Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Sneer as you like, but I rather suspect that I have both read it -- and understood it -- more often, and in more depth, than you have. I'll take a snap Bible quiz (without props) against almost any Christian I've ever met, and fully expect to win.

LOL...was that the sound of a

by any chance?

Since you identify as having no religion, I am assuming that all your Bible knowledge hasn't really done much for you?

It is God by his spirit who reveals the meaning of his word. No one comes to a knowledge of the son without an invitation from the Father. (John 6:44) Reading the Bible does not give you understanding....only God's spirit can grant that.

And your "not for very much longer" should have ended a very great long time ago -- in Christ's own words -- Luke 21:32, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Also Luke 9:27 and Mark 9:1.

Please let me just address the scriptures cited here.

Luke 9:27 & Mark 9:1....
"But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

This was just prior to the transfiguration and true to his promise, Peter, James and John were privileged to see Christ in his heavenly glory as King of God's Kingdom. They were not permitted to speak of it until after his resurrection. (Matthew 17:9)

None of the apostles went to heaven before the return of the Christ, according to Paul. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) No one went to heaven before Jesus. (John 3:13)
Quiz questions: Where did all the dead people go before Jesus and after him?
Has Christ already come or are we still waiting for him?

As part of the "sign" Jesus gave of the 'end times', I see Luke 21:32 as a fascinating piece of the jig-saw puzzle. Who is this "generation" that will "not pass away" before all the other parts of the sign are in evidence? Who was Jesus talking to when he said that?

Let's take a look at it from both accounts.....shall we?

The "sign" that Jesus gave was not of his "coming" but actually of his "presence", (his "parousia".....this word describes a presence that is not simply a coming followed by a quick departure; rather, it covers a marked period of time) So the period of Christ's return had to be long enough for all the features of the sign to take place. The sign itself was to reveal that Christ was already here, present as King and directing his disciples in the work he assigned to them....the preaching of the good news of God's kingdom" before the "end" would come. (Matthew 24:14)
His visible appearance as judge and executioner would come as the climax of that time period. (Luke 21:27-28)

I believe that this prophesy covers two monumental events in the lives of Christians....events that pertains in some detail to both the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and to the "end of the age" and what has come to be known as 'Christ's second coming' that is yet future.

Matthew 24:3-14
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.


9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

So, the "sign that Jesus gave was multifaceted....and all these events had to occur within a single timeframe.

The time period we are interested in is the future fulfillment because it is unfolding before our eyes. So who are the "generation" that will not pass away until all the features of the sign are in evidence? Jesus was speaking to spirit anointed Christians who were taken into the "New Covenant" with him. These are the ones chosen by God to rule with Christ in heaven. They have a dual role as "kings and priests" (Revelation 20:6) It is these who make up the "generation" of which Jesus spoke. Members of that generation are still live on earth today. As a group,they have seen all the features of the sign take place and are eagerly awaiting their transfer to heaven. Those alive in the time of end when Christ comes as judge, will not have to sleep in death, but will be "changed, in the twinkling of an eye" to spirit life. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)

Now Luke's account mentions something interesting that allows us to see when the sign could be expected to begin.
He wrote...
"They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

What are these "times of the Gentiles" and when are they fulfilled? Daniel's prophesies provided the first century Christians with a timeframe for the Messiah's first appearance, and they also do the same for his second.

The "times of the Gentiles" refer to a period of history when it was prophesied that Gentile nations would dominate over God's people, who would have no land and no king until Messiah's coming. Daniel gives us a series of world powers who would come and go on the world stage and would extend all the way down to the present time. This period of world domination began with Babylon, then to Medo-Persia, then to Greece, to Rome, and out of the ashes of Rome rose the British Empire, which came to be allied as a dual world power with the USA.

World rulership by men ends there. Then it is stated......"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever" (Daniel 2:44)

So, as the scriptures indicate, in the time period dominated by the Anglo-American world power, Christ's presence would begin and all the features of the sign would be seen. Does the prophesy in Daniel tell us when the "times of the Gentiles" would end? YES. 1914.....the time when 'nation rose against nation' in what became known as "the First World War". Famine followed as food production fell dramatically on account of the war. Luke includes "pestilence" and "great earthquakes" in one place after another in his account.
The Spanish flu took more lives than the war did. Great earthquakes continue to take many lives.

Look at the prophesy in Matthew above and see how well it fits the period from 1914 to now.

This is what I believe....so can you see why I say "not for very much longer now"?

 

[Deeje]

//They just designed themselves to be too irresistible to their women? Really?// This just shows a stunning lack of understanding about evolution. They were not 'designed' like that. Natural selection has favoured the most brightly coloured of the male or female species, as this is what attracts a mate and allows the lineage to continue. A good example as to how this works would be African Elephant tusks becoming smaller. Selective pressures such as hunting and poaching for ivory has meant that more Elephants with larger tusks have been killed over and above those with shorter ones. This means that the ones that survive, the elephants with shorter tusks, are more freer to breed and produce other elephants that, due to genetics, will also have smaller tusks. Thus ensuring, at least for a short evolutionary time, the survival of elephants.

Please don't come in on the conversation late as if all this has not been addressed already.

What you are speaking about is adaptation, which I have no problem with. But adaptation does not explain organic evolution by a long shot. Adaptation is only seen within a species...it has never been proven to take place outside of that.....
IOW an amoeba

did not evolve itself into a dinosaur.....

Though someone told me recently that the T-Rex's closest living relative is a chicken.

 

[savagewind]

Reading the Bible does not give you understanding....only God's spirit can grant that.

November 2016 Jehovah's Witness broadcast. Lösch says, "The faithful and discreet slave is not inspired".

 

[ArtieE]

This is what I believe....so can you see why I say "not for very much longer now"?

Deeje is a Jehovah's Witness. Before you actually start believing what Deeje says, here you can read about the reliability of statements from Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php
FAILED PROPHECIES of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah

"The Watchtower Society even published a book telling their followers to add a room onto their houses, an get an undertaker to decorate it. Undertakes, of course, would be looking for employment, since there would be no more deaths in 1926. When the room was completed, Watchtower devotees were to call up Jerusalem, where Abraham would have an office, and request that their parent be "awakened" from death. They would soon appear in the new room! (The Way to Paradise, pages 228,229).

PROPHECIES ON SPACE TRAVEL

"Man cannot by airplane or rockets or other means get above the air envelop which is about our earthly globe..." (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 285, 1943 edition.)

 

[savagewind]

Deeje is a Jehovah's Witness. Before you actually start believing what Deeje says, here you can read about the reliability of statements from Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php
FAILED PROPHECIES of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah

"The Watchtower Society even published a book telling their followers to add a room onto their houses, an get an undertaker to decorate it. Undertakes, of course, would be looking for employment, since there would be no more deaths in 1926. When the room was completed, Watchtower devotees were to call up Jerusalem, where Abraham would have an office, and request that their parent be "awakened" from death. They would soon appear in the new room! (The Way to Paradise, pages 228,229).

PROPHECIES ON SPACE TRAVEL

"Man cannot by airplane or rockets or other means get above the air envelop which is about our earthly globe..." (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 285, 1943 edition.)

Jehovah's Witnesses do not care about the past and I do not blame them.

Why not talk about the present?

What are they saying now?

Basically, their leaders are saying that if you do not trust them that they are appointed by Jesus Christ to lead you out of "the world" to safety you will die by the order of Jehovah when the time comes (any day now), but they are actually guessing about how to lead because they are not confessing to be inspired of God to do it.

You want proof? Just pick up a copy of the February 2017 Watchtower.

I might be wrong. They might (finally) get wise and scrap that folly of an article.

 

[metis]

Do you have beliefs or hopes beyond this present life metis?

Yes, to try and leave my little place and this bigger place called Earth in better shape than when I was born so that our children and grandchildren and whomever can enjoy it as well. If there's a heaven, that's all fine & dandy, but then just because I may believe in heaven and/or believe in a deity doesn't mean that I'm automatically going there. Instead, I would be more inclined to lean in the direction that God(s) would be more impressed with our deeds versus holding politically-correct beliefs.

The Jewish sage Maimonides taught that if we believe and just do good in order to get into heaven, then our motivations are merely selfish. Therefore, he taught that we should so much appreciate having the chance to live that we also extend that to all of God's creation to help them believe and enjoy life as well.
Therefore, to me, the concept that one is "saved" by having p.c. beliefs I find abysmal, plus since God(s) have not made themselves clear that they even exist, I would suggest that maybe deeds are more important, assuming that one or more deities actually do exist.

And why would God(s) condemn probably billions of people who do not believe in what you believe in, especially since a significant fraction of them probably don't have much of a clue who Jesus was? And what about those who came before Jesus over the millions of years? And what about those who may not believe in your deity but who try and live moral lives?

As a scientist who has long had an interest in theology, I take the "I don't know" position on whether there are any deities, largely because there simply isn't any objectively-derived evidence to support me having such beliefs.

For example, what objective evidence can you put forth that there are not multiple Gods? I'm not asking what you believe but am asking which objective evidence you have. Please note that the Bible is subjective, as are all religious scriptures in literally all religions. Since this is the case, then why do you accept the narratives on Jesus but not Mohammed? or the Buddha? or ...?

 

[gnostic]

You have to allow scripture to interpret scripture.

But you haven't done that.

To do otherwise is to pit one person's opinion or interpretation against another's. This is why Christendom is so divided, yet claiming to be united in Christ.

And yet, this is exactly what you have been doing all along.

Look, Deeje.

From the time, my sister gave me my first bibles, KJV & Good News Bible, and attended her church and nearly join her church, my view on the bible were based on her church's teaching and church interpretations.

"Nearly" as being they had the water ready for me, for baptism, when I decided right then and there is not my church.

A few years later I found another church, which I had desire to join, and it was learning their interpretations of the bible. I would have join this church, but didn't because we got into a heated quarrel with my pastor.

The short of it, is that at that time, I found newspaper article that speak of the gnostic gospels (Thomas & Philip). I was curious and wanted to know if there were translations available. So I thought I would ask my pastor why these gospels were included in the NT...that was a big mistake.

At that time, I didn't know much about early church history, so I was completely clueless about Gnosticism, about these gnostic scriptures being heretic literature. But I was curious, and wanted to know more about these two texts I have not heard before. And I didn't know at that time, just how more stricter this new church I was looking at than my sister. The pastor, whom I thought was my friend, became increasingly angry with me, when I asked him about the gnostic texts that when he left, he told me that I would burn in hell for heresy. That left me flabbergasted and hurt.

So that was the 2nd church I didn't join. That was in 1985 and I was 19 then. A year later I stopped reading the bible, because I was too busy with my studies, and later with works, so I had other priorities.

Clearly this Protestant church is not so accommodating to curious people who asked questions, and don't like being challenged.

I didn't touch the bible for 15 years (in 2000); I even forgotten about the gospels of Thomas and Philip. And when I did, re-reading the bible, I have discovered that my view had changed. I was no longer reading the Hebrew scriptures with Christian bias.

The mistakes that I find Christians often make, they are trying to push Christian contexts, Christian interpretations and Christian agendas into Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament), and the original meanings are lost.

In my exchanges with you, over the matters of Genesis creation, I see you are doing exactly the same things, Deeje.

1. You are pushing Christian ideas into non-Christian books.
2. Worse of all, you are attempting to twist the verses you have quoted and used, so they would fit in with modern science.

Genesis is not a science book. The bible is not science.

Personally, I think people (creationists) who tried to mix religion and science together, especially when they use their scriptures (Muslims do the same things too, with their Qur'an)...

1. I think they are ignorant about both science and the scriptures they followed,
2. they are dishonest with their religion, to us (who disagree with you) and to yourself (because of the way they tried to fit modern science in selected verses),
3. and all of the above (points 1 & 2) - they are the acts of desperation and insecurity.

BTW...due to my interests in myths and my willingness to read any literature that have myths and folklore, used for my Timeless Myths website, it involved a lot of reading, searching for books, and researching. And during my search at the state library in 2002 or 2003, I found copies of translations to the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Philip, within the translations of the Nag Hammadi Library (two different books).

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

LOL...was that the sound of a

by any chance?

Since you identify as having no religion, I am assuming that all your Bible knowledge hasn't really done much for you?

It is God by his spirit who reveals the meaning of his word. No one comes to a knowledge of the son without an invitation from the Father. (John 6:44) Reading the Bible does not give you understanding....only God's spirit can grant that.



Please let me just address the scriptures cited here.

Luke 9:27 & Mark 9:1....
"But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

This was just prior to the transfiguration and true to his promise, Peter, James and John were privileged to see Christ in his heavenly glory as King of God's Kingdom. They were not permitted to speak of it until after his resurrection. (Matthew 17:9)

None of the apostles went to heaven before the return of the Christ, according to Paul. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) No one went to heaven before Jesus. (John 3:13)
Quiz questions: Where did all the dead people go before Jesus and after him?
Has Christ already come or are we still waiting for him?

As part of the "sign" Jesus gave of the 'end times', I see Luke 21:32 as a fascinating piece of the jig-saw puzzle. Who is this "generation" that will "not pass away" before all the other parts of the sign are in evidence? Who was Jesus talking to when he said that?

Let's take a look at it from both accounts.....shall we?

The "sign" that Jesus gave was not of his "coming" but actually of his "presence", (his "parousia".....this word describes a presence that is not simply a coming followed by a quick departure; rather, it covers a marked period of time) So the period of Christ's return had to be long enough for all the features of the sign to take place. The sign itself was to reveal that Christ was already here, present as King and directing his disciples in the work he assigned to them....the preaching of the good news of God's kingdom" before the "end" would come. (Matthew 24:14)
His visible appearance as judge and executioner would come as the climax of that time period. (Luke 21:27-28)

I believe that this prophesy covers two monumental events in the lives of Christians....events that pertains in some detail to both the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and to the "end of the age" and what has come to be known as 'Christ's second coming' that is yet future.

Matthew 24:3-14
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.


9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

So, the "sign that Jesus gave was multifaceted....and all these events had to occur within a single timeframe.

The time period we are interested in is the future fulfillment because it is unfolding before our eyes. So who are the "generation" that will not pass away until all the features of the sign are in evidence? Jesus was speaking to spirit anointed Christians who were taken into the "New Covenant" with him. These are the ones chosen by God to rule with Christ in heaven. They have a dual role as "kings and priests" (Revelation 20:6) It is these who make up the "generation" of which Jesus spoke. Members of that generation are still live on earth today. As a group,they have seen all the features of the sign take place and are eagerly awaiting their transfer to heaven. Those alive in the time of end when Christ comes as judge, will not have to sleep in death, but will be "changed, in the twinkling of an eye" to spirit life. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)

Now Luke's account mentions something interesting that allows us to see when the sign could be expected to begin.
He wrote...
"They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

What are these "times of the Gentiles" and when are they fulfilled? Daniel's prophesies provided the first century Christians with a timeframe for the Messiah's first appearance, and they also do the same for his second.

The "times of the Gentiles" refer to a period of history when it was prophesied that Gentile nations would dominate over God's people, who would have no land and no king until Messiah's coming. Daniel gives us a series of world powers who would come and go on the world stage and would extend all the way down to the present time. This period of world domination began with Babylon, then to Medo-Persia, then to Greece, to Rome, and out of the ashes of Rome rose the British Empire, which came to be allied as a dual world power with the USA.

World rulership by men ends there. Then it is stated......"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever" (Daniel 2:44)

So, as the scriptures indicate, in the time period dominated by the Anglo-American world power, Christ's presence would begin and all the features of the sign would be seen. Does the prophesy in Daniel tell us when the "times of the Gentiles" would end? YES. 1914.....the time when 'nation rose against nation' in what became known as "the First World War". Famine followed as food production fell dramatically on account of the war. Luke includes "pestilence" and "great earthquakes" in one place after another in his account.
The Spanish flu took more lives than the war did. Great earthquakes continue to take many lives.

Look at the prophesy in Matthew above and see how well it fits the period from 1914 to now.

This is what I believe....so can you see why I say "not for very much longer now"?

Quoting the bible is the same as quoting harry potter or lord of the rings. It's not evidence, it's a claim. so quote all you like, you cannot prove any of it. And what can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[gnostic]

The scriptures do not teach that Jesus is a god/man. The Bible says that Jesus was sent from heaven by his Father to earth to be born as a human child in the family line of Abraham and David, in the tribe of Judah.

If God was indeed the real father of Jesus, and not Joseph...then Jesus was never a descendant of David.

Both gospels showed 2 different genealogies of Joseph's ancestors. There are no family tree to Mary listed in the gospel. Her parents were not even named.

And according to Luke, Mary's kinswoman, Elizabeth, come from the Levite...

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

...which does implied that at least one of Mary's parents was most probably a Levite.

Of course, it doesn't explicitly say Mary was a descendant of Aaron too, but nor does it ever explicitly say she was a descendant of David.

But Luke 1 does say Mary was going to marry Joseph:

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

That clearly say she was going to be marrying to a man from "house of David", so it is no surprise, when it say "...Joseph son of Heli" (3:23), and not "...Mary daughter of Heli".

So if Joseph is not Jesus' really father, then technically Jesus was really never a descendant of David.

 

[gnostic]

No, actually mutations occur because he does not intervene in human affairs just yet. He is just letting things play out naturally as he knew they would. The devil claimed that he was a lousy excuse for a father, keeping vital knowledge from his children. He is allowing his human creation to experience life without his direct intervention. This is a life lesson for all humanity....God was right to withhold a knowledge of evil...what good has it ever done in the world? We will never want to demand it again.

Where are you getting all this?

Do you not see?

You are putting your interpretations, your opinions into what the scriptures don't say.

Let me quote your earlier post again:

You have to allow scripture to interpret scripture. To do otherwise is to pit one person's opinion or interpretation against another's.

So how do you know what God want? And how do you know what the devil want for humanity?

You are expressing your own opinions and interpretations. In your reply to SkepticThinker. You say one thing, on the one hand...but you say something different, on the other hand. You are not letting the scriptures to interpret themselves...you are interpreting it differently. That's double-standard or hypocrisy.

 

[gnostic]

Please don't come in on the conversation late as if all this has not been addressed already.

What you are speaking about is adaptation, which I have no problem with. But adaptation does not explain organic evolution by a long shot. Adaptation is only seen within a species...it has never been proven to take place outside of that.....

And you are still ignorant.

Evolution IS ALL ABOUT ADAPTATION!

 

[gnostic]

by any chance?

Since you identify as having no religion, I am assuming that all your Bible knowledge hasn't really done much for you?

It is God by his spirit who reveals the meaning of his word. No one comes to a knowledge of the son without an invitation from the Father. (John 6:44) Reading the Bible does not give you understanding....only God's spirit can grant that.

You are stereotyping and generalising, Deeje.

You and I don't have any clues as to Evangelicalhumanist's life have been.

You are making assumptions that just because one is "atheist" then one don't know anything about the bible.

Unless Evangelicalhumanist shared his past with us, we don't know if he was always an atheist or he was a Christian or a Jew before, or whatever religion he used to believe in. Perhaps, he was brought up as a Christian because one or both of his parents, or perhaps not.

We simply don't know.

So we don't know what knowledge Evangelicalhumanist has about the bible...but regardless if he atheist now, we shouldn't make assumption about his knowledge when we don't know about his past.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

The funny thing is that all theists say that we are created in the image of god and that this universe was made for us and, because of this, evolution and abiogenesis is untrue. But that's it. They literally offer no new concept or conceit that has been shown to be correct. All they can do is quote the bible and attack evolution. It's the biggest and most dumbest argument from ignorance that there is. The whole point in saying that evolution is not true is that you then go on to provide something to take it's place that is tested, falsified, repeated and peer-reviewed and has been shown to be correct.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since you identify as having no religion, I am assuming that all your Bible knowledge hasn't really done much for you?

Here, you show yourself as you are. I don't need the rest of your long post (which is just the usual apologetics trying to explain why what the Bible actually said doesn't mean what it said, but what you think it means now, which is purest bumpf).

Do you need a "belief" in Shakespeare to get anything out of his plays or poems? Do you need a religion (and which one, by the way) to understand the Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Levantine and other classics? What do you expect your reading of anything other than the Bible to "do for you," as you suggest reading the Bible has not for me? Or is it only the Bible. The Qur'an -- a fake? Book of Mormon -- twaddle? The books written at the same time as the rest of the Bible (we now call "apocrypha") just rubbish?

It is God by his spirit who reveals the meaning of his word. No one comes to a knowledge of the son without an invitation from the Father. (John 6:44) Reading the Bible does not give you understanding....only God's spirit can grant that.

And this belief of yours is completely coherent with your intolerance -- in fact, your God is just as willful, as selfish, as petty, as unforgiving, as fickle, as judgmental, as you are. Hardly surprising, since everybody's "God" is really their own creation.

You can't even see what you are saying -- God can, and does, and apparently enjoys, excluding people for no other reason than that He wants to. You think he "chose" you (probably because of your good looks or big schwantz (which is German for "ego" )) and didn't choose me -- so that when you read the Bible you're automatically "saved" and when I read it, I'm automatically condemned. And, in your own words (read them, they're just above!) it's all completely arbitrary. "I like you," says God, "so I'll save you!"That schmuck over there is just ****-out-of-luck." It's bigoted, which demonstrates clearly that it ain't God but it is you. It's ugly, which demonstrates the same thing. It's completely "you-centered," which is the final nail in that particular coffin.

Yours is not a belief -- it's a bigoted ego-trip so you can feel better-and-holier-than-thou.

It doesn't impress me.

 

[Deeje]

Quoting the bible is the same as quoting harry potter or lord of the rings. It's not evidence, it's a claim. so quote all you like, you cannot prove any of it. And what can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

LOL...you do realize that evolution is just a claim too.....it has no real evidence either?

All they have is a bunch of fossils, supposedly millions of years apart, but not a single shred of evidence that there is any link between them except in the imagination of science. All their "evidence" is suggestion and conjecture and can just as easily be explained by ID.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, to try and leave my little place and this bigger place called Earth in better shape than when I was born so that our children and grandchildren and whomever can enjoy it as well.

How successful do you think you have you been up to now? Making our own place a haven for family is wonderful, but we don't just live at home. What happens in the world impacts on all of us. How can men of science fix that? How can religions fix it? Both contribute to the problem.

If there's a heaven, that's all fine & dandy, but then just because I may believe in heaven and/or believe in a deity doesn't mean that I'm automatically going there. Instead, I would be more inclined to lean in the direction that God(s) would be more impressed with our deeds versus holding politically-correct beliefs.

God never said we are going to heaven. If we were supposed to go there, then why put us down here? Angels were created to live in heaven, but humans were created to live on earth.

The Jewish sage Maimonides taught that if we believe and just do good in order to get into heaven, then our motivations are merely selfish. Therefore, he taught that we should so much appreciate having the chance to live that we also extend that to all of God's creation to help them believe and enjoy life as well.
Therefore, to me, the concept that one is "saved" by having p.c. beliefs I find abysmal, plus since God(s) have not made themselves clear that they even exist, I would suggest that maybe deeds are more important, assuming that one or more deities actually do exist.

I have to agree with you and Maimonides (except for the going to heaven part).....God cares more about "why" you do something than "that" you do it for the wrong reasons. Deeds are more important than all the words or ritualistic performance in the world. Beliefs, and the actions they prompt are important though, or else God would not have had Moses write down over 600 laws with penalties ranging from death to compensation for a victim of theft.
After the golden calf incident, it was obvious that humans could not be trusted to decide for themselves what was acceptable worship. God's laws from then on, were not negotiable.

And why would God(s) condemn probably billions of people who do not believe in what you believe in, especially since a significant fraction of them probably don't have much of a clue who Jesus was? And what about those who came before Jesus over the millions of years? And what about those who may not believe in your deity but who try and live moral lives?

I think you have to go back to Eden to figure that one out. What was it that God required from humans from the start?
All he asked for was their obedience. He didn't explain why they were not to partake of the ToKGE, he just told them that it was his, and that they were not to touch it under penalty of death. Did he need to say more? Wasn't the fact that he required unquestioning obedience, his right as their Creator? Wasn't the death penalty enough of a deterrent to drive home how serious it was to disobey him? Was there a long list of do's and don'ts in Eden? I see only one simple command. If they had obeyed it, what do you think the world would be like by now?

As a scientist who has long had an interest in theology, I take the "I don't know" position on whether there are any deities, largely because there simply isn't any objectively-derived evidence to support me having such beliefs.

I can understand why a scientist might be persuaded by his peers to come on board with the alternative view. Especially if the other side had a very inadequate explanation that did not fit what science actually knows. I believe both sides got it wrong. They need to meet somewhere in the middle but egos won't let them.

For example, what objective evidence can you put forth that there are not multiple Gods? I'm not asking what you believe but am asking which objective evidence you have. Please note that the Bible is subjective, as are all religious scriptures in literally all religions. Since this is the case, then why do you accept the narratives on Jesus but not Mohammed? or the Buddha? or ...?

First of all, I see the Creator as looking for those who don't need proof of his existence any more than what is already there. He wants people who can have faith....(Hebrews 11:1)....those who can appreciate his qualities just from observing creation itself.
If he was 'out there' and there was no doubt about his existence, humans would still become complacent and disobey him.
We only have to see how his nation responded when he liberated them from Egypt with a massive demonstration of his power, unleashing the 10 plagues and then parting the Red Sea, humiliating a proud Pharaoh, and then leading his people through the wilderness with a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night. Yet they still disobeyed him. Even when he punished them for their errors and lack of faith, he still miraculously fed them and provided water, and their clothing and footwear never wore out for 40 years!....yet, still they fell away to self interest. Don't you think that humans always seem to take things for granted after a while. They stop noticing the everyday miracles and wander past them as if they don't exist. They wander past God as if he doesn't exist either.

The Creator has provided one book and one people through whom he revealed himself to the world. He has one son, through whom all can be saved from the coming judgment if they want to.....but if they don't want to...that is their decision. Is that somehow unfair?

 

[Deeje]

If God was indeed the real father of Jesus, and not Joseph...then Jesus was never a descendant of David.

Both gospels showed 2 different genealogies of Joseph's ancestors. There are no family tree to Mary listed in the gospel. Her parents were not even named.

And according to Luke, Mary's kinswoman, Elizabeth, come from the Levite...


...which does implied that at least one of Mary's parents was most probably a Levite.

Of course, it doesn't explicitly say Mary was a descendant of Aaron too, but nor does it ever explicitly say she was a descendant of David.

But Luke 1 does say Mary was going to marry Joseph:


That clearly say she was going to be marrying to a man from "house of David", so it is no surprise, when it say "...Joseph son of Heli" (3:23), and not "...Mary daughter of Heli".

So if Joseph is not Jesus' really father, then technically Jesus was really never a descendant of David.

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Matt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

 

[Deeje]

No, actually mutations occur because he does not intervene in human affairs just yet. He is just letting things play out naturally as he knew they would. The devil claimed that he was a lousy excuse for a father, keeping vital knowledge from his children. He is allowing his human creation to experience life without his direct intervention. This is a life lesson for all humanity....God was right to withhold a knowledge of evil...what good has it ever done in the world? We will never want to demand it again.

Where are you getting all this?

Do you not see?

You are putting your interpretations, your opinions into what the scriptures don't say.

No, I am letting the rest of scripture interpret. Genesis says that the devil claimed that God was withholding something from humankind that they were entitled to, inferring that he was not looking after their best interests. He said that they would become "like God" if they ate of the forbidden fruit. Was he right? He said that they would not die....was he right about that too? The only way to settle the issues raised in Eden was to allow the devil to rule the world and see if he was the better ruler and deserving of the worship he craved.

At Luke 4:5-8 we see the devil's own admission, which Jesus did not deny.
"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 If you, therefore, do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’"

The apostle John also confirmed that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one". (1 John 5:19)

Do you think God is the ruler of this world? Look again.

Let me quote your earlier post again:

You have to allow scripture to interpret scripture. To do otherwise is to pit one person's opinion or interpretation against another's.

So how do you know what God want? And how do you know what the devil want for humanity?

It is all plainly stated in the scriptures. If you knew your Bible, you would know that much.

You are expressing your own opinions and interpretations. In your reply to SkepticThinker. You say one thing, on the one hand...but you say something different, on the other hand. You are not letting the scriptures to interpret themselves...you are interpreting it differently. That's double-standard or hypocrisy.

Show me where I did this.....?

 

[Deeje]

And you are still ignorant.

Evolution IS ALL ABOUT ADAPTATION!

I'm afraid it isn't....science would like it to be though. Adaptation has NEVER been proven outside of a single species.
Consult the Wiki article on speciation and you will see that the flies remained flies...the fish remained fish and no matter what species you can name, no creature transformed itself into another kind no matter how much time you throw at it. They may have adapted color or other superficial traits but even the Galapagos creatures were still true to their mainland cousins.
The finches were still finches and the iguanas were still iguanas....they had simply adapted to a different environment as part of their design.

If you want to believe that Pakicetus became a whale because of an earbone, then go ahead.....you can then go on believing that the closest living relative to T-Rex is a chicken.....

 

[Deeje]

You are stereotyping and generalising, Deeje.

You and I don't have any clues as to Evangelicalhumanist's life have been.

You are making assumptions that just because one is "atheist" then one don't know anything about the bible.

Not at all. Some people become atheists because of what they believe the Bible teaches. If one has gained their Bible knowledge from Christendom's version of events, it will be flawed. If one has tried to go it alone, they will have the same problem.
How did the first Christians learn to do the will of God? By listening and obeying the greatest teacher humans could ever have.
He educated men to act on his behalf, so that Christianity could continue to grow in the decades after he returned to heaven.
That situation wasn't going to last however, because an apostasy was foretold that would see Christianity fall away in exactly the same way that Judaism did. The traditions of men took over from the teachings of the Christ.

Unless Evangelicalhumanist shared his past with us, we don't know if he was always an atheist or he was a Christian or a Jew before, or whatever religion he used to believe in. Perhaps, he was brought up as a Christian because one or both of his parents, or perhaps not.

We simply don't know.

So we don't know what knowledge Evangelicalhumanist has about the bible...but regardless if he atheist now, we shouldn't make assumption about his knowledge when we don't know about his past.

EH is not new to me though I have not seen him post on RF for some time. There is a big difference between reading the Bible and understanding it. (Acts 8:26-36) No one can gain a knowledge of God through his son unless it is granted by the Father. (John 6:44) The Christ does not exist divided...except in Christendom. The Christ doesn't exist at all in atheism.