• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just Accidental?

Status
Not open for further replies.

james bond

Well-Known Member
Jesus should save atheists from owning late model white Cadillacs?

To be saved, the atheist would have to accept Jesus as Lord and decide to follow Him. After which, he may think it's better to ditch the plate unless his name was Atheist. He can keep the Cadillac. BTW I wasn't sure exactly what kind of car it was, but it looked expensive.

The atheist toots his own horn while those who follow Jesus toots His horn by honoring Him.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
To be saved, the atheist would have to accept Jesus as Lord and decide to follow Him. After which, he may think it's better to ditch the plate unless his name was Atheist. He can keep the Cadillac. BTW I wasn't sure exactly what kind of car it was, but it looked expensive.

The atheist toots his own horn while those who follow Jesus toots His horn by honoring Him.
"New Living Translation
When Jesus heard his answer, he said, "There is still one thing you haven't done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Doesn't Luke 18:22 apply anymore?
http://biblehub.com/luke/18-22.htm
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
If we all gave everything we had to those poorer than us wouldn't we all end up equally poor?

Nope. If we all truly did that, then everyone would have just enough of everything.
But this is ultimately going to be an argument similar to what perfect Communism could look like. It'll never happen. Doesn't mean it's not called for in the Bible... and that's my point.

I'm simply highlighting the hypocrisy of Biblical literalists. Why are they so staunch about Creation happening a certain way, to the point of denying most modern science, but not quite as boisterous about tithing or giving all of their belongings to those in need, as you've pointed out? Why are they hard-nosed about abortion and homosexuality, but less eager to hold marches against lying or selfish thoughts? Why are Megachurches, Creation Museums, holy-water sales, and online vendors the norm, when Jesus specifically preached about using not his father's house as a den for thieves?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
But there wouldn't be any poor we could give all our things to so we couldn't follow Jesus...
tim-and-eric-mind-blown.gif
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
By this hypothetical point, we'd have achieved what we set out to when we gave things to the poor in the first place.
Except that we were all supposed to give all our things away and who ends up with all our things in the end?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Bravo!
Compliments on the post.
I like that.
Jesus gave a new command: "As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Nothing was replaced, just added.
Cherry picked?
Gee I can't quote the entire Christian Bible.
Thanks, I guess.


That's it? Out of the whole Bible? And you question why I say it's cherry picking?

Do you not follow the Commandments? Doesn't the concept of original sin come from the OT as well?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I believe it's a good thing that we have people who will call science out on the "suggestions" they pass off as "facts" too. Otherwise they would probably continue to convince weak minded people that what they teach is truth instead of mere theory....we know they don't tell the truth and will continue to expose their "science fact" as nothing more than "science fiction".
You don't know anything of the sort. How have you determined that "they don't tell the truth?" Who are you talking about?

Boy, you're really hung up on this following authority figures thing. I'm guessing it's because you're coming from a religious perspective and so it's what you are familiar with?
How many times do I have to point out that science isn't about following authority figures and taking their word for it. It's about following the EVIDENCE where it leads. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face and keep claiming "it's just a theory" (thus exposing your willful ignorance) but you're still demonstrably wrong.
Why is "evolution did it" more believable than "God did it"?
The former actually has explanatory power and a heap of empirical evidence. The latter has neither.

I'm still confused as to why you seem to think god could not have created the evolution process.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Germ Theory: "The doctrine holding that infectious diseases are caused by the activity of microorganisms within the body."

Interesting that this definition calls it a "doctrine". Bacteria and viruses are also clearly seen under a microscope. Evidence based science is not the problem. Its the theory that masquerades as fact, when there is no proof to substantiate it, that I have difficulty with.

:rolleyes:
It's called a scientific theory. Just like evolution, and gravity.

We can see genes under a microscope too. So you must be convinced that evolutionary theory is a reality right? I mean, you accept the same evidence for germ theory.


No idea where you came up with that definition.


germ theory
noun
1.
Pathology. the theory that infectious diseases are due to the agency ofgerms or microorganisms.
2. Biology. biogenesis
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/germ-theory


"The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

"Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases."
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html

"The germ theory was proposed by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546, but scientific evidence in support of this accumulated slowly and Galen's miasma theory remained dominant among scientists and doctors. A transitional period began in the late 1850s as the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch provided convincing evidence; by 1880, miasma theory was still competing with the germ theory of disease. Eventually, a "golden era" of bacteriology ensued, in which the theory quickly led to the identification of the actual organisms that cause many diseases.[2][3] Viruses were discovered in the 1890s." (Wiki)



Gee, that sounds strikingly similar to my description about how evolutionary theory came to be accepted as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Hmm, perhaps you're catching on?


A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.
Oops, you're being dishonest again. It has been stated and presented to you more than a few times now that there is much more evidence for common descent that "a bunch of bones." Please stop.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-11-16_13-25-29.jpeg
    upload_2016-11-16_13-25-29.jpeg
    7.9 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
@SkepticThinker

Oh chill out for cryin' out loud.
You're whining like the looser's that voted for Killary.
I mean Hilary.
sob...................sniff.......boo-hoo.....................................
It's only the internet.
Mere electrons on a screen and nothing more than
people's opinions.
Opinions are like anal orifices. Everyone has one.
It's just that some are more willing to expose it than others.
:>)
We have Trump for four years.
Get used to it.
We survived B.J. Bill and Monica didn't we?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
"New Living Translation
When Jesus heard his answer, he said, "There is still one thing you haven't done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Doesn't Luke 18:22 apply anymore?
http://biblehub.com/luke/18-22.htm

Yes, Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” 1 ( Mark 10:25 ).

Or Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21.

There are many quotes like this. So does Jesus mean what you think he means? No.

Jesus had plenty of wealthy friends and people in power and was invited into their homes. He partook of their hospitality. Does that make Jesus a hypocrite? No.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
That's actually strictly not true.

By the 6th century BCE Exile and the Second Temple period, some Jews were influenced by the religions of their conquerors - the Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

And that is the point.....these Jews did not get their ideas of an afterlife from scripture. Why do you think God had to continually send his prophets to them to correct them when they wandered off into false worship? Why did Jesus denounce the traditions of the Pharisees as invalidating God's word?There was no teaching of an afterlife in scripture.

For example, before the Exile, there were no writings (scriptures) where angels were not nameless. Then suddenly personal names were given: Michael, Gabriel and Satan.

Moses only wrote the Pentateuch between 1513 BCE and 1473 BCE.
Daniel wrote about Michael and Gabriel in 536 BCE and these are the only two angels ever mentioned by name.
"satan" is not a personal name but more a descriptive title given to describe the wicked attributes of this rebel.

That because Zoroastrianism had spread west into Babylonia during the 5th century, where Zoroastrian angels have personal names.

And by the Hellenistic period, they were influenced by the Greek and Egyptian religions. And by this time' non-canonical texts began appearing, known collectively as the Apocrypha (like Tobit) and Pseudepigrapha (like 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, etc).

More angels with names began popping up, starting with 1 Enoch. Here, we began seeing fallen angels, known as the Watchers or the Grigori. This is when the character of Satan began to change.

What the gospels called "demons" were clearly derived from 1 & 2 Enoch.

If that is what you want to believe then so be it. I have a completely different picture of how false worship spread out in the earth and how things played out to produce what we see today in this religiously divided world......I believe that scriptural truth came from the one source, and that all false worship also came from a different source. Its all about the triumph of good over evil....truth over falsehood...God over his adversary and the value of free will when it is properly exercised.

Enoch who played only a very tiny part in the OT, is mostly known for being Noah's great grandfather. But in these Hellenistic books, he plays the hero and became the scribe of God, later known in Jewish tradition (Talmud, Midrash) and folklore (3 Enoch, Aggagah, Kabbalah) written after the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, as Metatron.

1 Enoch and 2 Enoch written before Jesus' time, include Enoch visit to heavens, witnessing angels. In 2 Enoch it say that the Watchers were imprisoned and punished in the 3rd heaven and particularly in the 5th heaven. In the 3rd heaven, fallen angels weren't the only ones being punished; people (humans) who have been wicked were also locked up and tormented here.

I reject the apocryphal books as uninspired. If they came from God, they would be included in the Bible canon. They are not compatible with the canonical books in content at all.

But place of torment for people in the afterlife, were clearly influenced by Jews interaction with the Greeks and Egyptians.

I agree. But they did not get their religious ideas about heaven and hell from the Bible. You do understand that...right?

Under the scale, the creature kneeling next to jackal-headed Anubis, is called Ammit, the Devourer - with crocodile head, and lion-hippo body. If the ba (soul) is heavier than the feather, it would mean the decease is sinful, so Ammit swallow the soul, the spirit go to Duat, the Egyptian version of Greek Tartarus and Christian Hell.

Ammit was said to reside in the "Lake of Fire". Does that not ring a bell to you?

And due to these influences upon Hellenistic Jews, Christians made use of these pre-Christian texts.

It's not the Bible that is the problem, nor is it God who ever taught those things. Christendom adopted many pagan doctrines into Christianity as well. It is simply history repeating, as humans are notorious for doing.

The "lake of fire" in Revelation is representative of eternal destruction. It has no connection with Christendom's "hell".

"Gehenna" was nothing more than the city's garbage dump where fires were continuously kept burning to dispose of the rubbish. The bodies of criminals, not considered worthy of a decent burial, were tossed into the fire for disposal. To Jews, not having a burial tomb with their name and family lineage inscribed, meant that God would not remember them in the resurrection.

There is no literal fire, no torture, no pain. The dead are 'asleep', not conscious. (Psalm 115:17; Eccl 9:5, 10; John 11:11-14)

Jesus certainly didn't invent concept of the afterlife...not even to the Jews.

The concept of the afterlife came from satan. He lied to the woman in Eden, telling her she would not die if she ate from the forbidden fruit. God told Adam that he would simply return to the dust, not that he would go to a hell of torment. From the beginning, God's worshippers were never taught about an afterlife.

The concept of heaven and hell as opposite destinations does NOT come from the Bible.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No, I haven't been a Christian. And yes, I think there's sacrifice involved. I think absolutely everything must ultimately be sacrificed to God and that our ultimate destiny is to totally surrender to God. That is not easy.

I believe that surrender to God is required now. If we don't surrender our will to God's will before the judgment, there will be no future for those who want to do things their way.

Well, you think it denies His creativity whereas I and many others certainly do not. God is greater than that for me, God's the canvas upon which this is all happening, God's the painter, God's everything involved.

Evolution attributes creative genius to blind forces. God is not blind and neither am I. Nothing is left to chance because each individual creation is a work of art......even in the microscopic world we see perfection.

Also, as you can guess, I don't hold to an infallible view of the Bible but see it as a human-written set of documents some of which is attempting to translate divine revelation and some of which is talking about history and tents and so forth.

That is of course, your prerogative. I see scripture as God's communication with his human creation. As the only sentient beings who can receive instruction in written form, I cannot see why he would leave us without a record of his expectations and his requirements after the rebellion in Eden. His choosing one nation as an example for all is quite brilliant. Their actions and reactions to his directions and his laws have something to teach all mankind. As the only nation in existence who were bound by his laws, their conduct is a teaching tool for all. His laws are binding on all humanity regardless of whether they claim to believe in him or not....and regardless of which faith they purport to follow.

Well it's good to know some more about JW beliefs.

Go to the source.... JW.ORG :)

There have been many examples of speciation observed. A common method by which species are delineated is reproductive isolation. If organisms from two different populations can't reproduce and produce fertile offspring, they're different species. This doesn't hold water across all taxa, but is a decent general-purpose definition. By this definition, we've observed at least half a dozen speciation events within the Drosophila genus in laboratory populations, we've observed speciation of the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella into apple-feeding and hawthorn-feeding species as a result of introduction to the Americas by humans, and in a few other invertebrate species as well. This is not to mention many more examples among prokaryotes, which is predictable given their much shorter generation times.

And when did any of these "species" go outside their genus? The flies remained flies, the fish remained fish, the plants remained plants.....they did not transform into another genus....and never would no matter how many generations came and went. o_O

As for the whales and their ancestry - this is only an argument from incredulity. I could say 'Oh no I don't believe people could have crossed the Atlantic to North America with ships from the 11th Century, that sounds like nonsense' and someone could then show me the evidence. I could then brush it aside because 'No that just can't be true, how ridiculous'. Nobody could argue me down from this position, and I could sit there being incredulous indefinitely, but it would impact the fact that the findings totally indicated a particular series of events.

That is just the point again.....evolution cannot provide that evidence....all it can provide is educated guesswork.
It postulates a theory and then tries to prove it. No matter what the evidence really says (which is almost nothing) they will interpret it to fit their theory. How do you not see this? When it comes to real evidence, it is completely missing. How can you find a few fossil bones and construct a creature from suggestion, and then relate that imaginary creature to another one that seemingly appeared 20 million years later and say...."oh look! here is the next creature in the chain!" How does that happen when there is nothing in between to even suggest the possibility? You might fall for the rhetoric, but those with any sense of logic, uncontaminated by this ruse, can see right through it.

We already had enough evidence to totally accept evolution prior to this, but since the genetic evidence has come pouring in (in particular since the advent of next-generation sequencing technologies) we have more evidence in that quarter than we ever had from elsewhere. Association of symbiont lineages, divergence of codon usage frequencies, the patterns of variation in junk DNA, everything - you go anywhere and it's right there staring you in the face that this is the process by which this variation emerged (for me, the process by which God brought things to their current state of affairs). I recognise that you are unable to accept this given your adherence to a religion which does not permit it, but I hope it is edifying to some readers.

My "religion" is only one component in my position on this issue...the other is what I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears, and understand when I read "scientific" explanations that involve suggestion masquerading as facts. I don't see what you see, or hear what you hear when science wants to explain something away.

I see your beliefs as having no more basis in fact, than mine....which is what I have stated all along. Science is not on any pedestal in my estimations....it is the study of what God has created and no human is going to convince me with fancy talk by trying to override what my senses tell me. It requires faith to believe in either one.....that is the only fact that matters in this discussion. Only one side fails to acknowledge this reality.

Your teachers have convinced you because you want to believe them.....science provides a convincing story but they cannot substantiate it with any real evidence....not even DNA, since we are all made by the same creator, out of the same raw materials.
My teachers have convinced me because everything they teach is backed up by what I see, and what I instinctively feel is right. It doesn't require me to stretch anything that is actual truth and provides me with a reason for everything that happens in life. It also provides me with a hope that no man can give to suffering humanity. Only the Creator has the power and the will to fix this mess....but not until humans learn the value of exercising free will unselfishly. Those who learn, will live...those who refuse to learn will have the privilege taken away. Its really that simple. The Creator is selecting citizens for his kingdom, soon to come, and only those who qualify of their own free will in obedience and full submission, can expect to be accepted for entry.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Or equally rich. If we all had the average level of wealth, we'd be fine.

Proverbs 30:8-9:
"Give me neither poverty nor riches.
Just let me consume my portion of food,

So that I do not become satisfied and deny you and say, “Who is Jehovah?”
Nor let me become poor and steal and dishonor the name of my God."

1 Timothy 6:6-8:
"To be sure, it is a means of great gain, [this] godly devotion along with self-sufficiency. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. 8 So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things."
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I'm simply highlighting the hypocrisy of Biblical literalists. Why are they so staunch about Creation happening a certain way, to the point of denying most modern science, but not quite as boisterous about tithing or giving all of their belongings to those in need, as you've pointed out? Why are they hard-nosed about abortion and homosexuality, but less eager to hold marches against lying or selfish thoughts? Why are Megachurches, Creation Museums, holy-water sales, and online vendors the norm, when Jesus specifically preached about using not his father's house as a den for thieves?

BINGO!!! The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of Christianity is in the actions, not just the rhetoric.
Christianity is not about a few soup kitchens to feed the homeless or charities to manage the poor....nor is it about tithing, which was never a Christian requirement.
We are under obligation to make sure that our spiritual brothers and sisters are well cared for, personally.
In Israel, only Israelites were cared for by other Israelites. The poor of the nations were left to fend for themselves because it was not the job of Christians or Israelites to implement programs to feed the poor if they worshipped other gods.

If those of little means became converts, they too benefited from the provisions......but Jesus warned that if that was the only motivation, there would be no reward for those ones. "Rice Christians" are not true Christians.

When we have opportunity to do good to others on a personal basis, (like the parable of the good Samaritan,) we take it as our circumstances allow.
Selling all our worldly goods to serve God is a sacrifice that not all can make, but those who do receive rewards even now that are worth more than any material things can provide.

The den of thieves is still well and truly in existence, only this time it isn't the physical temple that is the den. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top