The Christian Divorce Rate Myth [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Christian Divorce Rate Myth


Paul7
05-11-2012, 21:39
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/divorce-and-remarriage/the-christian-divorce-rate-myth.html

Geko45
05-11-2012, 21:44
I'm willing to accept the proposition that christain families in general have lower divorce rates. What I'm not willing to accept (without proof) is that this is a desirable outcome. How do we know that it just isn't more people staying in dysfunctional and self destructive relationships out of community / religious pressure?

Animal Mother
05-11-2012, 22:05
I'm willing to accept the proposition that christain families in general have lower divorce rates. What I'm not willing to accept (without proof) is that this is a desirable outcome. How do we know that it just isn't more people staying in dysfunctional and self destructive relationships out of community / religious pressure?That isn't what these studies found though, according to the link posted. Self-professed Christians actually had higher rates of divorce than the non-religious. It was attendance at a church or other worship service that correlated to lower divorce rates. It would be interesting to see if this held true across other religions also.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 11:53
That isn't what these studies found though, according to the link posted. Self-professed Christians actually had higher rates of divorce than the non-religious. It was attendance at a church or other worship service that correlated to lower divorce rates. It would be interesting to see if this held true across other religions also.

Agreed, the point focuses on committed Christians. Jesus said the claim to be a follower of His alone didn't mean you were one.

void *
05-12-2012, 11:55
Agreed, the point focuses on committed Christians. Jesus said the claim to be a follower of His alone didn't mean you were one.

Do they have lower divorce rates because they actually believe, or do they have lower divorce rates because, in a society of believers, there is social pressure to not get divorced?

Paul7
05-12-2012, 11:56
I'm willing to accept the proposition that christain families in general have lower divorce rates. What I'm not willing to accept (without proof) is that this is a desirable outcome. How do we know that it just isn't more people staying in dysfunctional and self destructive relationships out of community / religious pressure?

The husband and wife aside, divorce is bad for children:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/7015/#

void *
05-12-2012, 11:58
That doesn't answer the question I asked. It also ignores that there are specific situations in which parents staying together is bad for the children.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 12:37
I have been married 13 years. I am not going anywhere. Divorce is not part of our belief system unless it is based upon marital infedility. My wife and I do not cheat on one another, and are content with each other.

For our own personal relationship we took it a step further. We have agreed that we are mated for life. That means if one or the other dies we have chosen not to remarry.

ponders
05-12-2012, 12:50
For our own personal relationship we took it a step further. We have agreed that we are mated for life. That means if one or the other dies we have chosen not to remarry.



i am this way too if she dies i WONT remarry. marriage card is punched ONE and DONE but when i brought up the subject with her she said that if i died she would remarry and it made me feel like i got sick to my stomach:puking:

still VERY BURNT over that fact:steamed:

whatever tho its her life when im gone and if she dosent care enough for me to remain mine when im gone its her perogitive:whistling:

Alizard
05-12-2012, 13:55
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/divorce-and-remarriage/the-christian-divorce-rate-myth.html
The "myth" is probably generated by the good "christians" like Newt Gingrich who change wives faster than I go through cars.

Christ specifically warned against divorce, but all sins are forgivable if one asks with actual repentance. Of course, it's hard to believe repentance is sincere when the "repenter" keeps doing the same thing over and over.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 16:18
That doesn't answer the question I asked.

The question was irrelevant. The study found committed Christians get divorced left, it didn't say why.

It also ignores that there are specific situations in which parents staying together is bad for the children.

Cite?

steveksux
05-12-2012, 16:22
The husband and wife aside, divorce is bad for children:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/7015/#

That doesn't answer the question I asked. It also ignores that there are specific situations in which parents staying together is bad for the children.

This is true... On average, its dangerous to slam on the brakes and swerve into another lane. Not so much when you round a curve and there's a car stalled in your lane. Its dangerous to extrapolate the average or median and attempt to apply it to all situations. Are children really better off raised by a married couple where the husband beats the wife regularly? That's where little wife beaters come from. How about cases of incest?

Also like to point this out... I think if you do some statistics on vegans, you'll find they tend to eat less meat than the general population also.

I'm not sure its remarkable that the more fervent believers that divorce is wrong have less divorces... Makes sense to me, and I believe it. Solid statistics, it sounds like.

Where people get into trouble using statistics is often the conclusions they draw based on the statistics, the "why" if you will. Statistics only covers the "what".

Randy

void *
05-13-2012, 12:13
The question was irrelevant.

I don't think it is.

Cite?

http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/articles/abuse-in-the-christian-home/god-answers-prayer-in-abusive-marriages/

Are you going to tell her she should have stayed with her abusive husband? Are you going to argue that doing so would be better for her daughter than what she did?

muscogee
05-13-2012, 12:59
From the article,

Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith -- be it Christian or other -- have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

It's OK to deceive people in the name of Christ.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 13:08
I have been married 13 years. I am not going anywhere. Divorce is not part of our belief system unless it is based upon marital infedility. My wife and I do not cheat on one another, and are content with each other.

For our own personal relationship we took it a step further. We have agreed that we are mated for life. That means if one or the other dies we have chosen not to remarry.

That's selfish.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 13:09
That's selfish.

I'm sorry, we don't have room in our marriage for you.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 13:25
I'm sorry, we don't have room in our marriage for you.

You and your wife want to control each other even after you're dead. Talk about control freaks. It's none of my business what my wife does after I die. I hope she does whatever she needs to do to recover and be happy with the rest of her life.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 13:33
You and your wife want to control each other even after you're dead. Talk about control freaks. It's none of my business what my wife does after I die. I hope she does whatever she needs to do to recover and be happy with the rest of her life.

Yes, but you are operating under a completely different set of assumptions. You assume you die and that is it. We plan on spending eternity with each other.

We are not control freaks, rather we are trying to extend our love beyond just this earth.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 14:29
Yes, but you are operating under a completely different set of assumptions. You assume you die and that is it. We plan on spending eternity with each other.

We are not control freaks, rather we are trying to extend our love beyond just this earth.
Is that scriptural? Didn't Jesus say there was no man and no woman in Heaven, or something like that? So you won't be married in Heaven.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 14:37
Is that scriptural? Didn't Jesus say there was no man and no woman in Heaven, or something like that? So you won't be married in Heaven.

The particular issue you are referring to is multiple marriages of a widowed woman. Heaven is one thing. That is 1,000 years. The New Earth on the other hand, if it is restored to its original intent, it would be very logical to extrapolate that we would be told be fruitful and multiply once again. So, we won't find out what is actually going to happen until things come about, we are just trying to do the best we can, to see if we are loyal only to one another that we might be able to continue our marriage in the New Earth.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 15:36
Agreed, the point focuses on committed Christians. Jesus said the claim to be a follower of His alone didn't mean you were one. That raises the question of whether or not regular attendance at church correlates to being a committed Christian. Hasn't it been the position of believers here that there's no way to know whether or not someone else is truly committed to Christianity?

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 15:38
I have been married 13 years. I am not going anywhere. Divorce is not part of our belief system unless it is based upon marital infedility. My wife and I do not cheat on one another, and are content with each other. You could, for example, beat the hell out of your wife on a nightly basis, but that wouldn't be ground for divorce? Conversely, she could run a major drug ring but as long as she didn't sleep with gardener you wouldn't see that as a reason to divorce her?

Guss
05-13-2012, 15:53
Interesting that that article was from the Baptist Press. The Baptist divorce rate is higher than several other mainstream Christian denominations. Atheists and agnostics have relatively low divorce rates.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 16:07
You could, for example, beat the hell out of your wife on a nightly basis, but that wouldn't be ground for divorce? Conversely, she could run a major drug ring but as long as she didn't sleep with gardener you wouldn't see that as a reason to divorce her?

That's not an issue in our marriage.

I'll be nice to you considering it's Mother's Day.:supergrin:

Paul7
05-13-2012, 18:21
That raises the question of whether or not regular attendance at church correlates to being a committed Christian. Hasn't it been the position of believers here that there's no way to know whether or not someone else is truly committed to Christianity?

If you're asking can we know if someone is truly saved, no, but we can discern between a committed and uncommitted Christian. This survey does that.

Paul7
05-13-2012, 18:23
Interesting that that article was from the Baptist Press. The Baptist divorce rate is higher than several other mainstream Christian denominations. Atheists and agnostics have relatively low divorce rates.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

From your link:

"Tom Ellis of the Southern Baptist Convention suggests that the Barna poll is inaccurate because the people contacted may have called themselves born-again Christians, without having previously made a real commitment to God. He said: "We believe that there is something more to being a Christian...Just saying you are [a born-again] Christian is not going to guarantee that your marriage is going to stay together."

The OP survey tries to separate committed Christians. I will give you that there are a lot of cultural Southern Baptists, the same as any denomination.

Paul7
05-13-2012, 18:25
http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/articles/abuse-in-the-christian-home/god-answers-prayer-in-abusive-marriages/

Are you going to tell her she should have stayed with her abusive husband? Are you going to argue that doing so would be better for her daughter than what she did?

Your example is of a wife who is physically threatened. In the case of such crimes, of course there should be a separation.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 18:27
That's not an issue in our marriage. Did I say it was an issue in your marriage. The question was hypothetical. Apply it to another couple if you must, if their beliefs only allow for divorce in instances of infidelity and he beats her every night, should they stay married?

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 18:28
If you're asking can we know if someone is truly saved, no, but we can discern between a committed and uncommitted Christian. This survey does that. How do you discern between a truly committed Christian and someone trying to give the appearance of being committed? Does it involve either Stalin or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? I feel like a lot of your answers involve at least one of those two things.

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 18:44
How do you discern between a truly committed Christian and someone trying to give the appearance of being committed? Does it involve either Stalin or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? I feel like a lot of your answers involve at least one of those two things.

Easy you ask another Christian. If the one your asking about has demonstrably done anything that would reflect poorly on Christianity in the mind of the Christian your asking, they are not committed no matter how much they actually believe personally because it could reflect poorly on the one your asking.

I could probably have worded that better but the confusing verbiage of the answer is part of the point. Sort of. :whistling:

Works the same way with Islamic terrorists. Ask the right Muslim and the terrorists aren't really Muslims.

void *
05-13-2012, 19:39
Your example is of a wife who is physically threatened. In the case of such crimes, of course there should be a separation.

Then why did you want a cite for "there are specific situations in which parents staying together is bad for the children"?

muscogee
05-13-2012, 20:45
The particular issue you are referring to is multiple marriages of a widowed woman. Heaven is one thing. That is 1,000 years. The New Earth on the other hand, if it is restored to its original intent, it would be very logical to extrapolate that we would be told be fruitful and multiply once again. So, we won't find out what is actually going to happen until things come about, we are just trying to do the best we can, to see if we are loyal only to one another that we might be able to continue our marriage in the New Earth.

So the Bible only means what you want it to and you are free to extrapolate to make is say anything else you want it to. Honestly, that's one of the main reasons I have no use for Christianity. It's impossible to follow as written so people make it up as they go along. If they get enough people to follow them they start a their own church. If the get enough churches they start a denomination. And each one is the true church founded by Peter.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 20:48
How do you discern between a truly committed Christian and someone trying to give the appearance of being committed? Does it involve either Stalin or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? I feel like a lot of your answers involve at least one of those two things.

You left out Muslims.

Paul7
05-13-2012, 21:21
How do you discern between a truly committed Christian and someone trying to give the appearance of being committed?

From the OP:

"Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes -- attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples -- enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers."

Does it involve either Stalin or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? I feel like a lot of your answers involve at least one of those two things.

Because a lot of your postings involve what ancient Israel did when attacked, so I point out how we responded when attacked wasn't any different, except we had a much higher body count.

ArtificialGrape
05-13-2012, 22:05
From the OP:

"Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes -- attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples -- enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers."
So people who take it seriously when told
if you divorce and remarry or have sexual relations you are committing adultery, and
if you commit adultery you will burn in hell
tend to divorce less than those that don't take it as seriously.

Fascinating.

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 23:36
From the OP:

"Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes -- attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples -- enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers." You're proposing regular church attendance as a proof of being a committed Christian?
Because a lot of your postings involve what ancient Israel did when attacked, so I point out how we responded when attacked wasn't any different, except we had a much higher body count.I know what you like to imagine you do, but sadly that isn't what actually happens. As for higher body counts, I'll refer you back to our earlier conversations on genocide.

Kingarthurhk
05-14-2012, 05:05
So the Bible only means what you want it to and you are free to extrapolate to make is say anything else you want it to. Honestly, that's one of the main reasons I have no use for Christianity. It's impossible to follow as written so people make it up as they go along. If they get enough people to follow them they start a their own church. If the get enough churches they start a denomination. And each one is the true church founded by Peter.

Now, if you are finished with your tyrade. I pointed out that the verse dealing with no marriage in heaven was in referrence to a widow who had multiple husbands. Further, heaven is not our perpetual home, it is clear that the Earth is going to be made new.

There is no mention whether there is marriage or not in the Earth made new. I can only deduce from God's original mandate to be fruitful and multiply might go into effect again.

So, we're just heding our bets on a desire to continue to be with eacth other.

Some would call that romantic. You call it selfish.

muscogee
05-14-2012, 07:01
Because a lot of your postings involve what ancient Israel did when attacked, so I point out how we responded when attacked wasn't any different, except we had a much higher body count.

But nobody here claims the writings of Stalin are a behavioral paragon like you do with the Bible.

muscogee
05-14-2012, 07:03
Now, if you are finished with your tyrade. I pointed out that the verse dealing with no marriage in heaven was in referrence to a widow who had multiple husbands. Further, heaven is not our perpetual home, it is clear that the Earth is going to be made new.

There is no mention whether there is marriage or not in the Earth made new. I can only deduce from God's original mandate to be fruitful and multiply might go into effect again.

So, we're just heding our bets on a desire to continue to be with eacth other.

Some would call that romantic. You call it selfish.

Your hedging your bets that the belief that you made up is true.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 09:30
You left out Muslims.

I talk about Islam way less than you do about Christianity.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 09:30
But nobody here claims the writings of Stalin are a behavioral paragon like you do with the Bible.

Did I mention Stalin in this thread?

Paul7
05-14-2012, 09:31
Then why did you want a cite for "there are specific situations in which parents staying together is bad for the children"?

Because I didn't know you were talking about extreme cases.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 09:32
You're proposing regular church attendance as a proof of being a committed Christian?


Among other criteria, are you not capable of reading what I posted.

Roering
05-14-2012, 10:19
I've seen many scenarios on when divorce can and should happen among believers and non-believers and it is of my opinion that there is no general rule that can apply to all when it comes to this subject. Infidelity is not the only justifiable reason for divorce.

void *
05-14-2012, 12:05
Because I didn't know you were talking about extreme cases.

Given that you were aware of the extreme cases, why would you question the statement, since it is true?

muscogee
05-14-2012, 12:22
Did I mention Stalin in this thread?

More word games.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 15:41
More word games.

Not really, but certainly true of post #45.

Colubrid
05-14-2012, 16:30
Christ specifically warned against divorce, but all sins are forgivable if one asks with actual repentance. Of course, it's hard to believe repentance is sincere when the "repenter" keeps doing the same thing over and over.

Yes past sins like divorce BEFORE you trusted Jesus with your salvation are forgiven..like the woman at the well who had 5 husbands. Or maybe even someone like Ted Bundy..

But a any "so called" christian who divorces his spouse because he or she is annoyed with them and thinks God will forgive them later, NO! The scripture is clear that these are not christians and it is not like they slipped up like any other sin...

The bible is specfic about those sins that we "live" in like adultery, drunkeness-alchoholics, practicising homosexuals, ect. will not go to heaven..IF they continue in those sins .

If one says they are a christian, there is only one thing they can do if they their divorced your wife or husband . Get saved. . Any other marriage would be considered an adulterous relationship. But then why again would a christian get a divorce? Frankly it is not possible! So maybe what happens is they discover what they are saying (that they are christians) and THENNNN they finally commit to the Lord. Becoming true christians and not like the pharasees!

Unfortunatly so many people who claim they are christians, get remarried even though they they did not have a biblical reason to get a divorce during the period they say they were christian. These staistics are from non-christians who just say they can get by the grace card.

The bible does allow for seperation under extreme circumstances for a christain woman. But reconciliation is always what God wants. If your spouse is a abuser or drug user, criminal. You can wait it out or stay unmarried. But then you are probably married to an unbeleiver if he does not repent.

This whole idea of divorce is not like other sins. It is a willful planned event and it takes time and effort and planning. It is not like one day you can get a divorce ...this sort of thing TAKES TIME! BEFORE DRUING AND AFTER! A christian would not go through all that time and not repent!



Bottom line. Anyone who says they are christian and gets a divorce IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!


So the divorce rate amonst christians is zero!

Kingarthurhk
05-14-2012, 16:45
Your hedging your bets that the belief that you made up is true.

Ironic, that our marriage bothers you.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 17:15
Among other criteria, are you not capable of reading what I posted. Of the criteria listed, only regular Church attendance would be readily apparent to an outside observer, unless you know of some means to tell if another person, "generally take[s] their faith seriously".

neby98
05-14-2012, 17:17
Yup I've known a number of people who stick it out, take the beatings or except their wife is cheating on them due to religious pressures. It's interesting data however.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 17:17
Yes past sins when before you trusted Jesus with your salvation are forgiven..like the woman at the well. or maybe even someone like ted Bundy..

But a any "so called" christian who divorces his spouse because he or she is annoyed with them and thinks God will forgive them later, NO! The scripture is clear that these are not christians and it is not like they slipped up like any other sin... Brutal serial murder can be forgiven, but not divorce? That does not sound like a reasonable deity. You also seem to be hedging your bets about divorce. We're not talking about someone "who divorces his spouse because he or she is annoyed with them", but about marriages with significant issues, like domestic abuse. Do you also oppose divorce in those situations?

Colubrid
05-14-2012, 18:46
Brutal serial murder can be forgiven, but not divorce? That does not sound like a reasonable deity. You also seem to be hedging your bets about divorce. We're not talking about someone "who divorces his spouse because he or she is annoyed with them", but about marriages with significant issues, like domestic abuse. Do you also oppose divorce in those situations?

You didn't read my post man.

Colubrid
05-14-2012, 19:03
Here i will post it (for you) again what I wrote:
"The bible does allow for seperation under extreme circumstances for a christian woman. But reconciliation is always what God wants. If your spouse is a abuser or drug user, criminal. You can wait it out or stay unmarried. But then you are probably married to an unbeleiver if he does not repent."



I thought because so many of you know what the bible says and since we had this discussion on another thread you would know it.

What I meant by "wait it out" was the woman can leave but she must stay unmarried and reconcile when things are safe.


God has allowed a provision for extreme circumstances.

If you are not familiar with the scripture here it is:


1 Cor 7:11
11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Colubrid
05-14-2012, 19:10
Brutal serial murder can be forgiven, but not divorce?

THIS...this is playing around. You know exactly what I wrote and meant. I don't think you are being serious. so why bother with your twisting posts?

I will play with you one more time. But after this you can expect no reply if you keep playing.

If you read my post again (and don't throw in a bunch of lies and twists) you can see that I wrote that someone like Ted Bundy can be forgiven...BUT NOT IF HE DID THOSE THINGS WHILE HE WAS A CHRISTAIN! Because if he did. He was never saved to begin with....

ArtificialGrape
05-14-2012, 20:08
...you can see that I wrote that someone like Ted Bundy can be forgiven...BUT NOT IF HE DID THOSE THINGS WHILE HE WAS A CHRISTAIN! Because if he did. He was never saved to begin with....
Ignoring the No True Scotsman aspect of your argument for the moment...

So sins that you commit before your salvation can be forgiven, but sins you commit after becoming a Christian cannot be forgiven?

-ArtificialGrape

Colubrid
05-14-2012, 21:15
Ignoring the No True Scotsman aspect of your argument for the moment...

So sins that you commit before your salvation can be forgiven, but sins you commit after becoming a Christian cannot be forgiven?

-ArtificialGrape

No, that's not what I am saying at all.

But you are not here to learn. You have it all already worked out, right?

According to you there is no God that wants to know us and us to know Him. So why bother with the details of some God who does not exist.

Have fun rubbing elbows and blowing up each others egos at your atheist convocation. You guys are so smart!

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 21:17
You didn't read my post man.Actually, I did.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 21:22
I thought because so many of you know what the bible says and since we had this discussion on another thread you would know it.

What I meant by "wait it out" was the woman can leave but she must stay unmarried and reconcile when things are safe.


God has allowed a provision for extreme circumstances.

If you are not familiar with the scripture here it is:


1 Cor 7:11
11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. You really seem to miss the inherent injustice of expecting someone to put their lives totally on hold in the hopes that their abusive spouse might someday decide to stop being abusive.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 21:24
THIS...this is playing around. You know exactly what I wrote and meant. I don't think you are being serious. so why bother with your twisting posts?

I will play with you one more time. But after this you can expect no reply if you keep playing.

If you read my post again (and don't throw in a bunch of lies and twists) you can see that I wrote that someone like Ted Bundy can be forgiven...BUT NOT IF HE DID THOSE THINGS WHILE HE WAS A CHRISTAIN! Because if he did. He was never saved to begin with....
Now you're just creating a paradoxical position. Bundy couldn't be saved if he committed murders while a Christian. But, if he were a Christian he wouldn't commit the murders. Therefore, despite whatever may have been claimed, he wasn't a Christian while committing his murders and is therefore still eligible for salvation.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 21:46
Brutal serial murder can be forgiven,

Is that what Truman did at Hiroshima?

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 22:06
Is that what Truman did at Hiroshima?:rofl:

juggy4711
05-14-2012, 23:22
Is that what Truman did at Hiroshima?

I more than likely owe my life to Truman dropping the A-bombs on Japan, otherwise there is a good chance my grandfathers would have died before they had a chance to conceive my parents.

To equate that to serial murder is pathetic and one of the lowest things ever posted here.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 23:37
I more than likely owe my life to Truman dropping the A-bombs on Japan, otherwise there is a good chance my grandfathers would have died before they had a chance to conceive my parents.

To equate that to serial murder is pathetic and one of the lowest things ever posted here.I prefer to think that Paul7 was trying to be funny and realized he'd failed to cite either Hiroshima, Muslims, or Stalin in this thread and sought to fix the oversight.

Colubrid
05-15-2012, 00:12
Now you're just creating a paradoxical position. Bundy couldn't be saved if he committed murders while a Christian. But, if he were a Christian he wouldn't commit the murders. Therefore, despite whatever may have been claimed, he wasn't a Christian while committing his murders and is therefore still eligible for salvation.

watch from minute 8:42
Ted Bundy's Final Interview (by Dr James Dobson) Part 3 of 3 - YouTube

Colubrid
05-15-2012, 00:13
Actually, I did.

Good, then you have your answers. Now stop wasting my time

Paul7
05-15-2012, 07:10
I more than likely owe my life to Truman dropping the A-bombs on Japan, otherwise there is a good chance my grandfathers would have died before they had a chance to conceive my parents.

To equate that to serial murder is pathetic and one of the lowest things ever posted here.

What serial murder are you referring to?

Paul7
05-15-2012, 07:11
I prefer to think that Paul7 was trying to be funny and realized he'd failed to cite either Hiroshima, Muslims, or Stalin in this thread and sought to fix the oversight.

Cited way less than you cite the Amalekites, which you pretend are relevant for today. Oh, I forget, Stalin wasn't really an atheist, right?

scccdoc
05-15-2012, 08:01
I'm willing to accept the proposition that christain families in general have lower divorce rates. What I'm not willing to accept (without proof) is that this is a desirable outcome. How do we know that it just isn't more people staying in dysfunctional and self destructive relationships out of community / religious pressure?

Congrats on your honest response.

Local laws protect (allegedly) the victims of child abuse and domestic violence without regard for religious belief. Are their other circumstances in mind? DOC

muscogee
05-15-2012, 08:05
watch from minute 8:42
Ted Bundy's Final Interview (by Dr James Dobson) Part 3 of 3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUh1AqwvWAI&feature=autoplay&list=ULV79ey-V1ykg&playnext=1)

Bundy wouldn't lie to get clemency?

void *
05-15-2012, 08:36
Bundy wouldn't lie to get clemency?

That is precisely what it is thought Bundy was doing - telling Dobson exactly what he wanted to hear. He was also trying to offer up remains locations in exchange for delays to his execution or deferral to a life sentence, but the authorities never bought into that deal. (google 'bundy bones for time').

Animal Mother
05-15-2012, 14:58
Cited way less than you cite the Amalekites, which you pretend are relevant for today. Oh, I forget, Stalin wasn't really an atheist, right?
If you're willing to stipulate that genocide is morally right within your supposed objective code of morals, I'll be more than happy to stop bringing the Amalekites up.

It would also help if you'd grasp the difference between acts taken in pursuit of winning a war (dropping the atomic bomb) and acts perpetrated after the war was over (the slaughter of the Amalekites). But I think at this point we all realize there isn't much hope of that.

muscogee
05-15-2012, 22:05
Cited way less than you cite the Amalekites, which you pretend are relevant for today. Oh, I forget, Stalin wasn't really an atheist, right?


Didn't you just ask me where you mentioned Stalin?

scccdoc
05-16-2012, 06:11
Glad you guys stayed on topic with this thread.....................

Kingarthurhk
05-16-2012, 15:21
Your hedging your bets that the belief that you made up is true.

Which is why I guess I should call you selfish? You have hedged your bets on a belief that you made up is true.

muscogee
05-16-2012, 21:57
Which is why I guess I should call you selfish? You have hedged your bets on a belief that you made up is true.

"I don't believe you" is not a bet. I'm not selfish because I don't believe you. I don't want to control anyone after I'm dead. I don't to control anyone now.

Kingarthurhk
05-17-2012, 17:01
"I don't believe you" is not a bet. I'm not selfish because I don't believe you. I don't want to control anyone after I'm dead. I don't to control anyone now.

Odd, you wanted to interject into my marriage. How is that not wanting control?

I guess you are not a big picture kind of guy. My wife and I are very content with each other, and want the opportunity to continue our union not just not but forever.

It is called love, not control.

muscogee
05-17-2012, 18:29
Odd, you wanted to interject into my marriage. How is that not wanting control?

I guess you are not a big picture kind of guy. My wife and I are very content with each other, and want the opportunity to continue our union not just not but forever.

It is called love, not control.

If something happens to me I want my wife to be free to do whatever she needs to recover and be happy. That's called love. You don't know what's going to happen to your wife when you die. I'm sure you think you do, but you don't. You don't know what she's going to need to adjust. What if she gets lonely? What if she needs someone to share her life? Sorry, you're too insecure to give her permission to do what she needs to recover and be happy. That's not love. Telling her what to do after you're dead is dysfunctional.

As far as the big picture, I get the big picture. The universe is not about me. It was not made for me. Life went on before me. Life goes on after I'm dead. The people I love who outlive me go on. I want them to be happy. That's all I want for them. I don't want them carrying any guilt about me. I don't want trying to follow orders that may not be workable. I'm humble enough to accept that I may not know what they will need after I'm dead.

Whatever they think they owe me is forgiven. It's already forgiven. If my wife gets lonely living in a big house full of memories of me, she's free to find someone else to share it. If she is fine living alone, that's fine too. If she needs to sell the house and move in with someone else, that's OK too. I don't care how she adjusts, but I care that she does. Do you care if you leave a broken woman who does not have your permission to do whatever she needs to recover after your death? Do you want your wife and children spending their lives trying to carry the burden you left?

Kingarthurhk
05-17-2012, 19:53
If something happens to me I want my wife to be free to do whatever she needs to recover and be happy. That's called love. You don't know what's going to happen to your wife when you die. I'm sure you think you do, but you don't. You don't know what she's going to need to adjust. What if she gets lonely? What if she needs someone to share her life? Sorry, you're too insecure to give her permission to do what she needs to recover and be happy. That's not love. Telling her what to do after you're dead is dysfunctional.

As far as the big picture, I get the big picture. The universe is not about me. It was not made for me. Life went on before me. Life goes on after I'm dead. The people I love who outlive me go on. I want them to be happy. That's all I want for them. I don't want them carrying any guilt about me. I don't want trying to follow orders that may not be workable. I'm humble enough to accept that I may not know what they will need after I'm dead.

Whatever they think they owe me is forgiven. It's already forgiven. If my wife gets lonely living in a big house full of memories of me, she's free to find someone else to share it. If she is fine living alone, that's fine too. If she needs to sell the house and move in with someone else, that's OK too. I don't care how she adjusts, but I care that she does. Do you care if you leave a broken woman who does not have your permission to do whatever she needs to recover after your death? Do you want your wife and children spending their lives trying to carry the burden you left?

And she may die first. The same agreement is in effect for me.

These things aren't a concern for you because you have no hope in a life after this one. If you did, these things might make more sense to you.

Paul7
05-17-2012, 21:49
Didn't you just ask me where you mentioned Stalin?

I figure since you brought it up.......

Paul7
05-17-2012, 21:50
If you're willing to stipulate that genocide is morally right within your supposed objective code of morals, I'll be more than happy to stop bringing the Amalekites up.

It would also help if you'd grasp the difference between acts taken in pursuit of winning a war (dropping the atomic bomb) and acts perpetrated after the war was over (the slaughter of the Amalekites). But I think at this point we all realize there isn't much hope of that.

More hypocrisy. Apparently you think the US has the right to wage total war against those who attack us, but ancient Israel didn't.

Paul7
05-17-2012, 21:53
Now you're just creating a paradoxical position. Bundy couldn't be saved if he committed murders while a Christian. But, if he were a Christian he wouldn't commit the murders. Therefore, despite whatever may have been claimed, he wasn't a Christian while committing his murders and is therefore still eligible for salvation.

Did he claim to be a Christian when he did the killings? He did say pornography was what led him to his crimes.

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 23:58
More hypocrisy. Apparently you think the US has the right to wage total war against those who attack us, but ancient Israel didn't.That you can't perceive the difference between war and wholesale slaughter of a populace, including women and children, after the war is over speaks far more of your hypocrisy than it does of mine.

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 00:03
Did he claim to be a Christian when he did the killings? I have no idea, I was pointing out the No True Scotsman aspect of the argument, not relating actual events.
He did say pornography was what led him to his crimes.Only to Dobson, and it's apparently generally agreed that he told Dobson what Bundy thought he wanted to hear.

Paul7
05-18-2012, 22:10
Only to Dobson, and it's apparently generally agreed that he told Dobson what Bundy thought he wanted to hear.

Do you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory?

Paul7
05-18-2012, 22:13
That you can't perceive the difference between war and wholesale slaughter of a populace, including women and children,

You don't think we killed women and children at Hiroshima?

after the war is over speaks far more of your hypocrisy than it does of mine.

Practically speaking, the war was over when we nuked Japan. They had almost no naval or air capabilities at the time.

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 22:32
Do you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory?What conspiracy theory? If you mean the Bundy/Porn thing, that isn't a conspiracy, simply a reporting of facts:

Researchers generally agree that Bundy's sudden condemnation of pornography was one last manipulative attempt to forestall his execution by catering to Dobson's agenda as a longtime anti-pornography advocate, telling him precisely what he wanted to hear.[301] While he asserted in the Dobson interview that detective magazines and other reading material had "corrupted" him and "fueled [his] fantasies ... to the point of becoming a serial killer", in a 1977 letter to Ann Rule he said, "Who in the world reads these publications? ... I have never purchased such a magazine, and [on only] two or three occasions have I ever picked one up."[302] "I don't think pornography caused Ted Bundy to kill," Rule wrote. "I think he became addicted to the power his crimes gave him."[303] Bundy also told Michaud and Aynsworth in 1980, and Hagmaier the night before he spoke to Dobson, that pornography played a negligible role in his development as a serial killer.[304] "The problem wasn't pornography," wrote Dekle. "The problem was Bundy."[305]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_bundy#Pathology)

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 22:41
You don't think we killed women and children at Hiroshima? Was the war over when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?
Practically speaking, the war was over when we nuked Japan. They had almost no naval or air capabilities at the time.If you believe that is true, you must conclude that the bombing of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) was an immoral act. What other option existed which would have ended the war with fewer casualties on either side of the conflict? Was the intent of the bombings to slaughter the populace of the two cities or to bring about an end to hostilities?

muscogee
05-19-2012, 08:03
Did he claim to be a Christian when he did the killings? He did say pornography was what led him to his crimes.

You obviously know nothing about psychopaths. Dobson was a tool. Like many Christians, Dobson doesn't care if someone is lying as long as what they say promotes his position. The downside to that is that the Dobsons of the world loose the respect of thinking people. What does that say about the people who believe him?

muscogee
05-19-2012, 08:09
You don't think we killed women and children at Hiroshima?

Practically speaking, the war was over when we nuked Japan. They had almost no naval or air capabilities at the time.

Once again you parade your ignorance. The estimates were that the U.S. would loose one million troops invading Japan and the Japanese would loose six million men, women, and children. Truman did the humane thing and ended the war. Of course, you would approve if there had been godless communist or Muslims living there.

Kingarthurhk
05-19-2012, 13:47
Once again you parade your ignorance. The estimates were that the U.S. would loose one million troops invading Japan and the Japanese would loose six million men, women, and children. Truman did the humane thing and ended the war. Of course, you would approve if there had been godless communist or Muslims living there.

So, in your estimation Truman is more wise than God, and Americans are exempt from such actions, but ancient Israelites not?:dunno:

muscogee
05-19-2012, 19:50
So, in your estimation Truman is more wise than God, and Americans are exempt from such actions, but ancient Israelites not?:dunno:

How do you get that? Killing a few hundred thousand is better than killing seven million. Truman never claimed God told him to.

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 01:12
How do you get that? Killing a few hundred thousand is better than killing seven million. Truman never claimed God told him to.

You extoled the virtue of Truman, and the wisdom of dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets in World War II. Yet, you decry God for anhilating large groups of people who had done trully horrible things.

There is no logic in stating one is good and the other evil.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 02:25
You extoled the virtue of Truman, and the wisdom of dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets in World War II. Yet, you decry God for anhilating large groups of people who had done trully horrible things.

There is no logic in stating one is good and the other evil. Is genocide a morally acceptable act?

muscogee
05-20-2012, 08:07
You extoled the virtue of Truman, and the wisdom of dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets in World War II. Yet, you decry God for anhilating large groups of people who had done trully horrible things.

There is no logic in stating one is good and the other evil.

You keep avoiding the fact that Truman never claimed omnipotence. Truman made the best of a bad situation. Truman did not order his troops to slay any of the survivors. You're grasping at straws.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:44
Is genocide a morally acceptable act?

I guess you could call the Flood a form of genocide, right? What is not morally acceptable is continued rebellion against God.

If you can create life, you have the right to take it.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:46
You obviously know nothing about psychopaths.

I will defer to your expertise in that area.

Dobson was a tool. Like many Christians, Dobson doesn't care if someone is lying as long as what they say promotes his position. The downside to that is that the Dobsons of the world loose the respect of thinking people.

That's easy, just call those you disagree with liars and non-thinkers.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:48
If you believe that is true, you must conclude that the bombing of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) was an immoral act. What other option existed which would have ended the war with fewer casualties on either side of the conflict? Was the intent of the bombings to slaughter the populace of the two cities or to bring about an end to hostilities?

It would have been possible to end the war without intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, which to you is the ultimate evil (except when it comes to WWII). The Amelakites had been a long-time enemy of Israel, God probably thought if they weren't removed they would continue to be so. You can ask Him someday.

The amazing thing is you see no problem with the killing of 40,000,000 million unborn Americans since 1973 who were far more innocent than the Amelakites.

muscogee
05-20-2012, 14:43
I will defer to your expertise in that area.

You should.

muscogee
05-20-2012, 14:45
It would have been possible to end the war without intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, which to you is the ultimate evil (except when it comes to WWII).
How?

The Amelakites had been a long-time enemy of Israel, God probably thought if they weren't removed they would continue to be so. You can ask Him someday.
So now you know what God thinks.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 16:42
I guess you could call the Flood a form of genocide, right? You could, if it weren't a mythological event.
What is not morally acceptable is continued rebellion against God. Your answer to the question I asked is "Yes, genocide is a morally acceptable act." I take it?
If you can create life, you have the right to take it.Then why didn't God kill the Amalekites? Why did he force His followers to do it?

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 16:50
It would have been possible to end the war without intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, which to you is the ultimate evil (except when it comes to WWII). How would that have been possible? Even after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, the Japanese military was unwilling to surrender.
The Amelakites had been a long-time enemy of Israel, God probably thought if they weren't removed they would continue to be so. You can ask Him someday. Why would God have to "think", shouldn't He know? You believe the United States military, composed of fallible men, could have come up with a better solution than dropping the atomic bombs, but the omnipotent creator of the universe didn't have a better answer than slaughtering Amalekite women and children after the war had ended?
The amazing thing is you see no problem with the killing of 40,000,000 million unborn Americans since 1973 who were far more innocent than the Amelakites.No, the amazing thing is that you'll vainly grasp at yet another straw to try and divert the path of the discussion.

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 17:36
You keep avoiding the fact that Truman never claimed omnipotence. Truman made the best of a bad situation. Truman did not order his troops to slay any of the survivors. You're grasping at straws.

Yet, God is making the best He can out of a bad situation, and actually came here and died for everyone, even those that hated him. Truman never did that. Further, you are right, Truman was never omniscient. Therefore, he acted without complete knowledge of wisdom. Yet, you declare him good for anhilating men, women, children, and animals. Then you declare God, who has given you life, everything you have, and offered you the change to live eternally, sacrificing everything for you wicked.

There is no logic in what you are declaring.

muscogee
05-21-2012, 07:17
Yet, God is making the best He can out of a bad situation, and actually came here and died for everyone, even those that hated him.
So God is not omnipotent. He just muddles through it like the rest of us. Glad we got that straight. But if that's true, why is his opinion better than anyone else opinion? Why follow him? As George Carlin said, "If this is the best that God can do, I am not impressed".

Truman never did that. Further, you are right, Truman was never omniscient. Therefore, he acted without complete knowledge of wisdom. Therefore what? God is morally superior because he knew what was going to happen and could have prevented it, but instead encouraged it?

Yet, you declare him good for anhilating men, women, children, and animals. First, I didn't declare him good. I wrote that killing a few hundred thousand was morally superior to killing seven million. Truman never encouraged, or condoned, and in fact strongly discouraged, molesting the civilian population even before the Japanese surrendered. The U.S. treated the Japanese much better than they treated the people who surrendered to the them. The Japanese women and children would have fought to the bitter end because they were told, and believed the U.S. would treat them like they treated everyone else. Truman treated them better than God treated the people that his people conquered.

Second, you're saying I should judge God and Truman by the same scale? Thanks for your permission.

Then you declare God, who has given you life, everything you have, and offered you the change to live eternally, sacrificing everything for you wicked. I'm not wicked. Your myth is illogical and perverse. It leads to dysfunctionality. How many times have you heard, "I was a sinner, but God ....."? How do you know you're a sinner? Because God (or someone who agrees with you) told you that you were? Could they be wrong?, Of course not, God told them. How do you know you're not still a sinner? Same answer. That's circular reasoning.

There is no logic in what you are declaring.

Au contraire.

Kingarthurhk
05-21-2012, 15:28
So God is not omnipotent. He just muddles through it like the rest of us. Glad we got that straight. But if that's true, why is his opinion better than anyone else opinion? Why follow him? As George Carlin said, "If this is the best that God can do, I am not impressed".

Clearly you have more worship for Truman, a deceased president, than for God. God isn't muddling through. You have said you have children and grandchildren. Tell me, if you raised your child, or even a grandchild yourself to be a contributing member of society and do everything you can for them, and they turn out to be a drug delear is that your fault? If you could force them not to be, and be everything that you think they ought to be against their will, do you trully love them?

God is working within the confine of humanities choices, not forcing us either, because He loves us.


Therefore what? God is morally superior because he knew what was going to happen and could have prevented it, but instead encouraged it?

If you raise your children to know right from wrong and do the best you can by them, and they choose to rob banks, is that your fault. Did you encourage that behavior? Obviously not. Yet, you blame God.


First, I didn't declare him good. I wrote that killing a few hundred thousand was morally superior to killing seven million.

So, you feel that you are more omniscient and more moral than God? How do you know what He knows, and see hwat He is able to see? You can't. Truman leveled whole cities: men, women, children, animals, and those that didn't immediately die, died slow agnozing deaths due to radiation poisoning. When God destroyed people that would cause physical and spiritual harm to Israel, He killed them all quickly, and not through some lingering horrible death. Yet, you say Truman has the higher moral ground?


Truman never encouraged, or condoned, and in fact strongly discouraged, molesting the civilian population even before the Japanese surrendered. The U.S. treated the Japanese much better than they treated the people who surrendered to the them. The Japanese women and children would have fought to the bitter end because they were told, and believed the U.S. would treat them like they treated everyone else. Truman treated them better than God treated the people that his people conquered.

Actually, those that were captured by the Israelites were allowed to integrate into their society. Again, you have more worship for Truman, a mere man, who did horrendous things, than for a God, who even know while you hate Him loves you.



Au contraire.[/QUOTE]

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 21:41
Clearly you have more worship for Truman, a deceased president, than for God. God isn't muddling through. You have said you have children and grandchildren. Tell me, if you raised your child, or even a grandchild yourself to be a contributing member of society and do everything you can for them, and they turn out to be a drug delear is that your fault? If you could force them not to be, and be everything that you think they ought to be against their will, do you trully love them? Are you really saying that if your child was dealing illegal drugs you wouldn't do everything in your power to stop them, even if they didn't want you to?

muscogee
05-21-2012, 21:57
Clearly you have more worship for Truman, a deceased president, than for God.
Here, look words up before you misuse them. http://dictionary.reference.com/

God isn't muddling through. You impied he was. Make up your mind.


You have said you have children and grandchildren. Tell me, if you raised your child, or even a grandchild yourself to be a contributing member of society and do everything you can for them, and they turn out to be a drug delear is that your fault? If you could force them not to be, and be everything that you think they ought to be against their will, do you trully love them?

What does this have to do with Truman?


God is working within the confine of humanities choices, not forcing us either, because He loves us.
Once again as Carlin said, "God has these things he doesn't want you to do and if you do he will send you to a place where you will burn, and cry, and scream in agony for all eternity, but he loves you". God talks out of both sides of his mouth. I love to watch you quibble with your fellow Christians over which side is speaking the truth.

If you raise your children to know right from wrong and do the best you can by them, and they choose to rob banks, is that your fault. Did you encourage that behavior? Obviously not. Yet, you blame God.

Once again, What does this have to do with Truman?


So, you feel that you are more omniscient and more moral than God? How do you know what He knows, and see hwat He is able to see? You can't. Truman leveled whole cities: men, women, children, animals, and those that didn't immediately die, died slow agnozing deaths due to radiation poisoning. When God destroyed people that would cause physical and spiritual harm to Israel, He killed them all quickly, and not through some lingering horrible death. Yet, you say Truman has the higher moral ground?

A weak non sequitur and a straw man rolled into one paragraph. You folks have a handful of canned arguments the Church has had thousands of years to try and perfect. You always try to twist every conversation to fit one of your canned answers. When yo do that, it's obvious you're backed in a corner and have no answer, but you feel you must defend your God with something. Read your past few posts. You're reaching and rambling. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. You're bring up answers to questions that weren't asked. Why doesn't God give you some better answers?

Actually, those that were captured by the Israelites were allowed to integrate into their society. Again, you have more worship for Truman, a mere man, who did horrendous things, than for a God, who even know while you hate Him loves you. Again, you're bearing false witness. At least two in that last paragraph. You're telling lies about me over and over. Is there nothing to which you will not stoop in the name of defending your God?

It's OK. I forgive you even though you don't know to ask. You're not as sure of yourself as you once were. People get more strident when that happens. As Shakespeare once wrote, "Methinks thou doth protest too much".

Paul7
05-21-2012, 22:41
You could, if it weren't a mythological event.

You must think the Amalekite story is mythical also, making wonder why you are obsessed with it.

Then why didn't God kill the Amalekites? Why did he force His followers to do it?

We are often His instruments, including in doing good.

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 22:56
You must think the Amalekite story is mythical also, making wonder why you are obsessed with it. First not all of the Bible is mythological, although the Flood is. Secondly, even if I did consider the Amalekite account to be mythological, you don't and that's the topic under discussion. Finally, I'm concerned with that particular event because it represents an obvious flaw in the claimed morality of Christians, allowing for things like justifying genocide in the here and now.
We are often His instruments, including in doing good.I'm confused, are you admitting that the killing of the Amalekites was something other than good, or are you calling genocide a good thing?

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 02:56
Are you really saying that if your child was dealing illegal drugs you wouldn't do everything in your power to stop them, even if they didn't want you to?

I am saying, if they grew up and did that, was that your fault even though you did everything to raise them to be decent law abiding citizens? They chose. Now, which is more loving, allowing them free will as an adult, or if you could legally lobtimize them to take any chance of free will away from them?

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 03:09
You impied he was. Make up your mind.

The implication was yours, not mine.




What does this have to do with Truman?

Quite a bit, you recuse Truman for doing worse, but condemn God for doing less.


Once again as Carlin said, "God has these things he doesn't want you to do and if you do he will send you to a place where you will burn, and cry, and scream in agony for all eternity, but he loves you". God talks out of both sides of his mouth. I love to watch you quibble with your fellow Christians over which side is speaking the truth.

Your depiction of hell by a deceased Atheist is a position that cannot be substantiated by scripture.


A weak non sequitur and a straw man rolled into one paragraph. You folks have a handful of canned arguments the Church has had thousands of years to try and perfect. You always try to twist every conversation to fit one of your canned answers. When yo do that, it's obvious you're backed in a corner and have no answer, but you feel you must defend your God with something. Read your past few posts. You're reaching and rambling. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. You're bring up answers to questions that weren't asked. Why doesn't God give you some better answers?

1 Corinthians 2:6-16, "<sup> </sup>We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401I))'></sup> but not the wisdom of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401J))'></sup> or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401K))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402L))'></sup> that has been hidden <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402M))'></sup> and that God destined for our glory before time began. <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>None of the rulers of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403N))'></sup> understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403O))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28404b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28404b)]</sup>—
the things God has prepared for those who love him— <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28404P))'></sup>


<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>these are the things God has revealed <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405Q))'></sup> to us by his Spirit. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405R))'></sup>
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>For who knows a person’s thoughts <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406S))'></sup> except their own spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406T))'></sup> within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>What we have received is not the spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(U (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407U))'></sup> of the world, <sup class="crossreference" value='(V (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407V))'></sup> but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. <sup class="versenum">13 </sup>This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28408W))'></sup> but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.<sup class="footnote" value='[c (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28408c)]'>[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28408c)]</sup> <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409X))'></sup> but considers them foolishness, <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409Y))'></sup> and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. <sup class="versenum">15 </sup>The person with the Spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(Z (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28410Z))'></sup> makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, <sup class="versenum">16 </sup>for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”<sup class="footnote" value='[d (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28411d)]'>[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28411d)]</sup> <sup class="crossreference" value='(AA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28411AA))'></sup>

But we have the mind of Christ."


Again, you're bearing false witness. At least two in that last paragraph. You're telling lies about me over and over. Is there nothing to which you will not stoop in the name of defending your God?

I am doing my best to put into perspective why you would extol the actions of Truman in putting to death men, women, children, and animals and condemn the actions of God who actually did less damage than Truman did. Truman left people to die a slow agonizing death. God did what He did to protect His people. Truman did what he did to end a war.


It's OK. I forgive you even though you don't know to ask. You're not as sure of yourself as you once were. People get more strident when that happens. As Shakespeare once wrote, "Methinks thou doth protest too much".

I am not even sure what you are saying here. But, if I have sinned against you inadvertantly, I do appologize.

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 03:21
I am saying, if they grew up and did that, was that your fault even though you did everything to raise them to be decent law abiding citizens? They chose. Now, which is more loving, allowing them free will as an adult, or if you could legally lobtimize them to take any chance of free will away from them?If I were omnipotent, I wouldn't need to lobotomize them, I could simply compel them to change their mind in this one particular area. Given a choice between doing that and seeing them live the life of criminal, possibly involving prison and death, what loving parent wouldn't do it?

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 03:39
If I were omnipotent, I wouldn't need to lobotomize them, I could simply compel them to change their mind in this one particular area. Given a choice between doing that and seeing them live the life of criminal, possibly involving prison and death, what loving parent wouldn't do it?

In that case, you should never have been allowed to rebell against God. He should have compelled you to love and obey Him, overiding your personal choice? So, that to you is loving?

So, if you as a man, wanted a woman to love you, and if you could compell her by the shere force of your will, I would posit that is rape and not love.

So, love to you is not freewill but force?

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 04:05
In that case, you should never have been allowed to rebell against God. He should have compelled you to love and obey Him, overiding your personal choice? I didn't rebel against God, any more than I rebelled against Ahura Mazda or Quetzlcoatl.
So, that to you is loving? Is it more loving to allow your "children" to run loose raping and pillaging?
So, if you as a man, wanted a woman to love you, and if you could compell her by the shere force of your will, I would posit that is rape and not love.Now you're completely changing the topic from preventing harm to causing harm.
So, love to you is not freewill but force?And now you're simply inventing positions which have no basis in anything that's been previously said. You also haven't answered the questions asked of you.

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 04:13
I didn't rebel against God, any more than I rebelled against Ahura Mazda or Quetzlcoatl.

Of which there is no strong basis for their existance, unlike there is for God, as I have presented in another thread.


Is it more loving to allow your "children" to run loose raping and pillaging?

You said you would completely change their mental state through some sort of supernatural force. That completely aborogates freewill. There can be no love without freewill, merely automotans.


Now you're completely changing the topic from preventing harm to causing harm.

No, I am merely exposing the natural progression of your argument.


And now you're simply inventing positions which have no basis in anything that's been previously said. You also haven't answered the questions asked of you.

Based upon the parameters of your argument. I think I have not only answered you, but presented you with a counter position that you are having a difficult time responding adequately to, so you are attempting to accuse me of a non sequitor in an attempt to deflect that issue.

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 05:07
Of which there is no strong basis for their existance, unlike there is for God, as I have presented in another thread. There you go bearing false witness again. The only thing you've produced any evidence for is the existence of a guy named Jesus in first century CE Jerusalem.
You said you would completely change their mental state through some sort of supernatural force. That completely aborogates freewill. There can be no love without freewill, merely automotans. Freewill is more important than the safety of others?
No, I am merely exposing the natural progression of your argument. That isn't the natural progression of my argument, it's something completely different do you not perceive a difference between causing something and preventing it?
Based upon the parameters of your argument. I think I have not only answered you, but presented you with a counter position that you are having a difficult time responding adequately to, so you are attempting to accuse me of a non sequitor in an attempt to deflect that issue.You think incorrectly. We were discussing the prevention of harm to one's offspring, you've now moved on to raping women and completely invented strawman arguments you try to force upon me. You also still haven't answered the questions you were asked.

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 07:02
There you go bearing false witness again. The only thing you've produced any evidence for is the existence of a guy named Jesus in first century CE Jerusalem.

Bert, I mean, Animal, I demonstrated that through archaeological evidence that the history of the bible is accurate. So, if it is a historically accurate text, which has been and is independantly proven, then obviously we have the best possible cannon put together to give us a revelation from God. Unlike your example of Quetzecoatl.


Freewill is more important than the safety of others?
That isn't the natural progression of my argument, it's something completely different do you not perceive a difference between causing something and preventing it?

Something can be prevented, but at what expense? Would it then be ethical or even moral to abduct you, take you to detention facility where they break your will until you have a stupendous case of Stock Holme syndrome to comply with whatever you are directed to believe for the "betterment" or "conformity" to the whole?

Or, would it be better to put into a place a system where you have free will to choose for yourself what you will love or think? And should you choose an outcome that is both destructive to yourself and others, a system of redeeming you?

That is the God I serve. He has given you, me, everyone the freedom of choice. You can love Him or hate Him. He even paid the penalty for you out of love, even while you hate Him.

So, it would appear the Christian God is more compassionate than you. Which is not suprising. He is more compassionate than all of us, myself included.


You think incorrectly. We were discussing the prevention of harm to one's offspring, you've now moved on to raping women and completely invented strawman arguments you try to force upon me. You also still haven't answered the questions you were asked.

No, once again, a logical progression of you forcing someone to love against their will.

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 07:31
Bert, I mean, Animal, I demonstrated that through archaeological evidence that the history of the bible is accurate. So, if it is a historically accurate text, which has been and is independantly proven, then obviously we have the best possible cannon put together to give us a revelation from God. Unlike your example of Quetzecoatl. I've explained this to you numerous times, though you do seem committed to ignoring those explanations and simply repeating the same erroneous statements, but I'll make one more effort. The verification of some events in the Bible through archaeology or other means in no way proves the other events are also true and most certainly does not prove the supernatural claims made are true.
Something can be prevented, but at what expense? Would it then be ethical or even moral to abduct you, take you to detention facility where they break your will until you have a stupendous case of Stock Holme syndrome to comply with whatever you are directed to believe for the "betterment" or "conformity" to the whole? Stockholm syndrome. It's a city. Now you've added yet another aspect, and one that again has no relation to the options available to an omnipotent being. Is it similarly wrong to incarcerate those who have committed crimes, thus depriving them of their free will?
Or, would it be better to put into a place a system where you have free will to choose for yourself what you will love or think? And should you choose an outcome that is both destructive to yourself and others, a system of redeeming you? Now you're saying the Buddhists and their system of samsara?
That is the God I serve. He has given you, me, everyone the freedom of choice. You can love Him or hate Him. He even paid the penalty for you out of love, even while you hate Him. You've stated what you believe, you've shown no evidence that such a being exists and you apparently believe that if he does exist, he's incapable of controlling his creation. As an aside, do you hate Odin?
So, it would appear the Christian God is more compassionate than you. Which is not suprising. He is more compassionate than all of us, myself included. Allowing the pain, decay, agony, and despair of the world is the act of compassionate god?
No, once again, a logical progression of you forcing someone to love against their will.I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Where did I say anything about forcing someone to love against their will? That was the strawman you constructed and I rejected.

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 07:45
I've explained this to you numerous times, though you do seem committed to ignoring those explanations and simply repeating the same erroneous statements, but I'll make one more effort. The verification of some events in the Bible through archaeology or other means in no way proves the other events are also true and most certainly does not prove the supernatural claims made are true.

It would certainly make it far more probable than any of the other pantheon you have made refference to.


Stockholm syndrome. It's a city. Now you've added yet another aspect, and one that again has no relation to the options available to an omnipotent being. Is it similarly wrong to incarcerate those who have committed crimes, thus depriving them of their free will?

There are certainly penalties for our actions. But, being put in a concrete box doesn't eliminate your freewill, only your ability to move freely. If you were locked up, would you have a jail house conversion, or would you more than likely still be an Atheist. Either way, your free will would still be in tact.


Now you're saying the Buddhists and their system of samsara?

Clearly, I am not.


You've stated what you believe, you've shown no evidence that such a being exists and you apparently believe that if he does exist, he's incapable of controlling his creation. As an aside, do you hate Odin?

As a matter of fact I do hate Odin. I also hate Ra, Isis, Osiris, Zeus, Baal, Molech, and Asherah.

He is capable, but that is against His character. In an atmosphere of forcing the will, there is no love. That is why you and I still very much have a choice.


Allowing the pain, decay, agony, and despair of the world is the act of compassionate god?

Once Adam gave over his dominion of the Earth to Satan, it did not become wholly God's. Further, as mentioned before, our choices have consequences, both to ourselves and others. If you drive drunk and lose your arm in a car wreck, and kill a family of five, there was a consquence to yourself and others based on your actions.


I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Where did I say anything about forcing someone to love against their will? That was the strawman you constructed and I rejected.

That analogy was based on the below comment:

If I were omnipotent, I wouldn't need to lobotomize them, I could simply compel them to change their mind in this one particular area. Given a choice between doing that and seeing them live the life of criminal, possibly involving prison and death, what loving parent wouldn't do it?

muscogee
05-22-2012, 08:21
Quite a bit, you recuse Truman for doing worse, but condemn God for doing less.

recuse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recuse?s=t)

Dictionary.com is your friend.

Your depiction of hell by a deceased Atheist is a position that cannot be substantiated by scripture.

So what? The New Testament cannon cannot be substantiated by scripture. I realize all the rest of the Christian world is wrong about what the Bible says about Heaven. It must be great to have an inside track to the mind of God. As I told Schasbert, you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.


1 Corinthians 2:6-16, "<sup> </sup>We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401I))'></sup> but not the wisdom of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401J))'></sup> or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401K))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402L))'></sup> that has been hidden <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402M))'></sup> and that God destined for our glory before time began. <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>None of the rulers of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403N))'></sup> understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403O))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28404b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28404b)]</sup>—
the things God has prepared for those who love him— <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28404P))'></sup>


<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>these are the things God has revealed <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405Q))'></sup> to us by his Spirit. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405R))'></sup>
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>For who knows a person’s thoughts <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406S))'></sup> except their own spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406T))'></sup> within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>What we have received is not the spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(U (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407U))'></sup> of the world, <sup class="crossreference" value='(V (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407V))'></sup> but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. <sup class="versenum">13 </sup>This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28408W))'></sup> but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.<sup class="footnote" value='[c (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28408c)]'>[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28408c)]</sup> <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409X))'></sup> but considers them foolishness, <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409Y))'></sup> and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. <sup class="versenum">15 </sup>The person with the Spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(Z (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28410Z))'></sup> makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, <sup class="versenum">16 </sup>for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”<sup class="footnote" value='[d (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28411d)]'>[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28411d)]</sup> <sup class="crossreference" value='(AA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28411AA))'></sup>

But we have the mind of Christ."

I don't buy it. Carlin makes more sense.

I am doing my best to put into perspective why you would extol the actions of Truman in putting to death men, women, children, and animals and condemn the actions of God who actually did less damage than Truman did. Truman left people to die a slow agonizing death. God did what He did to protect His people. Truman did what he did to end a war.

You're intentionally misrepresenting my position so you can knock down a straw man. In doing so, you're equating Truman with God. See anything wrong with that?

I am not even sure what you are saying here. But, if I have sinned against you inadvertantly, I do appologize.

See the previous paragraph. One can't have a rational conversation with someone who constantly misrepresents what one said and responds to what he would like for someone to have said rather than what was actually said. It's quite common for Christians to wonder around in a fever swamp looking for straw men to knock down. That gets kudos from the choir and makes them feel good. It allows them to delude themselves into feeling they have made a good point in favor of their God. In fact, illogical arguments to support your belief make you belief look weak to everyone else. Even to the choirs in the other denominations.

You're an intelligent guy with some bad information. Some day you will wonder out of the swamp. You will find, like I did, that religious fanaticism is only marginally different from drug and alcohol dependency. I'm not joking about being a recovering Christian. I feel the same way about Christianity that you do about alcohol. The same arguments you level against alcoholism can be leveled against Christianity, and probably the rest of the religions. I add that caveat because I don't know enough about the other religions to have an informed opinion. You're drunk on religion. I've seen that happen before.

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 09:09
recuse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recuse?s=t)

Dictionary.com is your friend.

So, is sleep. However, that seems to come at a premium these days.


So what? The New Testament cannon cannot be substantiated by scripture. I realize all the rest of the Christian world is wrong about what the Bible says about Heaven. It must be great to have an inside track to the mind of God. As I told Schasbert, you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

New and old are homogenus on the subject. And you are right, the standard mantra of heaven that is purported is also not supported by scripture.


I don't buy it. Carlin makes more sense.

Carlin died a bitter old man. I can't imagine that making more sense or being a more positive outcome/.


You're intentionally misrepresenting my position so you can knock down a straw man. In doing so, you're equating Truman with God. See anything wrong with that?

Yes I do. That has been the core of my argument. How is Truman good and God bad?


See the previous paragraph. One can't have a rational conversation with someone who constantly misrepresents what one said and responds to what he would like for someone to have said rather than what was actually said. It's quite common for Christians to wonder around in a fever swamp looking for straw men to knock down. That gets kudos from the choir and makes them feel good. It allows them to delude themselves into feeling they have made a good point in favor of their God. In fact, illogical arguments to support your belief make you belief look weak to everyone else. Even to the choirs in the other denominations.

Not a big fan of analogies I take it?


You're an intelligent guy with some bad information. Some day you will wonder out of the swamp. You will find, like I did, that religious fanaticism is only marginally different from drug and alcohol dependency. I'm not joking about being a recovering Christian.

I prefer zealous. Fanatics typically are out to hurt people. I must admit that I find a particular joy in helping others. The only adiction I have is to try to do the best I can. I equate it to someone stepping in front of a train you know is comming. A vast majority would think, well, he's stupid, let him get whats comming to him. My thought, is can I get this guy off the track and not get killed in the process? Another analogy, I know. It's why I bother though.


I feel the same way about Christianity that you do about alcohol. The same arguments you level against alcoholism can be leveled against Christianity, and probably the rest of the religions. I add that caveat because I don't know enough about the other religions to have an informed opinion. You're drunk on religion. I've seen that happen before.

It is interesting you should say that. I once took the position that most of the Christians do. Everything in moderation. Then one day, I woke up and realized I was a drunk. I am happy to say since that realization I haven't had a drink in about a decade. I don't plan on going back either. Considering I watched a friend die from that adiction, it makes it even less appealing.

Now, as far as another drink, you have got me.

Ephesians 5:18-20, "Do not get drunk on wine, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AD (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29323AD))'></sup> which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29323AE))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">19 </sup>speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AF (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29324AF))'></sup> Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, <sup class="versenum">20 </sup>always giving thanks <sup class="crossreference" value='(AG (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29325AG))'></sup> to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I remember the day I finally pieced together the salvation experience. My wife thought I had gone mad: laughing and crying at the same time as academic became actualized and personal.

You see, in college, God and I parted ways over some experiences I was pretty bitter about. I've been out. My wife was concerned about my lack of interest in anything spiritual. She would pray about it, and God would flatly tell her not to push me, He was working on the situation. He was. It took some years in our marriage, but she won me back into the fold. I was lucky to have a good wife, my first engagement didn't go well (prior to my wife)-but that's another story.

I've been rebaptized. You see, I have been out and nearly "recovered" as you say. But, God didn't give up on me. I want to return the favor.:wavey:

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 22:42
It would certainly make it far more probable than any of the other pantheon you have made refference to. No, it doesn't, at all. It has absolutely no impact on probability or reality of any deity.

But, for the sake of argument let's point your "reasoning" towards another mythology. The Poetic Eddas tell us Odin walked among men and brought them the runes. Archaeology tells us men have written using the Runic alphabet, therefor Odin must exist. Since the Poetic Edda has been verified by archaeology, all of the other Aesir must also exist.
There are certainly penalties for our actions. But, being put in a concrete box doesn't eliminate your freewill, only your ability to move freely. Is being locked in a concrete box for the rest of your life preferable to having one decision changed?
If you were locked up, would you have a jail house conversion, or would you more than likely still be an Atheist. Either way, your free will would still be in tact. If changing someone's mind bothers you so much, take another course of action, any of which would be available to an omnipotent being.
Clearly, I am not. But that's exactly what you're describing. Maybe you're an evolution accepting Buddhist and you just don't realize it.
As a matter of fact I do hate Odin. I also hate Ra, Isis, Osiris, Zeus, Baal, Molech, and Asherah. Don't want to do that, you'll end up in Muspelheim.
He is capable, but that is against His character. In an atmosphere of forcing the will, there is no love. That is why you and I still very much have a choice. Allowing the evil and pain that afflicts the world is an act of love?
Once Adam gave over his dominion of the Earth to Satan, it did not become wholly God's. Further, as mentioned before, our choices have consequences, both to ourselves and others. If you drive drunk and lose your arm in a car wreck, and kill a family of five, there was a consquence to yourself and others based on your actions. And the family of that driver should be punished throughout the remainder of history for the actions of their ancestor.
That analogy was based on the below comment:You may think that, but the two things have nothing to do with one another. The first, mine, is about preventing harm. Your example is about causing it.

Kingarthurhk
05-23-2012, 18:37
No, it doesn't, at all. It has absolutely no impact on probability or reality of any deity.But, for the sake of argument let's point your "reasoning" towards another mythology. The Poetic Eddas tell us Odin walked among men and brought them the runes. Archaeology tells us men have written using the Runic alphabet, therefor Odin must exist. Since the Poetic Edda has been verified by archaeology, all of the other Aesir must also exist.

Not even close. There is no independant historical evidence that Odin existed. Moreover, writing in a particular languate doesn't verify the hisotrical validity of a text. Actual independant historical and archaeological evidence of events in a religious text would, however.

On a side note I knew a guy in High School who mae Creakly look liberal and would harrass me about my particular denomination of a regular basis. He actually abandoned his religion and became and Odinist. He married a girl who was either an Odinist or her converted her. He was my best friend's adopted brother and we dreaded it when they came over as couple. Their squables were explosive and epic.


Is being locked in a concrete box for the rest of your life preferable to having one decision changed?
If changing someone's mind bothers you so much, take another course of action, any of which would be available to an omnipotent being.

As a matter of fact, yes, if it is by force.


But that's exactly what you're describing. Maybe you're an evolution accepting Buddhist and you just don't realize it.
Don't want to do that, you'll end up in Muspelheim.
Allowing the evil and pain that afflicts the world is an act of love?

So, let me get this straight, with the assumption that you have children. You want to control their every thought, and not allow them to experience any painful consequence based on bad choices?

It reminds me of a Native American story. A European American couple was out with some Native American friends. They were enjoying a nice bonfire. The Native American children sat by their parents and enjoyed the glow. The European American couple was struggling with their children to keep them from wandering up and touching the fire. Finally, noticing the other children, the European American couple, out of frustration asked their Native American friends, "How do you keep your children from wanting to touch the fire?"

The response, "It only takes once."


And the family of that driver should be punished throughout the remainder of history for the actions of their ancestor.

I am not even sure where you are going with that.


You may think that, but the two things have nothing to do with one another. The first, mine, is about preventing harm. Your example is about causing it.

From what I gather, yours is about force, mind control, and the absence any free choice. It sounds like there is no room for love in your Universe.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 01:45
Not even close. There is no independant historical evidence that Odin existed. There's exactly the same kind of independent historical evidence that Odin existed that there is for Jesus, and there's both more of it and it's more recent.
Moreover, writing in a particular languate doesn't verify the hisotrical validity of a text. Actual independant historical and archaeological evidence of events in a religious text would, however. The Battle of Lena is a documented event. Gylfi, a character in the Prose Edda, was king of Sweden, a documented place. Thus, by your own reasoning, the whole of the Norse mythology must be literally true.
So, let me get this straight, with the assumption that you have children. To be clear I don't have children.
You want to control their every thought, and not allow them to experience any painful consequence based on bad choices? No one said anything about controlling their every thought, but if they can learn lessons without suffering the consequences, why wouldn't I prevent them from suffering pain? I'm not a sadist.
It reminds me of a Native American story. A European American couple was out with some Native American friends. They were enjoying a nice bonfire. The Native American children sat by their parents and enjoyed the glow. The European American couple was struggling with their children to keep them from wandering up and touching the fire. Finally, noticing the other children, the European American couple, out of frustration asked their Native American friends, "How do you keep your children from wanting to touch the fire?"

The response, "It only takes once." Perhaps the European children were just stupid. I managed to learn not to touch fire without ever touching it. Would you follow the same path with things like drinking acid?
I am not even sure where you are going with that. Imagine how I feel trying to reply to your posts. My point was that you apparently believe we're still being punished for Adam's actions, and believe that punishment to be just. Why would you object to following generations being punished for the driver's actions?
From what I gather, yours is about force, mind control, and the absence any free choice. It sounds like there is no room for love in your Universe.Saving your children from harm isn't an act of love? Hopefully, you don't have children either.

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 04:21
There's exactly the same kind of independent historical evidence that Odin existed that there is for Jesus, and there's both more of it and it's more recent.

Okay, lay out all the historical evidence for independant sources that Odin existed, to substantiate your claim.


The Battle of Lena is a documented event. Gylfi, a character in the Prose Edda, was king of Sweden, a documented place. Thus, by your own reasoning, the whole of the Norse mythology must be literally true.

So, independant historians documented the existance of Odin? Better yet, antagonist historians documented it? As I have provided solid evidence for the existance of Jesus by independant and antagonist historians.

The only reasoning I see here is yours, and it is simply a faulty attempt to deflect.


To be clear I don't have children.
No one said anything about controlling their every thought, but if they can learn lessons without suffering the consequences, why wouldn't I prevent them from suffering pain? I'm not a sadist.

You are talking about controlling all thoughts if you are deciding what someone should be like and think like and act like, which is what you expoused. You can't have it both ways. Either you have free will and can make good or bad decisions, or you have no free will at all, and essentially you are not self-aware. You would be no different than a well designed robot.


Perhaps the European children were just stupid. I managed to learn not to touch fire without ever touching it. Would you follow the same path with things like drinking acid?

No, they were ignorant and stubborn. They were told repeatedly not to do something and the consequences and were determined to do it anyway. It is a great analogy about what people do today on a frequent basis.


Imagine how I feel trying to reply to your posts. My point was that you apparently believe we're still being punished for Adam's actions, and believe that punishment to be just. Why would you object to following generations being punished for the driver's actions?

We are punished for our own actions. The only thing we inherited through Adam is a predisposition for wrong and mortality. The rest of it is on us.


Saving your children from harm isn't an act of love? Hopefully, you don't have children either.

I have saved my children from harm. I pulled my son out of a lake when he disobeyed me and tried to drown himself. I went in cell phone, clothes and all.

I have warned them repeatedly to stay close in parking lots, because they are a small signature and not easily seen by people driving.

I warn them, I love them. I take care of them. I provide for their daily needs. Can you see the parallel here? I am by no means God, but that is what He does for all of us.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 06:35
Okay, lay out all the historical evidence for independant sources that Odin existed, to substantiate your claim. I already did. Where have you been?
So, independant historians documented the existance of Odin? Yes.
Better yet, antagonist historians documented it? That depends on whether or not you accept that Snorri Sturluson was Christian I suppose.
As I have provided solid evidence for the existance of Jesus by independant and antagonist historians. Debatable, and evidence for Jesus isn't evidence for God.
The only reasoning I see here is yours, and it is simply a faulty attempt to deflect. Then you might actually be beginning to get the point I'm making.
You are talking about controlling all thoughts if you are deciding what someone should be like and think like and act like, which is what you expoused. No, it isn't.
You can't have it both ways. Either you have free will and can make good or bad decisions, or you have no free will at all, and essentially you are not self-aware. You would be no different than a well designed robot. You don't grasp the difference between one and all?
No, they were ignorant and stubborn. They were told repeatedly not to do something and the consequences and were determined to do it anyway. It is a great analogy about what people do today on a frequent basis. Really? These are real children you knew now? You also didn't answer the question you were asked. Do you advocate allowing this kind of "experience" in all instance? Is that how you taught your children firearm safety?
I have saved my children from harm. I pulled my son out of a lake when he disobeyed me and tried to drown himself. I went in cell phone, clothes and all. How do you reconcile this with your earlier advocacy of experiential learning? Weren't you abrogating your son's free will by saving him?
I have warned them repeatedly to stay close in parking lots, because they are a small signature and not easily seen by people driving. And if they ignore those warnings, you'll allow them to be run over so they can learn a lesson?
I warn them, I love them. I take care of them. I provide for their daily needs. Can you see the parallel here? I am by no means God, but that is what He does for all of us. No, you aren't God, but you do the best you can. Should God do any less?

muscogee
05-24-2012, 10:57
How do you reconcile this with your earlier advocacy of experiential learning? Weren't you abrogating your son's free will by saving him?

Great point. I have a 1 year old grandson who tries to run out in the street at every given opportunity. Free will be damned. He's not doing it. At the same time, he is far from a robot.

Unlike God, I don't let him run out in the street and then say, "I told you so" after the fact. I just don't let him do it. I don't get angry when he tries or punish him. He's not old enough to know right from wrong so it would be immoral for me to punish him. It would be nice if God would treat people the same way.

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 16:32
Great point. I have a 1 year old grandson who tries to run out in the street at every given opportunity. Free will be damned. He's not doing it. At the same time, he is far from a robot.

Unlike God, I don't let him run out in the street and then say, "I told you so" after the fact. I just don't let him do it. I don't get angry when he tries or punish him. He's not old enough to know right from wrong so it would be immoral for me to punish him. It would be nice if God would treat people the same way.

In that case there would be no Atheists. It wouldn't be permitted.

void *
05-24-2012, 16:39
In that case there would be no Atheists. It wouldn't be permitted.

What choice did Pharaoh have? Or Adam, or Eve?

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 16:44
What choice did Pharaoh have? Or Adam, or Eve?

Adam and Eve made a very willful choice. Pharoh made many choices.

void *
05-24-2012, 16:45
Adam and Eve made a very willful choice. Pharoh made many choices.

Adam and Eve had no chance to choose to not believe. God hardened Pharoahs heart (Exodus 9:12, etc). How do you reconcile that with your implied idea that people must have the ability to act freely?

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 16:54
Adam and Eve had no chance to choose to not believe. God hardened Pharoahs heart (Exodus 9:12, etc). How do you reconcile that with your implied idea that people must have the ability to act freely?

How could you choose not to believe in something you had intimate knowledge of? Do you cross your arms in the morning and declare, "America doesn't exist!" Or because you live here, you have no chance not to believe that America exists? So, that aspect of your argument is specious and contrived.

As to Pharaoh? There is an interesting explanation for that as well:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

void *
05-24-2012, 17:03
How could you choose not to believe in something you had intimate knowledge of?

You're missing the point.

Posit the following:
a) Adam and Eve both existed
b) They both had direct knowledge of God
c) They still made choices sufficient to deny God

If a, b, and c are all true, how can you claim that the choice of whether or not to believe has anything to do with whether or not God can be denied? How do you reconcile that contradiction?

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 17:44
You're missing the point.

Posit the following:
a) Adam and Eve both existed
b) They both had direct knowledge of God
c) They still made choices sufficient to deny God

If a, b, and c are all true, how can you claim that the choice of whether or not to believe has anything to do with whether or not God can be denied? How do you reconcile that contradiction?

Your psuedo math is wrong. They chose to disobey, not deny.

void *
05-24-2012, 20:04
Your psuedo math is wrong. They chose to disobey, not deny.

Let me put it more bluntly: They didn't have a choice to believe, so how can you claim a choice to believe is necessary? How do you resolve that contradiction?

It's not math, btw. It's logic. I can reformulate it for you as well:

a) The Bible stories show that Adam and Eve had direct knowledge of God's existence
b) There must be a choice to believe or not (Kingarthurhk's claim)
c) a and b contradict. Therefore, one of them has to be false.

So which is it, Kingarthurhk? Is the Bible wrong, or are you?

muscogee
05-24-2012, 22:06
In that case there would be no Atheists. It wouldn't be permitted.

If God was a real as I am, there would be no atheists.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 22:15
In that case there would be no Atheists. It wouldn't be permitted. If God gave us direct evidence of His existence, something which is certainly within His power as He is normally described, there wouldn't be any atheists. I can dislike Carrot Top, I can refuse to believe he's funny, but I can't deny he exists because I have direct evidence of that existence. Is God less powerful than Carrot Top?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 08:59
If God gave us direct evidence of His existence, something which is certainly within His power as He is normally described, there wouldn't be any atheists.

Not if you believe atheism is moral rebellion against God. How else do you explain Satan's original rebellion?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 09:00
Adam and Eve had no chance to choose to not believe.

Before the fall it was possible not to sin, now it is not possible not to sin, and in Heaven it will not be possible to sin.

void *
05-25-2012, 09:16
Before the fall it was possible not to sin, now it is not possible not to sin, and in Heaven it will not be possible to sin.

Is it your allegation that Adam and Eve are the only people in the Bible who had no choice but to believe?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 09:25
Is it your allegation that Adam and Eve are the only people in the Bible who had no choice but to believe?

No, they had a choice to sin or not, we do not, being born into sin.

void *
05-25-2012, 09:30
No, they had a choice to sin or not, we do not, being born into sin.

Ok. I'm taking that No to indicate you are not alleging that Adam and Eve were not the only people in the Bible who had no choice but to believe. So if Adam and Eve weren't the only people in the Bible who had direct knowledge of God, and weren't the only people who had no choice but to believe, and given that Adam and Eve were the only people around before the fall (thus, you cannot claim 'the lack of sin made it ok for Adam and Eve to have direct knowledge and not have a choice whether to believe, everybody after doesn't get that'), how does your comment have any relevance whatsoever to the logical contradiction presented?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 11:11
Ok. I'm taking that No to indicate you are not alleging that Adam and Eve were not the only people in the Bible who had no choice but to believe. So if Adam and Eve weren't the only people in the Bible who had direct knowledge of God, and weren't the only people who had no choice but to believe, and given that Adam and Eve were the only people around before the fall (thus, you cannot claim 'the lack of sin made it ok for Adam and Eve to have direct knowledge and not have a choice whether to believe, everybody after doesn't get that'), how does your comment have any relevance whatsoever to the logical contradiction presented?

What are you talking about that they had no choice but to believe? Believe what?

void *
05-25-2012, 11:56
What are you talking about that they had no choice but to believe? Believe what?

So, you're commenting when you don't even understand what you're reading, eh?

Let's go back.

In that case there would be no Atheists. It wouldn't be permitted.

There were people who weren't permitted that choice in the Bible itself. Grok now?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 12:12
So, you're commenting when you don't even understand what you're reading, eh?

I thought I did, until you started talking more, LOL.

There were people who weren't permitted that choice in the Bible itself. Grok now?

Adam and Eve could have rejected God and become atheists, just like now.

void *
05-25-2012, 12:18
Adam and Eve could have rejected God and become atheists, just like now.

Well, you can take that up with Kingarthurhk, then. I am pointing out a logical contradiction in his statements. If you don't claim that direct knowledge of god's existence is somehow prohibited, then that contradiction doesn't apply to you.

He's also claimed they couldn't 'deny' but they could 'disobey'.

Lone Wolf8634
05-25-2012, 16:24
If God gave us direct evidence of His existence, something which is certainly within His power as He is normally described, there wouldn't be any atheists. I can dislike Carrot Top, I can refuse to believe he's funny, but I can't deny he exists because I have direct evidence of that existence. Is God less powerful than Carrot Top?

Not if you believe atheism is moral rebellion against God. How else do you explain Satan's original rebellion?

How could there be Atheists if direct evidence of God existed? Some would certainly "rebel" but they would still believe. After all, it's pretty hard to "rebel" against something that you have no belief exists. Couldn't throw the "Atheist" moniker on them.

Satan's rebellion is easily explained: All good stories have an antagonist and a protagonist, good and evil, light and dark; ying and yang, it's just the way the human mind works.

Paul7
05-25-2012, 16:36
How could there be Atheists if direct evidence of God existed?

I don't know, why do atheists rebel today? Christopher Hitchens said he didn't want there to be a God, and that if he saw a miracle, it would probably just be a delusion.



Satan's rebellion is easily explained: All good stories have an antagonist and a protagonist, good and evil, light and dark; ying and yang, it's just the way the human mind works.

Yes, these stories are possibly based on our original reality. Funny how the human also works in that it believes in God, eternal rewards, and good and evil as you said. As the Bible says, God has implanted truths on the human heart.

Lone Wolf8634
05-25-2012, 16:43
I don't know, why do atheists rebel today? Christopher Hitchens said he didn't want there to be a God, and that if he saw a miracle, it would probably just be a delusion.

Atheists aren't "rebelling".

Simple concept.

Christopher Hitchens is one man, with his own opinion. He doesn't necessarily speak for all Atheists all the time.





Yes, these stories are based on our original reality.

Yup. "Good" is when we got the bear.
"Bad is when the bear got us.:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2012, 17:09
If God was a real as I am, there would be no atheists.

Ironically He is more real than you are.

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2012, 17:10
If God gave us direct evidence of His existence, something which is certainly within His power as He is normally described, there wouldn't be any atheists. I can dislike Carrot Top, I can refuse to believe he's funny, but I can't deny he exists because I have direct evidence of that existence. Is God less powerful than Carrot Top?

It's everywhere. We offer to you, and you declare you don't have the time to look at it. In essence, you don't want to believe.

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2012, 17:12
Let me put it more bluntly: They didn't have a choice to believe, so how can you claim a choice to believe is necessary? How do you resolve that contradiction?

It's not math, btw. It's logic. I can reformulate it for you as well:

a) The Bible stories show that Adam and Eve had direct knowledge of God's existence
b) There must be a choice to believe or not (Kingarthurhk's claim)
c) a and b contradict. Therefore, one of them has to be false.

So which is it, Kingarthurhk? Is the Bible wrong, or are you?

Your logic is flawed. The third option, you are wrong.

Animal Mother
05-25-2012, 18:03
Not if you believe atheism is moral rebellion against God. The only problem being, that isn't what atheism is. As I explained in my previous post, if you have direct knowledge of something's existence you can't deny its reality, even if you don't agree with it. I may think the Brady Center is completely wrong, but I can't deny it exists, because there is direct evidence it does.
How else do you explain Satan's original rebellion?What does that have to do with the question of atheism? If we take Christian mythology at face value, Satan knew God existed so he couldn't have been an atheist.

Animal Mother
05-25-2012, 18:11
It's everywhere. No, it isn't. That's why you're forced to try and turn a few references to a man named Jesus into some kind of historical proof.
We offer to you, and you declare you don't have the time to look at it. In essence, you don't want to believe.All you offer is vague, cobbled together arguments that are almost always circular in nature and dependent on a presumption that your view is correct as a starting point.

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2012, 18:18
The only problem being, that isn't what atheism is. As I explained in my previous post, if you have direct knowledge of something's existence you can't deny its reality, even if you don't agree with it. I may think the Brady Center is completely wrong, but I can't deny it exists, because there is direct evidence it does.
What does that have to do with the question of atheism? If we take Christian mythology at face value, Satan knew God existed so he couldn't have been an atheist.

James 2:19, "<sup class="versenum">19 </sup>You believe that there is one God. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AB (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30313AB))'></sup> Good! Even the demons believe that <sup class="crossreference" value='(AC (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30313AC))'></sup> —and shudder."

So, you're right. Ironically, he does everything to assist you in your unbelief. Why?

1 Peter 5:8, "Be alert and of sober mind. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474R))'></sup> Your enemy the devil prowls around <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474S))'></sup> like a roaring lion <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474T))'></sup> looking for someone to devour."

Revelation 12:12, "Therefore rejoice, you heavens <sup class="crossreference" value='(AE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AE))'></sup>
and you who dwell in them!
But woe <sup class="crossreference" value='(AF (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AF))'></sup> to the earth and the sea, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AG (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AG))'></sup>
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”

Why decide to be prey?

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2012, 18:19
No, it isn't. That's why you're forced to try and turn a few references to a man named Jesus into some kind of historical proof.
All you offer is vague, cobbled together arguments that are almost always circular in nature and dependent on a presumption that your view is correct as a starting point.

Actually, I have offered you scientific evidence, but you eschew it as a waste of time; because, you don't want to believe.

muscogee
05-25-2012, 20:46
Ironically He is more real than you are.

What's his e-mail? I'd like to visit with him. Why doesn't he post here? Does he have a phone? There's more evidence I exist than there is that God exists. When God starts posting on Glocktalk, I'll agree with you. Until then, it's just your imagination.

Animal Mother
05-25-2012, 21:05
Actually, I have offered you scientific evidence, but you eschew it as a waste of time; because, you don't want to believe.No, I didn't. I said that I preferred reading the conclusions reached so that I could examine the references. I also said I have watched the video and I took the time to point out some of the obvious problems with the claims made.

Animal Mother
05-25-2012, 21:06
James 2:19, "<sup class="versenum">19 </sup>You believe that there is one God. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AB (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30313AB))'></sup> Good! Even the demons believe that <sup class="crossreference" value='(AC (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30313AC))'></sup> —and shudder."

So, you're right. Ironically, he does everything to assist you in your unbelief. Why? What? God tries to assist us in not believing? Why would He do that?

1 Peter 5:8, "Be alert and of sober mind. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474R))'></sup> Your enemy the devil prowls around <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474S))'></sup> like a roaring lion <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30474T))'></sup> looking for someone to devour."

Revelation 12:12, "Therefore rejoice, you heavens <sup class="crossreference" value='(AE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AE))'></sup>
and you who dwell in them!
But woe <sup class="crossreference" value='(AF (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AF))'></sup> to the earth and the sea, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AG (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-30904AG))'></sup>
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”

Why decide to be prey?
Do you just pick verses and random for these quotations?

void *
05-25-2012, 22:33
Your logic is flawed. The third option, you are wrong.

Do you believe both a and b are true statements?

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 05:39
What? God tries to assist us in not believing? Why would He do that?

You are confusing the protagnist and the antagonist.



Do you just pick verses and random for these quotations?

No. I remember them from memory. A topic presents itself and scripture comes to mind. There is a bible promise for that as well:

Luke 12:11-12, “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25471L))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 05:48
You are confusing the protagnist and the antagonist. Perhaps you should work on your use of pronouns.
No. I remember them from memory. A topic presents itself and scripture comes to mind. There is a bible promise for that as well: Perhaps you should start sharing what thought process brings those verses to mind, because they seem utterly unrelated to the conversation at hand.

Though I do note in this instance, you appear to be saying the Bible teaches you not to think, which is a startling admission even if I've long suspected it was true.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 05:54
Perhaps you should work on your use of pronouns.

Not really, you were confusing God and Satan in your last post.


Perhaps you should start sharing what thought process brings those verses to mind, because they seem utterly unrelated to the conversation at hand.

1 Corinthians 2:6-14, "<sup> </sup>We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401I))'></sup> but not the wisdom of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401J))'></sup> or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401K))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402L))'></sup> that has been hidden <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402M))'></sup> and that God destined for our glory before time began. <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>None of the rulers of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403N))'></sup> understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403O))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28404b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28404b)]</sup>—
the things God has prepared for those who love him— <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28404P))'></sup>


<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>these are the things God has revealed <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405Q))'></sup> to us by his Spirit. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405R))'></sup>
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>For who knows a person’s thoughts <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406S))'></sup> except their own spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406T))'></sup> within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>What we have received is not the spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(U (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407U))'></sup> of the world, <sup class="crossreference" value='(V (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407V))'></sup> but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. <sup class="versenum">13 </sup>This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28408W))'></sup> but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.<sup class="footnote" value='[c (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28408c)]'>[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28408c)]</sup> <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409X))'></sup> but considers them foolishness, <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409Y))'></sup> and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. "<sup class="versenum"></sup>


Though I do note in this instance, you appear to be saying the Bible teaches you not to think, which is a startling admission even if I've long suspected it was true.

Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 06:14
Not really, you were confusing God and Satan in your last post. No, I wasn't, you confused your pronoun in the post previous. The verse you quoted mentioned only one individual, who could then be referred to with a singular pronoun (he), that being God. Therefore, your sentence would be properly read to be, "So, you're right. Ironically, God does everything to assist you in your unbelief. Why?"

That's how pronouns work.
1 Corinthians 2:6-14, "<sup> </sup>We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401I))'></sup> but not the wisdom of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401J))'></sup> or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28401K))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402L))'></sup> that has been hidden <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28402M))'></sup> and that God destined for our glory before time began. <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>None of the rulers of this age <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403N))'></sup> understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28403O))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28404b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28404b)]</sup>—
the things God has prepared for those who love him— <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28404P))'></sup>


<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>these are the things God has revealed <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405Q))'></sup> to us by his Spirit. <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28405R))'></sup>
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>For who knows a person’s thoughts <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406S))'></sup> except their own spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28406T))'></sup> within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>What we have received is not the spirit <sup class="crossreference" value='(U (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407U))'></sup> of the world, <sup class="crossreference" value='(V (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28407V))'></sup> but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. <sup class="versenum">13 </sup>This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28408W))'></sup> but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.<sup class="footnote" value='[c (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-28408c)]'>[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28408c)]</sup> <sup class="versenum">14 </sup>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409X))'></sup> but considers them foolishness, <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-28409Y))'></sup> and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. "<sup class="versenum"></sup> Yes, exactly the point I was making. Your scriptural selections seem, at best, tangential to the conversation at hand.
Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."Another admission that you don't actually think before posting? You're on a roll.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 06:17
I'll let the passages speak for themselves.

muscogee
05-26-2012, 09:42
No. I remember them from memory. A topic presents itself and scripture comes to mind. There is a bible promise for that as well:


I think you have that backwards. A scripture comes to mind and you try to apply it to the question at hand. The scripture is only applicable in you mysticism crazed mind. But you don't see that because you're high oh Jesus. I'm not being flippant about this. Talking with someone high on Jesus is just like talking to a drunk. They say anything that comes to mind and insist that they have made their argument.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 11:35
What's his e-mail? I'd like to visit with him. Why doesn't he post here? Does he have a phone? There's more evidence I exist than there is that God exists. When God starts posting on Glocktalk, I'll agree with you. Until then, it's just your imagination.

He's more real than you, because you are created and he is the creator. In essence you are the painting, and He is the paintor. But, there is always a open doorway to communicating with Him-prayer.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 11:41
I think you have that backwards. A scripture comes to mind and you try to apply it to the question at hand. The scripture is only applicable in you mysticism crazed mind. But you don't see that because you're high oh Jesus. I'm not being flippant about this. Talking with someone high on Jesus is just like talking to a drunk. They say anything that comes to mind and insist that they have made their argument.

Interesting. Then can you explain to this "high on Jesus fellow" how God has told me something had occurred that no one else knew except the presence of the people there. Further, I was able to tell one of the people there what was done and at what time they did it, before they could even open their mouth?

God exists, the Holy Spirit exists. When something is posed, the answer snaps to mind as was promised from scripture. That is why the scriptural responses.

Eleventh Hour Evidence Pt. 5 - Is The Bible God's Word? - YouTube

muscogee
05-26-2012, 12:00
He's more real than you, because you are created and he is the creator. In essence you are the painting, and He is the paintor. But, there is always a open doorway to communicating with Him-prayer.

So you have no answer? You just make stuff up. BTW its painter, not paintor. Do you ever proofread? Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking. It's difficult to take you seriously if you're not concerned enough to make you're sure what you write means exactly what you mean to say. It is a sign you've not thought deeply about what you're writing. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's a way of life with you. Get serious about your writing if you want people to take you seriously.

muscogee
05-26-2012, 12:04
Interesting. Then can you explain to this "high on Jesus fellow" how God has told me something had occurred that no one else knew except the presence of the people there. Further, I was able to tell one of the people there what was done and at what time they did it, before they could even open their mouth?

God exists, the Holy Spirit exists. When something is posed, the answer snaps to mind as was promised from scripture. That is why the scriptural responses.

Eleventh Hour Evidence Pt. 5 - Is The Bible God's Word? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYP8jd0Gqno)

I prefer the original.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR77Ctgtorc

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 13:49
So you have no answer? You just make stuff up. BTW its painter, not paintor. Do you ever proofread? Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking. It's difficult to take you seriously if you're not concerned enough to make you're sure what you write means exactly what you mean to say. It is a sign you've not thought deeply about what you're writing. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's a way of life with you. Get serious about your writing if you want people to take you seriously.

I think my answer was adequate. BTW, I have no idea how the spell checker works on this board. So, I don't use it. I have never been the best speller. Also, I don't view a person who doesn't spell adequately as having "sloppy thinking".

If spelling is your hang up, either I have hit a nerve; or, you are pretty cranky.

muscogee
05-26-2012, 17:48
I think my answer was adequate. BTW, I have no idea how the spell checker works on this board. So, I don't use it. I have never been the best speller. Also, I don't view a person who doesn't spell adequately as having "sloppy thinking".

If spelling is your hang up, either I have hit a nerve; or, you are pretty cranky.

Having to respond to sloppy writing and sloppy logic are my hang ups. As I said, everyone makes mistakes but refusal to proof read is due to laziness or a a poor education. Were you never taught to proof read or are you just too lazy?

FYI, the board doesn't have a spell checker.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 18:37
Having to respond to sloppy writing and sloppy logic are my hang ups. As I said, everyone makes mistakes but refusal to proof read is due to laziness or a a poor education. Were you never taught to proof read or are you just too lazy?

FYI, the board doesn't have a spell checker.

Actually, today I am home on pain killers after getting cracked in the ribs. Occupational hazard.

Saber99
05-30-2012, 19:27
Actually, today I am home on pain killers after getting cracked in the ribs. Occupational hazard.

Why don't you ask your friend Jesus to take away the pain instead of relaying on science/medicine.You're always going on about the power of prayer surely God would see it warranted to assist a strong believer such as yourself. Surely he is more "real" and powerful than the doctor you went to see. And if he cares enough to "miraculously" let you in on your wife's bingo winnings before she arrived home (This was an example you gave in a past thread and I assume is the same incident you're referring to a few post above) surely he could help you out now. Come on AK wheres your faith? Don't you know those drugs your on are the devil's way of taking control of you.

(All in jest, I'm just in a cynical mood this evening.)