The Centurions belief at Jesus' death [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Rose

02-26-2014, 04:47 PM

Hey,

In Mark 15:39 ,

"Now when the centurion, who stood opposite him, saw that he cried out like this and breathed his last, he said" truly this man was the son of God."

An assumption can be made that the roman centurion did not understand the words "Eloi,Eloi ,lama sabachthani ?"( they are transliterations of aramaic and hebrew)
because even the jews listening did not understand his words.They mistook him- that he hadbeen calling for Elijah...

Then why is it that at Jesus' death the centurion believed him to be the "Son Of God"??

ref: Mark 15:39,Mark 15:34, Mark 15:16, Mathew 27:54,
and is theevents in mathew 27 :52 symbolic or factual??

Hello Zack .... welcome to our Forum ... :welcome:

To be able to answer your question of why the centurion believed Jesus to be the son of god at his death, one must first take into account a number of factors. First, the Gospel of Mark was written decades after the death of Jesus by an unknown author who compiled it from a variety of oral sources, miracle stories circulating at the time, and parables ... many of which he possibly rewrote. There is no evidence other than what is written in the Bible that confirms there was ever a Roman centurion at all, most probably the whole story was made up by the author of Mark's Gospel, or reconstructed from other circulating stories of the time.

Remember, this was written at least 30 years after the death of Jesus, and even accounts that get written down days after an event tend to get corrupted. This is why the Gospel accounts are so contradictory of each other on many of the important narratives, like the birth account and the burial and resurrection account. Even in this day and age with video recordings of events things get corrupted, imagine what it was like when everything was passed down by word of mouth. Ask three different people who each witnessed the same event and you will get three different stories. There are many, many questions that will never be able to be answered, simply because the answers are lost to history.

Best regards,
Rose

David M

02-27-2014, 12:14 AM

Hello Rose

This is why the Gospel accounts are so contradictory of each other on many of the important narratives

You make your position obviously clear, which is that you do not understand the word of God. Now that you have convinced yourself that the Bible is man-made and is not a collection of inspired works, you have no intention of finding the harmony of the gospels that you never found before you gave up.

There are many who will disagree with your perspective of the Bible. There is harmony in the gospels; you just have to look for it. It is the sum of the differences that make the whole. The differences are not subtractive but additive. If they all read the same, then I would agree that copying would have taken place and there would be no need to have four gospels, when one would suffice.

Everyone has to satisfy their own mind by answering the question; why are there four gospel records? The answer has already been given in part. The full answer is to understand what each author intended to convey about the role of Jesus and to understand who the intended the target audience was at the time the gospel was written.

All the best
David

sylvius

02-27-2014, 03:24 AM

Hey,

In Mark 15:39 ,

"Now when the centurion, who stood opposite him, saw that he cried out like this and breathed his last, he said" truly this man was the son of God."

An assumption can be made that the roman centurion did not understand the words "Eloi,Eloi ,lama sabachthani ?"( they are transliterations of aramaic and hebrew)
because even the jews listening did not understand his words.They mistook him- that he hadbeen calling for Elijah...

Then why is it that at Jesus' death the centurion believed him to be the "Son Of God"??

ref: Mark 15:39,Mark 15:34, Mark 15:16, Mathew 27:54,
and is theevents in mathew 27 :52 symbolic or factual??

The Greek text doesn't say "the son of God", but "(a) son of God"

Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν, Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.

and note ἦν = was.

For him Jesus was dead, confirmed in v.44.45: Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph.

Mark does play here with "corpse" versus "body".

For the centurion and Pilate it was just a corpse , πτῶμα

For Joseph of Arimateia a body, σῶμα

Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

The body that had already been anointed by a woman, Mark 14:8, She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.

And after Matthew 24:28, Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

Rose

02-27-2014, 10:18 AM

Hello Rose

You make your position obviously clear, which is that you do not understand the word of God. Now that you have convinced yourself that the Bible is man-made and is not a collection of inspired works, you have no intention of finding the harmony of the gospels that you never found before you gave up.

There are many who will disagree with your perspective of the Bible. There is harmony in the gospels; you just have to look for it. It is the sum of the differences that make the whole. The differences are not subtractive but additive. If they all read the same, then I would agree that copying would have taken place and there would be no need to have four gospels, when one would suffice.

Everyone has to satisfy their own mind by answering the question; why are there four gospel records? The answer has already been given in part. The full answer is to understand what each author intended to convey about the role of Jesus and to understand who the intended the target audience was at the time the gospel was written.

All the best
David

Hello David,

Quite the contrary! I do not deny that the many parts of the Bible are inspired, neither do I deny that there is harmony amongst the Gospels. All religions have their inspired works, but that in no way means they are god given ... just like there are many secular works that are inspired. Inspiration does not mean god given.

Of course there is harmony in the Gospels, but there is also contradiction too, which directly points towards its human authorship. I just found another contradiction in the Gospels yesterday, having to do with Jesus sending forth the twelve disciples. In Matthews account they are not to take shoes or staves on their journey, but in Marks account they are told to wear shoes and take a staff. Now which is it? Are the disciples suppose to take a staff or not, and are they suppose to wear shoes or not? You can't have it both ways! Somebody got their story wrong.

Matt.10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 10:7-9 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

The reason there are four Gospels, is because only four works were deemed good enough by various councils, to make it into the finalized cannon. The Bible has went through many changes over its long history, and even today there are quite a number of variations, especially between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles.

Take care,
Rose

David M

02-28-2014, 03:40 AM

Hello Rose

Hello David,

Quite the contrary! I do not deny that the many parts of the Bible are inspired, neither do I deny that there is harmony amongst the Gospels. All religions have their inspired works, but that in no way means they are god given ... just like there are many secular works that are inspired. Inspiration does not mean god given. I should have said God (Holy Spirit)-inspired. I thought you would realize that was what I meant.

Of course, inspiration that comes from other sources and is speaking for God are works of fiction and then your point is valid. Either the scriptures on which the Bible is based were inspired as a result of God's Holy Spirit or they were not. How exactly the Holy Spirit inspires is something we do not know. In support of (2 Timothy 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, , Peter believed that prophecy in the scriptures was inspired (2 Peter 2:21)For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Of course there is harmony in the Gospels, but there is also contradiction too, which directly points towards its human authorship. I just found another contradiction in the Gospels yesterday, having to do with Jesus sending forth the twelve disciples. In Matthews account they are not to take shoes or staves on their journey, but in Marks account they are told to wear shoes and take a staff. Now which is it? Are the disciples suppose to take a staff or not, and are they suppose to wear shoes or not? You can't have it both ways! Somebody got their story wrong. Then obviously, harmony in the Gospels is of no worth to you. Maybe the contradiction you cite is not in the original inspiration, but the error comes from translation. We are not saying that translation is inspired.

Matt.10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 10:7-9 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.This is really a trivial example and not worthy grounds for rejecting the Bible. The example you have given does not show error in the authorship, but in the translation.

We have the same Greek words to translate from, yet we get different translations that ought to be in agreement. Therefore, we have to find agreement between the translations by seeing how else the translations could be worded.

Compare what we have in the KJV with how the Greek is translated in the Diaglott:

Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
(From the Dialgott) 9 Provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Copper, in your GIRDLES; 10 carry no traveling bag, nor spare clothes, shoes, or staff; for the WORKMAN is worthy of his MAINTENANCE.

Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
(From the Diaglott) 8 and he charged them, that they should take Nothing for the Journey, except a single Staff; no Bread, no Traveling Bag. no Copper in the girdle ; 9 but to wear sandals, and not put on Two Coats.

We have more or less the same words but with different emphasis. I suggest that the gist of what Jesus is saying is; "wear shoes, but do not take a spare pair" (remember the Children of Israel's sandals did not wear out in the Wilderness journey which lasted 40 years). Verse 10 of Matthew can be read as if coats, shoes, staves are bracketed together; Nor scrip for your journey, neither two {coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves} As in Mathematics, the factor of 2 applies to all that is in the brackets. The word "two" was not necessary before the word "shoes" and "staves". If you wanted to resolve these trivial differences, I am sure you could have done, if you had the will to do so. The contradiction you cite is not a valid contradiction that is due to the separate authors records. They have reported the same message that Jesus spoke and that is more important than variations in translation.

The reason there are four Gospels, is because only four works were deemed good enough by various councils, to make it into the finalized cannon. The Bible has went through many changes over its long history, and even today there are quite a number of variations, especially between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. I agree with all that, but it makes no difference in understanding and accepting what we have now is the world of God. As far a the other works that were rejected, then I will go along with that. Just like the Book of Enoch, as it is now, was rejected and should remain rejected. The original work has obviously been corrupted and added to and is should now be regarded as a work of fiction. It does not help that we have these man-made works to mislead us. It is all part of the corruption of the truth and the lies that we have been warned to be on our guard against.
As Jude wrote; ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Unless you know what that faith was, you are going to be deceived as I think you have been.

All the best
David

Rose

02-28-2014, 10:26 AM

Hello Rose

Then obviously, harmony in the Gospels is of no worth to you. Maybe the contradiction you cite is not in the original inspiration, but the error comes from translation. We are not saying that translation is inspired.

Hello David,

The worth of the Gospel harmony is that it tells me the authors of the different books copied from a main source, and where they differ I know that they got their information from other sources. No one will ever know what was in the original autographs, so picking what translation is inspired is guesswork left up to the individual.

This is really a trivial example and not worthy grounds for rejecting the Bible. The example you have given does not show error in the authorship, but in the translation.

The example I posted has nothing to do with my rejection of the Bible. The only reason I cited it was because I just found it yesterday and am adding it to my long list of biblical contradictions.

You have no way of knowing whether it was an error in authorship or translation, so neither account can be trusted. The same holds true for all the other contradictions contained in the Bible, we have no way of knowing which account is true, therefore they must all be rejected.

We have the same Greek words to translate from, yet we get different translations that ought to be in agreement. Therefore, we have to find agreement between the translations by seeing how else the translations could be worded.

Compare what we have in the KJV with how the Greek is translated in the Diaglott:

Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
(From the Dialgott) 9 Provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Copper, in your GIRDLES; 10 carry no traveling bag, nor spare clothes, shoes, or staff; for the WORKMAN is worthy of his MAINTENANCE.

Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
(From the Diaglott) 8 and he charged them, that they should take Nothing for the Journey, except a single Staff; no Bread, no Traveling Bag. no Copper in the girdle ; 9 but to wear sandals, and not put on Two Coats.

We have more or less the same words but with different emphasis. I suggest that the gist of what Jesus is saying is; "wear shoes, but do not take a spare pair" (remember the Children of Israel's sandals did not wear out in the Wilderness journey which lasted 40 years). Verse 10 of Matthew can be read as if coats, shoes, staves are bracketed together; Nor scrip for your journey, neither two {coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves} As in Mathematics, the factor of 2 applies to all that is in the brackets. The word "two" was not necessary before the word "shoes" and "staves". If you wanted to resolve these trivial differences, I am sure you could have done, if you had the will to do so. The contradiction you cite is not a valid contradiction that is due to the separate authors records. They have reported the same message that Jesus spoke and that is more important than variations in translation.

All you are doing is making up reasons to justify the obvious contradiction between Matthew and Mark. A third variation lies in the Gospel of Luke, and it says that NOTHING should be taken including staves, it doesn't even mention shoes. The reason that all the Gospels say to not take two coats, is because the Greek word for coat is chiton, which means a garment or undergarment and obviously a person must wear clothes, they are just told not to take an extra set.

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

I agree with all that, but it makes no difference in understanding and accepting what we have now is the world of God. As far a the other works that were rejected, then I will go along with that. Just like the Book of Enoch, as it is now, was rejected and should remain rejected. The original work has obviously been corrupted and added to and is should now be regarded as a work of fiction. It does not help that we have these man-made works to mislead us. It is all part of the corruption of the truth and the lies that we have been warned to be on our guard against.
As Jude wrote; ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Unless you know what that faith was, you are going to be deceived as I think you have been.

All the best
David

Most Christians I am sure would tell you that they are earnestly seeking the truth, yet each comes up with their own interpretation based on whatever specific teaching they are following. There is no way to ever know which translation is correct, or if any of them are. Each person is left with following their own inner witness or intuition, which varies from individual to individual.

Take care,
Rose

duxrow

02-28-2014, 12:20 PM

Inspired / theo-pneustos / pneumatic

Our Confounded Language intro:
1. God breathed into Adam
2. Jesus breathed into apostles
3. 2Tim3:16 gives air to the fish!

What's not to understand? :huhsign:

David M

03-01-2014, 02:29 AM

Hello Dux
I have added my comment alongside each of your points.

Inspired / theo-pneustos / pneumatic

Our Confounded Language intro:
1. God breathed into Adam DM - likened maybe to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to get someone breathing.
2. Jesus breathed into apostles DM - The resurrection of Jesus rejuvenated the disciples and gave them the vitality and life which they were willing to lay down; as Jesus did.
3. 2Tim3:16 gives air to the fish! DM - Where does this verse hint at fish? We note; the Flood did not kill the fish. Only that which had life and breathed air was killed (Gen 7:22)

What's not to understand? :huhsign: DM - Exactly! (Prov 28:5) Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

All the best
David

David M

03-01-2014, 03:54 AM

Hell Rose

Hello David,

The worth of the Gospel harmony is that it tells me the authors of the different books copied from a main source, and where they differ I know that they got their information from other sources. No one will ever know what was in the original autographs, so picking what translation is inspired is guesswork left up to the individual.How do you know the separate authors copied from other sources? What are those other sources? Are you relying on the works of man to tell you that?

The example I posted has nothing to do with my rejection of the Bible. The only reason I cited it was because I just found it yesterday and am adding it to my long list of biblical contradictions.I know that is not the basis alone by which you reject the Bible. The fact that you are collecting discrepancies and not trying to resolve them adds to arsenal of reasons to reject the Bible. Strange that you should reject the Bible because you think it is a man-made work, yet you accept other man-made works.

You have no way of knowing whether it was an error in authorship or translation, so neither account can be trusted. The same holds true for all the other contradictions contained in the Bible, we have no way of knowing which account is true, therefore they must all be rejected.The error is likely to be in translation, because linguistic scholars cannot agree on the translation of the same text in the original language. When they have the same Greek or Hebrew words to translate, they come up with different texts.

All you are doing is making up reasons to justify the obvious contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Of course I am giving reasons to justify why I see there is no contradiction. Once it can be seen there is no contradiction, then that cannot be used in your arsenal of contradictions you claim is in the Bible. I expect there are one or two, or a few apparent contradictions that I do not have, or can find the answer to, but that is not the hundreds of errors that you claim is in the Bible. The fact is; you deny any valid explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction.

A third variation lies in the Gospel of Luke, and it says that NOTHING should be taken including staves, it doesn't even mention shoes. The reason that all the Gospels say to not take two coats, is because the Greek word for coat is chiton, which means a garment or undergarment and obviously a person must wear clothes, they are just told not to take an extra set.

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Your words I have marked up in red just confirms what I said was the gist of what Jesus was saying.
For completeness, I will add the translation the Diaglott gives; as I did with the other two verses.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
(From the Diaglott) 3 And he said to them; "Take Nothing for the Journey, neither Staff, nor Traveling Bag, nor Bread, nor Silver, nor have Two Coats".

All Jesus was saying was not to take extra, because they should not worry about material provisions. Even if some of the people they went to preach to did not provide for them, others would have. It was Jesus who had already setting the example during his own ministering work; (Matt 8:20) The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
We never give thought to what Jesus took with him. He could be seen as the ultimate lite-traveler.

Most Christians I am sure would tell you that they are earnestly seeking the truth, yet each comes up with their own interpretation based on whatever specific teaching they are following. There is no way to ever know which translation is correct, or if any of them are. Each person is left with following their own inner witness or intuition, which varies from individual to individual.
As you say and quote from Isaiah; Come let us reason together. Anyone, who is seeking truth, should not fear the truth. I have set forth my reasons for saying things like; "Jesus is not God" and I am answering all my critics. None of us are an island on which we live alone. None of us should hold an opinion that is not shared by someone else. The truth will win in the end, but all the evidence has been examined first. I am still in the process of searching. I have never said I will not change the view I am currently holding. However, for someone to change my view, they have to give me evidence that stands up and which I cannot refute based on reasoning from the scripture. That has not happened yet as far as Biblical doctrine is concerned. The doctrine I hold to has come from study and elimination. Any Christian must be a student of Jesus and the Bible and must do the same. We have examples like Michael Rood who professes was “a paid professional false prophet” until he stopped listening to what the church was telling him and began to study the Bible for himself. In so doing, he resorted to understand the Greek and Hebrew language and also the language of the time the Kings James Version was written. We can benefit from the labors of such people, but even then, their work is open to inspection and comparison with the findings of others.

Your claims that there are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, does not hold true for me. Therefore, on the basis that many of those apparent contradictions can easily be resolved, is ground for me dismissing your claim. Your collecting Bible contradictions is like you filling up bucket with holes in it. The bucket simply does not hold water. Your claims are like the bucket and discrepancies leak away

All the best
David

duxrow

03-01-2014, 06:10 AM

Hello Dux
I have added my comment alongside each of your points.
All the best David
Roger that, David, I was just trying to be succinct, and connect Genesis to John20:22 to 2Tim.

Also, because the Apostles were fisherman who became fishers of MEN; we figuratively become fish who don't last long out of water,
so must become "new creatures"..

Hang in there--Jesus did! :thumb:

sylvius

03-01-2014, 06:22 AM

Roger that, David, I was just trying to be succinct, and connect Genesis to John20:22 to 2Tim.

Also, because the Apostles were fisherman who became fishers of MEN; we figuratively become fish who don't last long out of water,
so must become "new creatures"..

Hang in there--Jesus did! :thumb:

Are these new creatures still kind of fish, or did they completely leave their fish-existence behind?

I mean, can they, after having become new creatures, return to an underwaterway of life?

duxrow

03-01-2014, 06:46 AM

Are these new creatures still kind of fish, or did they completely leave their fish-existence behind?
I mean, can they, after having become new creatures, return to an underwaterway of life?
Cannot tell, Sylvie, 'cause 'figurative' has to fit the plain text. We think of Noah's Flood in this connection, and how a fish breathes with gills and for a short time even after taken out of water (3score-ten?) 2Cor5:17 - the incredible diversity of GOD may be speaking of an entirely new creature..

Am not interested in 'once saved/always saved' -- why would you switch? :winking0071:

sylvius

03-01-2014, 07:11 AM

Cannot tell, Sylvie, 'cause 'figurative' has to fit the plain text. We think of Noah's Flood in this connection, and how a fish breathes with gills and for a short time even after taken out of water (3score-ten?) 2Cor5:17 - the incredible diversity of GOD may be speaking of an entirely new creature..

Am not interested in 'once saved/always saved' -- why would you switch? :winking0071:

If not "always saved", what kind of savior is he then? A savior of nothing :eek:

duxrow

03-01-2014, 07:31 AM

duxrow

03-01-2014, 07:53 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-01-2014, 11:32 AM

Not up to Him -- Up to You. Fair warning! (and you've obviously been warned..)
We're now surrounded by filth, promiscuity, and wickedness everywhere, like in Noah's day..
Didn't use to be as bad as this.. http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/Noah.htm
Isn't that what Christians have always said in every generation since Christ? Didn't Jesus and Paul say that their own generation was "wicked" that used that as proof that the end was going to happen during their generation 2000 years ago?

Your view that the times are getting more and more "wicked" shows how our beliefs filter our perception of reality. When I look at the modern world, I am amazed to see how far we have progressed from the backwards morality of our ancestors. Slavery, racism, women's rights, gay rights. It's obvious to me that we are advancing morally. But you look at the same world and come to an opposite conclusion. I find this fascinating. We can't be both right.

So what time period do you idolize as "more pure morally"? Is it the 1950s? Or perhaps the 1800s when good Christian society held slaves in the south? Or perhaps when the good Christian founders of this country slaughtered the natives? When exactly did this Christian utopia exist? I'm having a hard time locating it in history. :p

Richard Amiel McGough

03-01-2014, 11:34 AM

Rom10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Sophie hasn't, of course, and prefers to side with R&R.. sorry 'bout that, but can't tie 'em to a tree and force it down.. hah :sEm_ImSorry:
No need to tie us down. Just present some evidence that's not equivalent to evidence you would reject if it were presented by a Muslim.

duxrow

03-01-2014, 12:03 PM

Christian influence was the criteria for the improvements, but they didn't begin until after the Bible was published (we recently observed the 400 yr. of KJV). Ps68:11 for 'published', because corruption ruled the roost before then, and still progresses, of course. You didn't read my Noah page.. :thumbsdown:

The arabs had plenty of time to read the scriptures, but NOT understand them, and their plagiarism duly noted. No doubt Sir Adversary got to 'em. hah. :winking0071:

sylvius

03-01-2014, 12:29 PM

Rom10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Obey the gospel?

I never knew the gospel was a command.

Or is the the umpteenth King James Perversity?

Rose

03-01-2014, 12:50 PM

Hell Rose :lol:
How do you know the separate authors copied from other sources? What are those other sources? Are you relying on the works of man to tell you that?

I know that is not the basis alone by which you reject the Bible. The fact that you are collecting discrepancies and not trying to resolve them adds to arsenal of reasons to reject the Bible. Strange that you should reject the Bible because you think it is a man-made work, yet you accept other man-made works.

The error is likely to be in translation, because linguistic scholars cannot agree on the translation of the same text in the original language. When they have the same Greek or Hebrew words to translate, they come up with different texts.

Hello David

I don't reject the whole Bible because it is a man-made work! The parts of the Bible that I reject, are the parts that are clearly false, like when it says Yahweh is a true god, or that the first man was Adam and the first woman was made from his rib. All written works are man-made, and I either accept what they have to say or reject it based on their truth value.

Of course I am giving reasons to justify why I see there is no contradiction. Once it can be seen there is no contradiction, then that cannot be used in your arsenal of contradictions you claim is in the Bible. I expect there are one or two, or a few apparent contradictions that I do not have, or can find the answer to, but that is not the hundreds of errors that you claim is in the Bible. The fact is; you deny any valid explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction.

Your words I have marked up in red just confirms what I said was the gist of what Jesus was saying.
For completeness, I will add the translation the Diaglott gives; as I did with the other two verses.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
(From the Diaglott) 3 And he said to them; "Take Nothing for the Journey, neither Staff, nor Traveling Bag, nor Bread, nor Silver, nor have Two Coats".

All Jesus was saying was not to take extra, because they should not worry about material provisions. Even if some of the people they went to preach to did not provide for them, others would have. It was Jesus who had already setting the example during his own ministering work; (Matt 8:20) The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
We never give thought to what Jesus took with him. He could be seen as the ultimate lite-traveler.

In keeping with the passage at hand, you have not given a good reason for the blatant contradiction of Mark saying to take a staff and Matthew and Luke saying NOT to take a staff. Each author clearly felt it necessary to include staves as part of their list and whether or not to take one. The reason an extra set of clothes is mentioned as an aside and not included as nothing, is because the clothes worn on ones person is not considered a thing that is taken on a journey.

As you say and quote from Isaiah; Come let us reason together. Anyone, who is seeking truth, should not fear the truth. I have set forth my reasons for saying things like; "Jesus is not God" and I am answering all my critics. None of us are an island on which we live alone. None of us should hold an opinion that is not shared by someone else. The truth will win in the end, but all the evidence has been examined first. I am still in the process of searching. I have never said I will not change the view I am currently holding. However, for someone to change my view, they have to give me evidence that stands up and which I cannot refute based on reasoning from the scripture. That has not happened yet as far as Biblical doctrine is concerned. The doctrine I hold to has come from study and elimination. Any Christian must be a student of Jesus and the Bible and must do the same. We have examples like Michael Rood who professes was “a paid professional false prophet” until he stopped listening to what the church was telling him and began to study the Bible for himself. In so doing, he resorted to understand the Greek and Hebrew language and also the language of the time the Kings James Version was written. We can benefit from the labors of such people, but even then, their work is open to inspection and comparison with the findings of others.

Your claims that there are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, does not hold true for me. Therefore, on the basis that many of those apparent contradictions can easily be resolved, is ground for me dismissing your claim. Your collecting Bible contradictions is like you filling up bucket with holes in it. The bucket simply does not hold water. Your claims are like the bucket and discrepancies leak away

All the best
David

I agree with you 100%! Anyone who is seeking truth, should not fear truth. That was and is my motto, and the reason I am no longer a Christian. As I searched through the Bible with an open mind, willing to look at whatever I found in light of truth, it became clearer and clearer that the Biblegod was a construct of men, because of his extreme gender bias against women. Justice and fairness are essential qualities for a creator god, and the Biblegod is sorely lacking in both.

You have yet to resolve the simple contradiction of the "staves" that I just presented. Should a staff be taken on the journey, or not?

Take care,
Rose

duxrow

03-01-2014, 01:01 PM

Obey the gospel?

I never knew the gospel was a command.

Or is the the umpteenth King James Perversity?
Sylvie, Ours is not to reason why, Ours is but to do or die..
Soldiers don't demand to know,
But once they hear, they up and go!
You have a mind, so use it! Don't trust what people say...
Begin to read it for yourself --Then get busy and obey!

OR, you may feel free to do whatever your heart desires. Lots of luck with that.. :p

Richard Amiel McGough

03-01-2014, 01:35 PM

Sylvie, Ours is not to reason why, Ours is but to do or die..
Soldiers don't demand to know,
But once they hear, they up and go!
You have a mind, so use it! Don't trust what people say...
Begin to read it for yourself --Then get busy and obey!

OR, you may feel free to do whatever your heart desires. Lots of luck with that.. :p
That explains why the Bible teaches MILITARY VALUES (obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice) as if they were the essence of morality (which is based on love, empathy, and fairness).

Richard Amiel McGough

03-01-2014, 01:39 PM

Obey the gospel?

I never knew the gospel was a command.

Or is the the umpteenth King James Perversity?
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ ...

It has nothing to do with any error in translation.

sylvius

03-01-2014, 01:47 PM

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ ...

It has nothing to do with any error in translation.

It doesn't say: "and this is the Gospel that we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ"

sylvius

03-01-2014, 02:07 PM

It has nothing to do with any error in translation.

Romans 10:16,

Ἀλλ' οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαντῷ εὐαγγελίῳ : Ἠσαΐας γὰρ λέγει, Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν;

ὑπακούω,v \{hoop-ak-oo'-o}
1) to listen, to harken 1a) of one who on the knock at the door comes to listen who it is, (the duty of a porter) 2) to harken to a command 2a) to obey, be obedient to, submit to

Aland: obey, be subject to; respond to, accept, adhere to, answer (the door)

Maybe better translation would be "but not all do respond to the Gospel" (they don't let it in)

David M

03-02-2014, 03:03 AM

Romans 10:16,

Ἀλλ' οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαντῷ εὐαγγελίῳ : Ἠσαΐας γὰρ λέγει, Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν;

ὑπακούω,v \{hoop-ak-oo'-o}
1) to listen, to harken 1a) of one who on the knock at the door comes to listen who it is, (the duty of a porter) 2) to harken to a command 2a) to obey, be obedient to, submit to

Aland: obey, be subject to; respond to, accept, adhere to, answer (the door)

Maybe better translation would be "but not all do respond to the Gospel" (they don't let it in)

Hello Sylvius

I agree with your conclusion. I looked up Strong's before reading your reply and that was the conclusion I came to. That is what Isaiah is saying.
hupakouo:G5219
5219 hupakouo, hoop-ak-oo'-o; from G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:--hearken, be obedient to, obey.
If we receive the good news, it means that we accept the teaching of Jesus and that means doing that which fulfills all righteousness (Matt 3:15) thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
which has always been a requirement of God; (Deut 6:25) 25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

The gospel I have always understood to mean "good news (message)" and that is used in conjunction with the kingdom, God, Jesus. Paul refers the gospel as "my" gospel, but we know that Paul is not teaching any other gospel than was taught by Jesus. It is the same gospel that is at he heart of the faith that we should earnestly contend for as was delivered to the saints (Jude 3). No gospel should be taught other than that which Jesus taught and that which has been revealed by God.

Galatians 1
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

All the best

David

David M

03-02-2014, 03:23 AM

That explains why the Bible teaches MILITARY VALUES (obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice) as if they were the essence of morality (which is based on love, empathy, and fairness).

The values of obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice are in addition to love, empathy and fairness. Being obedient and keeping the commandments is to be done out of love. Jesus said; (John 14:5) 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The Bible is not teaching military values as if these things were the preserve of the military to begin with.

The fact that Paul refers in his writings to "putting on the armor of God", is not attaching values that apply to the military only. In these days of over-powering health and safety, we are encouraged to put on armour to protect ourselves in the form of steel-tipped shoes, safety helmets, chain-mail vests, chainsaw-proof trousers, eye protectors, ear defenders, protective gloves, etc..

David M

03-02-2014, 05:33 AM

Hello Rose

Hello David

I don't reject the whole Bible because it is a man-made work! The parts of the Bible that I reject, are the parts that are clearly false, like when it says Yahweh is a true god, or that the first man was Adam and the first woman was made from his rib. All written works are man-made, and I either accept what they have to say or reject it based on their truth value. What is the value for you reading the parts of the Bible you accept?

In keeping with the passage at hand, you have not given a good reason for the blatant contradiction of Mark saying to take a staff and Matthew and Luke saying NOT to take a staff. Each author clearly felt it necessary to include staves as part of their list and whether or not to take one. The reason an extra set of clothes is mentioned as an aside and not included as nothing, is because the clothes worn on ones person is not considered a thing that is taken on a journey.I gave you reasons to show that what appears to be a contradiction is not so blatant as you make out. If you take the basic Greek words, it is possible to come up with a number of translations which are different in English. The object is to take the English possibilities that apply to each text and choose those which harmonize the separate records.

I agree with you 100%! Anyone who is seeking truth, should not fear truth. Excellent

That was and is my motto, and the reason I am no longer a Christian. As I searched through the Bible with an open mind, willing to look at whatever I found in light of truth, it became clearer and clearer that the Biblegod was a construct of men, because of his extreme gender bias against women. Justice and fairness are essential qualities for a creator god, and the Biblegod is sorely lacking in both.The genders are not equal. The two sexes have different sexual organs, different physiques, voices (no Adam's apple in women). We would have to be hermaphrodites to be equal.

God judges both men and women with impartiality (equally). The fact that a value placed on a male infant at birth and a female infant at birth might seem unfair to you, I suggest this has nothing to do with justice. Does a farmer put more value on a prize bull than a prize cow? If a race-horse has superior performance, then men will put a value on that horse regardless of gender for breeding purposes.

Women have equal opportunity to be saved and receive eternal life and that is what is most important. The fact that God made man head of the woman, the same as Jesus is head of his assembly, is in no way diminishing the value of men and women who are valued equally in terms of what is in their heart.

You have yet to resolve the simple contradiction of the "staves" that I just presented. Should a staff be taken on the journey, or not?I thought you might see from what I said, what the answer should be. On balance, I think a staff was permitted to be taken on a journey. Let's recap the three separate records to show why I think that. Here are the English translations:
Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Mark says; save a staff only that is saying it was permitted to take staff

Both Matthew and Luke use the plural "staves". It is carrying more than one that was not allowed. You said; "they are just told not to take an extra set". You were referring to clothes, but as I pointed out, Matthew's record could be read as; neither two ( coats, shoes, staves )

Luke's record says; neither staves and then goes on to speak of two coats. The text does not say; staff (singular). The emphasis is on not taking more than one; the same as with two coats.

Of course had all three records simply said the same thing; "do not take a staff", then we would have no reason to stop and ask the question; why is that, when a staff has as much function as a piece of clothing?

The Bible makes us stop and think. That maybe one of a number of reasons for having multiple records. We are in danger of being led like sheep, which some people are, unless we stop and ask question. Once we do, we can see the remarkable truth that underpins the whole of the Bible. Well, at least, I do.

All the best

David

Rose

03-02-2014, 10:27 AM

Hello Rose
What is the value for you reading the parts of the Bible you accept?

I gave you reasons to show that what appears to be a contradiction is not so blatant as you make out. If you take the basic Greek words, it is possible to come up with a number of translations which are different in English. The object is to take the English possibilities that apply to each text and choose those which harmonize the separate records.

Hello David

Just because I do not believe in the Biblegod does not mean the Bible is not valuable. The Bible has great historical value, giving great insight into the minds of primitive men. Many of the biblical stories are drawn from ancient myths, which allows the historian to see how those myths evolve and change over time. Also, there is great human wisdom in the Bible, just like the works of Plato, Aristotle and other wisdom books. The truth seeker should be able to value what is true in the Bible, and discard what is false.

The genders are not equal. The two sexes have different sexual organs, different physiques, voices (no Adam's apple in women). We would have to be hermaphrodites to be equal.

Come on David, you know better! I am not talking about differences in physiques. What I am talking about is our value and the rights we have as humans! Every person on the planet shares humanness, and what violates my rights as a human also violates your rights. Any unbiased person can see that!

God judges both men and women with impartiality (equally). The fact that a value placed on a male infant at birth and a female infant at birth might seem unfair to you, I suggest this has nothing to do with justice. Does a farmer put more value on a prize bull than a prize cow? If a race-horse has superior performance, then men will put a value on that horse regardless of gender for breeding purposes.

Women have equal opportunity to be saved and receive eternal life and that is what is most important. The fact that God made man head of the woman, the same as Jesus is head of his assembly, is in no way diminishing the value of men and women who are valued equally in terms of what is in their heart.

The Biblegod DOES NOT judge men and women equally!! Your example is very telling of your male-bias. Men put value on the race-horse for its superior performance, just like in the Bible where males have more value because they are viewed as superior to women. The Biblegod reflects the bias of men by even declaring the male to be worth more monetarily that the female.

Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter if women are treated unequally and unfairly in the Bible, as long as they receive salvation and eternal life. My problem with that is, if god ordains and sanctions the unfair and unjust treatment of women, then he is biased and unjust, making him an unrighteous god.

I thought you might see from what I said, what the answer should be. On balance, I think a staff was permitted to be taken on a journey. Let's recap the three separate records to show why I think that. Here are the English translations:
Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Mark says; save a staff only that is saying it was permitted to take staff

Both Matthew and Luke use the plural "staves". It is carrying more than one that was not allowed. You said; "they are just told not to take an extra set". You were referring to clothes, but as I pointed out, Matthew's record could be read as; neither two ( coats, shoes, staves )

Luke's record says; neither staves and then goes on to speak of two coats. The text does not say; staff (singular). The emphasis is on not taking more than one; the same as with two coats.

Of course had all three records simply said the same thing; "do not take a staff", then we would have no reason to stop and ask the question; why is that, when a staff has as much function as a piece of clothing?

The Bible makes us stop and think. That maybe one of a number of reasons for having multiple records. We are in danger of being led like sheep, which some people are, unless we stop and ask question. Once we do, we can see the remarkable truth that underpins the whole of the Bible. Well, at least, I do.

All the best

David

What your reasoning makes clear is that a person can make the Bible say anything they want it to say, so its words are meaningless. :p

Take care,
Rose

Nothing

04-06-2014, 12:31 PM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M

04-06-2014, 02:02 PM

Hello Nothing
You have made many good points which I agree with.

It is interesting that you said; "I actually fell away from the faith multiple times because of the "moral abominations" and again this is all because of how brainwashed we've become by the world." This is what R & R have done but have not come back as you have. You have already said that God did what he did for good reasons. It is those good reasons, that others do not get, and continue to think that God is not just.

Justice and righteousness is at the heart of God's character. It is that image of God we are to show.

In the Law given to Moses, we have a lot of regulations governing how we act towards one another and how we act towards God. We have the The Ten Commandments which Jesus summed up in the two great commandments. It is at least those commandments I think of when Jesus says; "keep the commandments"

It is often useful to find the first occurrence of a word to see how it is used. The word "command" for example, takes us to Abraham. (Gen 18:19) For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;

So Abraham commands his children to keep the way of the LORD. What is the way of the LORD? It is; to do justice and judgment.

Proverbs 21:3 says; To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice [/COLOR]
The opening of the Book of Proverbs explain what the book is about (Prov 1:2) To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

Micah 6:8 is telling us the same thing; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy,..

The one common attribute that humans have to work at and is done at all times by God is; "do justly (justice)". Justice is about righteousness and equitableness.

All the best
David

Rose

04-06-2014, 03:39 PM

Men were supposed to lead. The relationship between male and female was supposed to represent the relationship between man and God. God being the lead and his bride (male/female) in submission. Different genders were assigned different roles. Males went to war and women did not, women gave birth to children and men did not. Women also were the ones tempted by the serpent first, so they were cursed. Both genders are equally important, they just play different roles. You shouldn't blame the oppression on God, but rather, man. If man had treated you well, you wouldn't be posting about this most likely. Man makes mistakes, but God doesn't. If you think the way they did things in the bible back then was immoral, that's because of how changed we've become due to a slow process of subliminal brainwashing and political correctness. We are slowly embracing the way of the beast by abandoning God and his ways. If there is no order things become chaos. They're conditioning us to make us docile and accepting of everything, they put influencing ideas in the media and music. Gay Marriage, Feminism, socialism/libertarian mindset, an ever changing law system, multiculturalism and multiple religions. Soon they will then push for drugs to be legalized. It's a subtle takeover. Then they'll be saying "it's ok to have sex with an animal, as long as it's happy with it". Pornography will eventually be shown on everyday TV, they'll ease you into it. Then pedophiles will slowly be accepted, because hey they're just like homosexuals. You'll be able to do anything and be anything you want. Don't want to be a guy? Hey, you can just have an operation to be a girl. Don't want the responsibility of children? Instead of being responsible and not having sex hey you can just abort it. Everyone will be their own god and create their own morals as everyone has "rights". Where do you start to draw the line? Will there even be a line anymore? Life has any meaning that you give it just make up anything you want. We're alive to have fun so live and let live. I really feel like the feminizing of culture is a contributor to this probable future.

Hello Nothing :yo: glad you stopped by to share your views.

"Men were suppose to lead", why am I not surprised you as a Christian man would make such a statement. :p I don't blame god for the oppression of women ... I blame men! It is men who created the Biblegod after their own image and likeness, so they are fully responsible for all his immoralities. The Bible is filled with immoral and biased laws and deeds, all written and carried out by men, yet attributed to god ... and it is men like you who delight in the power you think it gives you over women.

You speak disparagingly about feminism, yet misogyny is fine. You have the right to marry the person your heart desires, yet you want to deny the gay person that same right. You belittle women and gays and think you are better than them. Your words reveal your heart and it looks pretty cold.

Gods laws were not oppressive to women, the laws were for their own good. It's like telling someone not to play with fire, that's not oppression. They protected everyones freedom like a shield, provided stability (the rock) and made war with any opposition to that law. When God ordered his armies to wipe a nation out it was for a good reason (they were sacrificing their kids in fire), likewise when he kept females alive for his armies they were adopted into gods family, they were not abused where does it say that in scripture? The giants were cannibals and did many other abominable acts, they were scheduled for judgement. He even used Jacobs brother Esau's family to help destroy them. by wiping them out (and their tainted bloodline) he was executing righteous judgement. It is a result of our slowly brainwashed mindset and political correctness that we think God is immoral. There was no way to reason with people like that, there was no way to co-exist.

Your words are pure foolishness on one hand, but extremely scarey on the other hand. Who in their right mind could ever say that passages like Numbers 31, was a good thing? By the Biblegods orders, families of men, women and children were slaughtered, and only the virgin girls who had just witnessed their entire families being killed were kept alive to serve as sex slaves for the Hebrew men! And you try and make this horrific account sound like a good thing, by saying "they were adopted into gods family" ... what kind of a heartless person are you?

In the Bible, women were consider a mans property ... and you say that is not oppressive? I suppose you also think that slavery is not oppressive? It is the thinking of men like you that has made the lives of women miserable.

Sacrificing ones children in the fire is a horrendous thing, but it is no worse then the mass slaughter of men, women, children and babies ordered by the Biblegod! Two wrongs do not make a right. Has your mind been so corrupted by religion that you cannot see that?

There's always a reason why God does things and trust is essential to understanding him. I admit, when I first learned of Gods existence (I experienced spiritual things first, which then made me go on to read the bible) I felt that the bible was ridiculous too. In particular the Old Testament. I actually fell away from the faith multiple times because of the "moral abominations" and again this is all because of how brainwashed we've become by the world. But god kept bringing me back. And after a while whenever I read the bible I started to really enjoy it, it gave me peace of mind.

I don't really know what to say. You're not being bound by following God, it is the opposite... I don't know what caused this, is this just an American thing? It reminds me of people arguing over whether God is black or white. A man who loves God as your husband would not oppress you, a nation that worships God would not oppress you. On the christian/spiritual side of things you would be free of responsibility in any of those roles, and on the worldly side of things you would still hold positions of authority in government and workplace.

I learned long ago it's useless to argue about things though. Those are just my thoughts on the matter.

It is precisely the men who say they "love" god the most that are the worst abusers of women. They are the fundamentalists who follow the immoral abominations in the Bible as truth, and delight in the words that say men are to rule over women.

Here is a link to an article I wrote called Gender Bias in the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/) it might open your eyes to the true nature of the Biblegod.

Regards,
Rose

L67

04-06-2014, 06:36 PM

Men were supposed to lead. The relationship between male and female was supposed to represent the relationship between man and God. God being the lead and his bride (male/female) in submission. Different genders were assigned different roles. Males went to war and women did not, women gave birth to children and men did not. Women also were the ones tempted by the serpent first, so they were cursed. Both genders are equally important, they just play different roles. You shouldn't blame the oppression on God, but rather, man. If man had treated you well, you wouldn't be posting about this most likely. Man makes mistakes, but God doesn't.

:yo: Nothing,

You just proved the MALE bias of the Bible by your own words. Your thought process personifies the primitive men who wrote the Bible. Women do love a man who is confident. They also love it when a man takes charge once in a while. They DO NOT want to be controlled and beaten into submission because some misguided men wrote an ancient book that tells men to do this. The only ones who go for this are equally misguided women who think they are being good Christians by following God's word.

What do you mean we shouldn't blame the oppression on God? Did God inspire the Bible for mankind to follow or not? Supposedly he did. Therefore, his own book tells MEN to act bias towards women.

If you think the way they did things in the bible back then was immoral, that's because of how changed we've become due to a slow process of subliminal brainwashing and political correctness.

No it isn't. It's because WE as a civilized society now recognize the violation of human rights throughout the Bible. Modern day society is infinitely more moral than the biblical times.

We are slowly embracing the way of the beast by abandoning God and his ways. If there is no order things become chaos. They're conditioning us to make us docile and accepting of everything, they put influencing ideas in the media and music. Gay Marriage, Feminism, socialism/libertarian mindset, an ever changing law system, multiculturalism and multiple religions.

Here is what you don't realize. A FREE society recognizes EQUAL human rights for all civilized people. Christians are constantly complaining that they are losing their free speech or that the government wants to take away their religion. That is complete BULLSHIT! It's Christians who want to act like communist and dictate their beliefs and morals on society because the Bible tells them to. The Bible is a book on how on to control the masses. Equal human rights for everyone ensures YOU get your freedom to. The USA is NOT and NEVER was a Christian nation. The USA was founded on The Constitution and nowhere does it appeal to any god. In fact, it strictly prohibits the establishing of a dominant religion. It's the law of the land.

Soon they will then push for drugs to be legalized. It's a subtle takeover. Then they'll be saying "it's ok to have sex with an animal, as long as it's happy with it". Pornography will eventually be shown on everyday TV, they'll ease you into it. Then pedophiles will slowly be accepted, because hey they're just like homosexuals. You'll be able to do anything and be anything you want. Don't want to be a guy? Hey, you can just have an operation to be a girl. Don't want the responsibility of children? Instead of being responsible and not having sex hey you can just abort it. Everyone will be their own god and create their own morals as everyone has "rights". Where do you start to draw the line? Will there even be a line anymore? Life has any meaning that you give it just make up anything you want. We're alive to have fun so live and let live. I really feel like the feminizing of culture is a contributor to this probable future.

Why would any of this bother you? You condone slavery, rape, genocide, polygamy, infantcide, and gross injustices with your belief in the Bible.

Speaking of abortion. How about God killing Davids newborn for crimes that David committed? David committed adultery and murder and his family was punished for his wrong doing. So much for eye for an eye. God essentially committed abortion.

Gods laws were not oppressive to women, the laws were for their own good. It's like telling someone not to play with fire, that's not oppression. They protected everyones freedom like a shield, provided stability (the rock) and made war with any opposition to that law. When God ordered his armies to wipe a nation out it was for a good reason (they were sacrificing their kids in fire), likewise when he kept females alive for his armies they were adopted into gods family, they were not abused where does it say that in scripture? The giants were cannibals and did many other abominable acts, they were scheduled for judgement. He even used Jacobs brother Esau's family to help destroy them. by wiping them out (and their tainted bloodline) he was executing righteous judgement. It is a result of our slowly brainwashed mindset and political correctness that we think God is immoral. There was no way to reason with people like that, there was no way to co-exist.

Say what? Gods laws were not oppressive to women? LOL! How do you protect everyones freedom by slaughtering villages except the virgins? You don't. Talk about warped thinking.

Ya, child sacrifice was so offensive to God that he let a nut name Jephthah burn his virgin daughter as a sacrifice, because he thought the Lord would give him victory over the Ammonites. The Lord did NOTHING to stop it and the Bible tells us Jephthah killed his daughter.

It's mind blowing that you can mindlessly excuse away the atrocities in the Bible. God is all powerful. He can do anything he wants, yet all he can do is initiate violence on anyone who doesn't bow to him. He could have instituted love and peace but no he chose violence. It screams of the thoughts of primitive men who wrote the Bible.

There's always a reason why God does things and trust is essential to understanding him. I admit, when I first learned of Gods existence (I experienced spiritual things first, which then made me go on to read the bible) I felt that the bible was ridiculous too. In particular the Old Testament. I actually fell away from the faith multiple times because of the "moral abominations" and again this is all because of how brainwashed we've become by the world. But god kept bringing me back. And after a while whenever I read the bible I started to really enjoy it, it gave me peace of mind.

You should have stayed away from the Bible. Your morality has been corrupted by your new found belief.

I don't really know what to say. You're not being bound by following God, it is the opposite... I don't know what caused this, is this just an American thing? It reminds me of people arguing over whether God is black or white. A man who loves God as your husband would not oppress you, a nation that worships God would not oppress you. On the christian/spiritual side of things you would be free of responsibility in any of those roles, and on the worldly side of things you would still hold positions of authority in government and workplace.

I learned long ago it's useless to argue about things though. Those are just my thoughts on the matter.

You don't know what caused women to be oppressed by following God? Because MEN who take the Bible literally have done more to oppress than to free.

Nothing

04-07-2014, 12:03 AM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Nothing

04-07-2014, 12:28 AM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M

04-07-2014, 02:07 AM

Hello Nothing

Marriage was a sacred vow between a man and a women and symbolic of the relationship between God and man as stated earlier. You know that it's wrong for a man and a man to get married, the law tells us this and so does our conscience. Do you find it acceptable in your conscience when you see two large bearded men in public wearing pink dresses passionately kiss each other?

I know what you are getting at, but those who do things that our conscience tell us is wrong, is not wrong to those who practice such things and their conscience is clear. Conscience is personal. I cannot experience your consciousness. I know our consciences are similar, because we know what God's way is for humans and that way is firmly fixed in our mind. If it is not in the forefront of our mind (our hearts) then it is not going to affect the way we live. Even when we know a thing is wrong, desire can get the better of us in times of weakness as it did with King David.
There is one law society makes for itself, and there is the law that God has set his people.

Rose uses the example of King David as God not being just. It does not matter how many times it is explained, Rose does not change her opinion. Rose is dull of hearing. The word of God is meaningless to Rose because she is convinced in her own mind the Bible is authored by men from their imaginations. All I see from Rose is her own imaginations, which are not based on the word of God.

Once a person draws away from God, God draws away from them. Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. This principle is expressed in another way as in Palm 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. 16 The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

People do not want to take the advice of God. It is evident Rose does not want to follow God's rules. She does in part, only because Rose says the rules have been made by man. God's basic rules do not change. "Do justly". That will never change. It is not innate in everyone to do justly. Left without guidance, then everyone does that which is right in their own eyes. You and I follow a king. At the end of the Book of Judges, it says (Judges 21:25); In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

As you said, God knows us better than we know ourselves and God knows what is best for us. Some people run to the doctor expecting the doctor to prescribe a remedy for their sickness; they never think to run to God to heal them of their sickness of sin. God has given us the cure. Of course, those who do not see themselves as sick will simply die of their sickness and know no better.

People who find God's truth do not let it go. Those who depart from God's word, I reckon never found the truth to begin with. Once a person's heart is hardened against God, they become reprobates and will not be saved. The lessons are prolific in the Bible. If the lessons are not read and understood and practiced, that becomes the problem.

Psalm 95
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Enough said for the moment. I know you know these things and we both have to take the opportunity to make these things known to those who have the "ears to hear".

All the best
David

Rose

04-07-2014, 05:21 PM

Do you really think men were smart enough to make up God and the bible? Sorry, but I don't think for a second men could have made up something like this.

Hello Nothing

The mentality of the Bible is very primitive, which is in keeping with the intellect of the Bronze Age men who wrote it. If the Bible were truly inspired by a creator god it would not be full of immoralities, contradictions, errors and intellectually flawed thinking. The Bible is full of all sorts of absurdities, its authors actually thought that men were the carriers of progeny in their loins ... if god inspired the Bible he should have known better than that!

I don't belittle women at all, I never said that anywhere in my post. I love my mother, sisters and basically any women I've come across. As for gays, I'll admit I feel sort of uncomfortable being around them but I don't hate them. I hate the act of homosexuality, when a man lies with another man or dresses in a women's clothes. I also don't care about power, I don't care about anything in this world. What I do recognize is that society will be a lot better when men are leading the way and following the law of God as a basis for how they live. God blesses people when they do this and blesses the land also. God is only trying to give you happiness, he knows what will make you happy because he created you.

Saying that society would be better off if men were leading shows your bias and prejudice. The only reason you say that is because that is what the Bible says, proving that the Bible is gender biased and oppressive toward women. You hate the act of homosexuality because the Bible teaches you to hate it, the same with what you consider to be women's clothes. ALL HUMANS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS and not have their freedoms based on some archaic book written by primitive men.

Marriage was a sacred vow between a man and a women and symbolic of the relationship between God and man as stated earlier. You know that it's wrong for a man and a man to get married, the law tells us this and so does our conscience. Do you find it acceptable in your conscience when you see two large bearded men in public wearing pink dresses passionately kiss each other?

The Bible is full of men having marriages with multiple wives and concubines, not much sacred about that!

It may make me feel uncomfortable to see two bearded men wearing pink dresses kissing each other, but that does not mean it is wrong. It only means I was raised in a society where people said it was wrong because of their prejudices. No harm comes to you or me if two men want to marry each other, every person should have the right to live with the person they love ... there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Those nations were scheduled for judgement and he used the nation of Israel as his sword to do that. God even says that "it is not for your righteousness, but for the wickedness of the nations round about you". I'm sure if you were to go back in time and see, you would vomit at the moral depravity they were committing. Homosexuality, cannibalism, bestiality, murder... if you think that God oppresses women then you never saw these nations and their wickedness. What would have happened to women in a society where anything goes and men have the superior physical ability? What would have happened if he let those children grow up and live? They would have corrupted the land again and the nation of Israel. They had to be wiped out. Were they tortured? No, they were just killed. Which is merciful compared to what some of the other nations would have done. I think that the virgin women would have much more enjoyed the company of the Israelite who inherited the promised land and riches and just laws to live by, than to go back to the filth and oppression they were living in.

The reason I think the Biblegod was created by men is because the same atrocities, immoralities and wickedness that happened in other nations also happened in the Bible ... and it says they were commanded by god. Throughout history men have oppressed women, and treated them like slaves ... the Bible is no different in that regard.

Show me where it says that they were sex slaves for Hebrew men? They were married and had children as far as I know, not passed around for everyone to have sex with. They never committed that kind of depravity because the law forbid it. This was also a time of war, it is good to realize this when you put things in perspective.

I will take a look at that link Rose, I'm also going to leave this link here.

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_women_property.htm

To be a slave means you are owned by another person through no choice of your own. Those virgin women who had their families slaughtered by command of god, were captured by the Hebrew men and taken for purpose of sex, that is why only the virgins were saved ... it was not their choice, consequently they were slaves. I don't understand how anyone can condone such atrocious behavior commanded by the god they worship!

Regards
Rose

Nothing

04-07-2014, 10:07 PM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M

04-08-2014, 01:28 AM

Hello Nothing
Thanks for your reply to Rose. I agree with what you are saying

There was no nation in the world as civilized as the Israelites at that time. Agree

Without God and his word, we'd most likely still be in the bronze age. Who do you think gives the inspiration for new technologies and inventions? Where does the thought come from? What drives them to pursue that idea? I think the same. Where would we be now if great scientists had not had inspirational thoughts; would we be as advanced now? Why did not the inspiration come earlier? God is working in the kingdoms of men in ways we are not aware of. 30 years ago, James Burke wrote and presented a TV series entiltled; 'Connections'. The series can be found on Youtube.

God created that person for a specific purpose. Everything comes from God.Pharaoh in Egypt at the time of Moses is the classic example. (Rom 9:17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

What I don't understand is, now that you know what I've told you, you still think the bible is oppressive to women. It is what the Bible calls; hardening the heart. This is what Pharaoh did. Once a heart is hardened, can it soften or does God give them up as reprobates?

Those virgin women would have been raped, beaten, had their children sacrificed or died from disease if they weren't taken by the Israelite armies. God says that these nations were awful. And by now you know it wasn't all about sex at all...Rose does not read into the text and read what the text actually says. We have a catalog of mistakes and errors made by the Children of Israel in addition to the abominations of the people God wanted the Hebrews to destroy so they would not be a snare to his people. Moses was upset, because the orders given had not been followed and so Moses makes the decision to keep the virgins only. Only the virgins were considered "clean" and God's principles are based on keeping oneself "clean". What Moses did, was not done to abuse the women, but to integrate those women into the Children of Israel society based on God's way of life set for his people.
The war was tragic but the abominations of the nations surrounding God's people were not just an offense to God, they would be an offense to us now. The same offenses are still going on now and we do not get to know about it and if we do, nothing gets done, because it is tolerated. I am waiting for God to act once more, which he will do in the Great Day of the LORD when God's judgment comes upon all nations. We can be assured that when Christ is back on earth ruling with the "iron rod" in righteousness, Christ will not tolerate the same abominations.

God deals with his people's mistakes. People's mistakes will not alter God's plan. God's principles do not change.

All the best
David

duxrow

04-08-2014, 06:00 AM

Cain, Abel, Adam, and Eve were having lunch and:
a. Cain said he'd like to have a baby sister.
b. Abel said he'd rather have a tractor.
c. Eve said she would prefer a midwife.
d. Adam wanted rope and ladder..
e. The Serpent was happy to oblige.

Imagination plays a big part, right? :thumb:

Rose

04-08-2014, 08:25 AM

Something can always appear to be simple at first glance. The bible and its commandments have been huge influencing factors on government throughout history. Pagan nations that practiced cannibalism, idolatry, sacrificing and other sin were wiped out and became civilized. Men were primitive indeed, but it is God and Gods laws who taught them to be civilized. God taught them which animals to avoid, what foods to eat, how to be clean all to avoid disease and sickness. There was no nation in the world as civilized as the Israelites at that time.

Without God and his word, we'd most likely still be in the bronze age. Who do you think gives the inspiration for new technologies and inventions? Where does the thought come from? What drives them to pursue that idea? God created that person for a specific purpose. Everything comes from God.

Hello Nothing

I suppose you consider the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch burnings and all the other tortures and cruelties done to so-called heretics civilized too! Over the centuries of human civilization, the Bible has caused far more harm and suffering than good. The Bible has been a negative force that has caused people to do wicked things in the name of god, all because the Bible tells them so.

I already knew homosexuality was wrong WITHOUT having read the bible. It is the same feeling you get, when you think about having sex with your siblings or your parents for instance. Your mind screams "NO". What I don't understand is, now that you know what I've told you, you still think the bible is oppressive to women.

Having sex with ones siblings or parents (like god allowed with Lot and his daughters) is entirely different than same sex couples who can't reproduce. So, tell me exactly why you think homosexuality is wrong.

Oh, maybe I still think the Bible is oppressive to women because they were considered the property of the man, and denied equal human rights with men. :doh:

Gods original intention was to have 1 man and 1 women joined together. During old testament times polygamy could have been allowed for a few reasons:

War during that time killed a lot of MEN, the population was more one-sided toward women. There were always far more women then men (I just noticed I had this back the front) in population numbers, that stands true even today. It would have been impossible for a woman to provide for herself back then (especially when you consider what the nations round about were like) as women often relied on their fathers or husbands for protection. Men worked to provide for family so women were dependent on them. So Polygamy could have been used as a way to provide for a women who would not have found a husband or provider otherwise. The father also may have not been able to provide for his daughter much longer, so he gave her to wife to a man who would protect her. There were also laws stating that if a man had more than one wife, he must provide for all of them equally. It was a better alternative for them to do this, rather than to starve or do something else drastic in order to make a living. It also would also have increased the population of Israel as a whole and allowed their armies to grow larger. This case is just like divorce, god did not want divorces to happen but he knew they would happen anyway so instigated laws to mitigate whatever negativity could result from hating your spouse.

Again it boils down to this. I can't answer all your questions, you just have to trust in God and find out on your own.

So far you haven't answered any of my questions. You have just made up excuses and justifications for all the gender bias, and immoralities contained in the Bible. If it were truly god's intention for marriage to be only one man and one woman then he never would have allowed his appointed kings like Saul and Solomon to have hundreds of wives and concubines.

And yes, there is harm that happens when two men want to marry each other. There is more to it than the physical reality we see.

And exactly what is the harm that happens?

Those virgin women would have been raped, beaten, had their children sacrificed or died from disease if they weren't taken by the Israelite armies. God says that these nations were awful. And by now you know it wasn't all about sex at all...

What are you talking about? Those girls WERE RAPED! Don't you know the meaning of the word rape? When a person is taken against their will and used sexually that is rape. I think you need to read Numbers 31 again. It says that all the men, women and children were slaughtered ... except the virgin girls, who were divided up and given to the Hebrew men. That is horrific! And you are trying to make excuses and justify why it's not ... that is appalling. :eek:

Secondly, if those nations were so awful why did god allow the virgin girls to be spared and given to the men? Sounds like the desires of lustful men to me!

Nothing

04-08-2014, 10:44 AM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Rose

04-08-2014, 05:30 PM

You know that isn't true Rose, that is mans fault not gods. You know how even now there are Christians who do things in the name of God which only tarnish his name and those people will be judged. Those Christians blindly go to church as a social gathering and believe they're saved. they don't justify it by their actions and they don't study God's word. The people you're talking about use church/religion as a way to satisfy their own needs, they don't really care. People are always mis-representing God. God always gets given the short end of the stick.

Hello Nothing,

Of coarse I know it's mans fault! Every evil and wicked thing that has ever been done has been done by people, there is no god. Men wrote the Bible and then blamed it on god. :lol:

This makes me wonder if you were ever hurt by religion at some point. Perhaps you were raised in a church where you witnessed a lot of mans failings? I know what that is like because I was raised in a Mormon church up until highschool where I then became an atheist. That's a story for another time though.

No, I have never been personally hurt by any particular religion. After nearly 28 years of closing my eyes to the horrendous atrocities and gender biases contained in the Bible, I finally woke up about 4 years ago ... Oh happy day! :sBo_reflection2:

I had thought Lots daughters forced themselves on him to keep their bloodline. I think it is wrong because God has given me a good conscience throughout my life to know what is right and wrong, this is only further justified by the bible.

I would think you being a man would understand that it is preposterous to think a woman can force herself upon a drunk man ... and the Bible says it happened two nights in a row. :hysterical:

Even if it had been possible for Lot's daughters to rape their father and get pregnant, why did your god allow it to happen?

Rose what do you think would have happened to women back then if they had no man to protect them? Tell me what you think should have happened.

Maybe you should talk about male protection to some of the women who have suffered tremendous violence and abuse at the hands of men! Worldwide the statistics report that one in three (33%) women suffers some form of violence at the hands of men, usually from family members like husbands and fathers. Instead of your Biblegod charging men to rule over women, he should have been focusing on the violent nature of men! A world led by women would be a far more peaceful place.

It promotes lust over self control. It would damage the mind of a child psychologically if a gay couple decided to adopt a child. It contributes to the deterioration of morals and values. Once one thing is allowed, then other things will be too. It is unpleasant to be around or look at.. you could do a search and find many reasons as to why it's a bad idea. It's going to happen anyway, so you'll get to see the fruits of your labor. The primary reason though will always be that God hates it and if God hates it that nation and land will be cursed with misfortune.

And you don't think that the whole reason men captured virgin women to keep for themselves wasn't about lust? The Bible is filled with lusty men who are allowed to marry as many women as they want, capture women from other nations if they want, own women as property and divorce them when they tire of them ... all because their male god allows them to.

Why would a child's mind be psychologically damaged if they were raised by a loving gay couple? Gay people have the same morals and values as straight people, it's the religious fanatics I'm worried about. Infinitely more children have been harmed by religious fanatics, then have ever been harmed by gay couples.

I have already explained the situation with the virgins, consider all my previous posts. The Rape I'm thinking of tends to be violence and abuse. They were married to Israeli men who were under a covenant that ensured those women were provided for. Typically slaves in this case (concubines) back then were often treated as part of the family. You seem to horrendously over-exaggerate things in favor of whatever ideology it is that you're advocating. You're allowing Satan to lead you astray with emotional provocations. I understand some of the things David has said now, you just won't hear my side of the argument. This is something I've noticed is re-occurring in feminist movements, debates are often one-sided and the feminist in the end doesn't even know what they want!

What!!!! Rape is rape! The very act of rape itself is committing violence against a persons self will and integrity. Do you think that having your entire family slaughtered in front of your eyes and then being taken by strange men to be raped is not violent and abusive? I know you're a man, but imagine for one moment that a man burst into your house, killed your whole family except for your young daughter, which he took to rape and keep for himself ... how do you think your daughter would feel?

If I believed in Satan (which I don't) I would say that Satan has hardened your heart and seared your conscience. Anyone who thinks the account in Numbers 31, is anything but horrendous is lacking basic human empathy.

Let me tell you what all feminists want, they want the same human rights that men have, and to be treated justly and fairly. You know that is not a lot to ask for. I'm sure you would not be happy if you were denied basic human rights simply because you are a man. Try putting yourself in a woman's shoes sometime, you might learn something.

Regards,
Rose

L67

04-08-2014, 08:37 PM

Do you know why society is turning to crap now? It's because you support a system of the beast, where man tries to build his own utopia and become his own God. Where free will reigns supreme and you can do anything you want. Unfortunately, this is not how we were created to be. The bible was not there to "control" the masses. How exactly was it controlling them? By protecting them? Do you call protection control? Don't you mean religion? I don't see how the bible controls anyone, you can do anything you want, but there will be dire consequences for your actions. You can murder someone, sure. But don't expect to go unpunished for it. The fear of the law keeps you from murdering someone in the first place, in a way it protects you from doing something stupid. The people of today CRAVE justice, they want those corrupt people in positions of power, the people who have harmed their family and friends to be judged and justly so.

Society isn't turning to crap. Your view of society is crap. All Christians paint the world as such a terrible place. It's not that way at all. There is so much good going on that you miss it because your view is filtered by the immoral teachings of the Bible.

There is no beast system and there never will be. If the Bible has any truth to it, then everything already happened in the first century. Is there anytime in our history since the Bible that you couldn't say the end times were near? NO! Christians have been signaling the end times for two thousand years and have been wrong every step of the way. What does Christianity have to show for their erroneous predictions. ZERO! No evidence, no nothing. Christianity can't even be united as to what the correct interpretation of the Bible is.

I never once mentioned anything about living in a society where you can do anything you want. You made that up.

You don't see how the Bible is used for controlling the masses? You don't know the history of the Church. I suggest you do some studying. The Bible has been used for thousands of years to control the people.

The way you want the world to be, it is already going in the direction. And watch what will happen once you have things your way. The truth is, you don't know what you want, but God does, and his law is right there for us to teach us how to live. The commandments were an act of love for us.

The world is going the way I want it to be. And it's getting better and better every day. Religion is slowly but surely losing its grip on society because of all the information available that debunks the Bible. Your god only operates within the narrow margins that science hasn't quite figured out yet. And that margin is slowly shrinking everyday.

There's nothing I can say to change your mind about things because I know what it is like to be in that mindset. If you don't give up on God and try your best to understand him, understanding will come.

There is something you don't realize. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I know where you are coming from. Hell, I grew up in a Christian school.

You could change my mind real quick. Give me hard EVIDENCE for God and I will repent immediately.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-08-2014, 10:19 PM

Society isn't turning to crap. Your view of society is crap. All Christians paint the world as such a terrible place. It's not that way at all. There is so much good going on that you miss it because your view is filtered by the immoral teachings of the Bible.

Hey there L67, :yo:

Glad you found time to comment. You and I have many views in common. As you note, Christians have always thought that society was getting "worse and worse" during their own generations, "proving" to themselves that the end was near! Martin Luther thought the end was near 400 years ago because of the "antichrist" running the Catholic Church. Etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum ad nauseum. And so they can't see any of the amazing progress we have made, like the advancement of women's rights, universal education, the abolition of slavery (which was strong in the "Bible Belt" with many believers arguing strongly that the Bible endorsed slavery - see this post: Debow's Review (1850) Argued that the Bible Endorsed Slavery (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2134-DeBow-s-Review-(1850)-Argued-that-the-Bible-Supports-Slavery)).

There is no beast system and there never will be. If the Bible has any truth to it, then everything already happened in the first century. Is there anytime in our history since the Bible that you couldn't say the end times were near? NO! Christians have been signaling the end times for two thousand years and have been wrong every step of the way. What does Christianity have to show for their erroneous predictions. ZERO! No evidence, no nothing. Christianity can't even be united as to what the correct interpretation of the Bible is.

Yep ... Christianity has a perfect unbroken two thousand year record to false predictions. How could anyone believe any of it? We see the same thing in the other religions like Islam and Mormonism. What do they all have in common? They teach that BELIEF in things that cannot be proven is a virtue and if you don't have blind belief you will suffer eternal damnation! Yowsers. Can't imagine a more powerful mind-killer.

The world is going the way I want it to be. And it's getting better and better every day. Religion is slowly but surely losing its grip on society because of all the information available that debunks the Bible. Your god only operates within the narrow margins that science hasn't quite figured out yet. And that margin is slowly shrinking everyday.

Yep! When did the scientific revolution happen? After the Protestant Reformation when the Catholic Church, and the Bible, began to lose authority over the minds of humanity. And it's been getting better ever since. And since the internet, the dawn of freedom has greatly accelerated. This is the topic of a recent study reported in this article:

Losing our religion: New research shows the Internet could be making Americans lose faith (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597891/Losing-religion-New-research-shows-religion-declined-Internet-use-increased.html)

There is something you don't realize. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I know where you are coming from. Hell, I grew up in a Christian school.

That's interesting. I'd love to hear your story. I was a Christian for about 15 years. Rose for 28!

You could change my mind real quick. Give me hard EVIDENCE for God and I will repent immediately.
BINGO!

Great post my friend. :thumb:

Mystykal

04-08-2014, 10:26 PM

Hello Nothing,

Of coarse I know it's mans fault! Every evil and wicked thing that has ever been done has been done by people, there is no god. Men wrote the Bible and then blamed it on god. :lol:

No, I have never been personally hurt by any particular religion. After nearly 28 years of closing my eyes to the horrendous atrocities and gender biases contained in the Bible, I finally woke up about 4 years ago ... Oh happy day! :sBo_reflection2:

I would think you being a man would understand that it is preposterous to think a woman can force herself upon a drunk man ... and the Bible says it happened two nights in a row. :hysterical:

Even if it had been possible for Lot's daughters to rape their father and get pregnant, why did your god allow it to happen?

Maybe you should talk about male protection to some of the women who have suffered tremendous violence and abuse at the hands of men! Worldwide the statistics report that one in three (33%) women suffers some form of violence at the hands of men, usually from family members like husbands and fathers. Instead of your Biblegod charging men to rule over women, he should have been focusing on the violent nature of men! A world led by women would be a far more peaceful place.

And you don't think that the whole reason men captured virgin women to keep for themselves wasn't about lust? The Bible is filled with lusty men who are allowed to marry as many women as they want, capture women from other nations if they want, own women as property and divorce them when they tire of them ... all because their male god allows them to.

Why would a child's mind be psychologically damaged if they were raised by a loving gay couple? Gay people have the same morals and values as straight people, it's the religious fanatics I'm worried about. Infinitely more children have been harmed by religious fanatics, then have ever been harmed by gay couples.

What!!!! Rape is rape! The very act of rape itself is committing violence against a persons self will and integrity. Do you think that having your entire family slaughtered in front of your eyes and then being taken by strange men to be raped is not violent and abusive? I know you're a man, but imagine for one moment that a man burst into your house, killed your whole family except for your young daughter, which he took to rape and keep for himself ... how do you think your daughter would feel?

If I believed in Satan (which I don't) I would say that Satan has hardened your heart and seared your conscience. Anyone who thinks the account in Numbers 31, is anything but horrendous is lacking basic human empathy.

Let me tell you what all feminists want, they want the same human rights that men have, and to be treated justly and fairly. You know that is not a lot to ask for. I'm sure you would not be happy if you were denied basic human rights simply because you are a man. Try putting yourself in a woman's shoes sometime, you might learn something.

Regards,
Rose

Let it be noted that Rose is on the record as saying:
..."there is no god."

Nothing

04-09-2014, 12:47 AM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

Nothing

04-09-2014, 01:04 AM

I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

David M

04-09-2014, 04:11 AM

"Why did God even create anything? If he just didn't create anything then no suffering would have had to occur"
"why did God pre-ordain those who die and those who are saved? That didn't seem fair"
"Why does God punish us with Hell? It's such a horrible punishment, I wouldn't wish it on ANYONE"
"How are we supposed to love God? You can't be commanded to love something, you can't just control your emotions like a switch"
"How can we know the bible is trustworthy?"
"Why did God make everything so confusing? Why wasn't he straightforward?"
"Why did there have to be sacrifices? Why did everything in existence have to go the specific way things did?"
"Why is this existence drenched in sorrow, why did everything have to be so sad? Why does everything have to be this way?"
"Why was I even born? It would have been better to have not been born so that I don't go to hell"
"What value is there in anything? Why should anything exist if you can just be nothingness instead and be free of all desires and needs?"
"Why does god even need me to pray if he can per-determine all my thoughts?"
"Why does God even need worship and demand worship? He's supposed to already have everything"
"How does god expect me to live this Christian life? How can I live up to all of these expectations? it's impossible"
"Why won't God answer my prayers or help me? I never ask for anything material, just for understanding" (later on I realized God was answering my prayers. It's not immediate and it's not flashy but he does answer them)
Hello Nothing
Thanks for your open and frank insight into where you have come from. Just as there are those who turn away from God, so there are those who turn to God. The Bible has to be balanced. The Bible is a warts and all book and does not hold back any punches. The Bible shows us how wicked man can be and man is God's creation. We also see just how perfect man can be. The skills and abilities of man never ceases to amaze me.
If we all ask ourselves the question, Can I be good? the answer is probably "yes". So why are we not good all the time? Why are many people not good most of the time? Do we have free choice and the will to change? Jesus was sorely tempted and he had to work hard at putting God's will before his own.

The problem humans have is the satan within. Satan can be that part of the mind affected also by the sensation of the flesh signalling the brain, that wants to please self. Satan is self-centred. Forget the myth and figurative language attributed to Satan, satan is a part of our mind, and it is our mind that has to be self-regulated and controlled. The carnal mind we are told is enmity with God. The enemy of God is man, with his carnal mind; unlike God's Angels which do his will.

Sin is the outworking of the mind as James tells us; (James 1)
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Even James warns us not to err on understanding the reason for sinning. Practically in every case, satan is a human mind at work. There are times when God takes on the office of Satan as in the story of Job.

The god of this world is satan. That is why "the world" is godless and is the collective mind of people who want to live their way and not follow God's instruction. People are fickle, even God's chosen race were fickle and as a people, they were no better than anyone else. They did have the advantage of being given God's instructions and that did put them ahead in terms of hygiene etc. that we take for granted these days, yet hospitals can fall short of hygiene standards as they have been reported to have done.

We have to balance both sides to God's character. When we do, we see God is constant, he is just and righteous. As I keep saying to Rose, but she does not accept it, "you have to blame man first and not blame God". God does not destroy those he sees as righteous. Job was not destroyed, he was tested. What is destruction when God can raise people from the dead? That is not to say God does not let the righteous die at the hands of cruel and evil men (and women).

There are times when God says (Jeremiah 13:14) I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. And for very good reason, when we consider what the people were doing.

King David, even though he stands as an example of one who had moments of weakness and was spared and shown mercy by God and gives us all hope, because he delighted in the Law of God. To him, the Law was his salvation. As we know now, the law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, who fulfilled that Law. We are in the privileged position now of living by faith.

There are those who unjustly accuse God of committing atrocities on societies that even to us now we would consider those societies were abominable. There are those who declare that for all the Bible tells us of the cruel events, that God is; (Psalm 86:15) a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.. This should not be ignored even though Rose does. Take that away and yes, God is left as only a cruel monster.

We all have to die, but the gift of God is eternal life. Once the reality of that is believed (and we do not have to believe blindly) that is the greatest gift anyone could be given. It is folly by those who want to throw that gift back in the face of God. Those who desire eternal life can only be given it my God because of his mercy and grace. For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

There is not one perfect person in this world, on this planet right now. People who reject God can be beyond saving, and they are reprobates. They will not listen to God and do that which pleases themselves. They want to die or believe a vain thing. God cannot help them, unless he forcibly reprograms them. God has not need to do that, not when he can select from those who are willing to try and be obedient to his instructions. We struggle to overcome, yet Christ has won the battle for us and gives us the victory. How good of God is that to have provided the way out for us?

The same instructions have come from God's only begotten Son; (Matt 11:29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

God has given us a way out and to avoid eternal death in which the soul and body is destroyed. For those who believe in God and His Son, then the body can be killed, but the soul cannot, not when as Jesus did and commended his spirit into the hands of God. We have been given the assurance of the resurrection in that Jesus was raised from the dead and has won the victory for us over sin and eternal death.

It is such a pity that those who have rejected God have hardened their heart so much against God, they might be unrecoverable, hence they become reprobates. That is very sad. As the other lesson taught by Jesus and as the example of Lot's wife, once we have committed our life to follow the teaching of God and of Jesus, we must not look back. We must not look to the ways of the world that is godless and does that which is right in its own sight and is self-centred.

I am not that man, who you have been looking for, but there are very good people who have studied God's word and found the truth that others have failed to see and do not preach. I follow anyone that preaches the truth and can expound the scriptures in the way the Apostle Paul could. It is amazing how for all Paul teaches us the truth, there are those who accuse him of being a false apostle.

I am accused on this forum of lying and twisting the word of God, yet others have to twist far more than I do. If I find 9 out of 10 verses confirming the same thing, it is the one verse that apparently does not fit that has to have its meaning found to correspond with the rest. It appears to me, there are those who will twist 9 out of 10 verses to fit in with the one.

My conscience is clear for all that has been said against me; (1 Peter 3)
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

All the best

David

David M

04-09-2014, 05:01 AM

You're confusing religion with the bible. How could you spend 20 years as a Christian and not realize this?
Hello again Nothing.

You are right

It is people like Michael Rood; a self-professed paid Baptist minister who spent years preaching the lies that he was taught by the church, who has since repented and confesses that he was wrong. He has now repented and has found the truth in the Bible by ignoring what the church teaches and has studied the Bible for himself by studying the Greek and Hebrew scriptures and understanding the language that the King James Version of the Bible meant at the time it was translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts that were available.

This is what happens when people look at what the Bible says and not accept blindly what the church teaches. Religion does have a lot to answer for. Religion is man-made, it is not God's instruction. Richard was the same believing in the Trinity. Now Richard does not believe anything in the Bible or that it is the inspired word of God, which in man's possession not been preserved as well as it could have been, yet God has caused ways for his word not to be completely lost and destroyed. Even in these last days, leading up to the return of Christ new evidences are found supporting the original word of God. Men have a lot to answer for, by corrupting the word of God and trying to destroy it and control people by it and not letting people have access to it.

Lessons come from the Bible. All the lessons are there for us to learn and learn what not to do as much as learn what to do.

That is why Jesus broke every Pharisee-made law. Jesus never once broke the law and the law relating to the Sabbath. He was wrongly accused of doing so.

I have come to realize that any quote taken from the Bible can be used against me; Consider what Jesus says concerning those to whom he preached; (Matt 13:15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

There are those on this forum that say I am one of those, because I do not accept what they say, or that I fail to accept the evidence they put forward. All I will say to that is; I shall continue to reason with anyone from the scriptures to see who is right and who is wrong. I am not giving up, even though others do. They end up throwing tantrums and curse me with foul language, because I do not accept what they say.

Even Rose finds quoting the Bible useful as her signature. She quotes only the first part and ignores what comes after.
(Isaiah 1)
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

All the best
David