Zone1 Have we lost The Bible Story?

[Woodznutz]

That is in fact very close to what Christian churches would expect their flocks to believe.

As left leaning socialists, we prefer to start with saying the whole world is good, and then find exceptions through life's experiences.

Technology doesn't make people less evil, just more comfortable.

Jesus declared that even good parents are evil, as part of the "present evil world" (society).

 

[Woodznutz]

I don't take you as a fool, but only a fool would say that. But I know what you mean.

I should have put quotations around truth.

It's suggestive of some Christians being unable to accept factual truths on account of the truth clashing with what they're commanded to believe by their religion. That's likely not you!

My controversies are more with the church than with science. Arguing creation vs. evolution is a lost cause for both sides. Sometimes this is also true about arguing religion. That said it's my favorite topic for argument.

 

[Donald H]

Technology doesn't make people less evil, just more comfortable.

What has technology have to do with it? I'm missing your point on that.

Jesus declared that even good parents are evil, as part of the "present evil world" (society).

There's little doubt that most religions are based on condemning people as evil! That's done with the purpose of convincing them that they need to accept religion. Otherwise stated as having them pay for their evil when the collection plate is passed around.

I prefer, as do most atheists, to think of myself as basically good as my starting point and so not needing a religion to make me good.

Have you not experienced my behaviour of not needing to condemn others with childish namecalling, etc?
As an atheist I can own that, and it's backed up with my record over 4 years on this board.

 

[Donald H]

I should have put quotations around truth.

My controversies are more with the church than with science. Arguing creation vs. evolution is a lost cause for both sides. Sometimes this is also true about arguing religion. That said it's my favorite topic for argument.

I don't accept that arguing science against creation is a lost cause.

I consider that to be a fallback position for Christians. The reason is, to accept creation and Darwinian evolution at the same time just doesn't work. It can't ever work IMO, but I raise the issue repeatedly because I'm challenging any Christian to give us an argument on how the two can be reconciled together.

Can you do it?

I'm not already dismissive of your beliefs and I have an open mind still, after all Christians have failed to do so.

I just really don't accept that intelligent people can accept both together. I'm wise to the attempts that don't work but I keep hoping. Meriweather has provided hope that not all Christians turn to bad behaviour and bad manners when asked.

 

[Woodznutz]

What has technology have to do with it? I'm missing your point on that.

There's little doubt that most religions are based on condemning people as evil! That's done with the purpose of convincing them that they need to accept religion. Otherwise stated as having them pay for their evil when the collection plate is passed around.

I prefer, as do most atheists, to think of myself as basically good as my starting point and so not needing a religion to make me good.

Have you not experienced my behaviour of not needing to condemn others with childish namecalling, etc?
As an atheist I can own that, and it's backed up with my record over 4 years on this board.

Jesus wasn't condemning those folks, he was just making an observation. Note that he didn't condemn the "woman taken in adultery". I had several close friends that were pretty evil, but I still liked them and hung out with them. I accept the shortcomings of others as well as myself. The difference is that as a member of a church one should be working to eradicate those moral shortcomings.

 

[Woodznutz]

I don't accept that arguing science against creation is a lost cause.

I consider that to be a fallback position for Christians. The reason is, to accept creation and Darwinian evolution at the same time just doesn't work. It can't ever work IMO, but I raise the issue repeatedly because I'm challenging any Christian to give us an argument on how the two can be reconciled together.

Can you do it?

I'm not already dismissive of your beliefs and I have an open mind still, after all Christians have failed to do so.

I just really don't accept that intelligent people can accept both together. I'm wise to the attempts that don't work but I keep hoping. Meriweather has provided hope that not all Christians turn to bad behaviour and bad manners when asked.

There is no reconciliation between creation and evolution. "East is East, and so on. The practicality of the argument is long lost. It is now just an argument for argument's sake.

 

[Woodznutz]

I prefer, as do most atheists, to think of myself as basically good as my starting point and so not needing a religion to make me good.

One can be good without religion, but the same behaviors and attitudes are involved. This is supported by scripture.

It's the evil people that claim to be religious that give religion a bad name. They're called 'tares' in the NT.

 

[Donald H]

One can be good without religion, but the same behaviors and attitudes are involved. This is supported by scripture.

No, that's completely contrary to all Christian doctrine or dogma. Once again you've been careless about that which you write. To put it crudely, you're all fkd if you don't accept Him because of your inherent evil.

It's the evil people that claim to be religious that give religion a bad name. They're called 'tares' in the NT.

I haven't suggested that righteous pretenders has given religion a bad name.
It's not even me that is suggesting it has a bad name.

Actually I can be of the opinion that it has more good name than bad.

It's track record is more to the point that I have decided to avoid.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, that's completely contrary to all Christian doctrine or dogma. Once again you've been careless about that which you write. To put it crudely, you're all fkd if you don't accept Him because of your inherent evil.

It's not a matter of doctrine or dogma. It's just an observation stated in the Bible. Lots of good people in the world who haven't been called by God into the church. In fact, God seems to call those who need a positive change in their lives most often. Many high and mighty people are confounded by this.

 

[SweetSue92]

Can you point out my lies? And I'm jes' sayin' to alang1216, not trying to convince him of anything. He's an atheist and I respect that, but I don't want him to misinterpret scripture.

Matthew 25:46

 

[SweetSue92]

Again, point out my errors and we'll discuss it.

It's a heresy, I hope you realize. Your private interpretation doesn't make it less of one, especially if you're making unbelievers comfortable in their sin.

 

[SweetSue92]

It's not a matter of doctrine or dogma. It's just an observation stated in the Bible. Lots of good people in the world who haven't been called by God into the church. In fact, God seems to call those who need a positive change in their lives most often. Many high and mighty people are confounded by this.

Romans 3:10--"There is no one righteous; no, not one"

 

[Meriweather]

Can you state how that can be possible.

Doesn't interest me in the least. I believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth. I haven't a clue as to how God went about creating, and I don't see why you think that what happened in the far distant pass should be any more important to me than knowing the names of all creatures in the sea.

 

[alang1216]

The key distinction is "disingenuous arguments." With almost every argument you make I question the question. I don't engage in disingenuous arguments that have no basis in reality or logic. And lastly I don't get enjoyment from outsmarting the people who are here to outsmart the people. I don't even see it as moral. On the contrary I freely admit it is immoral. I see it as a necessity. An obligation to truth.

You feel obligated to defend your truth but since your truth us superior to others you need to engage and show your superiority.

Your understanding of God is comical because your understanding is skewed to fairytales. My understanding of God is logical because it driven by the desire for truth because my understanding of God is God is truth. You have no understanding of God so everything you see is fairytale. So tell me, which one of us has done more due diligence? The one who dismisses everything as fairytales or the one who studies everything?

The one who steps outside and sees the whole and then arrives at the answer. The one who doesn't start with the answer and works backwards from there. Spoiler alert, it's not you.

 

[alang1216]

Ok, what does that mean. Thumbnail it for me.

Seems pretty succinct to me.

 

[alang1216]

I have certain knowledge God is. Repentance (change of heart) is not easy. Knowledge of God does not preserve one from the brokenness of mankind. It's brokenness--not lack of knowledge--that makes repentance the great challenge that it is.

You may 'know' that God exists but I suspect you don't comprehend why God's creations are the way they are. That knowledge won't come from scripture but from study of His creation.

 

[alang1216]

Romans 10:9

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord
And believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead
YOU WILL BE SAVED

My commentary:

Do not subtract from that. You must confess and believe.

But nothing needs to be added, either.

You are the one who judged Woodznutz beliefs to not be Christian theology. Is Woodznutz a Christian even though Woodznutz beliefs are not? What about Mormons, JW, Eastern Orthodox, etc.? What does that say about Christian theology?

 

[alang1216]

Sue, do you not understand that alang1216 is not a believer?

Fact. I never made a secret of it and I hope no one was deceived.

 

[alang1216]

I mean the prophecies written in the OT before he appeared. The lamb slain by God in the garden to cover the sin of Adam and Eve was prophetic of his sacrifice.

The Bible is like a Rorschach image. You can see in it anything you want to see.

Jesus wasn't sent to the Jews although most of his disciples were Jews. Many Jews did believe on him, but most were steeped in Judaism or feared the Pharisees.

Jews didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah since he was nothing like the Messiah they were expecting. Their Messiah was to be a great king, general, or holy man who would bring the blessings of God onto Israel. Jesus did none of that and ended up, in the view of Jews, cursed by God and hung on a tree.

 

[Woodznutz]

Matthew 25:46

I don't profess to know what God's judgment on anyone will be. I do believe that God will call alang1216 eventually. Nothing I say will change that.