Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 7:55:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?
No

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.
God can create beings that are sinless. I have no idea why you think that is not possible. However, you rightly state that God also gave all his creations free will. Our ancestors, Adam and Eve, were the perfect humans prior to choosing to disobey God. We have slowly deteriorated through incest and continued sin of man. Our orders to obey God are difficult. It is tough to not lust, to not lie, etc. Though we are not under law, but under grace:
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace." [NIV] Romans 6:14

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?
You are misinterpreting Matthew 5:48. We are not supposed to literally be perfect in the sense of no sins or equal to God's holiness. The Greek word used for 'perfect' is 'teleioi'. This word means:
perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character (Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon)

So the verse is not demanding us to be sinless or equal to God's holiness, but instead we should be like Job. Consider Job 1:1:
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (KJV)

We know that Job was not literally sinless or equal to God's holiness because he admits to his own faults in verses such as Job 9:20; 42:6. What is meant by 'perfect' is that he is pious and that the piety is proportionate.

In conclusion, no. We are not supposed to ignore Romans 12:21. And what do you mean by 'evil for evil'? I can only assume you are referring to the old covenant with a bias, but we are no longer under the old covenant.

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?
What do you mean? What 'advice' are you referring to?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.
No they are not, as I have shown above. They are in complete harmony with each other.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
lemano
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 9:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless. : :

Sin has nothing to do with free will. Sin is of the flesh and this world called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that man believes is their true reality.

Man doesn't understand what his true reality is called the Tree of Life.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 12:13:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 7:55:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?
No

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.
God can create beings that are sinless. I have no idea why you think that is not possible. However, you rightly state that God also gave all his creations free will. Our ancestors, Adam and Eve, were the perfect humans prior to choosing to disobey God. We have slowly deteriorated through incest and continued sin of man. Our orders to obey God are difficult. It is tough to not lust, to not lie, etc. Though we are not under law, but under grace:
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace." [NIV] Romans 6:14

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?
You are misinterpreting Matthew 5:48. We are not supposed to literally be perfect in the sense of no sins or equal to God's holiness. The Greek word used for 'perfect' is 'teleioi'. This word means:
perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character (Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon)

So the verse is not demanding us to be sinless or equal to God's holiness, but instead we should be like Job. Consider Job 1:1:
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (KJV)

We know that Job was not literally sinless or equal to God's holiness because he admits to his own faults in verses such as Job 9:20; 42:6. What is meant by 'perfect' is that he is pious and that the piety is proportionate.

In conclusion, no. We are not supposed to ignore Romans 12:21. And what do you mean by 'evil for evil'? I can only assume you are referring to the old covenant with a bias, but we are no longer under the old covenant.

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?
What do you mean? What 'advice' are you referring to?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.
No they are not, as I have shown above. They are in complete harmony with each other.

Yes they are and you missed the question I am asking.

God says in that verse to return good for evil yet he is returning evil/hell for evil.

Should we follow what God does and return evil for evil or should we ignore God and not follow his lead and give good for evil.

"God can create beings that are sinless. I have no idea why you think that is not possible."

Does God not say we are all born sinners and is that not what Original sin all about?

As to Job. Read Job 2;3 and see God admit to being moved by Satan to destroy without cause. That is God admitting that he is an evil sinner.

Best to stick to the issues of the O.P. because I can pin your ears back in Job both with it's own scrip and the immoral actions of God.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 12:17:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

So you recommend I sell my moral souls to Satan to follow your God. No thanks.

Have you never looked at the morality of your vile and immoral advice?

Care to do so.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:01:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 12:13:46 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

Yes they are and you missed the question I am asking.
I apologize for failing to understand the nature of your question. Thank you for clarifying.

God says in that verse to return good for evil yet he is returning evil/hell for evil.
Why do you think that hell is evil? There is a difference between being evil and being just. I feel that I should clarify that I do not believe in a burning, eternal, and tormenting hellfire.

Should we follow what God does and return evil for evil or should we ignore God and not follow his lead and give good for evil.
God does not return evil with evil, so we should do as He does and return good for evil.

"God can create beings that are sinless. I have no idea why you think that is not possible."

Does God not say we are all born sinners and is that not what Original sin all about?
Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless. Their rebellion led to sin.

As to Job. Read Job 2;3 and see God admit to being moved by Satan to destroy without cause. That is God admitting that he is an evil sinner.

Best to stick to the issues of the O.P. because I can pin your ears back in Job both with it's own scrip and the immoral actions of God.
You can pin my ears back in your imagination, maybe. You failed to read all of Job and therefore lack the context of the verse. God struck a deal with Satan stating that no matter how badly Satan ruined Job, he (Job) would still be loyal to God. That is what we saw. So God is not saying that Satan tricked him into torturing Job at all.
"though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
God let Satan ruin Job through the deal they made. The only reason was to show that Job would remain loyal.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:20:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

Why do you quote Jesus who was killed for what he was saying? His disciples were also killed for repeating what Jesus said.
Why are Christians waiting for Jesus to return to save them when he couldn't even save himself?

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:59:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 12:17:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

So you recommend I sell my moral souls to Satan to follow your God. No thanks.

Have you never looked at the morality of your vile and immoral advice?

Care to do so.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

sell your soul to Satan? What in thee F are ya talking about? LOL. I quit reading your post after that sentence, since it shows me you have not a clue of what I spoke of,thus further convo is useless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
lemano
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:55:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:59:28 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/19/2015 12:17:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

So you recommend I sell my moral souls to Satan to follow your God. No thanks.

Have you never looked at the morality of your vile and immoral advice?

Care to do so.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

sell your soul to Satan? What in thee F are ya talking about? LOL. I quit reading your post after that sentence, since it shows me you have not a clue of what I spoke of,thus further convo is useless. : :

If you had any wisdom, you would be teaching this member from the mind of God like all us saints do. DL does have some wisdom but the Beast influences most of his thoughts, too.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:01:24 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/19/2015 12:13:46 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

Yes they are and you missed the question I am asking.
I apologize for failing to understand the nature of your question. Thank you for clarifying.

God says in that verse to return good for evil yet he is returning evil/hell for evil.
Why do you think that hell is evil? There is a difference between being evil and being just. I feel that I should clarify that I do not believe in a burning, eternal, and tormenting hellfire.

You are making up your own theology then and reject hell because you know it is not just. Many Christians are doing so as they cannot stomach what Christianity is selling.

What have you made up to believe?


Should we follow what God does and return evil for evil or should we ignore God and not follow his lead and give good for evil.
God does not return evil with evil, so we should do as He does and return good for evil.


God thought that King David had sinned and done evil and he return with the 6 day torture and killing of David's baby.

Is that good or evil?

"God can create beings that are sinless. I have no idea why you think that is not possible."

Does God not say we are all born sinners and is that not what Original sin all about?
Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless. Their rebellion led to sin.


I see that you are quite the debater and do not answer honestly.

The story is a Jewish one and they do not have Original sin. Why do you think that the Christian version has authority over the original Jewish take of Eden being our place of elevation and not a fall?

As to Job. Read Job 2;3 and see God admit to being moved by Satan to destroy without cause. That is God admitting that he is an evil sinner.

Best to stick to the issues of the O.P. because I can pin your ears back in Job both with it's own scrip and the immoral actions of God.
You can pin my ears back in your imagination, maybe. You failed to read all of Job and therefore lack the context of the verse. God struck a deal with Satan stating that no matter how badly Satan ruined Job, he (Job) would still be loyal to God. That is what we saw. So God is not saying that Satan tricked him into torturing Job at all.
"though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
God let Satan ruin Job through the deal they made. The only reason was to show that Job would remain loyal.

And you show your corrupted morals by not being offended by a God who would murder just to win a bet. As I said, you have no leg to stand on unless your morals are compromised by your beliefs.

God himself admits to doing evil yet your bias will not read what is written but only what your bias wants to see.

I can see that you have contributed a lot of time to your religion and your delusions will not let you think in a moral way anymore.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:59:28 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/19/2015 12:17:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

So you recommend I sell my moral souls to Satan to follow your God. No thanks.

Have you never looked at the morality of your vile and immoral advice?

Care to do so.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

sell your soul to Satan? What in thee F are ya talking about? LOL. I quit reading your post after that sentence, since it shows me you have not a clue of what I spoke of,thus further convo is useless.

Correct because your religious beliefs have corrupted your morals to the point of thinking that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is something you should profit from.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

If you cannot see that it is due to your religiously corrupted morals.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:32:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 2:55:13 AM, lemano wrote:
At 8/19/2015 1:59:28 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/19/2015 12:17:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/18/2015 8:42:48 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 7:29:44 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God"s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL

If you meet the Buddah on the side of the Road, Kill HIm! LOL

sorry, an old buddhist philosophy that applies to your OP question, my brother. We should be careful about thinking we HAVE to blindly Follow ANY One person's idea;s or teachings. And, news flash, the Bible was written by only men, except for the quotes--some of them--atributed to Jesus the Christ. pursuing perfection is a fruitless endeavor. you'll never do that--be perfect. there was only One Man who was that and we know who He was! LOL. The original meaning of the word "sin" was "to miss the mark." we ALL sin! It IS a byproduct of Free Will, which God HAD to give us to make us fully human. God doesn't demand perfection. All He wants is for you to listen and try to follow the teachings of His Special Son whom He sent down here as a example! Do the best you can. Pray for knowledge of His will and the power to carry that out. Admit it when you falter. Pray to God to help you do better. Remember JC's Greatest Commandment. never forget John 3:16. Do Good works.
Guess what? LOL...that's IT! All there is to it. Do those things and God will Meet yo and Help you with the Rest. God Bless.

So you recommend I sell my moral souls to Satan to follow your God. No thanks.

Have you never looked at the morality of your vile and immoral advice?

Care to do so.

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong " say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you"ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong " you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that"s at least one significant reason I find Jesus" atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant " of course, that"s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

sell your soul to Satan? What in thee F are ya talking about? LOL. I quit reading your post after that sentence, since it shows me you have not a clue of what I spoke of,thus further convo is useless. : :

If you had any wisdom, you would be teaching this member from the mind of God like all us saints do. DL does have some wisdom but the Beast influences most of his thoughts, too.

Teaching morals takes having them and Christians who use Jesus as their whipping boy are not moral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him yet all who fly the cross are taking their burden and putting it on another.

Regards
DL
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:25:31 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

You are making up your own theology then and reject hell because you know it is not just. Many Christians are doing so as they cannot stomach what Christianity is selling.

What have you made up to believe?
I am not making up anything. The Bible is fairly clear that hell is the grave. I am also not the only one to believe the fire is symbolic (I believe that JWs, Mormons, and Catholics do not believe in a literal hellfire). I could break this all down for you with scripture, but I sincerely doubt you are too interested.

God does not return evil with evil, so we should do as He does and return good for evil.


God thought that King David had sinned and done evil and he return with the 6 day torture and killing of David's baby.

Is that good or evil?
Well, let me setup the entire scenario. God did not kill David's baby for the sins of David inherently. 2 Samuel 12:14 tells us:
"'However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.'" (NASB)

In other words, if God did not take the child's life, it would create issues within the neighboring nations. Why? Because they (foreigners) would assume that God was supporting David despite his sins of adultery and murder. Remember, this is under the old covenant and not the new covenant.

Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless. Their rebellion led to sin.

I see that you are quite the debater and do not answer honestly.
I did not answer your question directly, but I gave you an instance of sinless creation. I guess I have to admit that I made the presumption that pointing out Adam and Eve would answer the question for you.

The story is a Jewish one and they do not have Original sin. Why do you think that the Christian version has authority over the original Jewish take of Eden being our place of elevation and not a fall?
I assume that you are asking why there are two different takes on the account? There are two different interpretations simply because people see it different ways. Jews also do not adhere to the Greek scriptures, but that does not give any sort of strong argument for Christians to abandon them.

And you show your corrupted morals by not being offended by a God who would murder just to win a bet. As I said, you have no leg to stand on unless your morals are compromised by your beliefs.
Did God murder Job? Are we reading two different Bibles? All I have seen you do this entire time is quote scriptures without having any real understanding of what they mean. In fact, I would presume you realize this because now you are making vague claims that have no scriptural support.

God himself admits to doing evil yet your bias will not read what is written but only what your bias wants to see.
In what verse? There is no admission to doing evil in Job 2:3.

I can see that you have contributed a lot of time to your religion and your delusions will not let you think in a moral way anymore.
Depends on what you mean. I only became a Christian this year. Most all of my understanding of Christianity and the Bible came from less than a year's worth of research. How long have you been studying the Bible?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:55:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:33:38 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/19/2015 1:25:31 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

You are making up your own theology then and reject hell because you know it is not just. Many Christians are doing so as they cannot stomach what Christianity is selling.

What have you made up to believe?
I am not making up anything. The Bible is fairly clear that hell is the grave. I am also not the only one to believe the fire is symbolic (I believe that JWs, Mormons, and Catholics do not believe in a literal hellfire). I could break this all down for you with scripture, but I sincerely doubt you are too interested.


I respect the Jewish view as compared to the Christian view and if you are heading into that then good for you. There views make a lot more sense than what Christianity is thinking.

God does not return evil with evil, so we should do as He does and return good for evil.


God thought that King David had sinned and done evil and he return with the 6 day torture and killing of David's baby.

Is that good or evil?
Well, let me setup the entire scenario. God did not kill David's baby for the sins of David inherently. 2 Samuel 12:14 tells us:
"'However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.'" (NASB)

In other words, if God did not take the child's life, it would create issues within the neighboring nations. Why? Because they (foreigners) would assume that God was supporting David despite his sins of adultery and murder. Remember, this is under the old covenant and not the new covenant.

There is no justification for the torture and murder of a baby.
Trying to justify such by saying God feared criticism shows just how low you have to dig for an apology that is not worth spit.

Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless. Their rebellion led to sin.

I see that you are quite the debater and do not answer honestly.
I did not answer your question directly, but I gave you an instance of sinless creation. I guess I have to admit that I made the presumption that pointing out Adam and Eve would answer the question for you.


An example that your own bible says is flawed. It shows a perfect God creating only perfection and that from perfection only perfection can come. If A & E were perfect then they would have been as God.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it"s all man"s fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

The story is a Jewish one and they do not have Original sin. Why do you think that the Christian version has authority over the original Jewish take of Eden being our place of elevation and not a fall?
I assume that you are asking why there are two different takes on the account? There are two different interpretations simply because people see it different ways.

Yes there are. A Christian fall and a Jewish elevation.

Why would you ignore the Jewish authority over their own myths and take an interpretation from those who usurped the Jewish text?

Jews also do not adhere to the Greek scriptures, but that does not give any sort of strong argument for Christians to abandon them.

And you show your corrupted morals by not being offended by a God who would murder just to win a bet. As I said, you have no leg to stand on unless your morals are compromised by your beliefs.
Did God murder Job? Are we reading two different Bibles?

No but allowed Job's children to be. Read the quote at Job 2;3. Satan moved me to destroy without cause.

All I have seen you do this entire time is quote scriptures without having any real understanding of what they mean.

In this case, unlike you, I read what is said and not what I want it to say.

In fact, I would presume you realize this because now you are making vague claims that have no scriptural support.

Bull.

God himself admits to doing evil yet your bias will not read what is written but only what your bias wants to see.
In what verse? There is no admission to doing evil in Job 2:3.

Then you do not know how to read.

I can see that you have contributed a lot of time to your religion and your delusions will not let you think in a moral way anymore.
Depends on what you mean. I only became a Christian this year. Most all of my understanding of Christianity and the Bible came from less than a year's worth of research. How long have you been studying the Bible?

I am 65 and have discussed the bible in earnest for a few years now. I really don't recall the year I started and my focus has been on morality because I can sometimes get theists to discuss those honestly.

I really don't care if you believe or not. It is the morals you draw from scriptures that I think are important.

Believe in 500 Gods for all I care but do not call poor morals good as that is when I will pop up to correct you as is my duty and pleasure.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:25:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:55:00 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:33:38 PM, tstor wrote:

I am not making up anything. The Bible is fairly clear that hell is the grave. I am also not the only one to believe the fire is symbolic (I believe that JWs, Mormons, and Catholics do not believe in a literal hellfire). I could break this all down for you with scripture, but I sincerely doubt you are too interested.

I respect the Jewish view as compared to the Christian view and if you are heading into that then good for you. There views make a lot more sense than what Christianity is thinking.
I am heading off into the view that the Bible provides. I could care less if it is more Jewish or not.

Well, let me setup the entire scenario. God did not kill David's baby for the sins of David inherently. 2 Samuel 12:14 tells us:
"'However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.'" (NASB)

In other words, if God did not take the child's life, it would create issues within the neighboring nations. Why? Because they (foreigners) would assume that God was supporting David despite his sins of adultery and murder. Remember, this is under the old covenant and not the new covenant.

There is no justification for the torture and murder of a baby.
Trying to justify such by saying God feared criticism shows just how low you have to dig for an apology that is not worth spit.
I am sorry that you feel that way. You also should consider that not everything in the Hebrew scriptures that is attributed to God is actually from God. Consider 2 Chronicles 13:20:
"Jeroboam did not regain power during the time of Abijah. And the LORD struck him down and he died." (NIV)

I did not answer your question directly, but I gave you an instance of sinless creation. I guess I have to admit that I made the presumption that pointing out Adam and Eve would answer the question for you.

An example that your own bible says is flawed. It shows a perfect God creating only perfection and that from perfection only perfection can come. If A & E were perfect then they would have been as God.
Not really. They were a perfect creation. There is always going to be a distinguishing factor between creator and creation.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it"s all man"s fault".
God gave us free will. He did not tell us to rebel. In fact, He told us not to rebel.

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
God gave Adam and Eve the perfect human bodies. He also gave them free will and instruction. They could have either followed the instructions or rebel, they chose to rebel. This is what set the pace for humans after that, as it was Adam and Even that chose to ignore the creator and listen to creation (serpent).

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
I do not understand what you mean. We did have a perfectly sinless being here on earth, that was Jesus. We are born sinners because of what Adam and Eve did. I suppose that it is a good thing God does not expect us to be sinless.

I assume that you are asking why there are two different takes on the account? There are two different interpretations simply because people see it different ways.

Yes there are. A Christian fall and a Jewish elevation.

Why would you ignore the Jewish authority over their own myths and take an interpretation from those who usurped the Jewish text?
I would argue that Jesus knew more about the Hebrew scriptures than anyone else. He is the perfect proof of original sin.

Jews also do not adhere to the Greek scriptures, but that does not give any sort of strong argument for Christians to abandon them.

And you show your corrupted morals by not being offended by a God who would murder just to win a bet. As I said, you have no leg to stand on unless your morals are compromised by your beliefs.
God did not murder anyone to win a bet. Perhaps you can tell me the verse you are referring to?

Did God murder Job? Are we reading two different Bibles?

No but allowed Job's children to be. Read the quote at Job 2;3. Satan moved me to destroy without cause.
I encourage you to read all of Job. You have displayed, again, that you have no idea what Job 2:3 is referring to. I have already explained it once. God did not destroy anything, Satan did.

All I have seen you do this entire time is quote scriptures without having any real understanding of what they mean.

In this case, unlike you, I read what is said and not what I want it to say.
Except I have caught your misrepresenting the meaning of three verses now.

In fact, I would presume you realize this because now you are making vague claims that have no scriptural support.

Bull.
Bull what? You stopped quoting scripture and resorted to vague statements such as:
"God himself admits to doing evil yet your bias will not read what is written but only what your bias wants to see."
What verse?

In what verse? There is no admission to doing evil in Job 2:3.

Then you do not know how to read.
No, I know how to read more than one sentence. You have an extremely narrow (and incorrect) view of Job 2:3. This only shows that you did not read all of Job. Instead, you picked one verse out of it to make an argument that has no baring.

Depends on what you mean. I only became a Christian this year. Most all of my understanding of Christianity and the Bible came from less than a year's worth of research. How long have you been studying the Bible?

I am 65 and have discussed the bible in earnest for a few years now. I really don't recall the year I started and my focus has been on morality because I can sometimes get theists to discuss those honestly.

I really don't care if you believe or not. It is the morals you draw from scriptures that I think are important.

Believe in 500 Gods for all I care but do not call poor morals good as that is when I will pop up to correct you as is my duty and pleasure.
You might want to do a better job at 'correcting' people. You have failed to correct anything. All I have seen is your ignorance of the Bible.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:11:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 1:25:14 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 12:55:00 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:33:38 PM, tstor wrote:

I am not making up anything. The Bible is fairly clear that hell is the grave. I am also not the only one to believe the fire is symbolic (I believe that JWs, Mormons, and Catholics do not believe in a literal hellfire). I could break this all down for you with scripture, but I sincerely doubt you are too interested.

I respect the Jewish view as compared to the Christian view and if you are heading into that then good for you. There views make a lot more sense than what Christianity is thinking.
I am heading off into the view that the Bible provides. I could care less if it is more Jewish or not.

Well, let me setup the entire scenario. God did not kill David's baby for the sins of David inherently. 2 Samuel 12:14 tells us:
"'However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.'" (NASB)

In other words, if God did not take the child's life, it would create issues within the neighboring nations. Why? Because they (foreigners) would assume that God was supporting David despite his sins of adultery and murder. Remember, this is under the old covenant and not the new covenant.

There is no justification for the torture and murder of a baby.
Trying to justify such by saying God feared criticism shows just how low you have to dig for an apology that is not worth spit.
I am sorry that you feel that way. You also should consider that not everything in the Hebrew scriptures that is attributed to God is actually from God. Consider 2 Chronicles 13:20:
"Jeroboam did not regain power during the time of Abijah. And the LORD struck him down and he died." (NIV)

I did not answer your question directly, but I gave you an instance of sinless creation. I guess I have to admit that I made the presumption that pointing out Adam and Eve would answer the question for you.

An example that your own bible says is flawed. It shows a perfect God creating only perfection and that from perfection only perfection can come. If A & E were perfect then they would have been as God.
Not really. They were a perfect creation. There is always going to be a distinguishing factor between creator and creation.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it"s all man"s fault".
God gave us free will. He did not tell us to rebel. In fact, He told us not to rebel.

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
God gave Adam and Eve the perfect human bodies. He also gave them free will and instruction. They could have either followed the instructions or rebel, they chose to rebel. This is what set the pace for humans after that, as it was Adam and Even that chose to ignore the creator and listen to creation (serpent).

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
I do not understand what you mean. We did have a perfectly sinless being here on earth, that was Jesus. We are born sinners because of what Adam and Eve did. I suppose that it is a good thing God does not expect us to be sinless.

I assume that you are asking why there are two different takes on the account? There are two different interpretations simply because people see it different ways.

Yes there are. A Christian fall and a Jewish elevation.

Why would you ignore the Jewish authority over their own myths and take an interpretation from those who usurped the Jewish text?
I would argue that Jesus knew more about the Hebrew scriptures than anyone else. He is the perfect proof of original sin.

Jews also do not adhere to the Greek scriptures, but that does not give any sort of strong argument for Christians to abandon them.

And you show your corrupted morals by not being offended by a God who would murder just to win a bet. As I said, you have no leg to stand on unless your morals are compromised by your beliefs.
God did not murder anyone to win a bet. Perhaps you can tell me the verse you are referring to?

Did God murder Job? Are we reading two different Bibles?

No but allowed Job's children to be. Read the quote at Job 2;3. Satan moved me to destroy without cause.
I encourage you to read all of Job. You have displayed, again, that you have no idea what Job 2:3 is referring to. I have already explained it once. God did not destroy anything, Satan did.

All I have seen you do this entire time is quote scriptures without having any real understanding of what they mean.

In this case, unlike you, I read what is said and not what I want it to say.
Except I have caught your misrepresenting the meaning of three verses now.

In fact, I would presume you realize this because now you are making vague claims that have no scriptural support.

Bull.
Bull what? You stopped quoting scripture and resorted to vague statements such as:
"God himself admits to doing evil yet your bias will not read what is written but only what your bias wants to see."
What verse?

In what verse? There is no admission to doing evil in Job 2:3.

Then you do not know how to read.
No, I know how to read more than one sentence. You have an extremely narrow (and incorrect) view of Job 2:3. This only shows that you did not read all of Job. Instead, you picked one verse out of it to make an argument that has no baring.

Depends on what you mean. I only became a Christian this year. Most all of my understanding of Christianity and the Bible came from less than a year's worth of research. How long have you been studying the Bible?

I am 65 and have discussed the bible in earnest for a few years now. I really don't recall the year I started and my focus has been on morality because I can sometimes get theists to discuss those honestly.

I really don't care if you believe or not. It is the morals you draw from scriptures that I think are important.

Believe in 500 Gods for all I care but do not call poor morals good as that is when I will pop up to correct you as is my duty and pleasure.
You might want to do a better job at 'correcting' people. You have failed to correct anything. All I have seen is your ignorance of the Bible.

Hey T-Stor good to see ya! I usually agree with you pretty much on theology, though I, thinkin your more of Biblical literalness guy that me--alot of Christians are! But could you tell me what you meant when you said Jesus was perfect proof of original sin? I dont get that at all. Nor believe in Original Sin. The "Fall" of A & E was as you know only a allegory for how we tend to forget about God and b eGrateful for all He has given us when we take it in our own minds to try and "know better" than Him or get greedy. I will NEVER buy into the notion of a newborn baby today being stained with Sin from a 2000 year old Fable. Your take? Thank yo and God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:29:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:11:35 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Hey T-Stor good to see ya! I usually agree with you pretty much on theology, though I, thinkin your more of Biblical literalness guy that me--alot of Christians are! But could you tell me what you meant when you said Jesus was perfect proof of original sin? I dont get that at all. Nor believe in Original Sin. The "Fall" of A & E was as you know only a allegory for how we tend to forget about God and b eGrateful for all He has given us when we take it in our own minds to try and "know better" than Him or get greedy. I will NEVER buy into the notion of a newborn baby today being stained with Sin from a 2000 year old Fable. Your take? Thank yo and God Bless.

No problem and I thank you for inquiring. Jesus was perfect proof for original sin because he was the ransom. He died for our sins. I believe that it is critical for a Christian to recognize original sin because Jesus came not only to show us the true nature of our Father Jehovah, but also to establish order in the system. We were under the laws of the old covenant because of what Adam and Eve did. Man was rebellious to God and progressed even further in rebellion since then. Jesus came to be the sinless human sacrifice that re-established the trust in humanity to obey God. That is what got rid of the old covenant and made the new covenant concrete. I believe that I explain this idea in decent depth here:
http://www.debate.org...

Just skip to the part in post #7 where I talk about Transubstantiation.

God bless.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:34:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:29:40 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:11:35 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Hey T-Stor good to see ya! I usually agree with you pretty much on theology, though I, thinkin your more of Biblical literalness guy that me--alot of Christians are! But could you tell me what you meant when you said Jesus was perfect proof of original sin? I dont get that at all. Nor believe in Original Sin. The "Fall" of A & E was as you know only a allegory for how we tend to forget about God and b eGrateful for all He has given us when we take it in our own minds to try and "know better" than Him or get greedy. I will NEVER buy into the notion of a newborn baby today being stained with Sin from a 2000 year old Fable. Your take? Thank yo and God Bless.

No problem and I thank you for inquiring. Jesus was perfect proof for original sin because he was the ransom. He died for our sins. I believe that it is critical for a Christian to recognize original sin because Jesus came not only to show us the true nature of our Father Jehovah, but also to establish order in the system. We were under the laws of the old covenant because of what Adam and Eve did. Man was rebellious to God and progressed even further in rebellion since then. Jesus came to be the sinless human sacrifice that re-established the trust in humanity to obey God. That is what got rid of the old covenant and made the new covenant concrete. I believe that I explain this idea in decent depth here:
http://www.debate.org...

Just skip to the part in post #7 where I talk about Transubstantiation.

God bless.

I haven't read the posts (only the OP), and noticed you responded. Lemme guess:

You do not believe in an eternal hell, torment, similar to the one depicted in Luke 16 and elsewhere. That's just my guess, because that is the WatchTower position. Nothing you've said heretofore would really lead me know one way or another what you believe concerning an eternal hell. I just fail to see how your other positions could so closely mirror the WatchTower - yet you jump ship on this one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:37:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:34:57 AM, annanicole wrote:

You do not believe in an eternal hell, torment, similar to the one depicted in Luke 16 and elsewhere. That's just my guess, because that is the WatchTower position. Nothing you've said heretofore would really lead me know one way or another what you believe concerning an eternal hell. I just fail to see how your other positions could so closely mirror the WatchTower - yet you jump ship on this one.
I do not believe in the hellfire, that is correct. In fact, I did state it in this thread. I have already told you (or was it Composer? I often mix the two of you) that I believe in about 90% of JW doctrine. In fact, I state this in my profile.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:38:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:37:09 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:34:57 AM, annanicole wrote:

You do not believe in an eternal hell, torment, similar to the one depicted in Luke 16 and elsewhere. That's just my guess, because that is the WatchTower position. Nothing you've said heretofore would really lead me know one way or another what you believe concerning an eternal hell. I just fail to see how your other positions could so closely mirror the WatchTower - yet you jump ship on this one.
I do not believe in the hellfire, that is correct. In fact, I did state it in this thread. I have already told you (or was it Composer? I often mix the two of you) that I believe in about 90% of JW doctrine. In fact, I state this in my profile.

No, you didn't tell me that. What's the 10% that you reject? The parts that really don't matter much?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:39:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:29:40 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:11:35 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Hey T-Stor good to see ya! I usually agree with you pretty much on theology, though I, thinkin your more of Biblical literalness guy that me--alot of Christians are! But could you tell me what you meant when you said Jesus was perfect proof of original sin? I dont get that at all. Nor believe in Original Sin. The "Fall" of A & E was as you know only a allegory for how we tend to forget about God and b eGrateful for all He has given us when we take it in our own minds to try and "know better" than Him or get greedy. I will NEVER buy into the notion of a newborn baby today being stained with Sin from a 2000 year old Fable. Your take? Thank yo and God Bless.

No problem and I thank you for inquiring. Jesus was perfect proof for original sin because he was the ransom. He died for our sins. I believe that it is critical for a Christian to recognize original sin because Jesus came not only to show us the true nature of our Father Jehovah, but also to establish order in the system. We were under the laws of the old covenant because of what Adam and Eve did. Man was rebellious to God and progressed even further in rebellion since then. Jesus came to be the sinless human sacrifice that re-established the trust in humanity to obey God. That is what got rid of the old covenant and made the new covenant concrete. I believe that I explain this idea in decent depth here:
http://www.debate.org...

Just skip to the part in post #7 where I talk about Transubstantiation.

God bless.

but dont you think that belief in Jesus being our Savior and following His teachings cleans of the old idea of Original Sin? I mean, if it doesn't then what was the point of JC in the first place. John 3:16, my brother. This to me absolves us of Original Sin. (even if I DID believe in it which I dont.) I think to believe in original Sin is to not have enough Faith in God's Grace and what it can do for us. also in what following JC's Words can do for us. I dunno, I just never liked the idea. Maybe because I was Saved? I've seen God's Love first hand and how we CAN physically give us Signs and intervene in our lives. I had an old-school 'burning bush" type of a Salvation Vision, though. So Im' maybe a little more of the belief that God loves us and we are NOT condemned to O.S. right off the bat. Like with the newborn baby example I gave earlier.
God Bless. (are you a JW?). I never thought you were but you use the name Jehovah for God I notice. I never liked that name myself. and never use it. again--this is just me. Its way to human-like I feel for a Power like God the Creator & Father.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:43:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:38:31 AM, annanicole wrote:

No, you didn't tell me that. What's the 10% that you reject? The parts that really don't matter much?
Ha, you could say that. Mainly just their structure and way of implementing things.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:46:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:39:11 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

but dont you think that belief in Jesus being our Savior and following His teachings cleans of the old idea of Original Sin? I mean, if it doesn't then what was the point of JC in the first place. John 3:16, my brother. This to me absolves us of Original Sin. (even if I DID believe in it which I dont.) I think to believe in original Sin is to not have enough Faith in God's Grace and what it can do for us. also in what following JC's Words can do for us. I dunno, I just never liked the idea. Maybe because I was Saved? I've seen God's Love first hand and how we CAN physically give us Signs and intervene in our lives. I had an old-school 'burning bush" type of a Salvation Vision, though. So Im' maybe a little more of the belief that God loves us and we are NOT condemned to O.S. right off the bat. Like with the newborn baby example I gave earlier.
God Bless. (are you a JW?). I never thought you were but you use the name Jehovah for God I notice. I never liked that name myself. and never use it. again--this is just me. Its way to human-like I feel for a Power like God the Creator & Father.
I think that you are appreciating one aspect of Jesus, which was that he came to save us and show us who Jehovah really is. However, you are not making the connecting between that and the ransom. What was the point of Jesus being executed to you? We are all sinners, but that does not mean that Jehovah does not love us. We are under grace, not law (Romans 6:14).

And no, I am not a JW.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:43:04 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:38:31 AM, annanicole wrote:

No, you didn't tell me that. What's the 10% that you reject? The parts that really don't matter much?
Ha, you could say that. Mainly just their structure and way of implementing things.

Then I'd call that a 99.5 to 0.5 ratio. The "way of implementing things" isn't even a doctrine.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:01:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:59:49 AM, annanicole wrote:

Then I'd call that a 99.5 to 0.5 ratio. The "way of implementing things" isn't even a doctrine.
I am aware it is not a doctrine.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:12:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:01:56 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:59:49 AM, annanicole wrote:

Then I'd call that a 99.5 to 0.5 ratio. The "way of implementing things" isn't even a doctrine.
I am aware it is not a doctrine.

Well, then I'd say that you subscribe to 100% of what the WatchTower teaches, and most of what it practices. What gets me is that you style yourself a "Russellite" - yet you do not believe many, many, MANY things that Russell taught and believed.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:17:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:12:54 AM, annanicole wrote:

Well, then I'd say that you subscribe to 100% of what the WatchTower teaches, and most of what it practices. What gets me is that you style yourself a "Russellite" - yet you do not believe many, many, MANY things that Russell taught and believed.
I do not believe in some of his more dated teachings. However, I definitely fork my theology off of his work. I also fork my theology after work done by the modern Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:20:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:17:04 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:12:54 AM, annanicole wrote:

Well, then I'd say that you subscribe to 100% of what the WatchTower teaches, and most of what it practices. What gets me is that you style yourself a "Russellite" - yet you do not believe many, many, MANY things that Russell taught and believed.
I do not believe in some of his more dated teachings. However, I definitely fork my theology off of his work. I also fork my theology after work done by the modern Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Oh, I never questioned where it came from. By "dated", I guess you mean, "It didn't work out".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:21:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:20:35 AM, annanicole wrote:

Oh, I never questioned where it came from. By "dated", I guess you mean, "It didn't work out".
Precisely
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)