Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Audie]

I wonder if he knows his "optimistic" ratings are against forum rules?

He can do what he likes in ig city.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

He can do what he likes in ig city.

Yep. I am done.

 

[Audie]

Yep. I am done.

It is fun to jump up and down and
argue, toss in some snark.

But there is being abusive too,
and I won’t stick around for that.

 

[3rdAngel]

It is fun to jump up and down and
argue, toss in some snark.

But there is being abusive too,
and I won’t stick around for that.

Then don't do it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim is that there is no God. You come to a religious forum yet you are not able to prove your claims. What you believe or do not believe is up to you. You are free to believe as you wish, as are others, but to come to a religious forum pretending there is no God without any evidence is only an appeal to ignorance which is an argument that can be turned around to you. When this is done it seems you do not like it.

What do you think a lack of belief means in your view? In my view it means to lack belief. Are you saying you believe in God now but not that much? I asked you this question some time ago and you told me already you do not believe in God yet you have no evidence for what you believe in yet make the same claims on others.

I never claimed that there was no God.

I see you need to change your argument now. Sorry the same response I made earlier is applicable here.

Then you are still wrong for the same reasons. I did not change my argument, I tried to make your error clearer to you.

Nonsense. It shows that I am right. If you do not believe that there is a God then that is your belief. I have not ignored anything. The Oxford Dictionaries definition of atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Seems you are trying to change the definition.

Then you just admitted that you are wrong since I never said that I believe that there is no God. And you seem to be having trouble understanding the Oxford Dictionary. You just quoted it again and it still refutes your claim. Perhaps English is not your first language? That may explain your inability to understand and your rather strange use of a dictionary for a debate. That is not the move that a native English speaker would make.

Good that is the only point that was being made.

Aren't you are at all curious to find out why you are wrong?

So let me ask the same question again. So do you have some believe in God now? Last time I asked you this you said "of course not" and stated you do not believe in God. Unless you have changed your view I do not know if you have or have not. The definition of athiesm was provided by the Oxford dictionary. If you do not like their definition which is the same as many other dictionaries, perhaps you need to take it up with them?

I lack a belief in God. That seems to be an idea that you cannot grasp. All I can do at this point is correct your errors. Please note, the Oxford dictionary is not the ultimate authority on English. It might be in England but that is only a small part of the English speaking world today. And even if it was the Oxford English dictionary disagrees with you. If you understood English you would see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, and I don't think your paradigm allows for the existence of evil anyway. It's just an arbitrary accusation you can throw around when you find someone else's behavior disagrees with your personal sentiments which can even change on a whim. Because evolution only allows for a rudimentary sense of empathy to arise from cooperation as a survival mechanism within a species. Basically, the law of the jungle. Or similar to how prison gangs form as a means to protect themselves from other prisoners. Not I very good basis for a true moral system; but I digress.

Why is it so abhorrent for God to require people's hearts to change? If your heart is not right then it's not the Word of God's fault is it? The Word of God came first so it shouldn't and indeed cannot change.

Why do you think that an atheist cannot have a working term for evil? I have found that many theists do not understand morals. Yet most of them have far better morals than are found in their Bible.

And I do not think that you understand what evolution can and cannot do. A lot more than the "law of the jungle" arises when one realizes that evolution deals with populations and not individuals.

 

[3rdAngel]

I never claimed that there was no God.

Yes you did.

Then you are still wrong for the same reasons. I did not change my argument, I tried to make your error clearer to you.

No you tried to change the story about your gumball machine where the same reply I gave you the first time still would still apply.

Then you just admitted that you are wrong since I never said that I believe that there is no God. And you seem to be having trouble understanding the Oxford Dictionary. You just quoted it again and it still refutes your claim. Perhaps English is not your first language? That may explain your inability to understand and your rather strange use of a dictionary for a debate. That is not the move that a native English speaker would make.

Nonsense! Now your making things up which is sad on your behalf. It seems you are confused and do not know what you believe. I asked you in another thread before this one directly if you believe in God and you said you did not believe in God. You seem to be changing your story every time you are asked.

Aren't you are at all curious to find out why you are wrong?

You are free to believe as you wish. Seems everyone is right in their own eyes. If I was wrong in anything I have shared here you would have been able to show it by now. Although in your view there is no way you could be in error now is there.

I lack a belief in God. That seems to be an idea that you cannot grasp. All I can do at this point is correct your errors. Please note, the Oxford dictionary is not the ultimate authority on English. It might be in England but that is only a small part of the English speaking world today. And even if it was the Oxford English dictionary disagrees with you. If you understood English you would see that.

Well that is not true. You keep changing your story not me so it is hard to know now what you believe. They are your words not mine. Did you forget you already told me in another thread you do not beleive in God? Did you change your mind? Or do you mean that you do not believe in God but you believe in the existence of God? That would make a lot of sense now wouldn't it .

Your also forgetting I posted you not my definition of atheism but the definition of the Oxford dictionary which is that atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. You now are simply playing on words and avoiding answering my questions to you. Anyhow it is up to you what you believe and do.

You are free to believe as you wish. I believe we all answer only to God come judgement day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you did.

Where provide a quote and a link.

 

[3rdAngel]

Where provide a quote and a link.

I should not have to chase up your own claims. It seems you do not even know what you believe. Anyhow, ok no problems....

Right. I do not believe in God. I can't help it if you do not understand that. You were the one that tried to redefine what I said. This may be your problem with the Bible too. It appears to be a flaw of yours.

Woops...

Your welcome

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok no problems....


Woops...

Your welcome

Like I said English is not your first language. You failed. This is what you said:

"Your claim is that there is no God. "

Not believing in God is not claiming that there is no God. That you do not understand this may also explain how the Oxford dictionary definition refutes your claim.

By the way, I never changed my story. I restated it in an attempt to get you to understand.

 

[3rdAngel]

Like I said English is not your first language. You failed. This is what you said:

"Your claim is that there is no God. "

Not believing in God is not claiming that there is no God. That you do not understand this may also explain how the Oxford dictionary definition refutes your claim.

By the way, I never changed my story. I restated it in an attempt to get you to understand.

Goodness - No comment. I will let others follow the conversation . I just like watching you try to put out the fires you seem to be making for yourself by trying to change your stories everytime you get caught out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Goodness - No comment. I will let others follow the conversation . I just like watching you try to put out the fires you seem to be making for yourself by trying to change your stories everytime you get caught out.

You have that backwards.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that not believing in something is not the same as saying that it does not exist? When one makes such a statement one prejudices oneself. For example you probably believe the myths of Genesis due to your beliefs. A rational thinker can easily see that they are false.

 

[74x12]

And I have a completely different attitude about that. I've explained it before, in an example that I concocted after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. What if a man, trapped in the flooded area with all the stores closed, is in desperate need of insulin for his diabetic daughter. I contend that in this situation, he is justified in breaking into a drug store and taking what he needs. Yes, it is technically theft, technically B&E, but I think it justified. And I even think that the courts might agree.

Whether God does or not is, of course, up to God. (I could at least like a God who thought the same, if there has to be a God.)

I agree with you in this case. Clearly it would be wrong not to save your daughter. There is a lot of gray area involved. The scriptures aren't meant to be a strict law code. For example Jesus said about the sabbath "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". By that He meant that people should observe the Sabbath(this was before the new Testament) but they could break it; if it was necessary. He even gave some examples. Such as they would lift a sheep out of a hole on the sabbath because the sheep was stuck in the hole. That was work, but it would be wrong not to save the sheep or make it suffer needlessly. Therefore, we shouldn't think that God wants us to be harmed by the Laws He gives. So Jesus argued it was not wrong to heal the infirm on the sabbath day.

So all just laws are made for man(for mankind's benefit); man was not made for laws. And that's how society should view it's laws. I wouldn't consider the person you describe to even be a thief.

 

[Thanda]

Sounds like a dodge... " I understand Holy Scripture because God has granted me understanding, YOU don't understand because God hasn't given you understanding, therefore I can claim anything I like, and when it's illogical gibberish, I just condescendingly say God hasn't given you understanding "

Well sort of. The point of understanding scripture is not so you can go out and argue with others about it. The purpose of scripture is to bring each individual who reads is closer to God. So yes even if one does come to a "true" understanding of scripture it will not suddenly make his arguments convincing to another person.

Jesus himself could not convince most of the Jews about his teachings. Most people didn't believe his apostles. Most people didn't believe, Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist or any number of religious teachers.

Spiritual conviction cannot be forced on anyone no matter how great the teacher is. That is the power of moral agency/free will.

So it is a rather pointless (though sometimes fun) exercise to argue with people about meaning of any scripture.

 

[Dawnofhope]

They are all pertaining to one prophesy. It was just the timing. Jesus told us to “keep on the watch”, which is why we have the Watchtower as our symbol. Do you know what the purpose of the watchtower was in Bible times? It was to alert the residents of the city if the watchman saw something approaching. It could have been friend or foe, but the alert was sounded and an air of preparedness was initiated. If it proved to be a false alarm, then everyone went back to business as usual. This is the way it is with us. We are warned not to go to sleep spiritually speaking....so, as we were told to “keep on the watch”...that is what we have done. If you remember Jesus’ parable of the 10 Virgins, you will understand why we remain vigilant. (Matthew 25:1-13)
Again, like the days of Noah.....after many decades of construction and warning.....the flood came. Noah didn’t close the door or bring the flood. No one listened....do you know why?

The key verses to focus on pertain to Jesus coming like a thief in the night.

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1 Thessalonians 5:2

Jesus says in His final sermon

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matthew 24:36

So Jesus advises
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Matthew 24:42-44

What does it mean to watch? Jesus gives a great example of what it means NOT to watch:

But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
Matthew 24:48-50

The consequences of such heedlessness?
And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 24:51

So who, Christ asks is the blessed Servant?

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
Matthew 24:45-46

I believe it means being attentive to our spiritual lives daily to the extent living a coherent and moral life becomes our central concern.

The problem for the JWs is they have been making specific claims about when Christ will return despite clear scriptures that indicate no one knows except the Father. So from 1877 to at least 1989 the watchtower magazine in front of a worldwide audience has been making specific claims that haven’t eventuated. Perhaps after over 120 years of clear failure when it comes to making predictions, finally the JW have decided to avoid providing any specific information. Some organisations are slow learners and lack the capacity to comprehend the obvious. For example when Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour except the father, He really meant it.

So given the JW organisation has demonstrated an inability to understand this key scripture that is central to its narrative let alone put it into practice, it begs the question what else have they got wrong? When it comes to prophecy the answer is just about everything IMHO.

There certainly has been a heightened sense of expectation when it comes to the Return of Christ that reached a peak in the nineteenth century not surprisingly when both our faith communities were founded along with the Seventh Day Adventists, the LDS Church, the Ahmadiyya Muslims and others.

Its clear there have been plenty who have claimed to be the Return of Christ including Bahá’u’lláh since the eighteenth century.

List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

Expect the list to grow longer as time passes, Why? Because after two thousand years there remains a steady stream of those who would claim to be the Jewish Messiah.

List of Jewish messiah claimants - Wikipedia

In fact sometimes the expectations about the Return of Christ have been so intense people have disposed of all their possessions. Do you know about the Great Disappointment?

The Great Disappointment in the Millerite movement was the reaction that followed Baptistpreacher William Miller's proclamations that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844, what he called the Advent. His study of the Daniel 8prophecy during the Second Great Awakening led him to the conclusion that Daniel's "cleansing of the sanctuary" was cleansing of the world from sin when Christ would come, and he and many others prepared, but October 22, 1844, came and they were disappointed.

These events paved the way for the Adventists who formed the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They contended that what had happened on October 22 was not Jesus' return, as Miller had thought, but the start of Jesus' final work of atonement, the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary, leading up to the Second Coming.

Great Disappointment - Wikipedia

Sound familiar? A prophecy that didn’t come to pass so they had to invent or concoct something else that no could disprove.

So any fool can wave their arms in the air and say the end is near and Christ is coming. Plenty have been doing exactly that for the last two hundred years. Of course the key difference between the JWs and the Baha’is isn’t whether or not we follow Christ. We both believe we do. The Key difference is something else, something that would fall on deaf ears if I mentioned it, much like the words of Noah in His day. The wise do not speak until they obtain a hearing.

 

[Audie]

Why do you think that an atheist cannot have a working term for evil? I have found that many theists do not understand morals. Yet most of them have far better morals than are found in their Bible.

And I do not think that you understand what evolution can and cannot do. A lot more than the "law of the jungle" arises when one realizes that evolution deals with populations and not individuals.

Like lo and many another, our hero has no argument unless
he makes up something so ridiculous he can savage it with ease.

 

[Audie]

You have that backwards.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that not believing in something is not the same as saying that it does not exist? When one makes such a statement one prejudices oneself. For example you probably believe the myths of Genesis due to your beliefs. A rational thinker can easily see that they are false.

Why? Because no true creo can ever admit to
the least error in anything.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well maybe there is a way. But the world wouldn't receive or believe it. So there is no way for the world to know. Only God can know and those God reveals it to. The rest of the world will be in confusion. Many questions. Many theories and arguments but not the knowledge of the truth.

Describe how a person would know that God has revealed the truth to them considering that many people in the world with contrary religious viewpoints claim that God has revealed the truth to them?

Alright, you're pretty skeptical. But what if you started believing the Bible? Then you would have to admit it was a miracle for you to believe.
My point is that only God can convince anyone or show anyone the truth.

And what if you started believing the Quran? Then you would have to admit it was a miracle for you to believe.

Also, many people with contrary biblical views, which other Christians believe are heretical, believe in the Bible. So how can just believing in the bible be a miracle? If I believe the Bible I wouldn't consider it a miracle, because my reason for believing it wouldn't be a reason that could easily be applied to other books just because I believed in them.The Bible is a book that makes claims. I would have to prove that those claims are true conclusively using outside evidence, which would eliminate the need for faith, and the claims would be fact.

I do agree that if God exists then it is possible that only God can reveal the truth to people. But if he is only showing it to a few then he is showing favouritism and is being unfair if his not revealing the truth to others causes them to get punished for not believing in him. Also, because of his favouritism he is causing confusion and it is very possible that he will be causing those he revealed the truth to to doubt the truth because of lack of objective evidence.

And yes, I am skeptical, which I personally find as being more honest with myself. Being honest makes me happy. I am not saying that believers are being dishonest though. This just applies to me just in case someone misconstrues my meaning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry, but how do you get that out of what you a quoting from and me saying entomology is not my hobby?

I asked if not being an entomologist is a hobby of yours.

 

[3rdAngel]

I asked if not being an entomologist is a hobby of yours.

It is not my hobby, it is my profession.