Zone1 Before or After

[buttercup]

What the bible says is unreliable at best. It was compiled not to be accurate but to promote religion.

There is no impartiality at all

Logical fallacy. Instead of attacking the source, just read the words and judge the words on their own. Of course you can disagree with the words if you want to, but attacking the source is a weak copout.

 

[Blues Man]

Once again you're ignoring what is posted. That's the 3rd or 4th time you've done that, I can see that it's a pattern with you.

I'll repeat. Jesus said "you will know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." So obviously, someone who is murdering, raping and committing crimes is showing by their own actions that they are not a follower of Christ, they are clearly unsaved, unregenerate. Obviously they don't care about God if they are continuously thumbing their nose at God's laws.

This isn't hard, at all. I don't know why you're trying to so hard to make it difficult, when it really is simple.

Good trees don't rape and murder. And People who "follow Christ" commit all kinds of crimes just like people who don't.

It's not a god thing it's a human behavior thing.

 

[Blues Man]

Logical fallacy. Instead of attacking the source, just read the words and judge the words on their own. Of course you can disagree with the words if you want to, but attacking the source is a weak copout.

I have read the bible cover to cover more than once which btw is more than most Christians have. I have also read the Koran, The Tao, Buddhist Sutras, and the works of philosophers of every bent from nihilism to humanism

No single source of anything is enough to verify anything especially when that source was written and compiled for the sole reason of promoting something.

 

[buttercup]

Good trees don't rape and murder. And People who "follow Christ" commit all kinds of crimes just like people who don't.

It's not a god thing it's a human behavior thing.

OBVIOUSLY good trees don't rape and murder. We agree on that, you are stating the obvious.

But you're still not getting this. At all.

I don't know if you're intentionally refusing to understand, or if you are sincere in your lack of understanding. But I'll go through this again with you.

Anyone can say anything. Talk is cheap. That is precisely why Jesus said "You will know them by their fruit." He is talking about how to know a true Christian.

A true, saved Christian who loves God obeys God.

God says "Do not murder." So if someone is murdering, then they are obviously disobeying God. Are you denying that?

God says "Do not steal." So if someone steals, they are disobeying God. Are you denying that?

Therefore, someone who is murdering, stealing, raping, etc, doesn't care about God or God's laws. Are you denying that?

Now here's the part that I think you really don't get.

Anyone can say anything. Words are cheap.

Someone in prison might say they're a "christian" for their own selfish purposes, maybe to get out early.

Some people claim to be a "christian" because in their cultural background they are "christian" but that doesn't mean they are saved.

Just as many Jewish people are actually atheist or agnostic, only "Jewish" in a cultural sense, some people identify as "christian" in a cultural sense. It doesn't mean they are saved, it doesn't mean they are a true believing, practicing born again Christian.

Again, because anyone can say anything, Jesus said that you will know them by their fruit. When one gets saved, good fruit inevitably follows. The Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.

 

[Blues Man]

OBVIOUSLY good trees don't rape and murder. We agree on that, you are stating the obvious.

But you're still not getting this. At all.

I don't know if you're intentionally refusing to understand, or if you are sincere in your lack of understanding. But I'll go through this again with you.

Anyone can say anything. Talk is cheap. That is precisely why Jesus said "You will know them by their fruit." He is talking about how to know a true Christian.

A true, saved Christian who loves God obeys God.

God says "Do not murder." So if someone is murdering, then they are obviously disobeying God. Are you denying that?

God says "Do not steal." So if someone steals, they are disobeying God. Are you denying that?

Therefore, someone who is murdering, stealing, raping, etc, doesn't care about God or God's laws. Are you denying that?

Now here's the part that I think you really don't get.

Anyone can say anything. Words are cheap.

Someone in prison might say they're a "christian" for their own selfish purposes, maybe to get out early.

Some people claim to be a "christian" because in their cultural background they are "christian" but that doesn't mean they are saved.

Just as many Jewish people are actually atheist or agnostic, only "Jewish" in a cultural sense, some people identify as "christian" in a cultural sense. It doesn't mean they are saved, it doesn't mean they are a true believing, practicing born again Christian.

Again, because anyone can say anything, Jesus said that you will know them by their fruit. When one gets saved, good fruit inevitably follows. The Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.

This is a rationalization.

Saying that no "true" Christian would ever commit a crime is saying that there aren't very many Christians in the world.

And all this assumes of course that Christianity is actually the one correct religion and there is absolutely no evidence of that.

 

[buttercup]

I have read the bible cover to cover more than once which btw is more than most Christians have. I have also read the Koran, The Tao, Buddhist Sutras, and the works of philosophers of every bent from nihilism to humanism

No single source of anything is enough to verify anything especially when that source was written and compiled for the sole reason of promoting something.

Ok, but that is besides the point.

You were committing the fallacy of attacking the source, rather than addressing the actual words stated.

You still haven't addressed those words. But I'm not going to twist your arm. You've had like 10 chances to address those words, but you keep choosing to ignore and deflect. So clearly you don't want to address those words about creation testifying to a Creator.

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, but that is besides the point.

You were committing the fallacy of attacking the source, rather than addressing the actual words stated.

You still haven't addressed those words. But I'm not going to twist your arm. You've had like 10 chances to address those words, but you keep choosing to ignore and deflect. So clearly you don't want to address those words about creation testifying to a Creator.

Any words in the Bible are suspect which is why you need more than one source.

Jesus never wrote anything down because , if he lived, he was probably illiterate as were most people 2000 years ago so all you have is secondhand, third hand, etc of people telling you what was said.

why is it that type of hearsay would be rejected by everyone in any serious inquiry of any subject but for religion?

There wasn't anything in the bible on morals or ethics that wasn't already written down somewhere else before Jesus or any god supposedly uttered it

There are even differences in the 10 Commandments written in Exodus and Deuteronomy

Nowhere else would that type of discrepancy not result in a criticism of the source as reliable.

 

[buttercup]

This is a rationalization.

Saying that no "true" Christian would ever commit a crime is saying that there aren't very many Christians in the world.

That's not what I said. It's not about perfection, it's about how one lives their life overall. And one's priorities.

When a person comes to Christ, and is born again, their priorities change. It's not longer about "me me me" and putting one's carnal desires first and doing things that everyone else in the world does. When a person loves God, they want to honor God, and part of honoring God is actually following... actually obeying. Again, it doesn't mean being perfect, because we're all a work in progress, and we're all at different stages of growth. But if a person is truly saved, the overall trajectory of their life will be going in the right direction, and they will be growing and maturing as a Christian and the goal is to become more like Jesus.

And all this assumes of course that Christianity is actually the one correct religion and there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Well, that's getting into another topic. And it's getting super late here so I don't have much more time right now. But to quickly address what you said, the nature of truth itself is narrow. Which goes along with what Jesus said... And I firmly believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be - the Way, the Truth and the Life. And no one comes to the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)..... But again, this is getting into a topic that could be a thread of its own.

 

[Blues Man]

That's not what I said. It's not about perfection, it's about how one lives their life overall. And one's priorities.

When a person comes to Christ, and is born again, their priorities change. It's not longer about "me me me" and putting one's carnal desires first and doing things that everyone else in the world does. When a person loves God, they want to honor God, and part of honoring God is actually following... actually obeying. Again, it doesn't mean being perfect, because we're all a work in progress, and we're all at different stages of growth. But if a person is truly saved, the overall trajectory of their life will be going in the right direction, and they will be growing and maturing as a Christian and the goal is to become more like Jesus.




Well, that's getting into another topic. And it's getting super late here so I don't have much more time right now. But to quickly address what you said, the nature of truth itself is narrow. Which goes along with what Jesus said... And I firmly believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be - the Way, the Truth and the Life. And no one comes to the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)..... But again, this is getting into a topic that could be a thread of its own.

If all sins and transgressions don't mean anything why bother listing so many of them? Why bother describing the punishments for these sins that don't really matter?

It seems the only real sin here is not worshiping a god because that one doesn't seem to be one that will be forgiven

 

[buttercup]

Any words in the Bible are suspect which is why you need more than one source.

Jesus never wrote anything down because , if he lived, he was probably illiterate as were most people 2000 years ago so all you have is secondhand, third hand, etc of people telling you what was said.

why is it that type of hearsay would be rejected by everyone in any serious inquiry of any subject but for religion?

There wasn't anything in the bible on morals or ethics that wasn't already written down somewhere else before Jesus or any god supposedly uttered it

There are even differences in the 10 Commandments written in Exodus and Deuteronomy

Nowhere else would that type of discrepancy not result in a criticism of the source as reliable.

Sigh. I don't want to keep repeating myself but it's a logical fallacy to attack the source.

Why is is so hard for you to judge those words on their own, regardless of the source?

You don't need another source, because with that particular verse we're not trying to prove something that happened in history, in which case another source would be relevant.

Those words are making a claim about how one can have knowledge of God. You can either agree or disagree. But you have been refusing to even look at those words and address them on their own. You just keep coming back with "the bible yada yada yada" or "other source yada yada"

 

[surada]

I have seen warped secular humanist moral standards that lead to grooming children into the homosexual culture for the sake of “diversity”

Hope you reported what you saw to the police.

 

[Mac-7]

Hope you reported what you saw to the police.

In the warped culture of lib la la land grooming is legal

 

[buttercup]

If all sins and transgressions don't mean anything why bother listing so many of them? Why bother describing the punishments for these sins that don't really matter?

It seems the only real sin here is not worshiping a god because that one doesn't seem to be one that will be forgiven

I didn't say "all sins and transgressions don't mean anything." Where did you get that from anything I said?

I'm going to have to let someone else take over for me, because it's getting way too late for me to be debating. And I don't want to give rushed replies, so if I have time I'll get back to this tomorrow.

In the meantime hopefully someone else will pick up the baton.

 

[Blues Man]

Sigh. I don't want to keep repeating myself but it's a logical fallacy to attack the source.

Why is is so hard for you to judge those words on their own, regardless of the source?

You don't need another source, because with that particular verse we're not trying to prove something that happened in history, in which case another source would be relevant.

Those words are making a claim about how one can have knowledge of God. You can either agree or disagree. But you have been refusing to even look at those words and address them on their own. You just keep coming back with "the bible yada yada yada" or "other source yada yada"

Trying to prove what a self proclaimed divine authority actually said doesn't need any other sources to verify it?

Again only with religion would this be an argument.

And you are trying to prove the very existence of the god that said these things. So unless I stipulate that the god of the bible actually exists, and I don't, the statements need verification from another source.

And all that says is you judge people by their actions and those actions are the window to their character.

Unlike you I do not believe a murderer can be a "good" person in the aggregate.
I do not think a serial fraudster can be a good person as long as he does one more good deed than the number of times he defrauded people

And a tree doesn't produce a "bad" fruit or a "good fruit" it jut does what it does.

People on the other hand CHOOSE their behaviors so the comparison there is lacking.

 

[Blues Man]

I didn't say "all sins and transgressions don't mean anything." Where did you get that from anything I said?

I'm going to have to let someone else take over for me, because it's getting way too late for me to be debating. And I don't want to give rushed replies, so if I have time I'll get back to this tomorrow.

In the meantime hopefully someone else will pick up the baton.

Did you not imply that a murderer can be considered a good person as long as be bears enough "good fruit" so as to offset his crimes?

 

[Foxfyre]

You might but I don't.

And in the current version of the 12 steps the word "God" is not used which was my original point

But the concept of a higher power has always been part of AA. God has many names just from the Bible:

El Elyon - God most high.
El Shaddai - God Almighty or God most high
YHWH or Yahweh - The self-existent one or Lord
Adonai - Lord or Master
Jehovah Jireh - The Lord who provides
Alpha and Omega,
The root of David

AA has never and does not suggest that its members understand that higher power as God but only that something greater than themselves exists. And I accept that some probably never do see the higher power as God.

But many AA members have witnessed to me. At first being non believers, the 'higher power' was just the collective support of AA itself. But gradually, especially as they worked through the 12 steps, they began to understand that 'higher power' as God. Did they all become Christian? No though most did. But they did become believers in a being they identified as God.

 

[Foxfyre]

Any words in the Bible are suspect which is why you need more than one source.

Jesus never wrote anything down because , if he lived, he was probably illiterate as were most people 2000 years ago so all you have is secondhand, third hand, etc of people telling you what was said.

why is it that type of hearsay would be rejected by everyone in any serious inquiry of any subject but for religion?

There wasn't anything in the bible on morals or ethics that wasn't already written down somewhere else before Jesus or any god supposedly uttered it

There are even differences in the 10 Commandments written in Exodus and Deuteronomy

Nowhere else would that type of discrepancy not result in a criticism of the source as reliable.

The Bible is an amazing testimony of a long history of a people who came to know and understand the existence of God. It consists of many manuscripts created from oral tradition practiced and told and retold over the centuries. In my opinion much of it was never intended to be taken literally but as concepts/teachings though I respect various beliefs about that.

The manuscripts that make up the Bible, especially the Old Testament, included allegory, parable, pieces of "The Law", symbolism, metaphor, poetry/hymns, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, teachings. Our current Bible was not copied from the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls discovered in the 1940's AD, but those scrolls dated at least a couple of hundred years before the 1st Century AD confirmed much of the Biblical text that we have further affirming its reliability. Biblical archeologists have also spent lifetimes researching the information in the Bible and have concluded much of the history is as presented in the scriptures.

Certainly the Bible clearly states how different people over time understood God differently and how their understanding evolved over time. And for the most part, it does not provide any strict guidance for how we are to understand God now. But it does provide concepts and valuable information.

The fact that despite the effort of so many to dispute it, disparage it, ban it, destroy it, the Bible remains the No. 1 best selling volume of all time world wide and Christianity is has more adherents than any other faith after all this time is my affirmation that God is in the Bible though I agree, He didn't dictate it as some believe.

In the end it is the personal relationship one has with the living God that is the ultimate proof of His existence.

 

[Blues Man]

The Bible is an amazing testimony of a long history of a people who came to know and understand the existence of God. It consists of many manuscripts created from oral tradition practiced and told and retold over the centuries. In my opinion much of it was never intended to be taken literally but as concepts/teachings though I respect various beliefs about that.

The manuscripts that make up the Bible, especially the Old Testament, included allegory, parable, pieces of "The Law", symbolism, metaphor, poetry/hymns, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, teachings. Our current Bible was not copied from the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls discovered in the 1940's AD, but those scrolls dated at least a couple of hundred years before the 1st Century AD confirmed much of the Biblical text that we have further affirming its reliability. Biblical archeologists have also spent lifetimes researching the information in the Bible and have concluded much of the history is as presented in the scriptures.

Certainly the Bible clearly states how different people over time understood God differently and how their understanding evolved over time. And for the most part, it does not provide any strict guidance for how we are to understand God now. But it does provide concepts and valuable information.

The fact that despite the effort of so many to dispute it, disparage it, ban it, destroy it, the Bible remains the No. 1 best selling volume of all time world wide and Christianity is has more adherents than any other faith after all this time is my affirmation that God is in the Bible though I agree, He didn't dictate it as some believe.

In the end it is the personal relationship one has with the living God that is the ultimate proof of His existence.

Well as far as the Christian religion that understanding never really evolved past Iron Age thinking since nothing new has been added to the Bible since the Roman Catholic Church decided what to include and exclude and it's safe to assume that the Council of Nicaea excluded lots of things that might not jive with the power of the Catholic Church.

And I guess you have to believe in a personal god to prove that god exists.

I think an omnipotent omniscient god would exist whether I believed it did or not and that I should see that proof whether I had a personal relationship with that god or not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well as far as the Christian religion that understanding never really evolved past Iron Age thinking since nothing new has been added to the Bible since the Roman Catholic Church decided what to include and exclude and it's safe to assume that the Council of Nicaea excluded lots of things that might not jive with the power of the Catholic Church.

And I guess you have to believe in a personal god to prove that god exists.

I think an omnipotent omniscient god would exist whether I believed it did or not and that I should see that proof whether I had a personal relationship with that god or not.

Why? If God is God, He wouldn't be God if he allowed us mortals to dictate the terms by which he must exist.

We can believe in being in love when we have never experienced it because so many have expressed it in various ways. But we cannot ever fully understand what it is until we have experienced it. And once we have experienced it, there is no way to adequately explain what it is like to another person. We simply don't have the words in our vocabulary that fully express it.

So it is with God. People accept that God exists because that is what they are taught. But I think they may always entertain doubts--doubts many will not admit--until they can know for sure.

Only when you experience God first hand, have a relationship with God, can you ever know with absolute certainty that He exists.

 

[buttercup]

Did you not imply that a murderer can be considered a good person as long as be bears enough "good fruit" so as to offset his crimes?

Oh my word! I never said, implied or thought ANYTHING even remotely close to that.

Where on earth do you get your replies from?? Seriously, I don't want to say you have poor reading comprehension, but it's like you're in another galaxy or something when it comes to communication, because this is not the first time you've done that, you continually come back with replies that show a complete lack of understanding of anything I'm saying.

What did I say that would cause you to think such an absurd thing?