| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
 |
|
On 19 Aug 2008 06:34:56 GMT,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
| Quote: | (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
|
| Quote: | There was NO disrespect meant to you by my making that
snip> just now. I simply want to get things back on track,
The control freak wants to dictate the discussion.
|
Wrong. If IKE doesn't want to debate on the basis of FACTS,
he doesn't have to. Meanwhile, I won't waste my time debating
the so-called "merits" of FABLES.
| Quote: | when it comes to proselytizing -- and I regard the Garden of
Eden account... Cain, Abel, and all, to be allegorical at best.
Cafeteria "Christian".
Nope!! Read ON, dishonest moron ---
Which are you? The priest or the Levite?
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into
the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him
and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be
going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on
the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and
saw him, passed by on the other side.
Luke 10:30-32
|
I would be analogous to the Samaritan... whom you dishonestly
OMITTED when you cited only PART of that parable. In 21st
century terms, an egalitarian who defends personal liberties against
bigotry and stupidity.
BACK, now, to what was being said BEFORE your moronic
digression:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On 18 Aug 2008 02:54:43 GMT,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
| Quote: | (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
snip everything
There was NO disrespect meant to you by my making that
snip> just now. I simply want to get things back on track,
when it comes to proselytizing -- and I regard the Garden of
Eden account... Cain, Abel, and all, to be allegorical at best.
Cafeteria "Christian".
|
Nope!! Read ON, dishonest moron ---
| Quote: | For anyone to take that seriously, we'd have to dispense
with the reality of hundreds of thousands of years of cave-
dwelling humanity.
THIS, from a thread I initiated yesterday, gets to the
nitty-gritty of the proselytization issue:
If the Bible were to tell us *everything,* it would have to be
trillions of volumes long. So obviously, a LOT of significant and
important things have been left out.
One of the MOST important things probably has to do with
the way God deals with the problem of people who die without
ever having HEARD of Jesus Christ. Much less ever had a chance
to accept Him.
Let's assume, from what the Bible has said, that children
who die while below the age of "accountability" (and only GOD
knows what THAT is, case-by-case) go to heaven. That just
leaves the VAST majority of people who survive childhood, and
become adults.
If we consider just China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.1
billion), we have about 2/5 of the entire world's population in
those two countries alone. Two countries that have only a TINY
percentage of Christians. It's probably a safe bet that in those
countries, fewer than 10% have ever even HEARD of Jesus.
And that is probably being quite generous. That leaves at least
1/3 of all of humanity alive today who know NOTHING about
Jesus.
There are MANY things that we know about, that the Bible
doesn't cover. Such as nuclear fusion. How bacteria cause
disease. The fact that there's no atmosphere on the moon.
And the jobs we'll have throughout eternity, after we die. (You
know... that fascinating information the Bible COULD have
provided, if only Revelation had been a few chapters longer!)
Etc., etc. And perhaps its most PROFOUND omission has to
do with the way a LOVING God who has, as Jesus, proclaimed
that people can come to Him ONLY through Christ -- can keep
FROM watching billions of people who never heard of Jesus
from winding up in hell.
The ONLY thing that seems reasonable, to fit that require-
ment, would be for there to be a process -- one that the Bible
*omitted* -- by which those billions of people COULD still come
to Christ... AFTER they die.
God created a LOT of angels, and it's not unreasonable to
think that one of THEIR tasks IN heaven (or perhaps some form
of ante-chamber) is to present the gospel message to all those
billions of souls, and give them the choice after that, to either
accept or reject Christ.
Now -- as for the billions who DO learn of Jesus while still
alive, and then have that same choice -- they are surely at
great peril. Because if they learn the gospel message while
alive, and then happen to REJECT it, as countless millions of
people regularly do, then there is no reason to think that they
would get another chance after death. Having NOT gone to
their deaths innocent of that knowledge.
Jesus almost surely commanded His followers to spread the
gospel as an act of faith. BUT -- it just may be possible that
those who are recipients of that effort who then choose NOT
to accept Christ, have been done NO favors!
Proselytization's DARK side!
|
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT),
Roger Pearse <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | slate <slate1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
|
| Quote: | A more perplexing question would be:
Where did Cain find a wife?' If Adam and Eve were the first humans,
and Cain and Abel were their offspring, there would logically be no
women around for Cain to marry. The exception of course would be Eve,
his mother. The Bible doesn't say who Cain's wife was or where she
came from. With Eve as the only female in existence, the pickings were
pretty slim at best.
That's another reason why the "Garden of Eden" story can only
be allegorical. Unless incest were the order of the day, with God's
approval.
There is a lot of truth to that statement. Why is Ra orMithrasfor
example, any less valid than the monotheistic God of Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam?
Or, indeed, the agnosticism of early 21st century America?
Any fool can engage in false equivalence.
|
"False" equivalence? ROTFL!!!!
Any fool can be control-freakish enough to disparage OTHER
people's beliefs or lack thereof. Hopefully, that is something
that such people will OUTGROW as the 21st century progresses.
If busybodyism vanished overnight, the world would be Utopian
in the morning!
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:vKydnVs4_cxxXTXVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: | On Sunday 17 August 2008 01:09 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g88bqa$b89$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:eMOdnd-WzNse_TnVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@earthlink.com...
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:28 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g7so8d$jno$1@registered.motzarella.org...
[snip]
But jealousy caused Cain to murder Abel.
There he goes again, ignoring THE SPECIFICS OF THE STORY.
There you go again reading too much into the story.
One more time for the clueless: JEALOUSY IS NOT AN END UNTO ITSELF.
WHAT WAS CAIN JEALOUS ABOUT?
PROPER PROCEDURE and AUTHORITY.
No.
|
Yes.
| Quote: | He was jealous of God's perceived favoritism toward Abel.
|
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
THAT'S PROCEDURE.
GOD TOLD CAIN WHAT TO DO TO REINSTATE HIS POSITION.
CAIN REJECTED THE WARNING.
THAT'S AUTHORITY.
AND THEN CAIN KILLED ABEL BECAUSE HE HELD THE HIGHER POSITION.
THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE JEALOUSY--CAIN'S REJECTION OF PROCEDURE AND
AUTHORITY.
| Quote: | He didn't want to DO what was right, and he didn't want to be SUBJECT TO
HE WHO DID RIGHT, be it GOD or HIS BROTHER, ESPECIALLY WHEN DIRECTLY
CONFRONTED ABOUT THE PROBLEM.
And THAT was what he was JEALOUS ABOUT.
[snip]
You're clearly confused.
No, YOU are clearly BOUND AND DETERMINED TO SKIRT THE ISSUES, because
they
PROVE YOU WRONG, just like every other liar who TRIES TO RATIONALIZE HIS
OR HER SINS.
There are no issues to skirt. The fact remains that nothing in the Cain
and
Abel story is about trying to scare others into believing your way.
|
And still the buffoon ignores the parameters of the story...
THIS WAS GOD ATTEMPTING TO "SCARE" CAIN INTO CORRECTION...
Gen 4:7b "...and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door."
SO, IN FACT, YOU ARE SKIRTING THE ISSUE, IN REBELLION, JUST LIKE CAIN.
| Quote: | Just because Cain had an authority and
responsibility for his brother doesn't give you justification to tell
others what to believe.
LOL
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
That still doesn't give you justification to tell others what to believe.
|
Oh, my, you are a ridiculous one, aren't you?
| Quote: | [snip]
GO BACK AND READ THE STORY.
I have. Several times.
Not through godly eyes, you haven't, but THROUGH THE EYES OF ONE TRYING
TO
DENY THE TRUTH.
So in order to have read it through "godly eyes" I have to come to the
exact
same conclusion you did?
|
IT'S THE TALE OF THE TALE, and the REAL STORY is IN THE DETAILS.
| Quote: | WHAT WAS HE "JEALOUS" OVER?
God accepted Abel's sacrifice over his.
...AND...?
That's it.
|
WRONG!
Gen 4:6-7
And the LORD said unto Cain, WHY art thou wroth? and WHY is thy
countenance fallen?
If thou DOEST WELL, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou DOEST NOT
WELL, sin lieth at the door. AND UNTO THEE SHALL BE HIS DESIRE, AND THOU
SHALT RULE OVER HIM.
The LAST STATEMENT tells the OTHER HALF OF THE STORY: CAIN WAS REJECTING THE
AUTHORITY OF MAN AND GOD.
| Quote: | [snip]
GO BACK AND READ WHAT GOD SAID TO CAIN (which is underscored by Cain's
ironic question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
You're reading too much into it.
No, YOU AREN'T READING WHAT'S THERE, because THE MINUTE YOU DO, YOU'LL BE
REVEALED TO BE A LIAR.
I read what's there.
|
No, you SKIPPED WHAT WAS THERE lest you have to confess YOU WERE WRONG FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING.
| Quote: | I just didn't come to the same conclusion you did.
|
BECAUSE YOU ARE BOUND AND DETERMINED TO AVOID THE CONCLUSION ITSELF.
| Quote: | NOW, WHAT DID GOD SAY?
Ge 4:6-7
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy
countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and
if
thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his
desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
"Him" was talking about sin, not Abel.
|
No, "HIM" was ABEL.
ABEL was in a position of authority over Cain BECAUSE ABEL DID WHAT WAS
RIGHT, and could have REVERSED HIS COURSE by DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT.
But instead of CHANGING COURSE, Cain MADE UP HIS OWN, KILLING GOD'S
ANOINTED, AS JESUS SAID THE ENEMIES OF GOD WOULD BE CALLED INTO ACCOUNT FOR
DOING...
Mt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the BLOOD OF RIGHTEOUS ABEL unto the blood of Zacharias son of
Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
| Quote: | Cain was trying to avoid answering God's
question.
NO, CAIN CREATED THE QUESTION, for SINNERS OF ALL TIME.
Again, you're reading way too much into it.
|
NO, YOU ARE SELECTIVELY IGNORING WHAT IS THERE, LEST YOUR FALSE PROPOSITION
FALL.
| Quote: | That still doesn't mean you have to try to scare gullible and
ignorant people into believing something.
The ROD or THE STAFF, it doesn't matter: THE WORD WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT
WILL ACCOMPLISH, to some life to life, and to some death to death.
That still doesn't mean you have to try to scare gullible and ignorant
people into believing something.
|
Alas, there always have to be the ignorant ones, doesn't there?
Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise
wisdom and instruction.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge
of the holy is understanding.
Pr 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before
honour is humility.
| Quote: | [snip]
CRAIG REJECTS THE AUTHORITY OF GOD AND MAN, JUST LIKE CAIN DID.
Craig is a Christian,
Craig is about as far from being a Christian as Satan is.
Liar.
|
There's no lie to it.
Craig (and you) follow the ANTICHRISTIAN thesis, NOT the CHRISTIAN thesis.
The ANTICHRISTIAN THESIS...
1Jn 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us.
The CHRISTIAN THESIS...
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
HE DECLARES (as you do in support his own self-deceptions) THAT HIS SINS ARE
NOT SINS, DECEIVING HIMSELF, AND REVEALING THAT THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM.
Meanwhile, the CHRISTIAN thesis is WE CONFESS OUR SINS, relying on God's
good graces to FORGIVE and CLEANSE us from our sins.
YOU PEOPLE SHORT-CIRCUIT YOUR OWN SALVATION BY RATIONALIZING YOUR SINS
INSTEAD OF CONFESSING THEM.
| Quote: | so he does not reject the authority of God.
Sure he does--EVERY TIME HE RATIONALIZES HIS SINS instead of CONFESSING
THEM.
His sins are between him and God and are none of your business.
|
ANOTHER LIE OF SATAN...
Jas 5:16a Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that
ye may be healed.
| Quote: | To my
knowledge he has not been in jail, so he does not reject the authority
of
man.
Craig rejects BOTH THE AUTHORITY OF GOD AND MAN--THAT'S why he is always
HARPING ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (which itself is only ONE of the SEVEN
"authorities" of man).
Liar.
|
Oh, so this is the summation of your apologetics? I quote the Word, and the
only response you have left is to call me a liar?
Well, that pretty much sums up the situation all around.
| Quote: | The only responsibility we have is to care for others.
NO, SHIT, SHERLOCK.
BUT "caring" INCLUDES OBEDIENCE TO LAW AND ORDER.
Obedience to the laws of man.
NO. OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF GOD, pilgrim, EVEN IF THAT RUNS COUNTER THE
LAWS OF MAN ("we should obey God, and NOT man").
But we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
|
One has no choice but to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's:" It's called
"the IRS."
But that is not germane to the point.
| Quote: | But trying to scare gullible and ignorant
people into a belief system is not "caring" for people.
It is WHEN THE FEAR IS REAL.
No, fear only instills a false sense of religion and takes you far away
from
God.
|
That's ANOTHER lie of Satan...
Mr 9:41-43
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because
ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
were cast into the sea.
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that
never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast
into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Jesus USED BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, PRO-ACTIVE AND REACTIVE
APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM.
But, alas, Satan is ALWAYS trying to take away one or the other from
God--THE ROD or THE STAFF.
| Quote: | [snip]
Whether it's the ROD OR STAFF, the END RESULT IS THE SAME.
Sounds like you have some very disturbing S&M fantasies.
Typical perversions of the perverse.
"Thy ROD and STAFF, they COMFORT ME."
Rod = LAW.
Staff = COMPASSION.
And the OWNER determines JUDGMENT.
But you'd rather go around passing judgment on others and trying to scare
them into believing what you believe instead of allowing them to come to
God in their own way.
|
I've used BOTH the rod AND the staff to try and teach you what you
ignorantly don't know (or, rather, refuse to accept, lest you have to
repent).
In your case, BOTH AVENUES FAIL.
But that's your problem, not mine...
My job is the telling.
YOUR job is the RESPONDING.
| Quote: | [snip]
So why would the death penalty be a punishment for murder if they're not
equal, then? In both murder and the death penalty, someone winds up
dead.
MURDER IS THE CRIME.
EXECUTION IS THE COUNTER-BALANCING RESOLUTION TO THE CRIME.
So then why did you say, "MURDER does NOT EQUAL THE DEATH PENALTY"?
|
BECAUSE ONE IS UNRIGHTEOUS, AND THE OTHER IS NOT.
| Quote: | [snip]
Jesus did NOT take "a stance against that." He was taking a stance
AGAINST
HYPOCRISY, not THE LAW.
(Once again, you don't pay attention to the DETAILS of the story.)
What hypocrisy? He was taking a stand against paying someone back equal
for a crime they committed.
NO, HE WAS ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF HYPOCRISY, NOT THE LAW.
What hypocrisy?
|
THE HYPOCRISY OF THOSE WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE LAW COMMITTING THE VERY
CRIMES THEY WERE EXECUTING PEOPLE FOR...
| Quote: | Jesus NEVER took issues WITH THE LAW--JUST THE APPLICATION OF THEM BY
THOSE WHO WERE THEMSELVES BREAKING THEM.
How many times did Jesus say, "You have heard it said this, but I say
that."
|
Which IN NO WAY REFUTES THE LAW, WHICH JESUS UPHELD: "heaven and earth may
pass away, BUT NOT ONE IOTA OR TITLE SHALL IN ANY WAY PASS FROM THE LAW."
| Quote: | [snip]
IT WASN'T TELLING OTHER PEOPLE THAT WAS THE ISSUE, oh, clueless one--IT
WAS WHAT THEY WERE TELLING THEM.
Yes, they were telling them what to believe.
One more time for the clueless: IT WASN'T THE "TELLING" THAT WAS THE
PROBLEM. JESUS "TOLD THEM" TOO. IT WAS "WHAT" THEY WERE TELLING THEM THAT
WAS THE PROBLEM.
Yes, they acted all pious and righteous and told others what to believe.
Kind of like right-wing Christians of today.
|
One more time for the dull and slow-witted.
JESUS DID NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH THE LAW--HE UPHELD IT.
HE TOOK ISSUE WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW BY THE PERVERSE, to whit...
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe
of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the
law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, AND NOT TO
LEAVE THE OTHER UNDONE.
| Quote: | [snip]
Sic sequitur. The religious ruling class tells people what to believe.
NON SEQUITUR: IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT ONE WILL BE TOLD. IT'S WHO IS DOING
THE TELLING, AND WHAT THEY'RE TELLING.
And they were telling people what to believe.
|
NO, THEY WERE TELLING PEOPLE THE WRONG THING.
IT'S NOT THE TELLING THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IN FACT, IT'S COMMANDED. IT'S
***WHAT*** IS TOLD THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
| Quote: | FIRST, you have to prove A CONNECTION between THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES,
AND HERODIANS, and certain Christian leaders.
See, Paul spoke well of people like you, saying that you would SPEAK
EVIL of DIGNITARIES, and that WITHOUT MAKING A CASE, but just PASSING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
What evil have I spoken against the Pharisees?
NOT THE PHARISEES, dimwit: THE CHURCHES.
What evil have I spoken against the churches, then?
|
And I quote...
"Yes, they acted all pious and righteous and told others what to
believe. Kind of like right-wing Christians of today."
| Quote: | BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU JUDGE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCHES?
What authority, in your opinion, should churches have?
|
Nice try, but you don't get to divert from the question with your own
question.
I ASKED, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU JUDGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCHES?
| Quote: | I just stated the fact that
they were part of the religious ruling class that tells people what to
believe.
...IN A BLANKET ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THOSE TO WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN
AUTHORITY.
Who has God given authority to and how do you know?
|
Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
| Quote: | WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?
I might ask the same question of you.
|
I know who I am: I am who I am.
The question is, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?
| Quote: | [snip]
WHAT?!?
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life.
That would be a YES, oh, clueless one.
Where in that verse does he say to tell others what to believe?
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?
OSMOSIS?
They can hear the word and come to their own conclusions. Not be beaten
over the head with a Bible or frightened into submission.
|
There goes Satan again, trying to relieve God of His ROD...
| Quote: | ...and Paul and the prophets ADDRESSED your idiotic notion...
Ro 10:13-15
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they
hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
|
One notices your lack of RESPONSE to the INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN.
| Quote: | HE IS THE "GOOD NEWS," dolt.
No.
YES.
NO.
The Good News is that God loves everybody and that Jesus destroyed sin.
Another satanic lie: At no time did Jesus ever say HE DESTROYED SIN.
He destroys DEATH in those whom HE DOES NOT DESTROY.
Jesus destroys none and saves all according to 1 Cor 15:22-26
|
The passage does NOT say that "Jesus destroys none."
Jesus HIMSELF said HE SHALL DESTROY MANY.
All WILL be raised, that much is true, BUT PART TO EVERLASTING LIFE, AND
PART TO EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT, i.e. the SECOND DEATH, i.e. HELL.
| Quote: | WITH THE CONSEQUENCE BEING DEATH, oh, clueless one.
Nope, he never said that.
THE HELL HE DIDN'T...
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.
"Everlasting punishment" is not an accurate translation.
|
Oh, here comes the revisionist lies...
| Quote: | http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html
Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him.
No mention of death here.
|
How 'bout here, oh, clueless one...
Da 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
SOME TO EVERLASTING LIFE, and SOME TO EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT.
Gee, seems vaguely familiar...
Jn 5:28-29
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, UNTO THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE; and they that have done evil, UNTO THE
RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.
| Quote: | Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
Nor here.
|
What do you think "DAMNED" MEANS, moron?
| Quote: | Let me guess: Now you're not only going to rationalize away your sins,
but
the CONSEQUENCES OF THEM AS WELL.
There are consequences, just not the ones you imagine.
|
Oh, now there you're right--no one can even begin to imagine the depths of
hell...
| Quote: | But of course: One goes with the other, doesn't it.
[snip]
RIGHT.
Wrong.
RIGHT.
WRONG.
|
RIGHT!
| Quote: | THE PROBLEMS HAVE ALWAYS BROKEN DOWN ALONG THREE LINES THROUGHOUT
HISTORY,
AS TYPIFIED BY THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND HERODIANS, AND NO MATTER
WHERE YOU GO, THERE THEY ARE.
NO RIGHTEOUSNESS IN ONE THIRD.
NO COMPASSION IN ONE THIRD.
NO JUDGMENT IN ONE THIRD.
And these three form the "antitrinity."
The PROBLEM breaks down along THREE LINES--FALSE COMPASSION, FALSE
RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND FALSE JUDGMENT.
And you have demonstrated all three.
No, I'VE told you the truth, which you don't want to hear, just like God
told Cain, who didn't want to hear, either.
I already have the truth. What you've been saying is just heretical
nonsense.
|
???
I'm not the one changing the doctrines of the fathers...YOU ARE.
| Quote: | [snip]
Thus saith the fools...
Typical response from one who lacks a logical argument.
I've made every "logical argument," from the source of all true logic.
False.
|
True.
I keep referring to the Word, and you keep saying "YOU SAY."
| Quote: | [snip]
RIGHT AGAIN.
No, wrong.
NO, RIGHT AGAIN: THE ANSWER OF CAIN TO GOD IS THE SAME ANSWER YOU'RE
GIVING HIM.
Wrong again.
|
Right again.
| Quote: | "AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?" = IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS (WHEN, in fact, IT
WAS).
Completely different.
SO YOU WISH.
So I know.
|
No, SO YOU WISH.
| Quote: | Lying about murder is not the same as not telling
them what to believe.
CAIN KILLED ABEL BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO ***AND*** WHAT TO
BELIEVE.
And Cain KILLED ABEL ANYWAY.
Cain was jealous
|
OVER AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE, oh, clueless one.
| Quote: | and likely thought that if he got rid of his brother that
his offerings wouldn't be rejected.
|
NONSENSE.
GOD ALREADY TOLD HIM HIS OFFERINGS WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTED IN THE MANNER AND
TYPE THAT HE OFFERED THEM.
(NOW you're making up YOUR OWN STORY instead of READING THE ONE THAT'S
THERE.)
| Quote: | [snip]
In fact, you're just another bullshit artist like Craig.
The only bullshit I've seen so far has been coming from your end. Not
from me or Craig.
Nope.
Yup.
|
Nope.
| Quote: | The bullshit is all yours: You're another self-deceived liar trying to
rationalize his sins instead of confessing them, just like Craig.
You're rationalizing your own actions as well. Everybody does. You just
think that you're right and that anyone who doesn't believe the same way
you do is going to hell.
|
No, I'M RECOUNTING WHAT JESUS AND THE PROPHETS SAID, while you try to REVISE
what they said TO MAKE THEM SAY WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
| Quote: | ...and the irony is you short-circuit your own salvation in the process.
I have no need for your brand of "salvation."
|
It's the only one there is, bub.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:10 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | ... oh, clueless one.
|
Let's see if I have this straight. YOU take FABLES seriously,
and then call OTHER people clueless?
There went the ol' Irony Meter!
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The TRUTH About The BIBLE...
1. The actual books of the Bible were selected by men with very
specific political agendas. They had their own versions they were
pushing and their own reasons for doing so. They picked some and
rejected others. Sometimes they took part of one and left out the
other part. The Revelation of John is a good example of that. It
has two parts but only one made it in.
2. The books that are there were written after the fact. Moses did
not write the first five books attributed to him and indeed some were
certainly forgeries given their "miraculous" discovery upon the return
for the Babylonian Exile. Never mind the motivations of the men doing
the writing of the forgeries, the fact is they are not original but rather
substituted in by men with very specific agendas whatever those
agendas might have been.
3. None of the so-called Gospels are contemporaneous to Jesus.
Arguments concerning which are closer to his life time still abound as
does the argument about the content of the mysterious "Q" or orig-
inal text that three of them seem to be taken from. They are full of
parables which Jesus may or may not of known of but which certainly
predate him. The "prodigal son" being an excellent example of one
found in Buddhist sutras a full 500 years before Jesus walked the
earth. The ancestral lineage of Jesus is also a clear forgery and
later addition used to support his alleged descent from the royal
house of Israel in support of his claim to be a messiah. The virgin
birth, in addition to being a clear mistranslation of prophecy, is
common in many pagan religions of the time, including that of the
Mithratic faith which was a popular competitor of Christianity in its
early years. Babylonian mystery religions abounded with accounts of
god made manifest in human form stories with accounts of miracles,
raising the dead, healing the sick etc. The evidence abounds that the
later followers of Jesus incorporated these stories into their teachings
to attract the pagans who expected such miraculous events to follow
from a god made man walking the earth.
4. I do not doubt for a second that there was a historical Jesus, who
was a righteous and good man. A reformer critical of the abuses that
had crept into his own faith, Judaism. But there is no evidence that
the Biblical accounts of his life accurately reflect the real events
of his life or death. And die he most certainly did. It is his followers
who grafted on all the various bells and whistles to attract pagan
followers to a religious path adapted by his later followers from his
early teachings.
The truly sad thing is that Christians have been so caught up by
the bells and whistles for centuries that they ignore the real core
teachings which are repeated through the scripture and echo those
of the older Mosaic texts, the idea of love, compassion and justice for
all human beings. Modern Christians spend far too much time picking
out gobbets of text to misinterpret or reinterpret so as to justify
whatever particular bugaboos they have decided must be annihilated.
-- Jon Petry ("juanjo") <jonpetry@mindspring.com>, 7-20-08
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- dvocate for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas
| Quote: | Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
There was NO disrespect meant to you by my making that
snip> just now. I simply want to get things back on track,
The control freak wants to dictate the discussion.
Wrong.
|
Lunatic.
| Quote: | If IKE doesn't want to debate on the basis of FACTS,
|
Oooo! "FACTS" in caps!
| Quote: | when it comes to proselytizing -- and I regard the Garden of
Eden account... Cain, Abel, and all, to be allegorical at best.
Cafeteria "Christian".
Nope!! Read ON, dishonest moron ---
Which are you? The priest or the Levite?
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into
the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him
and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be
going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on
the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and
saw him, passed by on the other side.
Luke 10:30-32
I would be analogous to the Samaritan...
|
The Samaritan, who took the person in and helped him, is like you
who wants to drive people out and make them suffer?
You're insane.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Tuesday 19 August 2008 11:50 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g8eq3l$m11$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:vKydnVs4_cxxXTXVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
On Sunday 17 August 2008 01:09 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g88bqa$b89$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:eMOdnd-WzNse_TnVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@earthlink.com...
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:28 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g7so8d$jno$1@registered.motzarella.org...
[snip]
But jealousy caused Cain to murder Abel.
There he goes again, ignoring THE SPECIFICS OF THE STORY.
There you go again reading too much into the story.
One more time for the clueless: JEALOUSY IS NOT AN END UNTO ITSELF.
WHAT WAS CAIN JEALOUS ABOUT?
PROPER PROCEDURE and AUTHORITY.
No.
Yes.
|
No.
| Quote: | He was jealous of God's perceived favoritism toward Abel.
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
THAT'S PROCEDURE.
GOD TOLD CAIN WHAT TO DO TO REINSTATE HIS POSITION.
CAIN REJECTED THE WARNING.
THAT'S AUTHORITY.
AND THEN CAIN KILLED ABEL BECAUSE HE HELD THE HIGHER POSITION.
THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE JEALOUSY--CAIN'S REJECTION OF PROCEDURE AND
AUTHORITY.
|
The cause was Cain's own selfishness. He wouldn't offer the best he had to
God.
| Quote: | He didn't want to DO what was right, and he didn't want to be SUBJECT TO
HE WHO DID RIGHT, be it GOD or HIS BROTHER, ESPECIALLY WHEN DIRECTLY
CONFRONTED ABOUT THE PROBLEM.
And THAT was what he was JEALOUS ABOUT.
[snip]
You're clearly confused.
No, YOU are clearly BOUND AND DETERMINED TO SKIRT THE ISSUES, because
they
PROVE YOU WRONG, just like every other liar who TRIES TO RATIONALIZE HIS
OR HER SINS.
There are no issues to skirt. The fact remains that nothing in the Cain
and
Abel story is about trying to scare others into believing your way.
And still the buffoon ignores the parameters of the story...
THIS WAS GOD ATTEMPTING TO "SCARE" CAIN INTO CORRECTION...
Gen 4:7b "...and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door."
SO, IN FACT, YOU ARE SKIRTING THE ISSUE, IN REBELLION, JUST LIKE CAIN.
|
Wrong. God was simply telling Cain the consequences, not trying to scare
him.
| Quote: | Just because Cain had an authority and
responsibility for his brother doesn't give you justification to tell
others what to believe.
LOL
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
That still doesn't give you justification to tell others what to believe.
Oh, my, you are a ridiculous one, aren't you?
|
Not nearly as ridiculous as you are.
| Quote: | [snip]
GO BACK AND READ THE STORY.
I have. Several times.
Not through godly eyes, you haven't, but THROUGH THE EYES OF ONE TRYING
TO
DENY THE TRUTH.
So in order to have read it through "godly eyes" I have to come to the
exact
same conclusion you did?
IT'S THE TALE OF THE TALE, and the REAL STORY is IN THE DETAILS.
|
Kook.
| Quote: | WHAT WAS HE "JEALOUS" OVER?
God accepted Abel's sacrifice over his.
...AND...?
That's it.
WRONG!
|
RIGHT!
| Quote: | Gen 4:6-7
And the LORD said unto Cain, WHY art thou wroth? and WHY is thy
countenance fallen?
If thou DOEST WELL, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou DOEST NOT
WELL, sin lieth at the door. AND UNTO THEE SHALL BE HIS DESIRE, AND THOU
SHALT RULE OVER HIM.
The LAST STATEMENT tells the OTHER HALF OF THE STORY: CAIN WAS REJECTING
THE AUTHORITY OF MAN AND GOD.
|
You're still reading too much into it.
| Quote: | [snip]
GO BACK AND READ WHAT GOD SAID TO CAIN (which is underscored by Cain's
ironic question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
You're reading too much into it.
No, YOU AREN'T READING WHAT'S THERE, because THE MINUTE YOU DO, YOU'LL
BE REVEALED TO BE A LIAR.
I read what's there.
No, you SKIPPED WHAT WAS THERE lest you have to confess YOU WERE WRONG
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
|
Wrong.
| Quote: | I just didn't come to the same conclusion you did.
BECAUSE YOU ARE BOUND AND DETERMINED TO AVOID THE CONCLUSION ITSELF.
|
No, because I am not a kook like you are.
| Quote: | NOW, WHAT DID GOD SAY?
Ge 4:6-7
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy
countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and
if
thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his
desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
"Him" was talking about sin, not Abel.
No, "HIM" was ABEL.
|
No, "him" was sin. Read other translations, not just KJV.
| Quote: | ABEL was in a position of authority over Cain BECAUSE ABEL DID WHAT WAS
RIGHT, and could have REVERSED HIS COURSE by DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT.
But instead of CHANGING COURSE, Cain MADE UP HIS OWN, KILLING GOD'S
ANOINTED, AS JESUS SAID THE ENEMIES OF GOD WOULD BE CALLED INTO ACCOUNT
FOR DOING...
Mt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the BLOOD OF RIGHTEOUS ABEL unto the blood of Zacharias son of
Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Cain was trying to avoid answering God's
question.
NO, CAIN CREATED THE QUESTION, for SINNERS OF ALL TIME.
Again, you're reading way too much into it.
NO, YOU ARE SELECTIVELY IGNORING WHAT IS THERE, LEST YOUR FALSE
PROPOSITION FALL.
|
Nope.
| Quote: | That still doesn't mean you have to try to scare gullible and
ignorant people into believing something.
The ROD or THE STAFF, it doesn't matter: THE WORD WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT
IT WILL ACCOMPLISH, to some life to life, and to some death to death.
That still doesn't mean you have to try to scare gullible and ignorant
people into believing something.
Alas, there always have to be the ignorant ones, doesn't there?
|
Unfortunately, yes. Those are the people who believe like you do.
| Quote: | Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools
despise wisdom and instruction.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge
of the holy is understanding.
Pr 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before
honour is humility.
[snip]
CRAIG REJECTS THE AUTHORITY OF GOD AND MAN, JUST LIKE CAIN DID.
Craig is a Christian,
Craig is about as far from being a Christian as Satan is.
Liar.
There's no lie to it.
|
Yes there is.
| Quote: | Craig (and you) follow the ANTICHRISTIAN thesis, NOT the CHRISTIAN thesis.
|
Wrong.
| Quote: | The ANTICHRISTIAN THESIS...
1Jn 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us.
The CHRISTIAN THESIS...
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
HE DECLARES (as you do in support his own self-deceptions) THAT HIS SINS
ARE NOT SINS, DECEIVING HIMSELF, AND REVEALING THAT THE TRUTH IS NOT IN
HIM.
Meanwhile, the CHRISTIAN thesis is WE CONFESS OUR SINS, relying on God's
good graces to FORGIVE and CLEANSE us from our sins.
YOU PEOPLE SHORT-CIRCUIT YOUR OWN SALVATION BY RATIONALIZING YOUR SINS
INSTEAD OF CONFESSING THEM.
|
Liar.
| Quote: | so he does not reject the authority of God.
Sure he does--EVERY TIME HE RATIONALIZES HIS SINS instead of CONFESSING
THEM.
His sins are between him and God and are none of your business.
ANOTHER LIE OF SATAN...
|
No, it's quite true.
| Quote: | Jas 5:16a Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,
that ye may be healed.
To my
knowledge he has not been in jail, so he does not reject the authority
of
man.
Craig rejects BOTH THE AUTHORITY OF GOD AND MAN--THAT'S why he is always
HARPING ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (which itself is only ONE of the SEVEN
"authorities" of man).
Liar.
Oh, so this is the summation of your apologetics? I quote the Word, and
the only response you have left is to call me a liar?
|
No, I call you a liar because you are one.
| Quote: | Well, that pretty much sums up the situation all around.
The only responsibility we have is to care for others.
NO, SHIT, SHERLOCK.
BUT "caring" INCLUDES OBEDIENCE TO LAW AND ORDER.
Obedience to the laws of man.
NO. OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF GOD, pilgrim, EVEN IF THAT RUNS COUNTER THE
LAWS OF MAN ("we should obey God, and NOT man").
But we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
One has no choice but to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's:" It's
called "the IRS."
But that is not germane to the point.
|
Of course it is. "Rendering" doesn't only have to do with taxes.
| Quote: | But trying to scare gullible and ignorant
people into a belief system is not "caring" for people.
It is WHEN THE FEAR IS REAL.
No, fear only instills a false sense of religion and takes you far away
from
God.
That's ANOTHER lie of Satan...
|
No, it's quite true.
| Quote: | Mr 9:41-43
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name,
because
ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in
me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
were cast into the sea.
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter
into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be
cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched.
Jesus USED BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, PRO-ACTIVE AND REACTIVE
APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM.
|
But he never used fear to get people to believe.
| Quote: | But, alas, Satan is ALWAYS trying to take away one or the other from
God--THE ROD or THE STAFF.
[snip]
Whether it's the ROD OR STAFF, the END RESULT IS THE SAME.
Sounds like you have some very disturbing S&M fantasies.
Typical perversions of the perverse.
"Thy ROD and STAFF, they COMFORT ME."
Rod = LAW.
Staff = COMPASSION.
And the OWNER determines JUDGMENT.
But you'd rather go around passing judgment on others and trying to scare
them into believing what you believe instead of allowing them to come to
God in their own way.
I've used BOTH the rod AND the staff to try and teach you what you
ignorantly don't know (or, rather, refuse to accept, lest you have to
repent).
In your case, BOTH AVENUES FAIL.
But that's your problem, not mine...
My job is the telling.
YOUR job is the RESPONDING.
|
You're just mad that I'm not intimidated in the least by your scare tactics.
| Quote: | [snip]
So why would the death penalty be a punishment for murder if they're
not
equal, then? In both murder and the death penalty, someone winds up
dead.
MURDER IS THE CRIME.
EXECUTION IS THE COUNTER-BALANCING RESOLUTION TO THE CRIME.
So then why did you say, "MURDER does NOT EQUAL THE DEATH PENALTY"?
BECAUSE ONE IS UNRIGHTEOUS, AND THE OTHER IS NOT.
|
Still sounds like the old "eye for an eye" philosophy, though.
| Quote: | [snip]
Jesus did NOT take "a stance against that." He was taking a stance
AGAINST
HYPOCRISY, not THE LAW.
(Once again, you don't pay attention to the DETAILS of the story.)
What hypocrisy? He was taking a stand against paying someone back
equal for a crime they committed.
NO, HE WAS ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF HYPOCRISY, NOT THE LAW.
What hypocrisy?
THE HYPOCRISY OF THOSE WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE LAW COMMITTING THE VERY
CRIMES THEY WERE EXECUTING PEOPLE FOR...
|
But Jesus interpreted the law differently from how the religious leaders of
the time did.
| Quote: | Jesus NEVER took issues WITH THE LAW--JUST THE APPLICATION OF THEM BY
THOSE WHO WERE THEMSELVES BREAKING THEM.
How many times did Jesus say, "You have heard it said this, but I say
that."
Which IN NO WAY REFUTES THE LAW, WHICH JESUS UPHELD: "heaven and earth may
pass away, BUT NOT ONE IOTA OR TITLE SHALL IN ANY WAY PASS FROM THE LAW."
|
Yes, he interpreted the law differently from those who were trying to tell
other people what to believe.
| Quote: | [snip]
IT WASN'T TELLING OTHER PEOPLE THAT WAS THE ISSUE, oh, clueless
one--IT WAS WHAT THEY WERE TELLING THEM.
Yes, they were telling them what to believe.
One more time for the clueless: IT WASN'T THE "TELLING" THAT WAS THE
PROBLEM. JESUS "TOLD THEM" TOO. IT WAS "WHAT" THEY WERE TELLING THEM
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.
Yes, they acted all pious and righteous and told others what to believe.
Kind of like right-wing Christians of today.
One more time for the dull and slow-witted.
JESUS DID NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH THE LAW--HE UPHELD IT.
|
And interpreted it differently from those who were telling others what to
believe.
| Quote: | HE TOOK ISSUE WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW BY THE PERVERSE, to whit...
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe
of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, AND NOT
TO LEAVE THE OTHER UNDONE.
[snip]
Sic sequitur. The religious ruling class tells people what to believe.
NON SEQUITUR: IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT ONE WILL BE TOLD. IT'S WHO IS
DOING THE TELLING, AND WHAT THEY'RE TELLING.
And they were telling people what to believe.
NO, THEY WERE TELLING PEOPLE THE WRONG THING.
|
No, they were interpreting the law too literally. Just like fundamentalist
Christians do today.
| Quote: | IT'S NOT THE TELLING THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IN FACT, IT'S COMMANDED. IT'S
***WHAT*** IS TOLD THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
FIRST, you have to prove A CONNECTION between THE PHARISEES,
SADDUCEES, AND HERODIANS, and certain Christian leaders.
See, Paul spoke well of people like you, saying that you would SPEAK
EVIL of DIGNITARIES, and that WITHOUT MAKING A CASE, but just PASSING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
What evil have I spoken against the Pharisees?
NOT THE PHARISEES, dimwit: THE CHURCHES.
What evil have I spoken against the churches, then?
And I quote...
"Yes, they acted all pious and righteous and told others what to
believe. Kind of like right-wing Christians of today."
|
So where in that quote do I mention churches?
| Quote: | BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU JUDGE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCHES?
What authority, in your opinion, should churches have?
Nice try, but you don't get to divert from the question with your own
question.
I ASKED, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU JUDGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCHES?
|
Again, what authority, in your opinion, should churches have? Answer that
question and I'll answer yours.
| Quote: | I just stated the fact that
they were part of the religious ruling class that tells people what to
believe.
...IN A BLANKET ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THOSE TO WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN
AUTHORITY.
Who has God given authority to and how do you know?
Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
|
When did God say that to you?
| Quote: | WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?
I might ask the same question of you.
I know who I am: I am who I am.
|
Non-answer.
| Quote: | The question is, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?
|
Someone who is not intimidated in the least by your scare tactics.
| Quote: | [snip]
WHAT?!?
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life.
That would be a YES, oh, clueless one.
Where in that verse does he say to tell others what to believe?
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?
OSMOSIS?
They can hear the word and come to their own conclusions. Not be beaten
over the head with a Bible or frightened into submission.
There goes Satan again, trying to relieve God of His ROD...
|
Only in your imagination.
| Quote: | ...and Paul and the prophets ADDRESSED your idiotic notion...
Ro 10:13-15
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be
sent?
As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
One notices your lack of RESPONSE to the INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN.
|
Once again, people should hear the word and decide for themselves, not be
beaten over the head with a Bible or frightened into submission.
| Quote: | HE IS THE "GOOD NEWS," dolt.
No.
YES.
NO.
The Good News is that God loves everybody and that Jesus destroyed
sin.
Another satanic lie: At no time did Jesus ever say HE DESTROYED SIN.
He destroys DEATH in those whom HE DOES NOT DESTROY.
Jesus destroys none and saves all according to 1 Cor 15:22-26
The passage does NOT say that "Jesus destroys none."
|
By saving all, he destroys none.
| Quote: | Jesus HIMSELF said HE SHALL DESTROY MANY.
All WILL be raised, that much is true, BUT PART TO EVERLASTING LIFE, AND
PART TO EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT, i.e. the SECOND DEATH, i.e. HELL.
|
No accurate translation says anything about "everlasting."
| Quote: | WITH THE CONSEQUENCE BEING DEATH, oh, clueless one.
Nope, he never said that.
THE HELL HE DIDN'T...
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.
"Everlasting punishment" is not an accurate translation.
Oh, here comes the revisionist lies...
|
No, just a more accurate translation.
| Quote: | http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html
Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.
No mention of death here.
How 'bout here, oh, clueless one...
Da 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
SOME TO EVERLASTING LIFE, and SOME TO EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT.
|
Again, "everlasting" is a mistranslation.
| Quote: | Gee, seems vaguely familiar...
Jn 5:28-29
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, UNTO THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE; and they that have done evil, UNTO
THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.
|
That seems to contradict the Christian dogma that says you have to believe
in Jesus to be saved.
| Quote: | Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
Nor here.
What do you think "DAMNED" MEANS, moron?
|
Certainly not punished for eternity like you apparently think it means.
| Quote: | Let me guess: Now you're not only going to rationalize away your sins,
but
the CONSEQUENCES OF THEM AS WELL.
There are consequences, just not the ones you imagine.
Oh, now there you're right--no one can even begin to imagine the depths of
hell...
|
No, not those.
| Quote: | But of course: One goes with the other, doesn't it.
[snip]
RIGHT.
Wrong.
RIGHT.
WRONG.
RIGHT!
|
WRONG!
| Quote: | THE PROBLEMS HAVE ALWAYS BROKEN DOWN ALONG THREE LINES THROUGHOUT
HISTORY,
AS TYPIFIED BY THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND HERODIANS, AND NO MATTER
WHERE YOU GO, THERE THEY ARE.
NO RIGHTEOUSNESS IN ONE THIRD.
NO COMPASSION IN ONE THIRD.
NO JUDGMENT IN ONE THIRD.
And these three form the "antitrinity."
The PROBLEM breaks down along THREE LINES--FALSE COMPASSION, FALSE
RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND FALSE JUDGMENT.
And you have demonstrated all three.
No, I'VE told you the truth, which you don't want to hear, just like God
told Cain, who didn't want to hear, either.
I already have the truth. What you've been saying is just heretical
nonsense.
???
I'm not the one changing the doctrines of the fathers...YOU ARE.
|
No, I'm just interpreting them differently from you.
| Quote: | [snip]
Thus saith the fools...
Typical response from one who lacks a logical argument.
I've made every "logical argument," from the source of all true logic.
False.
True.
|
False.
| Quote: | I keep referring to the Word, and you keep saying "YOU SAY."
|
Your interpretation of the Word is heretical nonsense.
| Quote: | [snip]
RIGHT AGAIN.
No, wrong.
NO, RIGHT AGAIN: THE ANSWER OF CAIN TO GOD IS THE SAME ANSWER YOU'RE
GIVING HIM.
Wrong again.
Right again.
|
Wrong again.
| Quote: | "AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?" = IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS (WHEN, in fact, IT
WAS).
Completely different.
SO YOU WISH.
So I know.
No, SO YOU WISH.
|
No, SO I KNOW.
| Quote: | Lying about murder is not the same as not telling
them what to believe.
CAIN KILLED ABEL BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO ***AND*** WHAT TO
BELIEVE.
And Cain KILLED ABEL ANYWAY.
Cain was jealous
OVER AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE, oh, clueless one.
|
No, over the fact that Abel's offering was accepted and his was not.
| Quote: | and likely thought that if he got rid of his brother that
his offerings wouldn't be rejected.
NONSENSE.
|
Perfect sense.
| Quote: | GOD ALREADY TOLD HIM HIS OFFERINGS WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTED IN THE MANNER AND
TYPE THAT HE OFFERED THEM.
(NOW you're making up YOUR OWN STORY instead of READING THE ONE THAT'S
THERE.)
[snip]
In fact, you're just another bullshit artist like Craig.
The only bullshit I've seen so far has been coming from your end. Not
from me or Craig.
Nope.
Yup.
Nope.
|
Yup.
| Quote: | The bullshit is all yours: You're another self-deceived liar trying to
rationalize his sins instead of confessing them, just like Craig.
You're rationalizing your own actions as well. Everybody does. You just
think that you're right and that anyone who doesn't believe the same way
you do is going to hell.
No, I'M RECOUNTING WHAT JESUS AND THE PROPHETS SAID, while you try to
REVISE what they said TO MAKE THEM SAY WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
|
No, you're trying to make what Jesus said to fit with your own beliefs.
| Quote: | ...and the irony is you short-circuit your own salvation in the process.
I have no need for your brand of "salvation."
It's the only one there is, bub.
|
False.
--
Any religion that teaches there is only heaven or hell is gonna be a haven
for manic-depressives. - Edward T. Babinski |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On 19 Aug 2008 17:37:41 GMT,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
| Quote: | (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | If IKE doesn't want to debate on the basis of FACTS, he doesn't
have to. Meanwhile, I won't waste my time debating the so-called
"merits" of FABLES.
|
With respect to this topic, Ike certainly needs to be reminded of
that. And YOU *always* need to be reminded of that, when it comes
to facts dealing with ILLEGAL aliens.
| Quote: | Oooo! "FACTS" in caps!
|
With respect to this topic, Ike certainly needs to be reminded of
that. And YOU *always* need to be reminded of that, when it comes
to facts dealing with ILLEGAL aliens.
| Quote: | when it comes to proselytizing -- and I regard the Garden of
Eden account... Cain, Abel, and all, to be allegorical at best.
Cafeteria "Christian".
Nope!! Read ON, dishonest moron ---
Which are you? The priest or the Levite?
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into
the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him
and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be
going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on
the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and
saw him, passed by on the other side.
Luke 10:30-32
I would be analogous to the Samaritan... whom you dishonestly
OMITTED when you cited only PART of that parable. In 21st
century terms, an egalitarian who defends personal liberties against
bigotry and stupidity.
The Samaritan, who took the person in and helped him, is like you
who wants to drive people out and make them suffer?
|
NO driving them out, and NO forcing them to suffer. They SNEAKED
into the country in violation of federal laws, so it's time for them to
return HOME again. On their own hook. As easy as that. No deporta-
tions necessary. And recently, the government gave them a free pass
to do that voluntarily, without penalty.
<stupidity-flush>
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
FACTS about ILLEGAL Aliens
(1) ILLEGAL aliens did not belong here in the FIRST place.
(2) Federal laws prohibit undocumented entry into the USA.
(3) Federal laws STRICTLY prohibit WORKING in the USA without
proper and legal documentation (such as a Green Card.)
(4) Every ILLEGAL alien is a CRIMINAL by default, for entering
illegally, and even MORE of one if WORKING here.
(5) Throughout our history, tens of millions of people have
worked HARD to EARN residency and citizenship here.
(a) CRIMINALS should NEVER be *rewarded* for being
criminals.
(b) According LEGAL status to ILLEGAL, criminal aliens
without their INSTEAD applying for it through proper
channels and EARNING it would be a massive **insult**
to the millions who did it the RIGHT and LEGAL way.
(6) Urge your Congressperson to SUPPORT H.R. 1940.
More information:
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2008/01/almost-all-of-usas-14-million-illegal.html
If the URL doesn't work, combine its components,
below, in your browser:
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2008/01/almost-all-of-usas-14-million-illegal.html
And here's a real EYE-OPENER!! --
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
