The Religion Discussion

[toyo682]

So question to those who believe that good works would get you the heaven (if you believe in one). Do we need to repent and turn away from the sin we commit against God, that our good work nullifies as you claim. Or can we continue to sin? If so are you sorry for what you have done that is wrong against God? How many righteous works does it take to nullify one sin? In civil law that fines vary depending on the crime, is it this way with God? How do you know on the day of your death that your good works out weighs your back works? How do we measure it, or do we just hope for the best? Also if your good works are aim at appeasing God’s wrath, is your works of love? Do you really feed the homeless because you love them, or because it is another tick in your goodness column on the day of judgement? Do you really love God if you continue to transgress his law wilfully? Do you think in a court of law, if you say to the judge, yes Judge I did rape that woman, but I was good and kind to others he would let you walk away? If no why does your goodness not supercede, your one bad deed in man’s courts, but it does in God’s? Are we of a higher moral standard that God? Do we demand justice when God does not? Recently I was reading in the papers about a man who was killed, his mother was claiming he was a good man, and he only started selling drugs to help his grandmother build her house. Now lets say he was not killed but arrested and brought to court, should the judge release him from the drug trafficking charges because the use of the money receive from drug sale to do good by building a house for his grand mother? So to sum it up, by whose standard do we measure our goodness, men or God’s? If God’s can you really understand how holy he is?

if was so direct, then there would not be a judge, the police would just lock them up according the what crime they discover.Now that would not be just would it? the judge is to weigh the actions against the intentions. So it comes down to a matter of the heart?
yes, when the judge would consider the reason being to get money for the grand mother, so may give the lesser part of the sentence or may make the sentence hard labor.So he is not acquitted because of the his good intentions, he is still punished, right? [/b ] if the man after time, continued doing it for the business benefits, then he would get maximum penalty. [b]So the question is are we able to stop sinning on our own accorded?

the intentions of the person is taken judged as well when they commit a wrong act. Before the eternally court, what might one say is their intention for breaking the laws of God? Are these intentions good, so you sin for a good cause is that what you are saying?as soon as the condition which justifies the wrong act is alleviated, so to is the justification, so u need to stop.So if the mans actions did not stop him from receiving some form of punishment, even if it is lesser, how is he justified, it is appointed to man once to died, after that is judgment, so when do we get to justify ourselves after we face the eternal court, u supposed to exhaust all of your lawful means first before u do something wrong. and when u do it u need to beg for forgiveness, cause u did it....and hopefully, u are honest that god will accept.Try this in court judge I am really sorry for what I did with all my heart, if this was true many people who are in jail for manslaughter would be free, because after the heat of the moment I am such they were sorry for what they did.

[toyo682]

FALL OF MAN* Transition from a condition of moral innocence and favor with God to a condition of being condemned to death, which occurred in the history of humankind with Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit.
Biblical Evidence The narrative of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 affirms the distinctiveness of both man’s nature and task. Man (used in this article as a generic term for male and female human beings) was created in the image of God for the purpose of communion and fellowship with God. As God’s representative, he was given dominion on the earth to cultivate and use its resources for the glory of God.
In addition to the cultural mandate, man also received a specific command. He was authorized to use the vegetation of the Garden of Eden for food, but he was expressly forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The purpose of this command was to introduce into the human consciousness the radical antithesis between good and evil and to confirm man in the service of the Creator. As a faithful and loyal servant, man was to enjoy all the blessings bestowed by his Father in heaven and at last be led into the fullness of eternal life with God.
Man was made a living creature, as were the animals, but the core of his life was to be union and communion with God. Fellowship with God was to become Adam’s conscious possession, in contrast to the animals that know neither the possibility of sin nor conscious communion with God. In full awareness of the evil of the alternative, man was to serve God willingly and lovingly. His life before God was therefore to be religious rather than instinctive.
The purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man. It was the apparent purpose of Satan to subject man to himself, and through man to extend his kingdom of darkness over the earth. The fall of man and the subsequent program of redemption must be understood in the context of the cosmic conflict between God and Satan, in which the ultimate triumph of God is assured. Satan approached Adam by way of Eve, using the serpent as his instrument to entice them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The difference between good and evil was not concealed from man prior to the fall, though man’s experiential knowledge was only of the good. Adam was to receive instruction concerning the nature of this distinction and the consequences of eating or not eating only from God. As he had received life in the beginning from his Creator, so now he was to live in obedience to every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. The purpose of the temptation was to urge independence from God. Satan called into question the truth of God and challenged his authority. He led man to think that he could determine for himself the difference between good and evil and that he could control the consequences to his own advantage. It was the temptation for man to be a god to himself.
Adam fell when he yielded to the temptation of Satan and, together with his wife, ate of the forbidden fruit. The act of rebellion was an act of disobedience, disloyalty, faithlessness, and unbelief. As the command not to eat summarized and brought to a focus all that was involved in righteousness before God, so the transgression epitomized radical apostasy from God. Undivided obedience to God gave way to whole-souled rebellion and complete revolt: the authority of God was repudiated; the goodness of God was doubted; the wisdom of God was disputed; and the truth of God was contradicted. A whole new complex of affections and emotions took possession of the heart and mind of man.
Effects of the Fall The immediate effects of the fall are visible in the loss of boldness and joy in the presence of God and the emergence of fear and shame. They are visible also in the alienation of Adam and Eve from God. This is exemplified in the curse in relation to man, but more pointedly in the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The Garden was the dwelling place of righteousness, the sphere of union and communion between man and God. Expulsion was inevitable once the communion was severed by unrighteousness. As God had warned, the consequence of sin was death. Since death intervenes at every point where there is life, it works itself out also in the dissolution of the body in the grave.
The consequences of the fall are not limited to Adam and Eve but extend to all those descended from the first pair by natural generation, because there is a unique relation of solidarity existing between Adam and the rest of the race. Some theologians accent the generic connection between Adam and his descendants, while others focus on the covenant relationship of Adam as the head and representative of his posterity. The consequences of Adam’s transgression for the human race are the imputation of his sin to all his descendants, their consequent liability to death, and their inheritance of a depraved nature.
Contemporary understanding of the fall
Within contemporary theology of all confessional varieties, there is widespread denial of the historicity of the biblical account of the fall. It may be granted that the Genesis account is told as history continuous with subsequent history and that within the worldview of the writers of the Bible the account is alluded to as history. But it is argued that moderns can receive the story of the fall only as myth. This view has its source in the development of an evolutionary view of human origins coupled with a negatively critical evaluation of the literary history of the Genesis account.
Although the historicity of Adam is often abandoned, there is usually an attempt to appreciate the “truth” conveyed by the myth. For example, it is said that every person is Adam, and that everyone living is a sinner as far back as he or she can remember. Others see in the myth not a fall but an ascent to conscious and independent responsibility. Sin is thought of as necessary to religious maturity in the same way that exposure to competition from opponents strengthens the prowess of an athlete.
Because of the way the Bible parallels Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12–19; 1 Cor 15:22), a mythological understanding of Adam leads to a mythological understanding of Christ. As Adam becomes a symbol for the universality of sin and death, so Christ becomes simply a symbol for the inherent righteousness and redemption of all men.
The modern isolation of the message from the history of Genesis 1—3 violates the integrity of the account without offering a valid explanation for the universality of sin and death. Christian doctrine holds that sin entered the world through a specific man, Adam, and was overcome by Jesus Christ, another man, by his death and resurrection.
The results of the fall are also manifest in the cosmos as the curse works itself out in the resistance offered to the accomplishment of the original cultural mandate. Only with the pain and danger attendant upon childbirth is the world populated, and only with arduous, toilsome labor are the food, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain life provided.
However, the fact that death does not descend immediately upon man after the fall as final judgment is indicative of God’s saving purpose for man. Adam does not hear the curse of death pronounced until he has heard the promise of a Savior (Gn 3:15).
After Genesis 3, the Bible only infrequently refers to the fall of man, but this historical event is the indispensable presupposition of all that follows. The thrust of the Bible is toward the future—the widening effects of sin and the unfolding of God’s remedy.
Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (473). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[toyo682]

IMPUTATION* Charging to an account, used in the Bible with legal reference to sin and salvation being recorded by God. The biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. Although the noun form is not found in Scripture, the verb “to impute” occurs frequently in both the OT and NT. The basic meaning of the biblical word “impute” is “to set down in a record or a ledger.” In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in a legal sense. Philemon 1:18, which affirms that the apostle Paul assumed the debt of Onesimus, aptly illustrates the predominant theological usage of the word: “if he … owes you anything, charge that to my account.”
When Scripture speaks of the imputation of good or evil, it does not suggest that any change of moral character is involved. Scripture does affirm that, from God’s perspective, righteousness or sin is charged to an individual’s account. In the broadest sense, Scripture teaches that God participates in the process of imputing (Ps 32:2) as do people (1 Sm 22:15). Good deeds were commonly imputed for reward (Ps 106:30–31), and evil deeds were imputed for punishment (Lv 17:3–4).
The Bible sets forth the theological concept of imputation in three distinct yet related ways. First, Scripture affirms the imputation of Adam’s original sin to the entire human race. In the sovereign plan of God, the first man’s initial act of disobedience was set to the account of every member of the human family. Every person thus participates in the guilt and penalty of that original sin. Second, the sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to Christ, so that although the Savior was not a sinner, he nevertheless bore the penalty arising from sin. Finally, the Bible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account. Although not yet perfectly holy or morally righteous, believers nevertheless are justified before the law of God, and they are “clothed” with the imputed righteousness of Christ.
The apostle Paul developed at length the theme that Christ on the cross bore the punishment for believers’ sins. Thus he wrote that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21, rsv; cf. Heb 9:28). Similarly, he depicted Christ as bearing the curse of the Mosaic law (Gal 3:13). Finally, reflecting on Isaiah 53, the apostle Peter affirmed that Christ “personally carried away our sins in his own body on the cross” (1 Pt 2:24, nlt). The idea that the guilt of the entire world was charged to the account of the sinless Savior largely explains Christ’s impassioned cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46, nlt).
The imputation motif is also employed, in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being credited to believers. An incident in the life of the patriarch Abraham illustrates the imputation of righteousness on the basis of faith. After God had promised material and spiritual blessing to Abraham, Genesis 15:6 states that he “believed the Lord; and he [God] reckoned it to him as righteousness” (rsv). The Bible teaches that no person naturally possesses the standard of righteousness demanded by God (Ps 130:3; Is 64:6; Rom 3:10). Yet, in his gracious plan of salvation, God himself supplies the righteousness to satisfy his holy character (Is 45:24; 54:17; Hos 10:12). That is, as a person accepts by faith the work of Christ in satisfying the demands of God’s law, God imputes or reckons Christ’s righteousness to the believer.
The imputation of divine righteousness to the believer constitutes a major theme of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:21–5:21). Thus the apostle speaks of the happiness of an undeserving sinner who is declared to be righteous (4:6). Moreover, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness results in justification before God’s law court (5:18). The merits of Christ’s death imputed to the sinner are the basis for acquittal by the holy God. Thus the Bible teaches that the ruinous effects of the imputation of Adam’s sin are effectively reversed for those who believe in Christ. The imputation of human sin to Christ makes possible the imputation of his righteousness to believers.
Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (630). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Toyo I dont think anyone is reading your posts because they are not your own, but just a regurgitation of someone else's writing. If you wish to make a point based on these quoted pieces then please make your point and reference the link or quoted piece.

Also you are quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, this is called circular reasoning or circular logic

[Razkal]

^nice summary of toyo, bluefete and megadoc in one there duaneos...couldn't find that pic for sheit scouring the internet!

[16 cycles]

The purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man.....

^ if God is the creator of the universe and all with in it, did God create evil as well?

[toyo682]

Toyo I dont think anyone is reading your posts because they are not your own, but just a regurgitation of someone else's writing. If you wish to make a point based on these quoted pieces then please make your point and reference the link or quoted piece.

Also you are quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, this is called circular reasoning or circular logic

Well I did enter this thread by stating that I have experienced what the Bible says in my personal life. I never told anyone they needed to believe, and you and many others have stated so kindly I am a liar and my experiences are make believe, ironic how you guys condemn judging others and acceptance of all beliefs. Can you post any one of my comments where I have openly condemn any one to hell, or judge them. When I stated my experience I clearly stated it was not my goal or intention to offend, only to state why I believe one religion over another. These works that I have quoted are in my personal library not off of some Christian website. Maybe you should read what I have posted and then what I have said would make more sense. The fact that you won't read what I have posted or all of it, only proves your ignorance. I have posted stuff that shows that the Bible proves to be accurate outside of the Bible. Further more as I have stated, when it comes to christian beliefs our standard is the Bible like it or not. Take it or leave it as it is. If you find the Bible ignorant that is all well but don't change its meaning to suit your belief. Also if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do, and I do care what you think post that works or links to scholars and then we shall debate such. Or a you afraid to throw all your cards on the table.

[Sky]

The purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man.....

^ if God is the creator of the universe and all with in it, did God create evil as well?

God created the bright star/the unmentionable/the morning star, but not sin. He allows sin.

[d spike]

ironic how you guys condemn judging others and acceptance of all beliefs.

I got a headache just trying to read this sentence. An explanation of what this is supposed to mean would be appreciated. While I agree that Duane and "you guys" do seem to condemn judging others, I fail to see how these worthy folk condemn the acceptance of all beliefs (unless I missed something).

Can you post any one of my comments where I have openly condemn any one... or judge them. When I stated my experience I clearly stated it was not my goal or intention to offend, only to state why I believe one religion over another.
So accusing me of "eisegesis"/"twisting scripture" was a friendly remark? Wow. (You could have made the statement that you didn't agree with my interpretations... but you chose the "I am right, thus you are wrong" stance...)

These works that I have quoted are in my personal library not off of some Christian website. Maybe you should read what I have posted and then what I have said would make more sense. The fact that you won't read what I have posted or all of it, only proves your ignorance.
Not at all, lad. The fact that he won't read what you pasted up means that you did not present your points properly. You state a point, then back it up with whatever quote or proof you wish to use. That is how you respond in a discussion. To lay out a set of literature without making a point... what's the point? To show us your fingers don't hurt when you type? It's worse than looking for a needle in a haystack, for at least in that situation, you know you're looking for a needle. Make your point. Don't pelt us with pamphlets.

if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do
Woah! Slow down, boyo. I have no wish to take part in a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" competition. I am only taking part in a discussion.

[Chimera]

I got a headache just trying to read this sentence.

Thats the spirit of Jesus entering you, you evil dog blood drinking, mango worshipper, follower of Satan.

[d spike]

I got a headache just trying to read this sentence.

Thats the spirit of Jesus entering you, you evil dog blood drinking, mango worshipper, follower of Satan.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Toyo I dont think anyone is reading your posts because they are not your own, but just a regurgitation of someone else's writing. If you wish to make a point based on these quoted pieces then please make your point and reference the link or quoted piece.

Also you are quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, this is called circular reasoning or circular logic

Well I did enter this thread by stating that I have experienced what the Bible says in my personal life. I never told anyone they needed to believe, and you and many others have stated so kindly I am a liar and my experiences are make believe, ironic how you guys condemn judging others and acceptance of all beliefs. Can you post any one of my comments where I have openly condemn any one to hell, or judge them. When I stated my experience I clearly stated it was not my goal or intention to offend, only to state why I believe one religion over another. These works that I have quoted are in my personal library not off of some Christian website. Maybe you should read what I have posted and then what I have said would make more sense. The fact that you won't read what I have posted or all of it, only proves your ignorance. I have posted stuff that shows that the Bible proves to be accurate outside of the Bible. Further more as I have stated, when it comes to christian beliefs our standard is the Bible like it or not. Take it or leave it as it is. If you find the Bible ignorant that is all well but don't change its meaning to suit your belief. Also if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do, and I do care what you think post that works or links to scholars and then we shall debate such. Or a you afraid to throw all your cards on the table.

Hold up there bro, No need to get angry.
I never called you a liar, I never said I didnt read it.
I said that the discussion is about what YOU feel, not what you pull out of someone elses text.
I am only trying to understand YOUR reason for your beliefs and I am interested in your reason because I found it illogical and wished to understand it more instead of writing it off in my head for eternity.

I think you are correct in stating that it is YOUR interpretation, and that is all anyone CAN do i.e. give THEIR OWN interpretation. But stating YOUR interpretation is the ONLY valid one and then condemning others to hell for not also accepting YOUR beliefs is what we are all questioning because we are trying to understand your rationale and logic for it.

All the cards were laid out on the table long before you started posting in this thread as I recall you started posting somewhere around page 70-80 of a 100+ page thread.

when it comes to christian beliefs our standard is the Bible like it or not. Take it or leave it as it is.

We all appreciate that the Christian religious text is the bible and I think we all have respected the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Gita, Vedas etc etc in this thread as the respective holy text of their religion. We are not interested in what the Bible has to say, no one questioned that.

We are interested in what YOU believe and WHY.
So far you have told us "what" you believe and others have commented (some in amazement). I stated that I feel the "why" is circular logic and so I was asking if you could not use the Bible to prove the Bible and to not use circular logic to give us the reason for why you believe what you believe.

It's not rocket science, it's just us asking each other what we believe and why and commenting on it and asking more questions.

[toyo682]

ironic how you guys condemn judging others and acceptance of all beliefs.

I got a headache just trying to read this sentence. An explanation of what this is supposed to mean would be appreciated. While I agree that Duane and "you guys" do seem to condemn judging others, I fail to see how these worthy folk condemn the acceptance of all beliefs (unless I missed something).My bad was typing in a hurry, I was trying to say they condemn judging others, when they have made judgments about me, based on what I believe while they stand there an claim they are accepting and open to all beliefs.

Can you post any one of my comments where I have openly condemn any one... or judge them. When I stated my experience I clearly stated it was not my goal or intention to offend, only to state why I believe one religion over another.
So accusing me of "eisegesis"/"twisting scripture" was a friendly remark? Wow. (You could have made the statement that you didn't agree with my interpretations... but you chose the "I am right, thus you are wrong" stance...)Please do not twist my words, I said did it condemn anyone to hell or judge that they would go there.

These works that I have quoted are in my personal library not off of some Christian website. Maybe you should read what I have posted and then what I have said would make more sense. The fact that you won't read what I have posted or all of it, only proves your ignorance.
Not at all, lad. The fact that he won't read what you pasted up means that you did not present your points properly. You state a point, then back it up with whatever quote or proof you wish to use. All that I have posted has to do with the questions that are being asked if one were to read them they would see that. That is how you respond in a discussion. To lay out a set of literature without making a point... what's the point? To show us your fingers don't hurt when you type? It's worse than looking for a needle in a haystack, for at least in that situation, you know you're looking for a needle. Make your point. Don't pelt us with pamphlets.

if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do
Woah! Slow down, boyo. I have no wish to take part in a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" competition. I am only taking part in a discussion.If you are going to tell me I am wrong then you need to tell me more than I am wrong because you believe so, break it down and show me where I went wrong, or is that to much to ask.

[toyo682]

Toyo I dont think anyone is reading your posts because they are not your own, but just a regurgitation of someone else's writing. If you wish to make a point based on these quoted pieces then please make your point and reference the link or quoted piece.

Also you are quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, this is called circular reasoning or circular logic

Well I did enter this thread by stating that I have experienced what the Bible says in my personal life. I never told anyone they needed to believe, and you and many others have stated so kindly I am a liar and my experiences are make believe, ironic how you guys condemn judging others and acceptance of all beliefs. Can you post any one of my comments where I have openly condemn any one to hell, or judge them. When I stated my experience I clearly stated it was not my goal or intention to offend, only to state why I believe one religion over another. These works that I have quoted are in my personal library not off of some Christian website. Maybe you should read what I have posted and then what I have said would make more sense. The fact that you won't read what I have posted or all of it, only proves your ignorance. I have posted stuff that shows that the Bible proves to be accurate outside of the Bible. Further more as I have stated, when it comes to christian beliefs our standard is the Bible like it or not. Take it or leave it as it is. If you find the Bible ignorant that is all well but don't change its meaning to suit your belief. Also if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do, and I do care what you think post that works or links to scholars and then we shall debate such. Or a you afraid to throw all your cards on the table.

Hold up there bro, No need to get angry.I am not angry
I never called you a liar, I never said I didnt read it.
I said that the discussion is about what YOU feel, not what you pull out of someone elses text. So can we trust how we feel when it comes to this subject
I am only trying to understand YOUR reason for your beliefs and I am interested in your reason because I found it illogical and wished to understand it more instead of writing it off in my head for eternity. You have as stated already class me as a fanatic, but once more I will try to explain. I believe what the Bible says (belief) because of my experience (why)

I think you are correct in stating that it is YOUR interpretation, and that is all anyone CAN do i.e. give THEIR OWN interpretation. But stating YOUR interpretation is the ONLY valid one and then condemning others to hell for not also accepting YOUR beliefs Once again where exactly did I do this?is what we are all questioning because we are trying to understand your rationale and logic for it.

All the cards were laid out on the table long before you started posting in this thread as I recall you started posting somewhere around page 70-80 of a 100+ page thread.

when it comes to christian beliefs our standard is the Bible like it or not. Take it or leave it as it is.

We all appreciate that the Christian religious text is the bible and I think we all have respected the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Gita, Vedas etc etc in this thread as the respective holy text of their religion. We are not interested in what the Bible has to say, no one questioned that.

We are interested in what YOU believe and WHY.
So far you have told us "what" you believe and others have commented (some in amazement). I stated that I feel the "why" is circular logicmy experience is circular logic? and so I was asking if you could not use the Bible to prove the Bible and to not use circular logic to give us the reason for why you believe what you believe.

It's not rocket science, it's just us asking each other what we believe and why and commenting on it and asking more questions. May be you should answer some of my questions for the same reason

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ are you in agreement with Megadoc1's statements?

[illumin@ti]

^ are you in agreement with Megadoc1's statements?

^^^ <insertion> long, convoluted response that is empty of true meaning, contains more questions to shift focus from the question you asked, accusation of blindness and, lets not forget a totally off-topic bible quote or cut and paste from a christian fundamentalist propaganda website </insertion>

[megadoc1]

^ are you in agreement with Megadoc1's statements?

^^^ <insertion> long, convoluted response that is empty of true meaning, contains more questions to shift focus from the question you asked, accusation of blindness and, lets not forget a totally off-topic bible quote or cut and paste from a christian fundamentalist propaganda website </insertion>

[d spike]

The fact that he won't read what you pasted up means that you did not present your points properly. You state a point, then back it up with whatever quote or proof you wish to use.

All that I have posted has to do with the questions that are being asked if one were to read them they would see that.

Toyo, you did not read what came after. I will repeat it here, highlighting what you missed:

That is how you respond in a discussion. To lay out a set of literature without making a point... what's the point? To show us your fingers don't hurt when you type? It's worse than looking for a needle in a haystack, for at least in that situation, you know you're looking for a needle. Make your point. Don't pelt us with pamphlets.

Try and remember where you are posting all this - on a non-religious public forum designed for car enthusiasts to jaw on for fun when they wish to discuss stuff other than engines. This isn't the coffee-house outside a theological college. Just make your point. The readers here will not respect a set of literature shoved at them instead of what YOU have to say - I trust putting it in your own words isn't too awkward for you. (Personally, if I wanted to read theological material from a book, I would do so... I wouldn't go to a public forum on the internet...)
I would gladly believe that all the answers to whatever argument are within all that hieroglyphical-looking stuff that, thanks to how it's presented, is tedious to wade through. My posts are long-winded enough (I know!) but I can't deal with that stuff you put up... (I would have to change the font, spacing, remove all the tiny 'addendums and wossnames', then print it... in order to read it comfortably)

If you are going to tell me I am wrong then you need to tell me more than I am wrong because you believe so, break it down and show me where I went wrong, or is that to much to ask.

First of all, you were the one who accused me of "eisegesis". You could have made the statement that you didn't agree with my interpretations, but you chose the "I am right, thus you are wrong" stance. You asked this:

if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do

I dealt with the specific quotes that I was discussing, and that will suffice. I am using a mouse... not a shovel. I am not going to get entangled in some semantic argument that has little to do with why I am even interested in this discussion - I might as well tackle Mr. Numerology's post some while back...

Secondly, I specifically stated:

I have no wish to take part in a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" competition. I am only taking part in a discussion.

My problem never was what you or anyone believed about what is required for THEM to find God/Salvation/The nearest Mango tree. My problem is the biased nature of certain folks who believe that if you don't believe what they do, then you will be denied heaven.
The actual nature of your belief is your business (don't you have good reasons to believe what you do?) but no one has the right to tell another (especially here, where it would be downright rude and out of place) that their belief is wrong, or that their god is actually Satan - when they share the same mores and values as you.
My beliefs, and why I believe what I believe, are personal. I respect those of others as I would wish them to do the same for me.

Whether I agree with some, or all, or none of it, is for me to say if I wish. I have explained before, that my personal private beliefs are simply that, private. I see no point in stating my beliefs here as it will serve no purpose - it will neither change nor affect nor strengthen your, or anyone else's beliefs. If it does, then that person's faith structure would be extremely weak (to modify your belief because of something you read on the internet? Please!) and the very next wind that blows in their life will take them elsewhere.

[sMASH]

^ are you in agreement with Megadoc1's statements?

^^^ <insertion> long, convoluted response that is empty of true meaning, contains more questions to shift focus from the question you asked, accusation of blindness and, lets not forget a totally off-topic bible quote or cut and paste from a christian fundamentalist propaganda website </insertion>

^^ u forget the

[illumin@ti]

fuh real ,,,,, he added that after tho

[megadoc1]

The fact that he won't read what you pasted up means that you did not present your points properly. You state a point, then back it up with whatever quote or proof you wish to use.

All that I have posted has to do with the questions that are being asked if one were to read them they would see that.

Toyo, you did not read what came after. I will repeat it here, highlighting what you missed:

That is how you respond in a discussion. To lay out a set of literature without making a point... what's the point? To show us your fingers don't hurt when you type? It's worse than looking for a needle in a haystack, for at least in that situation, you know you're looking for a needle. Make your point. Don't pelt us with pamphlets.

Try and remember where you are posting all this - on a non-religious public forum designed for car enthusiasts to jaw on for fun when they wish to discuss stuff other than engines. This isn't the coffee-house outside a theological college. Just make your point. The readers here will not respect a set of literature shoved at them instead of what YOU have to say - I trust putting it in your own words isn't too awkward for you. (Personally, if I wanted to read theological material from a book, I would do so... I wouldn't go to a public forum on the internet...)
I would gladly believe that all the answers to whatever argument are within all that hieroglyphical-looking stuff that, thanks to how it's presented, is tedious to wade through. My posts are long-winded enough (I know!) but I can't deal with that stuff you put up... (I would have to change the font, spacing, remove all the tiny 'addendums and wossnames', then print it... in order to read it comfortably)

If you are going to tell me I am wrong then you need to tell me more than I am wrong because you believe so, break it down and show me where I went wrong, or is that to much to ask.

First of all, you were the one who accused me of "eisegesis". You could have made the statement that you didn't agree with my interpretations, but you chose the "I am right, thus you are wrong" stance. You asked this:

if you and d spike and others can post a more correct interpretation of the scriptures that I have posted please do

I dealt with the specific quotes that I was discussing, and that will suffice. I am using a mouse... not a shovel. I am not going to get entangled in some semantic argument that has little to do with why I am even interested in this discussion - I might as well tackle Mr. Numerology's post some while back...

Secondly, I specifically stated:

I have no wish to take part in a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" competition. I am only taking part in a discussion.

My problem never was what you or anyone believed about what is required for THEM to find God/Salvation/The nearest Mango tree. My problem is the biased nature of certain folks who believe that if you don't believe what they do, then you will be denied heaven.
The actual nature of your belief is your business (don't you have good reasons to believe what you do?) but no one has the right to tell another (especially here, where it would be downright rude and out of place) that their belief is wrong, or that their god is actually Satan - when they share the same mores and values as you.
My beliefs, and why I believe what I believe, are personal. I respect those of others as I would wish them to do the same for me.

Whether I agree with some, or all, or none of it, is for me to say if I wish. I have explained before, that my personal private beliefs are simply that, private. I see no point in stating my beliefs here as it will serve no purpose - it will neither change nor affect nor strengthen your, or anyone else's beliefs. If it does, then that person's faith structure would be extremely weak (to modify your belief because of something you read on the internet? Please!) and the very next wind that blows in their life will take them elsewhere.

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions
what a man
is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions
what a man
is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

where did you get that notion?

[megadoc1]

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions
what a man
is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

where did you get that notion?

my personal private beliefs are simply that, private. I see no point in stating my beliefs here as it will serve no purpose - it will neither change nor affect nor strengthen your, or anyone else's beliefs.

but his opinions are all here ,based on that statement can't we say they differ from what he believes?

[16 cycles]

Quote:
The purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man.....


^ if God is the creator of the universe and all with in it, did God create evil as well?

[megadoc1]

Quote:
The purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man.....


^ if God is the creator of the universe and all with in it, did God create evil as well?

FAQ
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-dem ... ated-devil

First of all, we have to be clear when someone says that God created everything. The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, the spiritual realm, animals, etc., (Gen. 1:1-31; Ezek. 28:13-17). But, God has not created that which does not exist. This is not a trick answer. We have to realize that God knows all things, actual as well as potential.

The question is better asked, "Did God created everything that exists?" Still, when it comes to the devil, it is a good question to ask and the answer is yes and no.

God did not create the devil as a fallen, evil being. God created the angel, Lucifer, who was good but then rebelled against God and fell (Isaiah 14:12-15). This rebellion, and Lucifer's fall away from God, is when Lucifer became the devil. So we cannot say that God created the devil, but we can say that God created the angel Lucifer who later became the devil.

[sMASH]

Qur’an says: Allah has revealed to human nature the consciousness and cognition of good and evil. (al-Shams 91:

[d spike]

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions

is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

Remind me again how this could possibly be any concern of yours...

[megadoc1]

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions

is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

Remind me again how this could possibly be any concern of yours...

simple you are holding two positions, one you hold as truth and one you hold as opinion
then you come on here posting your opinions against what I hold as truth
then you use your "interpretations" of the scripture to back up your opinions
which differs from what you really hold as truth.
that is called deceit

my concern is how can you expect people to accept your opinion even
if you yourself dont believe in what you are posting?

[d spike]

hmmm his private beliefs differs from his public opinions

is D spike saying all that he posted here, have nothing to do with what he believes in ?

Remind me again how this could possibly be any concern of yours...

simple you are holding two positions, one you hold as truth and one you hold as opinion

Who said I was holding two separate positions?

then you come on here posting your opinions against what I hold as truth
then you use your "interpretations" of the scripture to back up your opinions
which differs from what you really hold as truth.

How do YOU know this? That my opinion DIFFERS from what I hold as truth? I never said that.

that is called deceit

That is called ASSUMING... something you and your ilk are good at... you assume that if your way is right, then all else is wrong... your defender in the other thread even assumed thus about me:

Then y did you leave the priesthood ??

my concern is how can you expect people to accept your opinion even
if you yourself dont believe in what you are posting?

Who said I don't believe in what I am posting? Concern yourself first with your inability to read and understand what is written in the language you attempt to use.



I have stated my opinion here very clearly. Those who know me well will vouch for that.
My personal religious beliefs are not for public consumption, and unlike many here, I will not discuss them. You really need to learn to read. I write EXACTLY what I mean. I never said anything about matters differing.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

We have to realize that God knows all things, actual as well as potential.

we cannot say that God created the devil, but we can say that God created the angel Lucifer who later became the devil.

right