John 8:58-59: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I AM." Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

    Romans 10:9: That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

    Acts 16:30-31: And brought them out, and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your household."

    1st Corinthians 15:1-9: Moreover, brothers, I declare to you the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached to you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures": And that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve: After that, He was seen by more than five hundred brothers at once; of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen by James; then by all the Apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the Apostles, and am not fit to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.

    Mark 1:14-15: Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, And saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: all of you repent, and believe the Gospel."

    2nd John 1:7: For many deceivers have entered into the world, who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the Flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

    Hence, the Bible shows that the following things are required in order to be saved and go to Heaven when you die:

    1: Believe with all your heart, mind, and soul that Jesus is The Christ, The Son of God, God The Son, and your Savior.

    2: Believe with all your heart, mind, and soul that Jesus Christ came in the Flesh (100% Human and 100% God) and willingly suffered and died on the Cross in YOUR place for YOUR sins, and that He rose from the dead on the third day.

    3: You must be Born Again by The Holy Spirit.

    4: You must repent [hate] of all of your past sins and be determined to try not to sin in the future.

    That's basically it. Any other "interpretations" do not affect a person's salvation.

    Also, there NUMEROUS cults and false religions that INTENTIONALLY twist, corrupt, and pervert the Bible to fit their own agendas, such as the Watchtower Society, Mormons, Roman Catholics, 7th-Day Adventists, Islam, etc., and they do not even use the Bible as their main authority.

    Also, there are other parts of the Constitution which are interpreted in several different ways -- just look at the current Alabama 10 Commandments issue, where there are several interpretations of the 1st, 10th, and 14th Amendments, so I believe my comparison of the Constitution with the Bible is accurate.

    The different "denominations" are still all Christians, IF they teach that Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Son of God, the Lord, came to earth in the Flesh, died for our sins, arose on the 3rd day, and ascended to Heaven 40 days later; and that in order to be saved, you must be Born Again, repent, and put all your faith in Jesus and His Sacrifice, and you cannot be saved by any good works.

    So, really, if a denomination does not teach that, then they are NOT Christian at all.

    If a denomination does teach that, then they are Christian, and they have freedom to have different interpretations on some of the lesser details.

    Abaddon said:

    As you have yet to provide proof of one element of your faith I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume you and other people are as delusional as anyone who claims things they cannot prove are facts one should base their life on. Your shared delusion makes you think, that despite no evidence, you have cleverly found THE truth, and that everyone should accept it. Thus the sarcastic comment about special and clever and insightful.

    Wow, you gave me a whole day to "provide proof" of the different subjects you asked about, and you’re now claiming that since I did not provide proof within that one day that my faith is delusional.

    How does that look to other people?

    Farkel did the same type of thing to a friend of mine (DJ) on another Thread. Farkel wanted DJ to provide proof of some subject from the Bible (I believe it was prophecies from the Book of Daniel), and he gave her about 10-15 minutes to respond, and then he posted a reply and claimed that she could not provide any proof for her faith.

    You claim that my beliefs are delusional. I could say the same about the theory of evolution and the theory that life evolved out of non-life, and the theory that the Universe came into existence on its own from nothing (or from some eternal impersonal something that always existed).

    In fact, I would say that it is much more delusional and requires more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Bible.

    To me, evolution is about as believable as if someone were to tell me that Mt. Rushmore over millions of years, naturally evolved out of a mountain with no intelligent designer.

    Abaddon said:

    And it is not just Christians; any religonist who cannot externally repeatably and objectively prove their beliefs and expects others to conform to them is equally delusional, because they assume their internal reality is proof enough for people to accept as fact.

    Well, let me show you what the Bible has to say on that:

    Proverbs 14:15: The simple believes every word, but the wise considers his step.

    Ephesians 4:14: that we may no longer be infants, being tossed as by waves, and being carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in regard to deceitful scheming,

    Hebrews 13:9: Do not be carried away with various and strange doctrines...

    1st Thessalonians 5:21: But test all things; hold fast that which is good.

    Luke 12:57: "And why do you not judge what is right even of yourselves?

    Acts 17:11: And these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness, each day examining the Scriptures to see whether these things might be so.

    Abaddon said:

    In response to me saying if it were important it would be as obvious and demionstrable as gravity you say;
    (Quoting UnDisfellowshipped:) On what basis can you say that? How in the world can you possibly say that "If an infinite and all-powerful God really existed He would do such and such instead of such and such". Do you know how non-logical that is? (End of Quote)
    I am going on the character of god described in the Bible. The god who would not destroy Sodom if there were ten faithful men in it, the god who says he wants all to be saved, this supposed god of love; would he really not give proof of his existence and the historical validity of his text book? He made our minds and our minds (unless infected with religious belief) demand proof. Thus, failing to provide proof would be morally impossible for the god described in the Bible if it would result in one person failing to accept it as truth.

    First of all, I just wanted to point out that the God of the Bible is not only a "God of Love", and never was only a God of Love.

    He is also a God of absolute Justice and infinite Holiness. The New Testament describes Jesus the exact same way.

    God wants people to have FAITH and HOPE, and He also wants people to believe things that are backed up by truthful facts.

    Just because a person knows that the Bible is actually God’s Word does not mean that they will put all their faith in Jesus Christ to be saved. The Pharisees knew that the Bible was God’s Word, but several of them are burning in Hell because they hated Jesus Christ.

    Jesus said that no one can come to Him for salvation unless The Father draws him first, so it is up to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit to decide who they desire to draw to Jesus for salvation.

    Also, here are some important Scriptures to keep in mind:

    Isaiah 55:8-9: "For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways My ways," says Yahweh. "For [as] the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

    1st Corinthians 1:18-31: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption--that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

    1st Corinthians 2:10-16: But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

    Abaddon said:

    (Quoting UnDisfellowshipped:) I will pray for you, and the others on this Thread. (End of Quote)
    How wonderfully condesending. Would you be flattered if I said I would sacrifice a chicken to Baal for you? It means as much to me as a neo-nazi saying he pities me for not believing in the Zionist conspiracy (that he believes in but cannot prove).
    Save your prayers, they won't make me believe.

    It is not my prayers that have power, it is the God who hears my prayers who can, if He so desires, draw you or anyone else to His Son Jesus for salvation. From what I have read in the Bible, even after The Father draws someone to Jesus, they can still reject Jesus. I don’t believe God forces anyone to be saved.

    Yes, if I can prove my beliefs with objective facts, then you may believe, but will you have FAITH?

    The Bible says that even Satan and the demons BELIEVE that God exists, but they do NOT put FAITH in Him.

  • Abaddon

    I truly am sorry for that I ask your forgiveness.

    I try to make sure that I never accuse anyone of being a certain way until I know for sure, and I also try to never use generalizations, such as "all Atheists act this way" or "all Christians act this way".

    Please do not take me as an example of how all Christians act. I am certain that there are many, many Christians who are living more holy lives than I am.

    Also, if I ever sound like I'm being rude or insulting anyone, please let me know, because I do not ever want to insult or hurt anyone.

    Ah, don't worry, I didn't take it badly, it's just I can't ignore something like that or the scout master will have my 'argumentative bastard' badge back off me...

    I don't think that would matter about whether or not the Bible is true. God could have, if He had wanted to, created human males with any size testicles He desired, and if it was His Law that men only have one wife, then that would be His Law no matter what size testicles a human male has.

    Mmmm, but this is what is called 'special pleading'; you are saying that for all the rest of creation, testicle size is a function of sexual biology and is predictable by sexual biology, but that for human beings it is different.

    Essentially, as you can use special pleading to justify absolutely anyhting (e.g.; Hitler; "ah, but they were Jews, it didn't count"), special pleading is not a valid argument in a serious discussion.

    Also, there is absolutely no way of knowing Adam's testicle size (and he was the only human male who was perfect, except Jesus), so there's no way of knowing how God created Adam in regards to that.

    I like this; I never thought I would ever have a discussion about Adam's testicle size!

    But again, it's special pleading and an extraordinary claim. To make an extraordinary claim (Adam's testicle size was/may have been different to other men), you have to provide extraordinary proof. For example; I have a invisable purple Unicorn that can cure cancer with its horn and a slice of lime. Whilst you cannot DISPROVE the existance of my Unicorn, you can disregard the claim as unproven and irrelevent as I have no evidence, and making a claim which clearly violates scientific laws requires proof before acceptence. It's like the difference between 'I met my mate Neil at the mall', and 'I met Jesus at the mall'. One you'd accept normally as it's quite possible, the other you would want evidence for before accepting it as true.

    According to the Bible, humans inherited corrupted, sinful flesh after Adam sinned. So who knows about testicle sizes?

    Special pleading, extraordinary claim...

    Also, according to the Bible, yes, it was always God's purpose for human males to only have one wife. However, it was humans who originated polygamy. Then, under the Mosaic Law, God tolerated that sin, just like He tolerated other sins. When I say "tolerated", I mean He allowed it to happen without immediately punishing people for it.

    Ah, but this doesn't make sense; what would make sense is god saying to the Israelites; 'okay, if you have more than one wife now, fine, but from now on it's only one wife per person'. This would stop the practice but protect the women who were in polygamous marriages. God not doing this meant god was adjusting his theoretically perfect law to fit in with a misogynistic patriarchal culture. To believe this would require accepting contradictions about the character of god as presented in the Bible. Basically, it's not a logical arguement.

    Therefore, so far, you seem to say god expects people to accept the Bible as truth when such belief requires accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof, when it requires special pleading, and when it contradicts logic, both external (outside of the Bible), and internal.

    This doesn't strike me as reasonable, and unreasonable is not one of god's qualities as described in the Bible.

    Can you see the sacle of the problem?

Share this