Is it ever too late to change? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is it ever too late to change?


jdavionic
08-12-2012, 07:58
People routinely reach a point in their lives where they have strayed down the 'wrong path'. I don't pretend to know all of the biblical references. However I know in the Christianity religions that I am aware of, they cite that it is never too late to change your life / path and that you can still achieve your peace and forgiveness with God.

Just curious though...is this a common theme in ALL religions? How do these religions cite evidence to support this assertion?

Religions are very diverse in their beliefs, obviously. Just curious whether this one issue is universal common belief in all religions where there is a belief in a God or Gods and some afterlife judgement.

Kingarthurhk
08-12-2012, 08:31
People routinely reach a point in their lives where they have strayed down the 'wrong path'. I don't pretend to know all of the biblical references. However I know in the Christianity religions that I am aware of, they cite that it is never too late to change your life / path and that you can still achieve your peace and forgiveness with God.

Just curious though...is this a common theme in ALL religions? How do these religions cite evidence to support this assertion?

Religions are very diverse in their beliefs, obviously. Just curious whether this one issue is universal common belief in all religions where there is a belief in a God or Gods and some afterlife judgement.

No, it is not common among all religions. Most religions are works based. That through your meritorious are unmeritorious behavior you can earn something.

Christianity teaches that by faith you come to Christ as you are, and then through a relationship with Him positive changes are made.

jdavionic
08-12-2012, 09:31
So Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc...it's common?

Kingarthurhk
08-12-2012, 10:11
So Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc...it's common?


Hinduism is about reincarnation based upon your works. You work your way to non-existance by seperating your concious from your unconcious and embracing the unconcious or Brahman.

Budhism is a very similar concept, life is suffering, attachments cause suffering, once you learn to detach and work your way through incarnations to a Moksha state. If you Hinduism and Budhism and Hinduism seem familiar it is because Budhism is a reform movement of Hinduism.

Judaism is also works based.

Again, Christianity once agian stands out differently.

Vic Hays
08-12-2012, 10:24
So Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc...it's common?

Most religions believe there is no death so "after life" is subjective.

Biblical Christianity teaches that death is a real enemy and that the rewards of judgment are eternal life or eternal death.

The significance of the most well known Bible text in this regard is often glossed over as people see what they expect or want to see. Jesus contrasts life with death.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is no afterlife judgment to those who have followed Jesus in faith.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.
18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
18:22 All his transgressions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned to him: in his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? said the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

jdavionic
08-12-2012, 10:39
Do you think it's a common item because people know that they do make mistakes and would lose all hope if no forgiveness was granted for change...or is there more to it? I just find it odd that there are not many things that are common in a wide variety of religions, yet this one appears to be an exception.

Vic Hays
08-12-2012, 11:00
Do you think it's a common item because people know that they do make mistakes and would lose all hope if no forgiveness was granted for change...or is there more to it? I just find it odd that there are not many things that are common in a wide variety of religions, yet this one appears to be an exception.

Yes, there is more to it. God says that He will come in and make the changes if you will have faith that He can do it. You do not have to make yourself clean and in fact you cannot. Only God can remake you into a new person.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

It is the blood of Jesus sacrifice that allowed this transaction to take place because we have nothing of value to pay for it.

Vic Hays
08-12-2012, 15:19
As far as the original question as the title to the post, there were two men being crucified alongside Christ for their crimes. One admitted his sin and accepted Jesus the other rejected Jesus. Jesus gave assurance to the one who accepted Him.

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It is not recommended that you hold off to the last moment to come to Christ because you may become so hardened that you can't repent.

NMG26
08-13-2012, 04:11
This guy started kind of late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle

Inward journeys can start whenever we give in to the call. In that perspective it is never to late in any religion.

New beginnings. Each day is new. Consciousness shifts. People may have a nagging feeling for years and never give into it. Others will give in to that spiritual thing going on from within. When does not matter. Sooner is probably better then later.

It is never too late.

Vic Hays
08-13-2012, 11:14
It is not good to put off making your decision. It may never be made. A good example in the Bible is a governor who put Paul off till later and the later never came.

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go your way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for you.

Norske
08-13-2012, 18:42
People routinely reach a point in their lives where they have strayed down the 'wrong path'. I don't pretend to know all of the biblical references. However I know in the Christianity religions that I am aware of, they cite that it is never too late to change your life / path and that you can still achieve your peace and forgiveness with God.

Just curious though...is this a common theme in ALL religions? How do these religions cite evidence to support this assertion?

Religions are very diverse in their beliefs, obviously. Just curious whether this one issue is universal common belief in all religions where there is a belief in a God or Gods and some afterlife judgement.

Mankind invented religion to serve as what we now think of as "government".

To allow a small, self-appointed, self-so-called "elite" to control the lives and actions of a majority that they keep and maintain in perpetual servitude.

Religions, controlled by the minority "elite", invented the concept of "God" to justify their self-created, self-proclaimed, authority over the masses.

Religion is a scam. Always has been. Always will be.

Today, we have a much, much better paradigm for a just society.

Secular Government with respect for individual liberty. Supporting capitalist economies that provide for the creation of but uneven distribution of wealth and allows the individual to create and accumulate wealth.

Religion is an obsolete concept that is no longer worth the time, treasure, blood and lives that mankind continues to sacrifice in it's name.

:dunno:

Amen.

Vic Hays
08-14-2012, 07:18
Mankind invented religion to serve as what we now think of as "government".



Were you on the planning committee? How do you know this?

NMG26
08-14-2012, 07:20
Mankind invented religion to serve as what we now think of as "government".

To allow a small, self-appointed, self-so-called "elite" to control the lives and actions of a majority that they keep and maintain in perpetual servitude.

Religions, controlled by the minority "elite", invented the concept of "God" to justify their self-created, self-proclaimed, authority over the masses.

Religion is a scam. Always has been. Always will be.

Today, we have a much, much better paradigm for a just society.

Secular Government with respect for individual liberty. Supporting capitalist economies that provide for the creation of but uneven distribution of wealth and allows the individual to create and accumulate wealth.

Religion is an obsolete concept that is no longer worth the time, treasure, blood and lives that mankind continues to sacrifice in it's name.

:dunno:

Amen.

What about spirituality?

Through religion I developed a spirituality that I find very helpful in my life.

I have pretty much dumped the religion, but I can not justify dumping the spirituality.

New Thought calls God "It". We seem to have a spiritual connection to "It". A relationship to "it". We communicate with "it". "It" communicates with us.

God is a part of every one of us and every one of us is part of God. All things are connected.

Close to the Deist beliefs of the United States Founding Fathers.

People seem to have there own religion, apart from the churches that they are connected to and affiliated with. Why? It seems to be part of human nature to need a spiritual connection. A connection to our source maybe?

GreenDrake
08-14-2012, 07:57
Norske nailed it.

Vic Hays
08-14-2012, 08:00
Norske nailed it.

Norske opinioned it.

GreenDrake
08-14-2012, 08:26
Nope, he pretty much summed it up, keep believing in magical fairy tales all ya want, if it makes you happy, awesome. I have no problem with anyone finding their personal salvation in fabricated stories. Not at all. Good on ya.

JBnTX
08-14-2012, 13:15
... that it is never too late to change your life / path and that you can still achieve your peace and forgiveness with God.



jdavionic,

There's only two kinds of people in this world.
Those who believe in God, and those who will.

John Rambo
08-14-2012, 13:38
People routinely reach a point in their lives where they have strayed down the 'wrong path'. I don't pretend to know all of the biblical references. However I know in the Christianity religions that I am aware of, they cite that it is never too late to change your life / path and that you can still achieve your peace and forgiveness with God.

Just curious though...is this a common theme in ALL religions? How do these religions cite evidence to support this assertion?

Religions are very diverse in their beliefs, obviously. Just curious whether this one issue is universal common belief in all religions where there is a belief in a God or Gods and some afterlife judgement.

Absolutely not. The allure of Christianity at its inception was how easy it was to become a Christian and how little effort it required to be one vs. the other religions - most notably Judaism, the religion is was born from.

BuzznRose
08-14-2012, 14:06
jdavionic,

There's only two kinds of people in this world.
Those who believe in God, and those who will.

Amen JB!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Schabesbert
08-14-2012, 15:51
Absolutely not. The allure of Christianity at its inception was how easy it was to become a Christian and how little effort it required to be one vs. the other religions - most notably Judaism, the religion is was born from.
Seriously?

True, you didn't need to be circumcised to join the Church. But that's about all there was that was so easy.

The early Church required a period of study and acceptance, much like Judaism does today, and pretty much like the Catholic Church does today. Since Vatican II, we call it RCIA (http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/rcia/), but that's just a restoration of "the order of the Catechumenate" which existed in the early Church.

Oh, and don't forget that for most of the first few centuries, joining the Church meant that you were in for quite a bit of persecution.

When Jesus said "you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth" the word for witnesses that He used was martus in Greek; we get the word martyr from that word.

NMG26
08-14-2012, 17:25
jdavionic,

There's only two kinds of people in this world.
Those who believe in God, and those who will.

Sounds like you are talking about "the next world" as taught by your religion.

In this world not everyone will believe in God.

It is never too late to start though.

Norske
08-14-2012, 17:25
Were you on the planning committee? How do you know this?

Prove me wrong.

Prove "God" exists.

:dunno:

Religion could not answer me three fundamental questions.

(1) Why are there so many different religions?

(2) Within religions, why are there so many differing schisms?

(3) Why are there so many differing concepts of "God" itself?

When they could not answer those questons, I started looking for my own answers.

And came to the conclusions stated previously.

Religion is not "religion". Religion is government.

Schisms and new religions are literally revolutionary movements, designed to overturn the existing religious/governmental systems.

Since "God" is the prop that hold up "religion", that is why there are so many differing concepts of "God".

New Schisms and new Religions re-invent God and what they say God demands of us, in order to gather converts and power, taking it away from the previous religio-governmental system.

:dunno:

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Jesus himself was viewed as a threat to the little remaining religious authority of the Jewish hierarchy. Who had lost secular authority to the Romans. So, they conned the Romans into believing Jesus to be a threat to Roman secular authority as well! So the Romans nailed Jesus to the Cross!

When you take "God" out of the equation of what is staring you right in the face, it becomes obvious.

Religion is Government. Nothing but. :steamed:

And it is still not worth the time, treasure, blood, and lives we continue to sacrifice to it.

Amen.

Norske
08-14-2012, 17:30
Nope, he pretty much summed it up, keep believing in magical fairy tales all ya want, if it makes you happy, awesome. I have no problem with anyone finding their personal salvation in fabricated stories. Not at all. Good on ya.

I could have been on the observation deck of the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11/01. :faint:

So could you have been.

Those people died because of Religious fanatics.

"Good on ya" is not acceptable.

So long as there is religion, there will breed religious fanatics who will remain threats to us all.

The answer is to grow up and put "God" where it belongs.

Alongside Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Just another same-old, same-old, superstition.

And continue the spread of Western-style secular government with respect for individual liberties.

That is the answer to religious extremism.

Of ALL kinds.

Norske
08-14-2012, 17:36
There's only two kinds of people in this world.
Those who believe in God, and those who will.



I won't know for sure until after I die and find out personally, one way or the other.

Neither will you.

And nothing you "believe" to be true on this side of the grave changes the fact.

"Faith" is not Fact. "Faith" is nothing but Opinion.

"Norske opinioned it".

Kingarthurhk
08-14-2012, 17:41
I won't know for sure until after I die and find out personally, one way or the other.

Neither will you.

And nothing you "believe" to be true on this side of the grave changes the fact.

"Faith" is not Fact. "Faith" is nothing but Opinion.

"Norske opinioned it".

I know there is a God. We've spoken.

NMG26
08-14-2012, 17:43
Prove me wrong.

(2) Within religions, why are there so many differing schisms?



Education.

When people learned to read the Bible for themselves, everyone all of the sudden had an opinion.

The Book is it's own demise. Thank God.

JBnTX
08-14-2012, 21:12
I won't know for sure until after I die and find out personally, one way or the other.

Neither will you...


Not true.

You'll know for sure long before you leave this world, and maybe sooner than you think.

You atheists talk a convincing game to your fellow man, with all your "facts" and fancy words, but it's all just like a whisper in a hurricane.

One day your eyes will be opened.

packsaddle
08-14-2012, 22:06
"Faith" is not Fact. "Faith" is nothing but Opinion.

So, is that a fact or just your opinion?

You know, right now I have faith you are not reading Romans 8:28-39.

Therefore, if I'm right and you are not reading Romans 8:28-39 at this moment, then my faith is actually factual, thus falsifying your assertion that "faith is not fact".

Friendly advice: brush up on your fundamentals of logic, philosophy of science, etc. etc. before you hit "submit reply" next time.

God bless.

NMG26
08-15-2012, 03:59
Not true.

You'll know for sure long before you leave this world, and maybe sooner than you think.

You atheists talk a convincing game to your fellow man, with all your "facts" and fancy words, but it's all just like a whisper in a hurricane.

One day your eyes will be opened.

What do you base that on?

He might not live another day.

JBnTX
08-15-2012, 04:09
What do you base that on?.


I base it on the life experience of just about every human being
that has ever lived.

Like I said:
There's only two kinds of people.
Those who believe in God and those who will.

..

NMG26
08-15-2012, 04:13
I base it on the life experience of just about every human being
that has ever lived.

Like I said:
There's only two kinds of people.
Those who believe in God and those who will.

..

You said in this life.

I am saying that you are incorrect.

JBnTX
08-15-2012, 04:22
You said in this life.

I am saying that you are incorrect.


I just might be wrong.
I consider that possibility all the time.

But I don't think I am, based on faith.
That's good enough for me.

One person can read the Bible and think it's garbage.
Another person can read the bible and think it's the word of God.

God designed it that way on purpose.
One day you'll understand why.

To answer the OP's original question.
No, it's never too late to change.

jdavionic
08-15-2012, 05:12
I don't frequent the religious section, so perhaps this tangential spin is common. However we seem to have deviated from the original intent here. The intent was to question whether there is a common thread amongst all (or the vast majority) of religions, not to question a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Faith is just that...a belief in something that cannot be shown as indisputable with hard facts in front of you to prove. You either have it or you don't. None of us can judge whether you are right or wrong. Likewise, you cannot be absent of firm facts that show a faith is wrong. After all, by the very nature of the term, it's belief in something that cannot be definitively proven.

Me, I find it sad that you could go through life without a relationship with God. I hope that those who do not have one will someday reach a point (preferably without a horrible event) where they feel touched by God. However I'm of the opinion that you can lead a horse to water, but cannot force him to drink. If you are adamant that there is no God and no religion is of value, I believe that only you can change your mind.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and still am one. I love my religion, but sometimes I'm greatly disappointed in the Church (e.g., funnelling money to support illegal immigration, poorly handling the very few priests that committed crimes, etc). However I haven't and won't toss the whole religion due to these issues.

What struck me to do the OP was that people have done a lot of good and a lot of bad in the name of religion. Some religions have a high tolerance for other religions, and some have none. Yet, I found it odd that as diverse as the many religions are throughout the world...it seems that giving a person the opportunity to change their ways and the respective forgiveness of their past bad deeds seems to be common. Is this wishful thinking on man's part over the years or has this been rooted in religions since their birth? I believe it's the latter...or at least I hope so :supergrin:

NMG26
08-15-2012, 05:20
Therefore, if I'm right and you are not reading Romans 8:28-39 at this moment, then my faith is actually factual, thus falsifying your assertion that "faith is not fact".


God bless.

You have proven that faith is sometimes fact.

You have put assumption and faith on the same level.

All things must be proven, including ones faith, and assumptions.

It is never too late to prove your assumptions.

Keep on trying.

GreenDrake
08-15-2012, 05:23
A person's religion is generally a result of the dogma their parents fed them from infancy. Most stay within that sect, others do a little shopping around and find something else, often something with more of a security blanket and guilt based guidance because they cannot think for themselves so they seek the "strength in numbers" of organized religion to reaffirm their decisions.

The funny part to me is that most flavors of organized religion claim to have the one true religion and all the others are wrong. It's like sports teams.

jdavionic
08-15-2012, 05:49
A person's religion is generally a result of the dogma their parents fed them from infancy. Most stay within that sect, others do a little shopping around and find something else, often something with more of a security blanket and guilt based guidance because they cannot think for themselves so they seek the "strength in numbers" of organized religion to reaffirm their decisions.

In my experience, I have seen quite the opposite. Most people as small children start down the path that their parents put them on. It seems that around the late teens or early 20s, many start questioning their religious beliefs or as you put it - start shopping around. Some change, some abandon religion altogether, and some stay with their original religion. Then as life goes on, some reassess their decisions in their younger lives. And as people get much older, the drive toward a religion gets stronger with age.

GreenDrake
08-15-2012, 05:59
I think the statistics show the more educated a person is, the less apt they are to accept theism of any kind.

jdavionic
08-15-2012, 06:15
I think the statistics show the more educated a person is, the less apt they are to accept theism of any kind.

Well, I have not seen any statistics along those lines. I have an undergraduate degree in the sciences (BSME) along with an Master's degree in business (finance). I know several people with higher degrees and I can only recall one being an atheist. Regardless, I don't see how your point relates to the fundamental OP issue at hand. I'm not challenging your beliefs or lack thereof.

GreenDrake
08-15-2012, 08:28
Nothing other than your observation being an assumption based on a personal view, not a statistically accurate representation of fact. I believe Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out the statistical ratios of education, higher education and extremely educated persons and the correlations of theists/ID believers versus those who reject such a concept. The point relates to the OP's topic in that over time the more a person is educated and seeks factual proofs and knowledge, the less apt they are to believe a book of stories written through self appointed intermediaries, used to control the populace through fear of eternal damnation, chock full of talking snakes, big boats and walking on water.

Kingarthurhk
08-15-2012, 16:47
I think the statistics show the more educated a person is, the less apt they are to accept theism of any kind.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

Vic Hays
08-15-2012, 22:12
Nothing other than your observation being an assumption based on a personal view, not a statistically accurate representation of fact. I believe Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out the statistical ratios of education, higher education and extremely educated persons and the correlations of theists/ID believers versus those who reject such a concept. The point relates to the OP's topic in that over time the more a person is educated and seeks factual proofs and knowledge, the less apt they are to believe a book of stories written through self appointed intermediaries, used to control the populace through fear of eternal damnation, chock full of talking snakes, big boats and walking on water.

Because they are wise in their own eyes many think they are smarter than God.

I Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

NMG26
08-16-2012, 03:40
Because they are wise in their own eyes many think they are smarter than God.

I Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Are you proud to be weak?

Longhammer
08-16-2012, 04:17
I'm pretty sure we all fall short. All those who believe in Christianity are simply convinced that Jesus is the Lord. All Jesus asks of us, is to recognize this fact. After that, it's anyone's guess why things happen in our lives the way they do. I like to think Jesus has prepared us in life for something great. If not in this life, then in Heaven. The next time your kid lipps off to you, when you ask him, or her to do something? Immagine how Jesus feels. It's love like that that hurts us. I'm pretty sure He sees our imperfections as fixable.

GreenDrake
08-16-2012, 06:14
No, Vic, it's because they seek factual proofs and find them. Sure it's much easier to get religion, you have a catch-all answer "because God made it so". Kind of a cop out in my book. Believing in something without a single shred of evidence is quite the leap. I was raised Catholic, what a ruse that program is.

Geko45
08-16-2012, 07:58
I just might be wrong.
I consider that possibility all the time.

You need to consider it harder. I was a believer for 38 years and "studied" the bible quite frequently. But then I sat down and read it cover to cover in a higher education setting (a christian university) and realized it was complete bunk.

In regards to the original post. I finally threw off myth and superstition at the age of 38 and I am much happier now. I will never go back to willful ignorance. So, in my opinion, it is never to late to change.

Vic Hays
08-16-2012, 08:14
No, Vic, it's because they seek factual proofs and find them. Sure it's much easier to get religion, you have a catch-all answer "because God made it so". Kind of a cop out in my book. Believing in something without a single shred of evidence is quite the leap. I was raised Catholic, what a ruse that program is.

Catholics teach a lot of non Biblical philosophy. I can understand what you mean about no shred of evidence.

The shoe can also be on the other foot. Attempting to explain everything and attribute it to natural causes and using the same philosophy to shore up beliefs without a shred of evidence other than to try to disprove God shows that people use the same coping methods such as denial to avoid responsibility.

Philosophy and denial do not disprove God. They only reinforce the fact of the wickedness of the human heart.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Geko45
08-16-2012, 08:59
The shoe can also be on the other foot. Attempting to explain everything and attribute it to natural causes and using the same philosophy to shore up beliefs without a shred of evidence other than to try to disprove God shows that people use the same coping methods such as denial to avoid responsibility.

No, not without a shred of evidence. Theists keep repeating this, but it's just a flat out lie. Science provides understanding based solely on evidence. Yes, there are things we still don't know and things we are not yet certain about, but that is far different than claiming "without a shred of evidence".

If your position is so strong then why do you have to lie to support it?

NMG26
08-16-2012, 09:14
Philosophy and denial do not disprove God. They only reinforce the fact of the wickedness of the human heart.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Is it ever too late to change?

No.

One day you could grow out of using this verse as a catch all to any other way of thinking that does not agree with the Bible.

Here is a clue.

The heart of mankind can be decietful and wicked, but it can also be true, just, and honorable.





.

Vic Hays
08-16-2012, 12:28
No, not without a shred of evidence. Theists keep repeating this, but it's just a flat out lie. Science provides understanding based solely on evidence. Yes, there are things we still don't know and things we are not yet certain about, but that is far different than claiming "without a shred of evidence".

If your position is so strong then why do you have to lie to support it?

Theists have plenty of evidence. It just seems not to suit you or your mindset.

Geko45
08-16-2012, 12:37
Theists have plenty of evidence. It just seems not to suit you or your mindset.

I didn't claim you had no evidence. I may not find it convincing, but that's a different thing altogether.

The issue you are trying to avoid is, why did you claim that we (atheists) have not "a shred of evidence" when you know this statement to be false? You can disagree with it all you want, but denying that it even exists just shows tremendous hypocrisy on your part (dishonesty being a sin). You've been reading this forum to long to feign ignorance now.

JBnTX
08-16-2012, 12:41
The issue you are trying to avoid is, why did you claim that we (atheists) have not "a shred of evidence" when you know this statement to be false?


Let's see that evidence?

Geko45
08-16-2012, 12:50
Let's see that evidence?

The question is not whether you agree with the evidence, the question is whether evidence exists. I know that there have been detailed explanations on radiometric dating of fossils, cosmological analysis of red shift for dating the universe, detailed biological explanations of how evolution could bring about life as we see it today, chemistry explanations showing how the first life could have come about from simply the right combination of elements and heat and pressure, physics explanation for how matter and energy came out of the Big Bang, etc, etc.

This forum is littered with threads that contain scientific evidence that contradicts classical creation. I understand you might find fault with it, but denying it exists is just plain disingenuous.

JBnTX
08-16-2012, 13:11
The question is not whether you agree with the evidence, the question is whether evidence exist. I know that there have been detailed explanations on radiometric dating of fossils, cosmological analysis of red shift for dating the universe, detailed biological explanations of how evolution could bring about life as we see it today, chemistry explanations showing how the first life could have come about from simply the right combination of elements and heat and pressure, physics explanation for how matter and energy came out of the Big Bang, etc, etc.

This forum is littered with threads that contain scientific evidence that contradicts classical creation. I understand you might find fault with it, but denying it exists is just plain disingenuous.


The bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both just theories. There's no "evidence" anywhere that PROVES anything, one way or the other.

The second that one becomes a provable fact, then the other can be disproven and will cease to be seriously considered.

Believers believe in creation based on faith, with no evidence asked for or even expected. Atheists are always the ones spouting off about evidence.

I don't ask for or require evidence, but just as soon as one of you atheists finds evidence that proves evolution is a fact, I'd like to see it.

..

Geko45
08-16-2012, 13:19
The bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both just theories. There's no "evidence" anywhere that PROVES anything, one way or the other.

You are confusing "evidence" with "proof". They are not the same thing.

Radiometric dating is not evidence to you?

The fossil record is not evidence to you?

The Hubble constant is not evidence to you?

Not accepting these as "proof" I understand (or rather can tolerate). Not accepting them as "evidence" is just being pig headed and willfully ignorant.

JBnTX
08-16-2012, 13:24
Not accepting these as "proof" I understand (or rather can tolerate). Not accepting them as "evidence" is just being pig headed and willfully ignorant.


Evidence doesn't prove anything.
Just ask OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony.

I want to see the proof.

Geko45
08-16-2012, 13:31
Evidence doesn't prove anything.
Just ask OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony.

I want to see the proof.

Geez, it's like talking to a brick wall...

Fine, you want to see proof. Don't we all? But that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that Vic claimed that there was not "a shred of evidence" for a natural explanation of the universe. He didn't say not "a shred of proof" but rather not a "shred of evidence". See the difference? The latter is simply not true. It may not constitue proof and you may take issue with it (which I already said several times), but claiming that no evidence exists is simply dishonest.

Now do you get it?

JBnTX
08-16-2012, 13:33
Now do you get it?


Yes..

Animal Mother
08-16-2012, 14:37
The bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both just theories. There's no "evidence" anywhere that PROVES anything, one way or the other. Yes, there is. There is evidence that proves a change in the genetic code produces changes in the animal. There is evidence that proves that those changes can lead to the development of previously absent characteristics in those animals. There is proof that all animals studied share the same four nucleotides making up their genetic codes.

Where is the same proof for creationism?
The second that one becomes a provable fact, then the other can be disproven and will cease to be seriously considered. It isn't necessary to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism has no basis in fact, it isn't science.
Believers believe in creation based on faith, with no evidence asked for or even expected. Atheists are always the ones spouting off about evidence.

I don't ask for or require evidence, but just as soon as one of you atheists finds evidence that proves evolution is a fact, I'd like to see it.

..
What do you mean by proof in this context? What would be necessary to prove evolution to your satisfaction?

Norske
08-16-2012, 14:40
So, is that a fact or just your opinion?

You know, right now I have faith you are not reading Romans 8:28-39.

Therefore, if I'm right and you are not reading Romans 8:28-39 at this moment, then my faith is actually factual, thus falsifying your assertion that "faith is not fact".

Friendly advice: brush up on your fundamentals of logic, philosophy of science, etc. etc. before you hit "submit reply" next time.

God bless.

If "Romans" is not divinely inspired, then they are just words written by a human being.

Written for the purposes of that human being.

Not for the purposes of "God".

You have faith that the human being who wrote all of "Romans" was in fact, relaying the literal, actual word of God to all of mankind.

Your faith rejects any possibility that when said human being actually wrote "Romans" he could possibly have been either deluded or intentionally lying!

Your faith in the divine inspiration of each, every, and any word in the Bible is just that; your faith, your opinion.

"Faith" does not make each, every, or any word of the Bible fact in reality!

"Faith" is, was, and evermore shall be, nothing better than opinion.

"Faith" is not, never was, nor will it ever be, fact.

Amen. :dunno:

Norske
08-16-2012, 14:47
Education.

When people learned to read the Bible for themselves, everyone all of the sudden had an opinion.

The Book is it's own demise. Thank God.

The first guy who dared to translate the Bible into English was, I believe, burned at the stake for doing so. :steamed:

For daring to end the Clergy's monopoly on what the "Word of God" actually WAS! :upeyes:

Norske
08-16-2012, 14:49
What do you base that on?

He might not live another day.

URK!!!!!! :faint:

JBnTX
08-16-2012, 14:54
Creationism has no basis in fact, it isn't science.



You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Animal Mother
08-16-2012, 15:04
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.Yes, I do. Creationism provides no means of being tested, it is not falsifiable, it allows for no way to validate or disprove it's claims. When creationists, especially YEC, slip up and do provide such avenues of investigation, their claims are universally shown to be false, as is the case with a global flood within the last 10000 years and a 6000 year old Earth.

Vic Hays
08-16-2012, 20:08
I didn't claim you had no evidence. I may not find it convincing, but that's a different thing altogether.

The issue you are trying to avoid is, why did you claim that we (atheists) have not "a shred of evidence" when you know this statement to be false? You can disagree with it all you want, but denying that it even exists just shows tremendous hypocrisy on your part (dishonesty being a sin). You've been reading this forum to long to feign ignorance now.

Did you ever play Clue? All the evidence was supposed to add up to the perp, the weapon and the place. There were a lot of suppositions that went with the evidence.

Your evidence has a lot of suppositions and philosophy attached. There is very little factual evidence for atheism. Belief in no god is basically a choice not something that evidence and honesty mandate.

Vic Hays
08-16-2012, 20:10
Creationism provides no means of being tested, it is not falsifiable, it allows for no way to validate or disprove it's claims.

So it can not be proven false?

Animal Mother
08-16-2012, 20:44
So it can not be proven false? That depends on the exact type and nature of the creationist argument. Certainly the YEC position can be proven false, as I stated in the sentence following the one you've quoted, but not based on any argument or conclusion put forth by the creationists themselves, only by applying the science they choose to reject solely because it differs from their interpretation of scripture. The God of the Gaps or First Mover arguments can't be conclusively shown to be false, only unnecessary.

Geko45
08-16-2012, 20:54
There is very little factual evidence for atheism.

Ok, good, so you concede that there is in fact some evidence and that you were lying when you said there was not "a shred of evidence". Your opinion on the validity of that evidence is irrelevant to me (while still respecting your right to delude yourself).

Lone Wolf8634
08-16-2012, 20:55
So it can not be proven false?


Nope. That makes it nothing more then opinion.

You say "God created the universe for man."

I say "Nah, din't happen that way, there is no God and the universe was created when a singularity began expanding rapidly."

The statement you made can never be falsified, it's safe forever from any attempt to disprove it, all you have to do is move the goalposts a bit.

My statement can be falsified by another theory that works better. Or any number of other ways.

In science, any theory that is not falsifiable is no theory at all.

Kingarthurhk
08-17-2012, 04:45
Nope. That makes it nothing more then opinion.

You say "God created the universe for man."


I would say for "everyone". Man alone does not not occupy the universe. For instance, we know that angels exist in scripture. And if you read it ciritically, we know other populated worlds exist aslo. For instance, if you look at the first part of Job, you see the "sons of God" meeting with God. Now, obviously it doesn't mean Jesus as The Son of God, and in the sense we are all considered "sons of God" when we accept God , Job was not included in the conversation. We also know that Satan said he was walking the earth, as to imply ownership, when Adam fell he relinquished ownership. That would mean, logically, that these "sons of God" meeting with God were the leaders of ther worlds. Clearly, that would been imply that that there are other habitated worlds. So, I say "everyone".


I say "Nah, din't happen that way, there is no God and the universe was created when a singularity began expanding rapidly."

The statement you made can never be falsified, it's safe forever from any attempt to disprove it, all you have to do is move the goalposts a bit.

My statement can be falsified by another theory that works better. Or any number of other ways.

In science, any theory that is not falsifiable is no theory at all.

He is not presenting a theory, but a belief he has based on personal evidence. I have personal, or you would say, "anecdotal evidence" that God exists. But, unless you were there having the same experience, you would discount the experience.

I also have personal experience that evil exists, and does so beyond the physical level that we normally encounter. But, again, that is something you would also label "anecdotal" because you didn't have the same experience.

So, for me, that God exists, that Good exists and evil also exists, are facts, and in no wise a theory.

I have personal evidence, but nothing that you can feel, touch, taste, or hear for yourself. So, you continue and struggle with doubt. Your road is a more difficult one from that respect. Perhaps, maybe, because in the long run you are the stronger one. Maybe, you will come to belief someday without all the experience I have had. Maybe, I had those experiences, because my faith is weaker than yours will inevitably be. I don't know. Maybe, it was God's way of seeking to save me, as His judgment first begins with the House of God.

But, while we are still alive there is still opportunity. Once we die, it is decided one way or the other in our case. And by saying that, I don't mean immediate punishment or immediate reward. I mean the case is simply closed.

Vic777
08-17-2012, 07:01
People routinely reach a point in their lives where they have strayed down the 'wrong path'. Get specific, is there something you want to change? Let us know. We'll tell you how or whether or not it's possible.

Lone Wolf8634
08-17-2012, 11:09
I would say for "everyone". Man alone does not not occupy the universe. For instance, we know that angels exist in scripture. And if you read it ciritically, we know other populated worlds exist aslo. For instance, if you look at the first part of Job, you see the "sons of God" meeting with God. Now, obviously it doesn't mean Jesus as The Son of God, and in the sense we are all considered "sons of God" when we accept God , Job was not included in the conversation. We also know that Satan said he was walking the earth, as to imply ownership, when Adam fell he relinquished ownership. That would mean, logically, that these "sons of God" meeting with God were the leaders of ther worlds. Clearly, that would been imply that that there are other habitated worlds. So, I say "everyone".

Wow, in my experience, that's the first time I've ever heard of a Theist admitting the possibility of life on other worlds.

You surprise me, good job.

I will point out that I was making a fictional statement there to illustrate my point though. The important part of the statement was "God created the universe" , the "for man" part was unimportant to the point and maybe should have been left out since it's distracting attention away from the topic.



He is not presenting a theory, but a belief he has based on personal evidence. I have personal, or you would say, "anecdotal evidence" that God exists. But, unless you were there having the same experience, you would discount the experience.

When he asked the question:

So it can not be proven false?

He was responding to this post by AM, or at least he quoted it so I must assume so:

Yes, I do. Creationism provides no means of being tested, it is not falsifiable, it allows for no way to validate or disprove it's claims. When creationists, especially YEC, slip up and do provide such avenues of investigation, their claims are universally shown to be false, as is the case with a global flood within the last 10000 years and a 6000 year old Earth.

(he edited most of it out)

Since AM was explicitly talking about how Creationism fails as a valid scientific theory I take that to mean Vic was also. I was explaining why Creationism could never be considered a (scientific) theory, and why I think that, even if science was able to show concrete proof of how everything began, if it didn't include "God" then Theists would simply move the goalposts, forever insisting that we had not proven that "God" didn't cause it.

I also have personal experience that evil exists, and does so beyond the physical level that we normally encounter. But, again, that is something you would also label "anecdotal" because you didn't have the same experience.

So, for me, that God exists, that Good exists and evil also exists, are facts, and in no wise a theory.

Stating that God, good and evil exist as a fact is incorrect. You believe that they exist, so that is your belief.

I can argue that "good" and "evil" are human generated concepts that could be substituted with "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behavior. The natural world is riddled with murder, theft, rape, incest, and all manner of things prohibited by our laws and customs. In nature, though, that behavior isn't called those names, it's simply "survival of the fittest", which means the strong survive by killing their competition and reproducing by whatever means necessary.

Humans used to live in the same manner, but by virtue of abstract thinking, formed the concepts of "good' and "evil" to protect the weak, reign in the strong and allow us to live in a semi peaceful society.

I have personal evidence, but nothing that you can feel, touch, taste, or hear for yourself. So, you continue and struggle with doubt. Your road is a more difficult one from that respect. Perhaps, maybe, because in the long run you are the stronger one. Maybe, you will come to belief someday without all the experience I have had. Maybe, I had those experiences, because my faith is weaker than yours will inevitably be. I don't know. Maybe, it was God's way of seeking to save me, as His judgment first begins with the House of God.

But, while we are still alive there is still opportunity. Once we die, it is decided one way or the other in our case. And by saying that, I don't mean immediate punishment or immediate reward. I mean the case is simply closed.

If you cannot feel, touch, taste, or hear your evidence, then its simply faith. Good enough for for you to live your life, but unable to convince others of it's validity. Anecdotal evidence is summarily dismissed since it cannot be objectively analyzed, repeated and tested.

I also use personal experience, I just recognize it as such and act accordingly.

I do not "struggle with doubt", I am quite comfortable with my doubt. When you say things like that to an Atheist, it is tantamount to an Atheist saying "You must struggle every day with your faith since its so absurd". I do not presume that about you and really wonder why you would presume that about me?

Vic Hays
08-17-2012, 11:21
Since AM was explicitly talking about how Creationism fails as a valid scientific theory I take that to mean Vic was also. I was explaining why Creationism could never be considered a (scientific) theory.



Who made scientific theory? Not God. God is above man made theories and philosophy. The reason why Creationism fails as a valid scientific theory is that the assumption is made that there is no supernatural which negates the possibility that God even exists.

Lone Wolf8634
08-17-2012, 11:30
Who made scientific theory? Not God. God is above man made theories and philosophy. The reason why Creationism fails as a valid scientific theory is that the assumption is made that there is no supernatural which negates the possibility that God even exists.

So we agree that creationism fails as a scientific theory, we just disagree on why it fails.

The assumption that there is "no supernatural which negates the possibility that God even exists." isn't considered because it isn't necessary.

Vic Hays
08-17-2012, 11:30
Ok, good, so you concede that there is in fact some evidence and that you were lying when you said there was not "a shred of evidence". Your opinion on the validity of that evidence is irrelevant to me (while still respecting your right to delude yourself).

I did not say that there was no shred of evidence. What I said was that evidence is seen to reflect what is desired or expected in other words subjectively. The evidence can be philosophized either way.

When Moses brought the plagues on Egypt Pharaoh found a way to rationalize away God.

Exodus 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
7:11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Geko45
08-17-2012, 11:48
Attempting to explain everything and attribute it to natural causes and using the same philosophy to shore up beliefs without a shred of evidence other than to try to disprove God shows that people use the same coping methods such as denial to avoid responsibility.

I did not say that there was no shred of evidence. What I said was that evidence is seen to reflect what is desired or expected in other words subjectively. The evidence can be philosophized either way.

Then how do you reconcile the two statements above that you made in this thread?

Lone Wolf8634
08-17-2012, 11:52
Then how do you reconcile the two statements above that you made in this thread?

Oops?

:supergrin:

Vic Hays
08-17-2012, 14:34
Then how do you reconcile the two statements above that you made in this thread?

I can reconcile the two statements by noting that taking a half a sentence out of context does not prove you right.

try this:

" Attempting to explain everything and attribute it to natural causes and using the same philosophy to shore up beliefs without a shred of evidence other than to try to disprove God"

This means using philosophy to categorize the evidence in favor of an atheistic theory.

People see what they expect to see and what they want to see and interpret evidence subjectively.

Do you understand what a paradigm is?

Geko45
08-17-2012, 14:42
I can reconcile the two statements by noting that taking a half a sentence out of context does not prove you right.

I quoted more context than you just did, so I fail to see how you can say I took it out of context. The context is right there.

This means using philosophy to categorize the evidence in favor of an atheistic theory. People see what they expect to see and what they want to see and interpret evidence subjectively.

If that is what you intended then you completely failed to get that point across effectively. I don't think anyone here would have read that first quote and taken that away as your core premise.

jdavionic
08-17-2012, 16:23
Get specific, is there something you want to change? Let us know. We'll tell you how or whether or not it's possible.

Nothing specific. The point is more general in that it struck me that, despite the diversity of the many religions, they all seem to say you can change and achieve forgiveness by whatever God(s) you worship.

Kingarthurhk
08-17-2012, 17:38
Is it ever too late to change?

No.

One day you could grow out of using this verse as a catch all to any other way of thinking that does not agree with the Bible.

Here is a clue.

The heart of mankind can be decietful and wicked, but it can also be true, just, and honorable.





.

Through imputed and imparted righteousness, this is possible.

NMG26
08-18-2012, 05:50
The heart of mankind can be decietful and wicked, but it can also be true, just, and honorable.Through imputed and imparted righteousness, this is possible.

Imparted by parents, culture, upbringing, religion, personal desire. If it is just imputed, it is not real.

Integrity is learned. It can not be imputed.

I believed in imputed righteousness for a long time. "In Christ I am righteous." I believed that God, through Christ's blood imputed righteousness to the believer.

Here is an article on the 5 sonship rights that were taught in that bible based cult. Imputed Righteousness was on of them. http://www.3dentourage.com/word/sonright.htm


.

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 06:52
Imparted by parents, culture, upbringing, religion, personal desire. If it is just imputed, it is not real.

Integrity is learned. It can not be imputed.

I believed in imputed righteousness for a long time. "In Christ I am righteous." I believed that God, through Christ's blood imputed righteousness to the believer.

Here is an article on the 5 sonship rights that were taught in that bible based cult. Imputed Righteousness was on of them. http://www.3dentourage.com/word/sonright.htm


.

Parents do play an important role in the development of children. However, in that same respect, one we accept Jesus as our Lord and and Savior we also become His children, and then also "sons oF God."

Once we accept God he impute to us His righteouness:

Isaiah 61:10, "I delight greatly in the Lord;
my soul rejoices <sup class="crossreference" value='(AE (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-18854AE))'></sup> in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AF (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-18854AF))'></sup>
as a bridegroom adorns his head <sup class="crossreference" value='(AG (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-18854AG))'></sup> like a priest,
and as a bride <sup class="crossreference" value='(AH (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-18854AH))'></sup> adorns herself with her jewels."

It is important to have that imputed righteousness of Christ:

Matthew 22:11-13, "“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend <sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23885H))'></sup> ?’ The man was speechless.
<sup class="versenum">13 </sup>“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

After that, through our relationship with Jesus our characters begin to change.

One is our salvation for heaven, the other is our fitness for heaven.

Once, we come to Jesus just as we are and accept Him, He begins the process of of sanctifying us to reflect His character.

That is what I meant.

NMG26
08-18-2012, 09:00
After that, through our relationship with Jesus our characters begin to change.

One is our salvation for heaven, the other is our fitness for heaven.

Once, we come to Jesus just as we are and accept Him, He begins the process of of sanctifying us to reflect His character.

That is what I meant.


I found what you are saying to be true, when I was a Christian.

It is never too late to change.

The whole "imputed righeousness" concept relies on the doctrine that God only forgives through the shedding of blood, or a blood covering.

If you take that out of the picture, and God forgives because it is His nature, then rightousness is in the moment. In a moment you have the decision to be just or unjust. There is no impartation or imputation. Just a man deciding to follow the goodness, or the evil of his heart.

There is both good and evil in the heart of man. We always need to watch our heart and bring it to the place of the love of God.

Vic Hays
08-18-2012, 22:21
I found what you are saying to be true, when I was a Christian.

It is never too late to change.

The whole "imputed righeousness" concept relies on the doctrine that God only forgives through the shedding of blood, or a blood covering.

If you take that out of the picture, and God forgives because it is His nature, then rightousness is in the moment. In a moment you have the decision to be just or unjust. There is no impartation or imputation. Just a man deciding to follow the goodness, or the evil of his heart.

There is both good and evil in the heart of man. We always need to watch our heart and bring it to the place of the love of God.

You missed the point of the blood sacrifice of Jesus. We can die for our sins or we can accept Jesus death in our place. That is imputed righteousness. It is a free gift that we can accept or reject.

It is only because of God's desire to forgive man that God allowed His Son to die on the cross.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

NMG26
08-19-2012, 08:49
You missed the point of the blood sacrifice ...........................we can accept or reject.

God's desire to forgive man

As a child I accepted, so that God would accept me.

I grew up.

I thought.

I learned to love and hate.

God needing to shed blood in order to forgive is archaic and propounds violence.

I reject that in order for God to forgive man that God has to shed blood.

The change that this brings in ones thinking is liberating.
Spirituality does not need a blood covering for all the benefits of knowing God. God does not require that we accept such things.

Vic Hays
08-19-2012, 09:49
God needing to shed blood in order to forgive is archaic and propounds violence.

I reject that in order for God to forgive man that God has to shed blood.



It was not God that shed Jesus blood, it was man.

God gave His own blood.

God is just as well as merciful. He has provided a way for you to be forgiven. If you continue to reject God's grace you will die for your own sins.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite to the Spirit of grace?

NMG26
08-19-2012, 10:44
It was not God that shed Jesus blood, it was man.

God gave His own blood.

So God used man to do his dirty work?

"God sent his son to die" at the hand of sinful man, that God might save man. God requires blood. Can't really get away from that. God requires more violence in order to forgive.


God is just as well as merciful. He has provided a way for you to be forgiven. If you continue to reject God's grace you will die for your own sins.


God forgives because it is the right thing to do....it is God's nature.

I will die, but not in fear of a vengeful God. You can change your thinking. You don't have to believe that God is full of revenge. This world has to stop scaring and scarring our children with such tripe.

Geko45
08-19-2012, 10:51
"God sent his son to die" at the hand of sinful man, that God might save man. God requires blood. Can't really get away from that. God requires more violence in order to forgive.

Most forms of voodoo require an actual or symbolic blood sacrifice as part of their cleansing rituals.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 12:33
Most forms of voodoo require an actual or symbolic blood sacrifice as part of their cleansing rituals.

Voodoo and Christianity are as alike as Atheism and Taoism.

Vic Hays
08-19-2012, 15:23
I will die, but not in fear of a vengeful God. You can change your thinking. You don't have to believe that God is full of revenge. This world has to stop scaring and scarring our children with such tripe.


You can be as much in denial as you please. Denial does not change the Truth.

Apparently you do not understand or want to understand the concept of justice.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord.
12:20 Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.
12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

NMG26
08-19-2012, 21:19
You can be as much in denial as you please. Denial does not change the Truth.

Apparently you do not understand or want to understand the concept of justice.


I might not understand justice.

Lets see. An eye for an eye?

The just and right thing it do in any given situation might be called justice?

Now God's justice for me. I was born into a world and learned from society how to live in this world. I learned religion, social skills, basic education.

What is God's justice for this overly normal life?

I have found that God does not hold sin against me. I have found that I can be at peace with God, even though I do not believe in a blood covering. I seek spirituality daily and find the life that God gives every day. My conclusion is that God is not vengeful. The vengeful God is a creation of religion. Specifically the Jewish religion in your case. You believe that God must kill a lamb in order to forgive, just like the Jewish religion.

Some will never learn to think for themselves. They will gulp down the religion they have been given.

Some will grow out of the archaic blood trip that Christianity is. I guess most never really think about it.

Spirituality is in the moment, the blood of the past has nothing to do with it.

Vic Hays
08-19-2012, 21:37
Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot.
3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Geko45
08-19-2012, 21:56
Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot.
3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

You know, just because it appears in print doesn't make it true.

NMG26
08-20-2012, 03:47
Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot.
3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Vic you obviously have some sort of inadequacy complex. You think that you have to do something to make God love you or like you. Since you can not do enough, you have made it to where Jesus did all the work for you, now all you have to do is "believe".

I agree with you that this solves the problem of your inadequacy. It works perfectly in your mind.

I do not need a slaughtered lamb in order to have a relationship with God.

I am not these things.
"you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

Because I do not agree with your doctrine, you must separate yourself from me, just as you think your God has.

Christianity will always be a tool to separate mankind through doctrine. It does not bring us together. In your version of God, not even God himself can bring mankind together. God must separate the sheep from the goats. It is archaic and does not fit the "truth" test for God who is love. Love never fails. In the end, love wins out.

It does not fit a truth test for justice either. It is not just to force the acceptance of a blood sacrifice for the accomplishment of righteousness. Righteousness is in the moment. Every moment counts, not relying on a sacrifice of 2000 years ago.



.

Vic Hays
08-20-2012, 10:40
Vic you obviously have some sort of inadequacy complex. You think that you have to do something to make God love you or like you. Since you can not do enough, you have made it to where Jesus did all the work for you, now all you have to do is "believe".


.

Thank you for bringing this up. God is love. He already loved us. It was just that He in order to be fair and loving had to pay our penalty Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He already loved us before He died for us as can be seen in this famous text.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

NMG26
08-20-2012, 14:10
Thank you for bringing this up. God is love. He already loved us. It was just that He in order to be fair and loving had to pay our penalty Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He already loved us before He died for us as can be seen in this famous text.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You are welcome Vic.

Do you have aonian life? Do you even know what aonian life is?


"Whenever it [zwh aiwniov] is used for the life which God gives to those who believe in Christ . . . , it is to be understood as referring not only to duration, but more to quality . . . primarily something different from the natural life of man, i.e., the life of God."From this article.
http://becruciform.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/PART_2_CHAPTER_15_ETERNAL_LIFE.33115205.pdf

Vic you are always talking about the future. Aionian life is now and perishing is now.

Live is in the now, the future will take care of itself. There is no need for a blood covering in order to have God's life now!




.