Heartsick Boy Asks If Atheist Dad Is In Heaven. Pope Francis Reveals The Answer With A Hug.
A tearful little boy grappling with big existential questions after the death of his father received some touching words of consolation from Pope Francis. The poignant moment between the pontiff and the child on Sunday highlighted Francis’ enduring emphasis on prioritizing mercy.
The child, whom Francis referred to as Emanuele, met the pope during a papal visit to the St. Paul of the Cross parish on the outskirts of Rome. During a question-and-answer session with children of the parish, Emanuele approached the microphone to ask Francis a question.
But the child froze before he could get his words out. He can be seen sobbing into his hands in video recordings of the encounter.
Francis encouraged the boy to come forward and whisper the question into his ear. The pope gave the boy a hug and the pair had a quiet chat before Emanuele returned to his seat. Francis then addressed the crowd, saying that Emanuele had granted permission to share the conversation.
He revealed that Emanuele was crying for his father, who had recently died. The boy told the pontiff that his dad was an atheist, but a good man who had all four of his children baptized.
“Is Dad in heaven?’” the boy asked the pope.
Watch a video of the encounter in Italian below.
| |
“A boy that inherited the strength of his father also had the courage to cry in front of all of us,” the pope said. “If this man was able to create children like this, it’s true that he is a good man.”
“That man did not have the [gift] of faith, wasn’t a believer. But he had his children baptized. He had a good heart,” Francis added.
The pope said that God decides who goes to heaven, and that God has “the heart of a father.” He asked the young girls and boys in the audience if they thought God would abandon a father like Emanuele’s, who was a good man.“No,” the children shouted back.
“There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” the pope said, according to a translation provided by the Catholic News Service . “God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.” This isn’t the first time Francis has acknowledged that atheists can work for good.
In a 2013 homily, the pope reiterated the Christian belief that eternal salvation is attained through Jesus Christ. But he declared that all humans are created in the image of God, and that all have a duty to do good. This principle of doing good to others is one that unites all of humanity, the pope said, including atheists.
“Just do good and we’ll find a meeting point,” the pope said in that sermon.
| Reference 1 : https://www.yahoo.com/news/heartsick-boy-asks-atheist-dad-193340202.html |
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
410 visitors
This is a Big Deal.
There is a powerful tradition in the Catholic Church that salvation can come only through faith and grace, and NOT through works. For a Pope to say that we can be saved by our works is downright heretical...
Is that a joke?
Bob, you are a little off track.
Catholics and Protestants differ on many particulars regarding Justification / Salvation, but the basic point upon which we most strongly disagree and which most enters into the Faith / Works debate is this: Man has the ability and obligation to cooperate with God’s grace in securing his own salvation. In the practical order, this means that he must do good and avoid evil in order to be saved. He is not merely a passive recipient of God’s salvation. [2]
Catholicism.org
Yep, it's Protestants (including fundamentalist sects who claim to be non-denominational) who believe faith alone is enough, as Paul claimed - that, unlike what Jesus said, works are not required.
Faith without works is dead
Though I am not a participant in the Catholic doctrine, I think what Pope Francis is endeavoring to say (on this delicate question) is God looks on the heart and not at the outward appearance. Ultimately, it rests with God, as a prerogative of position , who can cleanse and establish anyone through a gifting of faith, even at death's door. Jesus brought this up during the lesson on the Laborers in the Field .
Thank-you for bringing up this point, Cal. If there really is a supreme, supernatural being that created the universe and everything in it, why would it be important to this being, whether or not a mere human believes it exists? Why does 'God' require us to constantly praise and honor it, does this god have low self-esteem or something? Is 'God' really going to stamp its foot like an angry child and torture people for eternity simply for honestly not thinking it exists? Being an atheist does not make one a bad person in any way.
Hi lennylynx! Okay. I agree.
As to the rest of your message, I'll simply suggest it is superfluous , in my opinion.
He's got a fragile ego just like our Fuhrer has.
That would be the shitstain in chief who resides in the now White Trash House.
Are you referring to your Glorious Leader, cadet bone spur shithole? Seems like he has much in common with your "god" including an incredibly fragile ego.
Though like the rest of us he slips from time to time, Pope Francis has been the most humane of Popes in my time.
Here is where being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is much different that the Catholics and Protestants. We believe in three levels of heaven: Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms. There is also Perdition. For a better synopsis that I can give go here:
Catholics and Protestants differ too, in that Catholics believe in purgatory (and that you can buy your way out of purgatory) and Protestants don't.
Gee, so many different religions, each with their own advantages or disadvantages, which one is the "correct" one? Or is choosing one like choosing a cell phone carrier: look for the best deal. Maybe switch later if you find a better one?
And just think of all the Protestant sects out there, and the ones who aren't really either (JWs, 7th Day Adventists, etc.). Not to mention that most of the fundamentalist sects, despite claiming to be non-denominational, are basically Protestant sects.
That's why being an atheist is much easier: you don't have to worry about choosing a religion, sect, or denomination, with all their different rules, traditions, threats of damnation nonsense, ect.. Best of all, I don't have to sacrifice my critical thinking or rationality as payment to be in any one of them.
Or 10% of your income - which in some churches goes to help the community, but in many goes to enrich the pastor or the church leaders.
Yeah, I think I'll keep my rational mind and my income.
Excuse the "interruption." Aren't NT atheists fun of telling NT believers that. . . disbelief . . .is not something to boast or cry over? How are you presently attempting to 'pour' positive things into a container that can hold no-thing?
I think you meant to write "fond" instead of "fun" (although I guess fun might work somehow).
Thank you, Atheist. A positive scholarly amount of sharing there. I do mean " fond " in this context. Accepted. Sidebar: Spelling is a primary forte for me, but lately spelling words are just 'blending' into one another. (Smile.)
Scholarly! By Jove, sir, I thank you. 🧐
That doesn't really make much sense.
Since atheists consider atheism as no-thing, then it is not "being" at all. You simply do not believe in God. Nothing is at risk, for nothing can be.
That still makes no sense. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity/ies or supernatural phenomenon.
I am an atheist, but that does not mean I don't believe in god. It also means that I do believe in god. To me the question is meaningless and moot.
If you believe in god, then you are not an atheist .
Atheism is 'no-thing' and it has been often alternatively reported this way in multiple NT discussions. Additionally, is "lack" the appropriate word usage for that? Lack is surely something . Finally, being without a belief in a deity never put you at risk of losing critical thinking or rationality. . . . Your claim is melodramatic and bogus.
Hello Randy! I will defer to our resident atheists to work through the meaning of the word, atheism, hopefully reaching a consensus or working definition.
REVISED:
Finally, BELIEF in a deity would never put you or anyone else at risk of losing critical thinking or rationality. . . . Your claim is melodramatic and bogus.
John Ben Abraham of Jesus. Atheist, what means this?
I have never heard of atheism described as "no-thing," whatever that means.
Yes.
no, it's not.
Belief in itself is irrational and subscribing to tenets of belief or dogma requires a suspension of critical thinking, especially if it conflicts with what is logically or scientifically established.
First, I do not believe you have not read the word atheist-atheism described in alternative ways across these threads. It is too tedious to go back over, nevertheless. *Yawn. Moving on.
Second, I am not about to engage with you about what every believer believes. Safe to accept that you do not value any of it from your position. So miss me with the finer details of belief systems.
Finally, Pope Francis was charitable in his reply to a young boy about his atheist father. . . .How about that Pope Francis? What a 'guy,' huh?
No, I haven't. I'm aware of the definition of atheism. How anyone else chooses to use the word is on them.
I didn't ask you to.
I have made no mention about the Pope. Neither does that have anything to do with what I already said.
"I believe all faiths and denominations of those faiths have some of the truth, none have all of it.'
Very much agree. There is no such thing as only one true religion. Even among Christians there are enumerable variances of beliefs. None of which is the one and only true religion, other than in their own mind.
What "truth" would that be exactly? "Truth" typically needs to be supported with facts.
There is a difference between voluntary donations and donation (including amount) as required by a religious organization.
Good for you.
If I do, it's because I choose to. not because of what some god commands. Big difference.
Quite a sweeping generalization, especially since you know nothing about me.
I beg to differ with you on this. There are many very poor people in this country, and others around the world, who do not have the extra money to give to any charity or their church, if they attend one.
However, there are many of these same people who do their best to help others in need in any way they can. There are many needs in this world that mere money can not fill, and people with a small purse but a big heart can do as much good for others as someone with an overflowing purse.
Charity is not all about money....ever.....true charity is in giving of oneself and helping others in whatever way they can, or in whatever way others need help.
Not everything in this world is based on a monetary need. Often, a person's good heart is worth far more and does more good than any monetary amount.
You just said god commands tithing. Therefore, it is not voluntary. However, since I don't follow any god or religion, if I donate, it is voluntary as I am not pressured or obligated by god or religion.
And there are more ways to help others besides tithing. So your statement doesn't stand.
What does God do with the money anyway, and why does He need so much of it? Does God have trouble sticking to a budget or something? That's too bad, and tell Him to stay home from the bar if He can't afford to tip the waitress.
Yes, you do dissect others' messages a lot—probably more than is necessary. I mean this kindly: It can be helpful if you process that I am not keeping separate lists of what any one atheist or freethinker or humanist or secularist or any combination of these terms is bringing to these discussions and our exchanges. You and I have been discoursing with others for several years across platforms and there has been many ideas laid out back and forth. It would not 'hurt' you to try to keep with the 'thrust' of what others you vote up choose to pour into the overall discussions! I simply need to drop that in your spirit: hope it sticks too!
I asked you about the Pope in order to check your 'status' on the topic on purpose, and you deflected.
I'd like to answer.
Personally, I like this Pope. Obviously, you dont become Pope unless you are also a master politician, but he does genuinely seem to care about people. That is respectable in my opinion.
Hi Peter! My understanding of this pope's ordination is the church's need for a compassionate and less 'warring' authority to heal the rift in the worldwide catholic church community. I am not Catholic and thus much more can be stated by another conversant with its methods and procedures.
I do remember Pope Benedict simply 'retired' his personage due to the stresses of the high office governing nearly a billion souls.
Plus, Pope Francis' priestly order (Jesuits) is known for its humility among other characteristics. So yes, Pope Francis is the real deal. He is likely never going to hold up as a 'high-bar' this concept of master politician. Of course, that does not mean this man, as Pope, won't follow long-standing church histories, customs, and traditions in leading his storied church into the future!
I understand. It sometimes seems that when people give a few dollars here and there that they have done their part to help others. And there is always a need to money to help where it can. But, the are many times when mere money alone does not resolve the problem, and personal input is of greater need.
What "messages" are you referring to? I challenge certain points or claims, sure.
I never implied you were doing any such thing.
That doesn't make sense. What others say or contribute is up to them. Likewise for myself.
No deflection. I simply didn't say anything about the Pope to begin with. The pope was providing emotional comfort to the child.
That is a great way to help where needed, without anything in return other than a thank you. That young man has a very good heart. I truly hope that it will stay with him throughout his life.
I do not understand what Cal is trying to say either. The term 'no-thing' is too vague. Sounds as if he is noting that atheists are not convinced a god exists (no-thing). That is obvious so the use of 'no-thing' as a distinctive label makes no sense to me.
Nothing he's saying is making much sense.
Don't worry about it, Gordy! Too exhausting and time-consuming to 'catch you up.' This too will pass. (This expression may not make any sense to you either.)
Perhaps you should try to be more clear or clarify what you're trying to say. Obviously I'm not the only one who cannot seem to figure out what you're saying. And your dismissiveness seems to imply you don't know what you're talking about either.
Hello, Beast of the East and Raven Wing!
I was 'off-line' for most of this Sunday doing something I had not done in many years. What? I looked back over the course of my last twenty plus years at some of the ministries that made me the person I am today. I had a 'high-time' of watching many online services, bet! Several startling realizations occur to me:
1. Several of the leaders, Bishops, have passed away now. Great men of God all their lives.
2. These founders' ministries live on in their grown offspring, themselves elders taking up the mantle of service to new generations of 'arm' babies.
3. The living founders are so much older now, but you see the people, the congregants - many whom these men have led for decades, prayed over, worried over, and counseled all their individual adult lives. And, are still standing under pastoral leadership with respect for God and yes, the man and woman of God. S/he as much dedicated to the congregants as they are to him/her and first lady or first husband.
WOW. It was a 'refresher.' These leaders, men mostly, have persevered, dealt with all the hardships, 'arrows,' deaths, births, 'transients' passing through their public and home doors, weddings, problems, issues, dilemmas, joys, and trials and tribulations well beyond their ability to comprehend them further—yet, somehow these leaders withstood their own ravages in life and bore up under their followers too - until time swept/is sweeping them away.
For me, today's 'research' brought me back to an understanding: I make a mistake when I make it all about the bad-evil men and women 'of the cloth.' There are true faithful leaders out there down in the 'struggle' day by day without letup with small, medium, large, and 'overwhelming' flocks of church 'families.' All simply trying to make life work, better.
Hold that thought for me. . . .
A time of reflection well spent. We often overlook those around us who actually live by their belief and do all they can for those who need them, and those who look to them for leadership.
Some people seem to need to have a pat on the back for everything they do for others, and others simply feel the need to do for others when and what they can to help make their lives better. A true leader knows the difference, and and so do those who follow them.
We can't all be leaders, but, the followers should make every effort to do the best they can, and be the best person they can be. That is all the Creator really asks of us.
What we do for others with the goodness of our hearts, we do for Him/Her. We each are only as good a person as what is in our own hearts.
No truer words. Thank you, friend Raven Wing. "Raven Wing" what is the meaning in the name the name? Just now I caught the visual of a specific bird.
Okay Gordy and TiG. You can begin to inform us all about the great tradition, customs, and attitudes of the world's atheists.
If someone is not convinced that a god exists (where god is typically defined as the creator of the known universe) that person is an atheist. If an atheist claims certainty that no god exists, that atheist is a gnostic atheist. Otherwise, the atheist is an agnostic atheist.
The super-super majority of atheists are agnostic atheists - individuals who are not convinced that a god exists but recognize they could be wrong.
It is the name that was given to me by the 'Grandfather' (the eldest male in a Tribe) of the Cherokee Tribe Reservation near Pawhuska OK when I was about 8 y/o. The Grandfather gave me that name because he said that my hair was the color of a Raven's wing, with shades of blue-black highlights. So my Cherokee name has been Raven Wing ever since that time. I also have a Cherokee Tribal name, but, that name cannot be spoken by anyone by the Tribal Shaman or Medicine Man/Woman during a religious or Spiritual ceremony.
Interesting story Raven Wing. I have something similar to that but, it comes from when I worked for an amusement part in North Carolina. A gentleman that I worked with was a member of the Blackfoot Nation, we became good friends at work and, out of work, we played on the same softball team after work, kind of a work related thing, during that time he kept watching me, at work and, on the field and, other places we went to often, one day he says to me, "Galen, your name to me is no longer Galen, I will call you 'Red Hawk'" and, from that time on I was, to him, Red Hawk, he never really explained why he decided to call me by that name but, I have always been proud of that, I understand that it is an honor for a white man to gain a name from a Native American so, I wear it with honor and, always will.
Indeed a very interesting story, and name. As I was Cherokee, the Grandfather thought I should have a Cherokee name, which had not been bestowed on me before. In the custom of the Cherokee, and perhaps other Native American Tribes as well, the children will often have many different names bestowed upon them at different stages of their life, and when achieving personal merits. Many will not be given their 'official' Cherokee name until they reach the age of adulthood.
As I and my family did not live on the Reservation, there were many things that I did not have the chance to learn further in regards to names, but, doing research once I reached adulthood, I was able to learn more about it.
Your name, 'Red Hawk', is indeed a name to be proud of, and I feel sure that your Friend gave you that name as an honor to you as a person of integrity and respect. You have a right to be very proud of it. (smile)
This really confirms what I felt at the time and, what i have felt since then, it makes me happy to have it confirmed. Thank you, Raven. (smile)
How excellent that is! So much character. (Nods assent.)
YW. I am truly glad that you honor your Friend by taking such pride in the name he bestowed on you. It was surely from the heart.
Sharing a long-term mythology with many others doesn't make you any better than those who share a different mythology, or no mythology at all.
What a snotty attitude.
Belief in faith? that leaves you with nothing!
You seem to be quite dismissive and a bit nasty actually when you talk down to others like that. Is that what Jesus would do?
Why re-define atheism? It has a meaning.
That's just about what I was thinking!
* Yawn. This must be easy for you.
Are you always so nasty?
Whatever, Tesslyo. It's earlier - I'd better go radiate. . . .
Pot meet kettle. Amazing that you can even ask anyone else that. Skirting the CoC [ph]
Whatever dude.
Excuse me, but Gordy was quoting your "you're not much of a human being"
Why stop at three? Maybe Kolob will have seven gated communities like a good layer dip. But don't let them mix, you never want the beans from one district mingling with the sour cream...
It is my belief that God loves every one of us. Unconditionally. Books and churches are made by fallible human beings. You see religious people fail all the time in their daily life, but are encouraged to do better by their faith. Many churches help us to stay on the path of being a better person, but I doubt God uses the same criteria in his/her love for us.
That was a nice gesture from the pope.
It was. I like this Pope. He has a good heart and I believe he will do many good works for the Catholic Church. I hope he rescinds the idea of not wearing condoms especially in AIDS suffering nations in Africa. It's my understanding that he is the very first Jesuit Pope, would would put him on the more liberal side of the church, so this may be possible.
Jesuits are liberal in that they are supposed to be humble and serve the poor. They are also the intellectuals of the Church.
However, from my understanding, they are not very liberal when it comes to sex. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
It is a nice gesture. This young boy can formulate a well-rounded understanding of his church teachings later on; right now there is a delicate need for comfort and compassion.
I really like and respect this pope, he gets it, and sometimes ticks off the Vatican machine, which is geared more to power and control over the masses.
As for the rest of who goes where after one dies, well, we will all find out soon enough. I think I know. Others think they do. Who is right? Nobody knows, and religions are no more in the light than any single person who wants to delve. Its all fiction til its not.
Comment removed proselytising [ph]
I give you a vote up and welcome, brother Livefreeordie! Now, I will call your attention to scriptural discussion of another's man's servant . Could it be that this scenario (and the thief on the cross) is being used to succor a child (and the listening audiences)? Note: I do understand that this is a delicate point of sharing for a leader, which the Pope definitely is. Is it not okay to "toe" the line without stepping over it? (You would be perfectly in-line to question whether the Pope stepped over the line, too.) Share your thoughts, friend.
I would have answered as I have others in this difficult situation.
I normally answer "I can only tell you what I know as a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God. God came to mankind to reveal Himself in the person of Jesus. Jesus gave us very specific teachings on what is required to enter the kingdom of heaven. I cannot possibly say I know more than God and so we must leave it in His hands on who is there and who is not. But I will also share this promise from Jesus for you when you get to heaven. When you get there God will give you such peace of mind that nothing will cause you to cry or be sad.
for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” Revelation 7:17
"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:3,4
Well, you have stated it and I accept the totality of your comment too, brother!
Is it possible that you (along with everyone else, by the way) do not have knowledge of God (if God exists)?
Is it possible that you (and many others) mistakenly presume the words of ancient men to be divine?
We have the promise of God that through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we know the things of God
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holyd]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?”e]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:12-16
According to mere words written by ancient men who you presume are an accurate conduit for the Word of the grandest possible entity.
No because we have a living faith with a personal relationship with God who reveals Himself and His will to us as believers
Why did he create others to be nonbelievers and why does he hide from them?
God never created anyone to deny Him. Each of us is responsible for our choices. God doesn't hide from anyone.
All mankind has deserved death. The true miracle of God is that anyone is saved.
Quite the contradiction then.
You clearly hold the words of ancient men as divine as evidenced by your oft quoting of scripture. If you could communicate with the grandest possible entity - the creator or everything - why would you consult the highly translated and edited words of bronze age men with pens?
No contradiction. The reality of God confirms His word, through manifestations which include personal manifestations and affirmations through signs and wonders.
Given that you hold the Bible divine, you hold slavery to be acceptable? You hold homosexuality to be an abomination that (at one time) was worthy of a death sentence? Just to offer two of many examples.
Christianity doesn't hold slavery to be acceptable. There is NO such teaching by Jesus or the Apostles.
Furthermore, as to homosexual behavior, Jesus and the Apostles condemned it but there are NO civil penalties in Christianity. those judgments will be carried out after one's death. Christians are not under the laws of Moses.
Then why is there no condemnation of slavery in the Bible? Nothing in the NT shows Jesus telling his followers that the widely conducted practice of enslaving other human beings was wrong. It is not as if this was a minor practice on remote areas - it was right there in Jesus' backyard. Further, where does Jesus explain why Yahweh of the OT made rules for proper slavery instead of condemning it as immoral?
Under the NT homosexuality is still a sin. Right? Do you hold that God considers homosexual behavior to be a sin that the sinner will be judged upon?
Further, prior to Jesus, in the OT, Yahweh (God) established the laws of Moses and defined homosexuality to be an abomination with a death sentence. So did Yahweh grow more mellow over time? Did the omniscient God change His mind? Are Christians supposed to dismiss the OT as no longer valid (the old covenant)? If so, should they dismiss Genesis? Or should they pick and choose the parts that 'seem right' and pretend the balance does not exist?
What Jesus and the Apostles taught is that ALL mankind is called to LIBERTY.
Jesus said “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;" Luke 4:18
Furthermore, Jewish slavery was not like we understand slavery. A poor Jew could agree to be the "slave" of a Jewish household which in reality was a worker or servant. That doesn't mean I condone it, but one must understand the term and what it meant before drawing conclusions
The Hebrew term for slave, eved , is a direct derivation from the Hebrew verb la'avöd ("to work"), thus, the slave in Jewish law is really only a worker or servant. The eved differs from the hired worker ( sakhir ) in three respects: he receives no wages for his work; he is a member of his master's household; and, his master exercises patria potestas over him - for example, the master may choose a wife for the slave and retains ownership of her and he has proprietary rights in him.
Hebrew slaves could only be under this contract for 6 years and must be freed of the agreement in the 7th year.
Non Jewish slaves could be kept in that household forever but must also be treated like a member of the household
TREATMENT OF SLAVES
Correction, someone claimed Jesus said. There is no contemporary historical record of the Jesus described in the bible. Everything written about him is hearsay.
As to homosexuality. Jesus and the Apostles taught that the OT covenant was obsolete and that Jesus was establishing a New Covenant with God
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judahnot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. Jeremiah 31:31,32
“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it." Luke 16:16
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:28
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13
Jesus was gay. I really don't see why you guys are always so opposed to it.
Nonsense- The Gospels were written by the Apostles and Mark and Luke who were members of the Apostles team. The Gospels were complete within 18 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
All of the Bible was complete except for the Book of Revelation before 70 AD. John the Apostle completed that Book by approx 92 AD and we have the recorded messages of those who he mentored
Yes, God changed His mind. Forget about killing homosexuals, that was just omniscient (all-knowing) perfect God overreacting. In the new covenant perfect, omniscient God has corrected his mistake and now simply considers homosexuality a sin.
Do you hold that God considers homosexual behavior to be a sin that the sinner will be judged upon?
Yes, Jesus and the Apostles reaffirmed that ALL sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is fornication and condemns one before God.
Indeed. So those who believe the NT divine will consider heterosexual practices between a married couple to be okay and those of a married homosexual couple to be living in sin and accumulating sinful acts that they must pay for on judgment day. Explains the bigotry. Especially if one uses the OT as context.
To wit, God frowns on homosexuals. I guess they are another mistake?
You can be a little less "passionate" in your efforts to cast doubt; you are not a defender of God. Thus, God is not 'moved,' and nor should we be either, by a tactic of 'planting doubt.' I see you, friend TiG.
And yet you voted for Prop h8 in order to have the state enforce the anti-gay sharia laws of your peculiar sect.
Why should I be less passionate in encouraging critical thinking?
Many of these specific "ancient men" lived and died in faith, suffering to live out the gospel message they shared with others. They reside in the 'halls of faith.' How casually you are to write about "mere words" which go untested in your own life! And you mention "the greatest possible Entity" as if you will serve. . . . Is TiG among the prophets now?
Welcome Dean! The Bible informs us that we like sheep have gone astray. . . . That is, we do not want to serve that which is suited for our higher good (as if we know it apart from the Creator). That is a short answer. The long answer could be a thread to itself.
Now as to God hiding. Define hiding. The New Testament informs us God is Spirit.
Lots of people live and die in faith. That does not make the faith true. We are allowed to challenge positions held by ancient men who possibly believed everything they wrote (or not).
Also, I am not the topic. Try to just focus on the debate questions and steer clear of trying to analyze me. Okay?
Actually no, God has not changed. God is Alpha and Omega . The plan of God is running its course from beginning to ending . Mankind is encountering new natural phenomenon and revelations (revealing) designed to encourage his/her spiritual understanding as time marches on to conclusion. God's plan is not thwarted by mankind hanging on to that which s/he is to outgrow and farther allow to lead to maturity:
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. " 1 Corinthians 13:13.
&
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone ;
Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone .
So God has not changed, Ephesians 2 . (Hover over link!) Nor is any of this a surprise to God.
But you were not defending rational-exclusivism were you? You assumed a posture of defending God, and it was a pretense. Let's be perfectly clear: My friend, you are no friend, in the normal sense, of God!
When wiles are deployed by atheists to diminish and bash prophets and apostles you will get the appropriate push-back. So bring your so-called "bible" verse and I will bring mine!
They aren’t a mistake. All of us are born with different temptations that have a strong pull. It’s how we choose to respond to those temptations
Your argument is simply a declaration. It does not address the circumstance I provided.
The fact (so to speak) remains that God deemed homosexuality an offense punishable by mortal death but Jesus downgraded it to a sin. (Or would you argue that Jesus also considered homosexuality an abomination punishable by mortal death?) Further, God (Yahweh) clearly did not make rules against slavery but rather made rules for how to properly enslave fellow human beings. So would you say that God, circa 2018, would hold that human slavery is allowable? If not, how is this not a 'change of mind'? Omniscient, omnipotent God gets what God wants. God allowed slavery while condemning to death those who engaged in homosexual relations or punishing those who wore the clothing with more than one weave of thread. God demanded (made specific rules with punishments) a certain behavior for even the most trivial things so clearly He was in the business of controlling His creatures. If God did not approve of slavery, He could have ended it. He never has.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been challenging the biblical definition of God.
O really ? Then why do we have this ?
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide which equals homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
.
Looks to me like God didn't care too damn much.
Indeed. Homosexuals are born with a natural attraction to those of the same gender. You would say that God had something to do with how each individual is born, right? God has something rather profound to do with the nature of a homosexual.
If so, then homosexuals are born as such by the will of God. But then God ostensibly (per the NT) deems that acting on their natural attractions to the same gender is a sin with consequences on judgment day. (Death by the OT.)
How is this not a setup?
Imagine if there was a rule that stated heterosexual couples can only have sex for the purpose of procreation during a two week period each year and must abstain for the other 50 weeks. That would be denying our very nature, right? How many could hold back and abide by such rules?
One of many contradictions, right? If God did not want homosexuals then why are so many people born with homosexual orientation?
contradictions
LOL
What I find fascinating is evidently many humans believe GOD had so much "faith" in us he "Channeled his "Rule book" thru us to begin with.
IMO GOD arranged the atoms of the universe to be all that is, IF it would have intended a "Rule book" surely it would have been created not written by men for GOD.
Good to see you back !
The cliche response to that is 'God works in mysterious ways'.
And my response to that is as usual: LOL
Thank you, I come and go. Sometimes unseen...lol
You have been supplied repeatedly answers for slavery and homosexuality in the Bible through the OT and NT eras —yet you stubbornly persist in 'driving by' said replies, only to persist. You may not like the comments on the subjects you get, but do not be mistaken: you have been answered! For, we, you and I, have spent time together on slavery and homosexuality on another thread, and Livefreeanddie is proceeding to address it on this thread. Or, do you think to use homosexuality to divide brothers in the faith? I see you, my friend. I have for years now.
Well let's broaden out your "projects" (slavery, homosexuality) with some other issue: Profaning God. God allows atheists to profane the name set above every name: Jesus! Assuming you will allow for God having power to end such profanity, care to venture an opinion why God continues to allow this name to be profaned by men and women with 'critical spirits'?
Really? Please summarize for all of us then:
A cheap trick: claiming that a question has been answered simply because a reply arrived. Another cheap trick: pretending that a reply fully answers a question to try to avoid follow-ups.
I suggest you cease with the meta. If you have a rebuttal argument then make it instead of meta complaining about my posts. If you have nothing topical to offer then maybe it is best (wise) to not reply.
Because God (of the Bible) is a character invented by men who has no real means to effect anything. If God (of the Bible) did exist one could ask why God allows any of His rules to be broken. I could not answer - I think the God of the Bible is a poorly designed character.
Jesus was gay. I really dont understand your outrage.
Jesus was gay. I really dont understand your outrage.
You have your answers already! WHAT God, TiG?
"If the dead aren’t raised, let’s eat and drink because tomorrow we’ll die." I Corinthians 15:32. (Smile.)
The God of the Bible is the god we were discussing.
Maybe your god isn't the egotistical, evil being that you seem to assume it is. If you were a god, would you give a crap what a mere human called you? Would you be so full of yourself that you'd be insulted when one ant out of billions called you a mean name? We mere humans manage survive being insulted by our toddlers (I hate you, Mommy! I wish you were dead!), and our teenagers, and yet the decent among us don't murder them. And you don't think your god can blow off the same things we can, as mere humans? That makes your god sound rather inept, and in need of therapy.
I'd think your god is big enough to handle this - if it's not, then why worship it?
Actually katrix, whatever God could possibly be in need of God would not ask from you, or us, to supply it:
Psalm 50 NLT
7 “O my people, listen as I speak. Here are my charges against you, O Israel: I am God, your God!
8 I have no complaint about your sacrifices or the burnt offerings you constantly offer.
9 But I do not need the bulls from your barns or the goats from your pens.
10 For all the animals of the forest are mine, and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know every bird on the mountains, and all the animals of the field are mine.
12 If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for all the world is mine and everything in it.
13 Do I eat the meat of bulls? Do I drink the blood of goats?
14 Make thankfulness your sacrifice to God, and keep the vows you made to the Most High.
15 Then call on me when you are in trouble, and I will rescue you, and you will give me glory.”
Hey Peter! Oh wow! Your comment (above) was literally on this thread of mine! I got 'em mixed up! Sorry again, Peter. (I see the repost now too!)
Based on your post, would you tell this little boy that his father is burning in Hell for all of eternity?
There are several members here on NT who definitely would not hesitate to do so based strictly on their own posting history..
I just stated exactly what I would say as I have said to others during my decades of ministry. I have performed many funeral services over the last 40 years.
If you tell that boy that his father is definitely in heaven then you are lying to him and also engaged in deceit which could very well lead the boy to believe that not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is unimportant.
Then you would have the possibility of both the son and the father in hell and I choose to be honest and guide the boy towards life.
How do you know you are lying to the boy? You do not know what the creator (if one exists) has in store for anyone (if anything). You could just as easily tell the boy that his father was a good man (presuming he was) and that God is a just God and will do the right thing. That would not be lying per your beliefs and it would take you out of the position of speaking for the grandest possible entity as if you know what such an entity would actually do.
Except you have no possible way of knowing that your beliefs are correct. Would it not be more honest to give the child a comforting answer that ultimately would mean 'I do not know, but your dad was a good man' ?? That would be honest and might not subject this child to visions of his father being tortured for all of eternity.
NO ONE will go to heaven because they are supposedly good. People like yourself measure goodness by human standards (and even those vary by individuals). God has His own standard for goodness and it's the blood of Jesus.
I know my beliefs are correct as much as any thing I know in this world. I know it because I know my God personally (as do all true Christians).
I still maintain it would not only be dishonest to lie to the child, but that I would be accountable to God for deceiving that child.
You do not know that.
You do not know that either.
No way you could be wrong, eh?
Just as a devout ultra-hard-right Muslim father would not want to lie to his child and dissuade him from being a martyr (i.e. a suicide bomber)? Would you suggest to this father that what he believes with all his heart might not be true and that his 'honesty' may lead to the death of his son and countless innocents?
You are very sure of yourself. So am I, and I don't agree with your take on this at all. This pope is wiser than most religious leaders, the difference is striking.
Me too, and it has NOTHING to do with any particular religion, including christianity.
I know it because either Jesus is God as He said, or He is the biggest liar and deceiver in the history of mankind.
Ask any Muslim and they will tell you that NO Muslim except a martyr believes with "certainty" that they are going to heaven.
Islam is completely at odds with Judaism and Christianity. It comes later and declares both to be lies. Islam is first and foremost a political ideology that demands sub doing all mankind under Islamic rule or killing them.
So tell me how the pope can say he is a a disciple of Christ and yet call Jesus a liar?
When it comes to God there cannot be multiple truths that contradict each other. Jesus is either God and the Truth as He declared or He was a liar and NO ONE can know the truth.
Or the Bible is simply stories invented (and embellished) by ancient men pretending to speak for the grandest possible entity - the creator of everything.
You are dodging the question:
Would you suggest the ultra-hard-right Muslim father be honest and not dissuade his child from 'martyrdom'?
In many ways I agree with you (not completely , but substantially ). My question, however, still stands and remains quite relevant.
That makes great sense. So explain why so many conflicting (and contradicting) religions exist based on the Bible. Which one is the TRUE interpretation and why?
I think ANY father should tell his child that murder is wrong. Unfortunately Islam endorses murder
But then the father is lying to his son. Why would you advise the father to lie (state something that he believes is not truth) when you would not do likewise?
There are quite a few interpretations of Islam so you cannot categorically claim that Islam endorses murder. You would not want people to claim that your denomination of Christianity believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, right? Further, have you read the OT? Murder is not a foreign concept in the OT.
Why IS it so important that we believe God exists, Larry, why would it even matter to a supreme creator of the universe, if a mere human believes it exists or not?
your questions are what I would term insanity. Why would any rational person not want to know God who created everything? Why would any rational person want to insult the God who created everything?
That's why Jesus said never to call a person a "fool" which at that time was a Jewish slang for a person who didn't believe in God. it was inconceivable that a sane person would deny the obvious
Islam has been at war will the rest of mankind since 632AD. They are commanded by the Quran to conquer and kill and that is the history
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an: 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an: 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an: 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
these facts were affirmed by early American leaders and is affirmed to this day by Islamic clerics
A fact recognized by early Americans
John Quincy Adams , sixth US President (1825-1829), wrote after his presidency and before his election to Congress in 1830: “ The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. [Mohamet] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. Between [Christianity and Islam], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ….” (Blunt, 29:274).
In 1786, while serving as an Ambassador for the new United States, Jefferson asked Tripoli’s Ambassador to Great Britain what right the Barbary states had that allowed them to kidnap and slaughter the innocent crews of passing merchant ships.
According to Jefferson, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja replied that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Modern Islamic rulings on global conquest.
“The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. ...Muhammad’s early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.”
Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri in his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam published 1955
As late as November 2003, the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi embassy in Washington featured this statement on its website:
“The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. Such a violent and expansionist program is not solely the province of Saudi Wahhabis .
One might ask you how you could possibly hold the Bible divine given its many contradictions. For example, how can you possibly hold that Yahweh is perfect and omniscient yet create Adam & Eve in such a way that they would disobey Him and He would be surprised? How is an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being surprised?
Have you ever read the OT ?
Shall I quote scripture regarding the worldwide flood, killing of firstborns, etc? Shall we move to the Inquisition?
Most of Christianity is in agreement on Christian doctrine. the groups that stray from the Core Christian doctrines are those who hold that some individual's views are superior to or supercede the Bible (Jehovah Witnesses, LDS, and even the church of Rome which created the unbiblical papacy and it's authority to create doctrine that supercedes the Bible).
The reason there are different denominations within Christianity is because the Bible allows for us to have differences of opinions. Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian. These essential doctrines are,
When it comes to nonessentials we have the liberty to have differences of opinion. This is permitted in Scripture:
Nitty gritty time: You would tell the boy there is no heaven, no God, and no other realm beyond the natural world. Then, you would labor on continuously with appropriate amounts of worldly wisdom intending to break any spiritual connection to God, Spirit, Church, and religion that this boy possesses in his young mind. I know you would, because you do it here de facto.
If your "god" has a fragile ego and is easily offended then he's free to slaughter all the first-born infants and farm animals in my vicinity.
In short, you would argue that Christianity is the TRUE religion and the Christian doctrine is all that really matters. As for the various interpretations you do not deny that the divine Word of a perfect, omniscient God was stated in language that yields many interpretations (i.e. it is vague) but rather excuse this as 'allowable'. It is okay for people to misinterpret the Bible as long as they get the doctrine correct. Kind of a decent argument for putting the Bible on the shelf and simply creating a Christian Doctrine as the 'holy book'.
Christians comprise about 1/3 of the believers on the planet. By your reasoning, 2/3 of the planet will be damned to Hell. God is going to trash 2/3 of His creations?
No. I would not. I would tell the boy what I suggested. He believes in God so I would not mess with his little mind. Rather I would tell him that his father was a good man and that God is just (God as he has been taught is indeed good and just).
You should not presume. There is a major difference between intellectual discourse with adults and dealing with a heartbroken little boy.
BTW, have you forgotten how I deal with my devout Catholic father in law? I would never consider saying anything that might diminish the comfort he has with his faith.
Brother Livefreeordie, I understand the intent in your message. I understand the intent in the Pope's message too. Many do understand what has happened in both messages! (Smile.)
Some here, like a good (or bad) argument, per se. That's what is going on here.
Larry would argue that only his particular extreme Pentecostal variant in the One True Religion.
But is it true we do not know what has been shared with us? We have prophets, apostles, and writings. You have nothing like that. Moreover, you attack spiritual matters like a matador facing a bull in a fight. For what we accept and share among ourselves, which is dear to us, is disgusting and foolishness to you, my friend. So stop feigning. Since you are a rationalist-exclusivist defend your own position/s and allow believers' the joy of defending our God! Doing so in a diversity of ways!
I do not have a religion. What are you talking about?
Challenge.
What on Earth are you trying to say? On one hand you want me to tone down my challenges and now you want me to defend my own position?
Best to stay out of the meta business and just engage in impersonal discourse. If you think I have made a poor argument then by all means issue your topical rebuttal. This sidebar editorial, personal advice column stuff is inappropriate.
as I see it the Pope didn't tell the boy much, he USED the crowd as an avoidance tactic.
If the Pope would have told the young boy his daddy might go to hell perhaps the son would want to join him.
I like the popes avoidance tactic better.
The killing of the Amalekites was completely justified
Exactly what types of people were the Amalekites? Deuteronomy, one of the first five books of the Bible which is largely believed to have been written centuries before 1 Samuel, describes the Amalekites in rather unflattering language. Deut 25:17-19:
“Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt, that he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear God. It shall be that when the Lord, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under heaven – you shall not forget! ” (Emphasis added.)
The Jewish Encyclopedia ( JewishEncyclopedia.com ) describes the Amalekites as follows:
A kinsman of the Israelites, Amalek nevertheless displayed the most intense hatred toward them: he inherited Esau's hostility to his brother Jacob. When other nations hesitated to harm God's chosen ones, his evil example induced them to join him in the fray. "Like a robber he waylaid Israel"; "like a swarm of locusts"; "like a leech eager for blood"; "like a fly looking for sores to feed on"; Amalek ('am laḳ = the people which licketh) hurried over hundreds of miles to intercept Israel's march:(Tan. Ki Teẓe, ix., and Pesiḳ. iii. 26b)
Likewise, the Jewish Virtual Library makes these points about the Amalekites:
This nomadic nation was, in ancient times, Israel's eternal foe. Shortly after the Israelites left Egypt and were wondering the desert, the Amalekites attacked the weary nation, slaughtering the weak and elderly. The Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, later avenged the attack and defeated the Amalekites, but failed to completely eradicate the nation. Israel was then plagued with raids Amalekite raids. Today, the name Amalek is a symbol for evil and hatred against Jews, and Haman, the Persian leader who vowed to destroy all Jews, is considered a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites.
The commentary of the Whole Bible authored by Jamison, Faucett and Brown echoes the fact that the Amalekites were ruthless and hateful people:
[The Amalekites were a] powerful tribe which inhabited the country immediately to the eastward of the northern Cushites. Their territory extended over the whole of the eastern portion of the desert of Sinai to Rephidim--the earliest opponent ( Deu 25:18 Exd 17:8-16 ) --the hereditary and restless enemy of Israel ( Num 14:45 Jdg 3:13 6:3 ), and who had not repented ( 1Sa 14:48 ) of their bitter and sleepless hatred during the five hundred years that had elapsed since their doom was pronounced. Being a people of nomadic habits, they were as plundering and dangerous as the Bedouin Arabs, particularly to the southern tribes.
The sources are consistent in their view of the Amalekites as an exceptionally wicked people. The verses from Deuteronomy point to their treachery (accord, Exod 17:8-16). They are seen as the embodiment of evil and hatred towards the Jews which were God’s chosen people. While Israel was to make justice and brotherly love—-even to strangers-—its guiding rule (see, e.g., Leviticus 19:34), the Israelites were commanded to not forget that Amalek had perpetrated a cowardly and unprovoked attack on the feeble and hindmost, when the Israelites were marching from Egypt.
Amalek’s enmity against Israel stems not only from its legacy as Esau’s grandson ( Jewish Encyclopedia , supra ), but from what it represents. Amalek was the first among nations (Num 24:20), i.e., the leading force of evil. Consequently, the struggle between Israel and Amalek can be seen as a heavenly metaphor played out in real life for the eternal struggle of good versus evil.
If the murder is justifiable it is okay? Allah, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Yahweh all are good because their acts were justified as they saw things?
Killing the entire planet (except for Noah and his pairs) was justified so it was not really murder. (What did those little Koala bears do to deserve death by drowning?)
1. I hold to the localized view of the Genesis Food which is not contradicted by the Hebrew text
2. God Killed the first born Egyptians because Pharoh refused to release the Jews from slavery and increasingly made their lives worse. Pharoh was responsible for that outcome and God is sovereign and has the right to give or take life
3. The Inquisition has no basis in Christianity. It was one of the evils of the Church of Romeagainst it’s own members. There is no Christian biblical teaching that justified it.
Yes and we have a term for it in our modern criminal code- justifiable homocide
Cal Pen Code § 197: Justifiable homicide by other persons
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
Does not pan out. You 'say' you will give succor to children and the elderly (again I assume these are appropriate ages), but your online friends for whom you know scantily about are some 'combatants'? It does pan out, my friend. It just does not. You'd be better off just giving it to the kid direct:
'Boy, there is only the natural world we need to deal in." (Or, words to that effect.) See! It's less pretentious. Better still, he won't harshly judge you when he surely finds out just how much you detest God, Spirit, Jesus, Angels, Demons, "ancient men," and all world religions!
The Wizard of Oz:
(Simulacrum) 
Apologetics is amusing.
So by this interpretation, God did not actually kill all the plants and animals (except for sea creatures of course) on the planet but just those in a local area. So that explains why the penguins and kangaroos were spared (hard to imagine how they got back home). And if Noah did not need a pair of animals for all species but just the local species then the task is clearly more doable. Much simpler problem.
The Bible, if anything, has got to be the most widely multi-interpreted document of all time. How anyone can hold that their interpretation is the right one defies even the most basic logic.
But it still happened (per the Bible) did it not? Your approach is to claim that all murder by God is justified. Well, okay, but if you go that route then as long as the murderer can justify the murder it is okay. Remember how this started now. This is you:
If Yahweh can justify murder then so can Allah.
Not really true Christians, eh? I agree that the NT provided no justification for the Inquisition other than the notion that if one does not believe in Christian doctrine then one is doomed. But that is the power of religion, right? How difficult is it for religious organizations to deem heretics as bad seeds and engage in brutality against them?
So why do you consider murder by Islam (as you noted) to be a problem? Do you think those who hold that interpretation of the Qur'an do not have their own justification system?
So let's get this straight. I would leave this distraught little boy's faith intact and would have provided comforting words to him that would be a fair interpretation of his beliefs. That is, I would say that his father was a good man and that God (per his belief system) is just.
But you disagree. You think it is better to double down and go for shattering his faith at this point. He is looking for comfort after losing his father yet you think this is a fine time to destabilize his entire belief system.
That seems cruel.
Homocide?? Is that when a gay person gets killed?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
I see. I think it is now time for you to cease this behavior. You have crossed from being disruptive into now offensive. To suggest that I do not have compassion for this little boy crosses the line. Time to stop trying to engineer a slap-fight and either engage like an adult (topically, not personally) or go silent for a while.
What I wrote is exactly what I would do:
I would hope any decent human being would do likewise.
God needs friends?? Is He lonely?
Yeah......that makes perfect sense for a sky demon to murder innocent infants, children and farm animals rather than simply murdering the Pharaoh he doesn't like.
Sounds like your "god" is a violent psycho with very poor aim.
When you know people don't believe in god and throw that out there anyway, it shows exactly how far the disconnect really is.
WHAT God, TiG?
Do you mean which God? If so, read what you quoted:
You have to read the words.
No, WHAT God, TiG? You have to read the words (too).
Play your vague games with someone else.
Lol, Cal is nothing if not vague, but I thought you enjoyed 'debating' him, you do it constantly!
Wow so you say murder is justified and calibab agrees with you? That's pretty sick and twisted in my book.
Just checking to ensure you attribute this to the correct persons. I am not arguing that murder is justified. See livefreeordie for the 'murder is justified' apolegetic reasoning.
Great comment! Great addition to the discussion!
*Yawn. Another of your amazing slo-mo 'drive-bys.'
TiG! It was a slip-up! No one could mistake your routine position for being on the "Lord's side" for long. (Smile.)
Yeah, I do not hold to beliefs that justify mass murder.
So. . . was U.S. dropping WMD on Nagasaki and Hiroshima mass murder? Or, a mere case of nations-at-war?
Both. Then again this is not a belief system and Truman was not God.
Do you actually believe that Yahweh directing the rape and murder of non-combatants for revenge is good justification? That Yahweh killing all life on Earth (for the most part) was okay because Yahweh felt it was justified? This does not even register as 'maybe' an indication that Yahweh is not the arbiter of objective morality?
This implies approval. Will you explicitly clarify your position?
I believe that God's plan outranks mankind's plans for this planet. Man does not own Earth, despite natural appearances. And though "Yahweh" did not kill all life on Earth, had God killed all life on Earth - as God raised up one set of evolved beings, judiciously God could raise up another set of evolved beings. This is all possible, because with God everything God wants to live, it lives!
Hardly. I wrote that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was murder and an act of war . Where do you get ' approval ' from the statement of two facts?
You seem to have missed the point. I noted to livefreeordie that the Bible depicts God committing murder. In response he attempted to argue that God did not really demand murder because it was justified . So in the case of our bombings of Japan in WWII, Truman justified this in his own mind (obviously) but I stated in my comment that it was still murder . To wit, I disagree with the notion that murder is not really murder if it can be justified. Murder that is justified is justified murder.
And, as I noted, Truman was not God and was thus limited in his options. God, in contrast, clearly can do whatever He wants and does not have to command His people to rape and slaughter others. Right? When making comparisons do not conveniently forget that God is omnipotent.
God gets what He wants. No doubt about it.
Obviously.
Noah's flood ostensibly killed all life on Earth except for sea creatures ( why were they spared? ) and those saved on the ark. A worldwide flood would have killed all other life on the planet (including bugs and vegetation - what did the flowers and trees do wrong? ). Now let's see what Yahweh has to say on this:
You do not recognize the mass murder here? Wipes out all people (other than the ark gang) as well as the animals. Butterflies, humming birds, penguins, koala bears ... all wiped out by an angry God overreacting to violence of people. What a perfect God character the Bible has created.
' All ' vs. ' almost all ' is entirely irrelevant to the point. Of course God could have wiped out all life and started over from scratch. God (Yahweh) is omnipotent.
The point is that Noah's flood is an example of Yahweh committing mass murder.
'Saying' with one's lips that "God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, while not internalizing the true meanings stamped in the words is simple puffery .
Do you understand the question at hand? Did God, per the Bible, engage in the premeditated killing of all creatures on Earth (spare those on the ark and the sea)?
The answer is 'yes'. You can say that God has the right to do this (of course He does, He created everything) but that does not change the fact that God (per the Bible) killed all these life forms. Right?
Yahweh is a character in a book written by ancient men with pens. We can certainly judge the actions of a character in a book.
If Yahweh actually existed then no way could we judge Him since we would, by definition, be creatures He created for His own purposes and He would be the most supreme possible entity.
But whether or not we can judge Yahweh does not change the fact that Yahweh (per the Bible) killed off all life on Earth spare a few.
Agreed. Thank you for 'saying' so!
So you double-back to your true agenda: Man alone is in charge?
Do you also see that Yahweh's right to kill whomever He wishes was never in question?
livefreeordie says Yahweh was justified to command his people to rape and slaughter others.
You say Yahweh has the right to command his people to rape and slaughter others (and the right to destroy all life on the planet).
I say, read what you two are writing. You are making excuses for Yahweh while failing to actually internalize the fact that Yahweh (a biblical character) is no God of Love but rather a brutal killer. See? That was the point.
I have no idea where you get this stuff. Where does this come from? How is it even remotely relevant to the question at hand?
And he even gets to rape virgins whenever he likes, a very common practice among Bronze-age deities.
Bill Cosby must think he's a Bronze-age god too.
It is amazing, is it not, how some will defend the indefensible? It is as though bad is filtered out of the thought process and all they see is good. As I oft note, faith suppresses critical thinking.
I disagree with that entirely. Otherwise it's an admission that man is a mere puppet without free will and with no ability to make judgments of his own.
It's also a concession to authority, like saying Trump and Jeff Bezos are and should be beyond criticism because they're rich and powerful men, or saying that the slave cannot make moral judgments about the slave owner. Actually "Jesus" pretty much does say that, doesn't he?
1. Can you elaborate on how mankind, limited in power, knowledge, and presence in any given situation, can judge (justify) murder, but God outside, above all,and outranking mankind becomes worthy of disparagement?
Absolutely. If the grandest, most supreme entity actually existed and we are simply its creations then there is no choice but to concede the authority.
The presence of a supreme entity does not ipso facto remove free will. Free will is a function of non-determinism. Man, with free will, can certainly make judgments but it would be an act of futility. That is what I meant by 'no way we could judge him'. It is along the lines of objective morality. If there were a supreme entity that created everything then it would define objective morality. We may disagree with the morality but who prevails - who actually defines what is right or wrong in this case?
You are yet again mixing ideas. The point is that Yahweh engaged in brutality ... killing people (and more).
God can justify murder. Man can justify murder.
Does that make it NOT murder? No. It makes it justified murder. It is still murder. If Yahweh commands His people to rape and slaughter others it makes no difference if Yahweh justifies it. The fact remains that Yahweh directed the rape and slaughter.
On this in particular, I state yet again that an omnipotent, omniscient Yahweh has all sorts of options available to Him. Comparing man to God is a bit absurd.
To be crystal clear. The highlighted words in BLUE are (and have been) the point.
And, murder is a human construct meant for humanity.
I state yet again that an omnipotent, omniscient Yahweh has all sorts of options available to Him. Comparing man to God is a bit absurd. — TiG.
And, yet again you continue to 'voice' your judgement on the Judge. Unbelievable! Obviously, you can not see the futility in attempting to outrank God.
Such a lame tactic: anytime one gets into a religious debate pickle one can claim 'who are you to judge God? '. As if that somehow rebuts the point made. Who do you think buys that ploy?
Nobody can honestly deny that Yahweh (per the Bible) directed the slaughter of human beings (including rape). And that was the point. Rather than simply admit the undeniably obvious you engage in sidebar nonsense about human beings judging God.
Did Yahweh direct slaughter per the Bible? Answer: 'yes'. No honest person can deny this.
Remember how this started :
How anyone can read this and not see Yahweh directing slaughter is truly breathtaking. And saying it was justified does not change the fact that Yahweh directed this slaughter. See?
Why would a "judge" be exempt? Just because a man can kill an ant by stepping on it deliberately doesn't make that act moral, nor does it mean that ants shouldn't judge that behavior.
Sounds like your system of morality is entirely arbitrary - it doesn't matter what this "judge" chooses to do or how violent or psychotic its methods.....you accept that as "moral" merely because you imagine that this fantasy creature is more powerful than you. Of course that's certainly the lesson which "Jesus" taught should be the relationship between slaves and their masters, one of unquestioning obedience and subservience.
Why? Why would we concede morality to such a terrorist?
.
Obviously the more powerful prevails, but that doesn't mean what they do is moral in any sense of the term.
Lame is man casting itself in and above the role of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Judge/Creator. Condescension is irrelevant. Sophistry is irrelvant. Mankind can not compete with omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresent (presence for all time), or omniscience (all-knowing) with its limited overall capacity. Murder is a human construct. Only having value for humans. War is a human construct. Death is an earthly construct. Disparaging God won't change any wars in the past and won't prevent any in the present and future. Futile is any attempt at bringing God down to man's level, or even below it.
Shrekk, go on now. Judge God and see how far along it goes. Futility. Oh, perhaps one should consider a blanket apology for the immoral acts committed against all the ant encounters in one's life. (Smile.)
On reflection: Are dogs truly at their best living in gated (captured) - leashed (slavery) - closed quarters - in human colonies? Curious. (Teasing.)
I did - it went just as well as my judgment about Shiva, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, the imaginary friend I had when I was a young child, and various characters in movies and novels.
Perhaps what I find most offensive about Christianity in particular is the master-slave relationship inherent in a Christian's relationship to his imaginary friend. It's also quite silly to invent a projection of oneself (and a psychotic version at that) and then claim to "submit" to it. Pffft.....if such sky fairies are real then they're free to text me and respectfully request that I submit to their psychosis.
.
If I were to hit my dog I'd expect my dog to judge me harshly despite the fact that I got away with it. I'd also expect the ant colony to try to bite me if I stepped on it.
Maybe a better analogy would be to a sociopath who likes to drown puppies, based just on the Noah story alone. Should dogs worship such a creature? Any why should anyone "worship" anything? It's an entirely futile and counterproductive activity.
Well, the 'recyclers' are nigh . . . .
We would have no choice. Our hypothetical situation is that there really is a supreme being that created everything. Under those conditions, this being would establish objective morality. No matter how crappy we think the objective moral code is, we are overruled. Our personal morality may cause us to find the supreme entity to be a terrorist but ultimately the uber rules are made by the entity.
One can pretend that one would simply not concede to such authority but logically there is no choice. Stated differently, we would not be in a position to change objective morality - no matter what is stated. We would be able to disagree with the objective moral code but that is as far as we can go.
Agreed with caveat. If the supreme authority - the creator of objective morality - asserts that killing for fun is moral then by definition it is objectively moral to kill for fun. We can disagree with objective morality but we cannot change what is deemed to be objectively moral.
Okay Cal, if you want to illustrate to everyone that you cannot face what is right in front of your nose and instead try to deflect with strawman arguments that is your choice. Bottom line, you will not be able to deny this:
Acknowledge Yahweh commanded the slaughter of infants (et. al.). Failure to do so is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
SOUNDING BOARD:
Read it as often as you like.
What is the point of repeating my entire comment (version 1 without my edit) with no editorial? My guess is that you are (no surprise) reading all sorts of things into my words.
Key to understanding Cal is that this is hypothetical. This presumes the existence of a supreme entity. This entity is not Yahweh.
We have all along been talking about Yahweh (as defined by the Bible). Try to not conflate the two.
Islam is even worse in this regard.
I think this is where the fear tactics come into play. Stockholm syndrome?
SOUNDING BOARD:
Sorry, you were 'saying'? "Crashing concepts." Same-Same.
That's not logical unless one's morality is merely "might makes right", which would mean that the US invasion of Iraq was moral because it was able to do it without suffering any real consequences to the US, that Iraq's resistance to being invaded by a hostile foreign power was immoral because it lost, that Germany's invasion of Poland was moral because Hitler got away with it at the time, and that Jeffrey Dahmer's consumption of human flesh was moral because he was able to get away with it for a long time. I do agree though that the Abrahamic superstitions do teach that but there's no reason you or I need to buy into that twisted version of morality.
Note that a number of other superstitious traditions don't make the same error. For example the Greek pantheon is portrayed as being capricious and often immoral, with mankind often being the unwilling victim of the capricious and immoral acts of these all-powerful creatures.
It is pure logic - no emotion or bias whatsoever. What makes something right? For all human beings, what is 'right' is an opinion. It may be a very well considered opinion but it is an opinion nonetheless. 'Right', if there is a 'right', would be absolute.
Fast forward past all the many creations with opinions and go to the source of everything. The source of everything establishes all the rules. It defines what is right and what is wrong. It is the only possible source for an absolute rule. Logically. And yes the creator may be sadistic. Sucks for all the creations. To wit, the objective morality may be horribly wrong (as we see things).
That is not at all what I am saying. Yes the creator would be powerful but that is not the operative quality in consideration. The quality in consideration is ultimate authority - 'creator of the rules'. In particular, the rules of objective morality.
Human examples will not work with this hypothetical. No human or group of humans can claim 'creator' authority.
Incoherent. What could you possibly hope to accomplish by typing nonsense?
For humans and other mammals which live in groups morality appears to be an evolved social trait. It's a social norm not a physical law like the conservation of energy. Immoral or sociopathic individuals don't do as well living in groups and thus are less likely to reproduce, despite the presence of sociopaths like Trump who have reproduced. But In most cases these sociopaths are killed or ejected from the group which is what would happen to Yahweh if such a sociopathic and violent creature actually existed and chose to live among men. I understand you're not talking about Yahweh per se but assuming this creature is omnipotent and indestructible than the best we could do is shun it like the Amish would shun a sociopath.
Of course Yahweh is free to come to earth and dictate and enforce its version of morality but so far it hasn't done so, apart from some men claiming that it requires that gays and witches should be murdered and thou shalt not murder. Nor does there seem to be any actual mechanism for this creature to interact with the universe and enforce its presumptive will.
Also I don't think that biblical sources actually make claims about the supposed absolute morality of this creature, so that aspect of the superstition might be a peculiarly Christian variant or even a variant just within certain Christian sects. It would be interesting to hear from some Jews and Muslims on that aspect......do they consider all the hypothetical actions of their imaginary friend to be inherently moral?
SOUNDING BOARDS:
TiG, compare your words. Are they coherent now?
If we had a creator entity who, for example, imposed a morality that we should sacrifice (kill) offspring who are defective (by its' standard) then I would expect most of us to indeed be at full odds with the entity. We would have a hard time worshiping it. So disagreeing with the distinguished moral authority is certainly an option. What is not an option is for us to rewrite the objective moral code. Subjective morality, however, could be at total odds with objective morality.
Agreed. Of course, there is no evidence of an absolute moral authority. Accordingly, morality is subjective and much of it is the result of behavioral biology. That is, the practices that have evolved with species which tend to best serve survival. In some species this means killing some of their newborns. In others it means parents giving their lives to protect their young. Others abandon their newborns upon a predator attack (saving the fertile adults to make more). For human beings I like to think that our ability to reason provides additional, more sophisticated dimensions to the evolved morality of our species. Culture (for human beings) also plays a profound role. And clearly, if we were to rely upon the morality of a god like 'Yahweh', we would still be in the bronze ages stoning to death anyone who engaged in homosexual relations.
Biblical sources are a truly horrible source of morality - I fully agree. I suspect Jews do not adopt the morality a literal read of the OT would provide since they view their holy books more metaphorically. Muslims, however, do consider Allah to be the objective truth - the source of objective morality. The hypothetical I described fits quite well with Allah and Islam (as I understand it).
My words seem quite coherent to me. I suggested that your words were incoherent:
Reads like a poor natural language translation.
The more vague a comment the less likely it will be understood by others. My guess is that you do not want to be understood. Okay by me. I will make my case, you go ahead and continue with gibberish.
Well, you READ your words. Did you COMPARE THEM TOO?
Your OWN words impress you as INCOHERENT?! What I wrote there was unimportant and you know it. You are working hard to shift the focus from your two statements, my friend.
Cal you can quote me as often as you want. I am entirely comfortable with my words and have no idea what you think is a problem.
Quoting my words with entirely vague comments like 'COMPARE THEM TOO' is incoherent. Nobody knows what you are trying to say. Did you notice?
"Nobody" is not of interest to me, and for that matter "nobody" should be of interest to you in this insignificant occasion. Furthermore, I am not making an appeal to the masses when I directly write to you about something you - yourself- wrote.
I am comfortable with what I wrote, too. Now, I'm moving on.
Why write vague incoherent gibberish? What is the point? You are writing to me and I have no idea what you are trying to say. So yes move on ... this is very bizarre.
This is feeling just a tiny bit "loopy" now. O O O O h !!
How am I insulting God, or anyone else, simply because I don't believe there is a god? I can't force myself to believe something I find absurd. I can SAY I believe God exists, but what good is that, God would know I'm lying. Belief is not a choice. We believe or disbelieve things based on how believable the story is, and the evidence or lack thereof that exists.
Who would look that devastated little boy in the eyes and say, "Sorry son I believe your daddy's probably going to Hell because he didn't "believe correctly" ?
Evidently, Not the pope.
Good for him !
Ya gotta love man's "religions"
Ask LiveFreeOrDie ( livefreeordie @ 8.2.2 ) or Calbab (who voted the comment up).
Ugh. Those comments were disgusting.
False prophets abound, it seems.
Yeah, hard to imagine someone actually writing that. (Or voting it up.)
LOL Not really, that's what I like about places like this. You get to say what you want and hopefully mean.
Since I have been coming to chat rooms (nv and here mainly) I have always liked the fact that people actually speak their minds on these places. Its much more interesting than everyone openly kind of agreeing (to be nice) but secretly thinking to themselves " What a dumbass"
To me the reality is refreshing. Thankfully, humans People come in all shapes, sizes and ideologies or we'd all be fighting for the same everything anyway.
To each their own !
It reveals a rather profound level of indoctrination in this superstition. They have no ability to critically analyze their own beliefs.
i wonder if, for some people, it's an absolute refusal to do so out of fear of what they might discover ? (general audience note: i'm not stating this applies to all religious people or any specific religion or anything of that nature, so please save your hate mail/comments for someone else)
Indoctrination includes drilling into people's minds the idea that Satan will try to corrupt your thoughts. One must resist Satan. Satan will try to trick you into questioning your faith. If you ever question your faith it is Satan working on you.
In result, anything that introduces cognitive dissonance seems to be quickly compartmentalized. The critical thinking which would yield questions of faith is suppressed.
IMO of course.
Sure seems that way. But, based on my experiences in these matters, they actually claim to be critical thinkers too in matters of religion. ( Note: IMO very religious people are often intelligent, critically thinking individuals in matters other than their religion. )
Or that they're taught from a young age that certain kinds of question aren't welcome and will get you rejected by the group. Thus you can't be a believer and make a moral judgement about your "god".
We, believers, have found the existence of power superior to, and independent of, nature. To God we kneel, all others are free to remain standing.
You found God? Show us your evidence.
We are informed that our faith itself is a gift from God. In that we hear (a Messenger) the "Good news," we receive it (seal of the Spirit), and walk (develop) in it. Some of us, "thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and a hundred fold. Our faith is theologically well-established and many of us obey the scriptures in pondering the deep things which have been delivered to us when like the Bereans:
Pssst. God can be found in nature too. . .just 'gaze' closer, longer, wider, and deeper.
You and Cal should maybe get together and work up language that reflects what you really mean:
By whom?
Check out: . . . . 11.1.2 !
I like how one of the very first Christian emperors had 7,000 or so Thessalonians massacred in the same year that he imposed Christianity on the entire empire......all in the name of the great sky fairy so it was a very good thing.
Howdy Texan! God does patiently wait. God does the seeker save. God does deliver. Blessed be the name of the Lord!
1. You like massacre. . . .?
2. "First Christian emperors. . . .", plural? Is this correct phrasing?
3. Are you certain this a critical and unbiased sharing of this narrative?
You are welcome. Share readily and as often as you can! (Smile.)
Of course! It was moral because it's what the Great Sky Fairy wanted. After all the Great Sky Fairy committed many similar massacres.
.
Perhaps "one of the first" isn't a good way to put it since Theodosius I was something like the 15th Christian emperor after Constantine, but he was the first to impose Christianity on the entire empire including provinces like Thessalonica. As with much of Christianity that was done at the point of a sword. As you've said, might makes right no matter how immoral the action.
1. If you like massacre then that belies your constant 'drumbeat' of complaints throughout multiple threads.
2. "Perhaps," is you straggling the fence. You can come down on one side or the other! "Perhaps" is used inappropriately here, in my opinon.
3. Did you drop this question into a digital black hole, or throw it away into outer darkness? BRING BACK 3!
Your petulant and jealous sky fairy certainly likes massacres particularly indiscriminate ones which slaughter the innocent. So since its morality is absolute (as you claim) why wouldn't I like massacres? Murdering the innocent is obviously the moral thing to do.
NOTED! And, do not try to revert this assent to fictitious worldly and elemental creatures. You had a chance to correct the record and you stated, . . . well, you can read it.
BRING BACK QUESTION 3!
3. Are you certain this a critical and unbiased sharing of this narrative?
On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is complete dishonesty, how would you rate the intellectual dishonesty of @ 11.1.16 ?
9 maybe?
We're in agreement then......and didn't you vote up Larry's comment at 8.2.32 supporting the murder of all the innocent first-born of Egypt including the farm animals? And his comment at 8.1.8 that "All mankind has deserved death"? And his comment at 8.2.2 that the deceased father of a young child is doomed to "hell" merely because he saw no evidence of a sky fairy? And his comment at 8.2.30 that "the killing of the Amalekites was completely justified"?
NOTED!
.
Yes.
There is no SHAME in my vote and scriptural clarifications. The so-called 'controversy' some imagine reading above leans itself to a notion God is somehow like man—God is not!
16 But to the wicked person, God says: “What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?
17 You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you.
18 When you see a thief, you join with him; you throw in your lot with adulterers.
19 You use your mouth for evil and harness your tongue to deceit.
20 You sit and testify against your brother and slander your own mother’s son.
21 When you did these things and I kept silent, you thought I was exactly like you.
But I now arraign you and set my accusations before you.
22 “Consider this, you who forget God, or I will tear you to pieces, with no one to rescue you:
23 Those who sacrifice thank offerings honor me, and to the blameless I will show my salvation.”
God is Spirit. Nothing is dead to God unless God wills it dead! Every living thing can be raised up again! God is a Judge and a compassionate One at that! How come you can't understand these things? Could it be, somebody imagines flesh and bone has Authority over life on Earth?
Is there a reference link to this narrative? Care to share it please?
I've judged your "god" and found him to be grossly unethical and immoral.
Another interesting point. Christians in particular tend to claim that God provides their moral compass ('writes morality on their hearts' so to speak). Without God, they will argue, how can anyone truly know what is moral?
They say this without apparently realizing that the God in question directed rape and slaughter (even the killing of infants) ...
... and, indeed, chose to wipe out all life on the planet (the flood) except for a sampling for regeneration.
This God is the one doing the moral writing on hearts? Would they kill infants on God's command and think it was moral? And it appears that the cognitive dissonance is resolved by simply ignoring the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient. This has been clearly illustrated in this thread alone - refusing to acknowledge that Yahweh (in the above quote) demanded that even infants (about as innocent as one gets) be murdered.
Voting up a comment that made excuses for Yahweh commanding the murder of infants, et. al. is something on which to stand tall???
? The so-called 'controversy' some imagine reading above lends itself to a notion God is somehow like man—God is not!
So, did God make man in his own image or did man create a god like unto himself? Cliches such as, "God Is Unchanging", stand in contrasts to scriptures that from beginning to end describe a god learning and changing in relation to his creation, mankind...
How terrible for you.
he must have a great sense of direction.
Funny how you can't even prove your god exists.
Because you made claims regarding a god.
Absolutely nothing. Why do you ask?
Whatever gave you that silly idea?
You post on a public discussion forum. So you're the one who put it out there. Don't like anyone questioning your claims or beliefs, then don't bother posting.
Then don't whine when someone calls you out when you post!
I never said I did.
Good for you. Children's imaginary friends exist for them too. What's your point?
Your posts infer there is a god. So you were challenged to prove it.
Especially not about intellectual honesty either!
Because you're the one (and some others) make affirmative claims for or regarding a god. So requiring proof is the logical response and/or expectation.
And I have REPEATEDLY told you that is a logical fallacy and you lack any credibility if you can't back up your claims. Not to mention people replying to your nonsense whether you like it or not. You seem to have trouble understanding that!
Then stop posting your tedious BS regarding a god or other nonsense! Sounds fair.
Hi JBB! Look up this word: anthropomorphism . Let me know if it helps or not. (Smile.)
Please return and clarify a concern I have that this narrative can be a bit fuller. Please provide a link to your source for this statement:
Please return and clarify a concern I have that this narrative can be a bit fuller explained. Please provide a link to your source for this statement:
Well, it seems some people have an agenda and an agenda can blanket the truth.
Impasse ceases all discussion.