By their fruits

[RonD1120 62]

DJL

******What do you think of the book of Job in which God tortured one of his followers (With Job not knowing who allowed it or did it) just to show that someone would remain faithful through all of that torture?

Job 13:
15 Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.
Even so, I will defend my own ways before Him.
16 He also shall be my salvation,
For a hypocrite could not come before Him.

So again, the God who deliberately tortures his subjects, that's your guy? Next, do you take that book literally and think that actually happened.

R U serious?

Of course.

Read Job to the end and see how he was rewarded for his faithfulness.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DJL 235]

Oh, I know, he lived happily ever after and I'm sure all the streets of milk and honey entirely erased his memory of how his God let Satan kill his entire family, torture him and destroy his life. How about Job's family? Were they whisked away to heaven where God said, "Hey, I killed you guys and I'm torturing your father to prove a point to Satan." But it's Ok, I'll make him wealthy again and give him new kids when I'm done.

None of that sounds like the work of a benevolent God.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[AtrusBatleth 0]

jakee

To call it 'fallen' because it is imperfect means it was once perfect, and implies it could be perfect if it wasn't for us. That isn't true.

According to a humanist worldview, sure that isn't true. According to a biblical worldview, that is absolutely true.

jakee

You're saying that the person with cancer is sick, and because they're sick they deserve to die.

According to the bible, we deserve to die because we have sinned, yes. This is not intended as an insult however. It's not as if Jews/Christians are saying "you deserve to die more than me", or worse, "you deserve to die and I'm going to execute you". Rather, we are saying, "you've sinned, you're imperfect, and I'm just like you; I deserve to die too". The message is one of equality, and also hope. But I will keep in mind for future reference that some people get truly offended at hearing the world described as fallen. After decades of being a Christian, this is honestly the first time I have ever encountered someone who took it this way.

DJL

I'm not. Yes, I'm imperfect and my moral lapses equate me to a sinner...

That is exactly what defines humanity as fallen.

DJL

There is also no inherent relationship between morality and religion. Morality exists in every society regardless of whether or not they have a belief. Do you think morality started when the Old Testament was first printed, that those ideas just sprang out of the mist from an angel? How about all of those societies around the world who have no notion of a religion? I am moral because I care about those living in the world around me.

I agree morality exists in every person. The bible says god wrote his law on our hearts, i.e. that we are born with an instinctive knowledge of god, even if we later grow up and try to suppress that innate knowledge. I know of no believers that claim morality did not exist before the bible was written. What you may have heard from believers is that atheists have no logical basis for their morality, but that is not the same as saying they have no morality.

tonyhays

Why do you belive the bible? Especially when so many stories are easily proven as myth/didn't happen and the many contradictions?

In part because I once believed as you do, until I started reading and researching it for myself. I found that many of the perceived contradictions/flaws were just that; perceived, i.e. misunderstood and often blatantly misconstrued.

wolfriverjoe

One of the reasons so many people believe is because in many cases, the skeptics were put to death (for a variety of reasons) while the believers lived on.

It's worth pointing out that Christianity stands as an exception to this theory. Christians were violently persecuted in the early church, which continues to this day in many parts of the world. Yet the church has grown not just in spite of this persecution, but arguably because of it. Muslim fundamentalism demonstrates another exception, hence why the US and others are often hesitant to merely execute terrorist leaders, because for one leader executed, 10 more spring up to take his place.

JoeWeber

I'm probably making a jackass of myself, but do you derive your nom d' dz.com from a character in Myst and the Klingon fighting weapon?

Why would that make you a jackass? No worries bro. In answer to your question, yes.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

AtrusBatleth

***
One of the reasons so many people believe is because in many cases, the skeptics were put to death (for a variety of reasons) while the believers lived on.

It's worth pointing out that Christianity stands as an exception to this theory. Christians were violently persecuted in the early church, which continues to this day in many parts of the world. Yet the church has grown not just in spite of this persecution, but arguably because of it. Muslim fundamentalism demonstrates another exception, hence why the US and others are often hesitant to merely execute terrorist leaders, because for one leader executed, 10 more spring up to take his place.



Not really.

Christians have gone after 'non-believers', skeptics and heretics throughout the ages.

The Inquisition, the Crusades, Witch Trials (which occurred in a lot of places other than Salem Mass) and the Holocaust are the easiest examples.
The "good men of religion" have been killing each other off in the name of God since before recorded history. All religions, not just Christianity.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[AtrusBatleth 0]

I was more referring to the growth of the early church, before Constantine merged the "church" with the state (one of Satans greatest victories in my opinion). In the first few centuries of the church, Christians were literally fed to the lions without resistance, and imprisoned and executed. They were not killing off skeptics, not for several hundred more years.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[gowlerk 2,190]

Quote

Christians have gone after 'non-believers', skeptics and heretics throughout the ages.

More than that, Christians have gone after each other. Ostensibly for having slightly different theologies. But almost always over control of resources.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

gowlerk

Quote

Christians have gone after 'non-believers', skeptics and heretics throughout the ages.

More than that, Christians have gone after each other. Ostensibly for having slightly different theologies. But almost always over control of resources.

Max,

Following Ken's point, just how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland and the Catholics loved the Calvinists in the Netherlands and Calvinists loved the Protestants in France to name just a few times Christians loved to kill each other?

I see it as no different than Sunni on Shia violence. Why should I?

Joe

[billvon 2,990]

Quote

In part because I once believed as you do, until I started reading and researching it for myself. I found that many of the perceived contradictions/flaws were just that; perceived, i.e. misunderstood and often blatantly misconstrued.

I've done the same research (first from four years of formal study, later on my own.) And what I learned is that the reason that there are so many contradictions and errors are there because the Bible is a conglomeration of stories from a great many authors, and they did not coordinate with each other. When later theologians attempted to assemble the Bible, they did so with great care - they did not want to change the original text, but they wanted to create a cohesive document. So they left most of the contradictions in.

A good example are the Gospels. They largely agree but differ in details - and sometimes contradict one another. But at least three out of four were written long after the apostles died, and so were based on oral tradition rather than firsthand experiences. And as always when such oral traditions are finally recorded, errors crept in. The study of these errors is a fascinating look at the culture of the time, and what was deemed important to emphasize, ignore or even embellish.

As another example, Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2. (Consider when cattle were created vs man, for example.) They don't even match in terms of how creation is described. This is explained by the fact that there were two different authors, writing in two different styles, describing two different creation myths - even using two different words for God (Yahweh vs Elohim.)

In general I think it's wiser to research the Bible's origins to understand the source of the discrepancy, rather than twist oneself into logical knots trying to claim that they really all say the same thing. The differences are important, and worth understanding. To quote Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, it is a mistake to "smash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that you get the true understanding."

[AtrusBatleth 0]

JoeWeber

Max,

Following Ken's point, just how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland and the Catholics loved the Calvinists in the Netherlands and Calvinists loved the Protestants in France to name just a few times Christians loved to kill each other?

I see it as no different than Sunni on Shia violence. Why should I?

Joe

Um... when did I imply that I was defending Christians killing anybody in any century? Because that is most un-Christ-like. I follow Jesus and the bible, not any group of men who call themselves Christians. I agree with you; so-called Christians killing each other is no different than Sunnis and Shiites killing each other. (except perhaps that Sunnis/Shiites could actually find support from the Quran/Muhammad for their violence).

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

AtrusBatleth

***
Max,

Following Ken's point, just how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland and the Catholics loved the Calvinists in the Netherlands and Calvinists loved the Protestants in France to name just a few times Christians loved to kill each other?

I see it as no different than Sunni on Shia violence. Why should I?

Joe

Um... when did I imply that I was defending Christians killing anybody in any century? Because that is most un-Christ-like. I follow Jesus and the bible, not any group of men who call themselves Christians. I agree with you; so-called Christians killing each other is no different than Sunnis and Shiites killing each other. (except perhaps that Sunnis/Shiites could actually find support from the Quran/Muhammad for their violence).

I didn't say or suggest you defended, or implied that you defended, Christian's killing their brethren.

But it is an irrefutable truth of Christian history that they have done so. I'm simply curious how a thoughtful Christian reconciles that truth. After all, they were all Christians, too.

[motionscribe 0]

wolfriverjoe

***
wolfriverjoe said that the killing of skeptics was enough to influence evolution within several hundred years. . .

Several hundred years?

When did I say that?

You said that the reason there are more believers is because they killed the witches and skeptics. You even clarified in a subsequent post that you were talking about the inquisition, crusades, witch trials, holocaust, etc.

If not, then what other mass killings did you have in mind when you initially made that post?

wolfriverjoe

Religion has been around for thousands of years. Probably for tens of thousands.

So what is it? 1000 years? 20,000 years? 50,000 years? 100,000 years? Nice way weasel around the goal posts in some lame backpedaling attempt at obfuscation.

wolfriverjoe

Certainly long enough for evolution to have some influence.

Hardly, and certainly not in the way you were initially describing.

wolfriverjoe

And it wasn't just the killing of skeptics by the religious.

There's also the survival aspect of it.

There's also the societal survival value of it.

But that's not what we were really talking about, was it?

And yes, that has more to do with evolution than all those evil religious people killing off witches.

You still keep overlooking the fact that even skeptics and witches had that same evolutionary predisposition toward faith or whatever you want to call it, it just manifested in a different way based on their environment. Even you have it.

We can go from theist to atheist in one day, that doesn't mean we that we can somehow override evolution just as easily.

The bottom line here is that you could've simply made your point about religion without your misguided and ignorant distortion of evolution.

[motionscribe 0]

wolfriverjoe

Christians have gone after 'non-believers', skeptics and heretics throughout the ages.

Yep, even those protestant heretics.

wolfriverjoe

The "good men of religion" have been killing each other off in the name of God since before recorded history. All religions, not just Christianity.

Yet they still exist, even after the communists killed over 100 million in a much shorter time frame. And tho they didn't necessarily kill in the name of atheism, they certainly promoted it and sought the end of religion. . .

[motionscribe 0]

JoeWeber

how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

[jakee 1,489]

AtrusBatleth

***
To call it 'fallen' because it is imperfect means it was once perfect, and implies it could be perfect if it wasn't for us. That isn't true.

According to a humanist worldview, sure that isn't true. According to a biblical worldview, that is absolutely true.
Biblical history is wrong. We know that for an absolute fact. Garden of Eden, Original Sin as described in the bible - Never. Happened. The world has always worked the way it does now.

jakee

Quote

You're saying that the person with cancer is sick, and because they're sick they deserve to die.

According to the bible, we deserve to die because we have sinned, yes. This is not intended as an insult however.

Oh, really? Again, use your own analogy and listen to the way it plays. Listen to yourself tell a person with cancer that they're sick, then listen to yourself tell that person that because they're sick, they deserve to die of cancer.

Quote

It's not as if Jews/Christians are saying "you deserve to die more than me", or worse, "you deserve to die and I'm going to execute you". Rather, we are saying, "you've sinned, you're imperfect, and I'm just like you; I deserve to die too". The message is one of equality, and also hope.

That's a joke, right?

Quote

But I will keep in mind for future reference that some people get truly offended at hearing the world described as fallen. After decades of being a Christian, this is honestly the first time I have ever encountered someone who took it this way.

They're probably just too polite to tell you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[AtrusBatleth 0]

JoeWeber

I'm simply curious how a thoughtful Christian reconciles that truth. After all, they were all Christians, too.

That depends on what you consider "Christian". The fundamental definition is one who follows the Christ Jesus. It's pretty clear someone going around killing people is not a follower of Jesus, based on the common reference we all share: the bible. But later in history, there were "Christian" nations that waged wars for any number of political reasons, but that does not mean all its citizens were followers of Jesus. "Christian" in many contexts merely means one is ethnically Christian, i.e. your parents/grandparents were perhaps believers or at least attended church once in awhile. Similarly people can be ethnically Jewish or Muslim or whatever but in practice live a completely secular life. Those people are not really believers and often have not even studied or read their supposed holy book.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

It's pretty clear someone going around killing people is not a follower of Jesus,

So you don't think any soldiers are real christians?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 2,190]

Quote

That depends on what you consider "Christian". The fundamental definition is one who follows the Christ Jesus.

Are Mormons Christian? They claim to be, but many more traditional churches say they are not. If I call Christian is that enough for you to accept me as Christian, even if my beliefs differ from you in ways that you would consider me to be unsaved?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wmw999 2,439]

THanks for then breath of fresh air you’re bringing to the discussion. You’re not pontificating generally, just making your opinion clear. It matters.

Anyway, it’s a little self-serving to post-define someone’s non-Christianity after a bad act, “because a real Christian wouldn’t do that.” Especially if you consider radical/violent Muslims to be real Muslims.

There are whack jobs who say they follow just about every religion; it’s the size of the religious community that supports them that helps to determine whether they’re really part of it. So, yeah, in the US Christian fundamentalists who “can see where he’d do that” about some whack job? Associated. In Pakistan, the current gaggle of Muslim fundamentalists who are bloodthirsty for the Christian woman convicted of blasphemy? Organizationally complicit as all get-out.

Witches weren’t necessarily nonbelievers. Some were put to death for being Quakers in that era, and many of the witches were simply either weirdos or competitors to more powerful people (spent time in both Salem and Iceland recently, both with fairly rich documentation of witchcraft trials in the 17th century).

To me, the biggest problem with arguing religion is that if one is an unquestioning adherent, there is only acceptance of statements of one side, and only push-back on the other. It’s not seeking, it's selling. And fear (you’re going to hell/you’re going to be ostracized) is a poor sales technique for intelligent people.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JoeWeber 2,720]

motionscribe

***
how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno.

What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?

[normiss 798]

Maybe that jebus dude talked to them and told them to kill.
Surely that makes it ok in god's mind.

Trying to make sense of religion is confusing to me. Beyond the followers that just want to be good people and live their life the best they can, I'll never understand the rest of followers that are insane in their beliefs. Their insistence on changing every human in their path is wrong in my view. It's demeaning, insulting, and just plain rude.

[billvon 2,990]

>>>how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and
>>>Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

>>I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

>Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is
>mas no bueno.

He didn't. He answered it - "I don't" - and then he clarified it, pointing out that there may have been political motivations that overrode religious motivations.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

billvon

>>>how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and
>>>Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

>>I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

>Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is
>mas no bueno.

He didn't. He answered it - "I don't" - and then he clarified it, pointing out that there may have been political motivations that overrode religious motivations.

Moderating Q&A technique between posters for accuracy is a bit much, Bill. In any case it was the following point, below, to which I was hoping Max might respond.

"What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?"

[AtrusBatleth 0]

JoeWeber

******
how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno.

What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?

Point of clarification: you are confusing me with motionscribe. I already answered your question JoeWeber.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[billvon 2,990]

Looks like Trump supporters are still lashing out at Trump's enemies. Fortunately this Trump supporter was stopped before he managed to hurt anyone.

=======================================
Arkansan charged in threats to CNN
Baxter County man accused of 40 calls
by Bill Bowden
Today at 4:30 a.m.

A Mountain Home man was arrested Tuesday, accused of making threatening telephone calls to CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

Benjamin Craig Matthews, 39, made more than 40 threatening calls to CNN from Oct. 31 to Nov. 2, according to a probable-cause affidavit filed in Baxter County Circuit Court.

In several calls, Matthews threatened a CNN journalist described in court documents as DL. (Don Lemon)

In one call, according to the affidavit, Matthews asked the CNN switchboard operator, "Could I be directed to DL's dead body hanging from a tree?"

Another time, Matthews asked if his call could be directed to "pipe bombs for DL."

In another call, Matthews spoke of "bloody pictures of DL cut up in small pieces, like the movie Saw," according to the affidavit from Sgt. Brad Hurst with the Baxter County sheriff's office.

CNN has been a consistent target of President Donald Trump.

M.J. Condland, an investigator from the Atlanta Police Department, contacted the Baxter County sheriff's office Friday about the investigation underway in Georgia. Condland is assigned to the Police Department's Homeland Security investigation unit.

The threatening calls were made from a cellphone belonging to Matthews, according to the affidavit. Cell tower data indicated that the calls were placed from Baxter County.

"Audio recordings of the phone calls indicate that all of the calls were made from the same male subject," according to the affidavit. "A person who has personal knowledge of Benjamin Matthews agreed to listen to samplings of the phone calls. The person positively identified the voice as that of Benjamin Matthews."

Matthews' telephone records indicate that he had also made calls to MSNBC; U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; attorney Michael Avenatti; Washington Speakers Bureau; and Planned Parenthood, "suggesting a pattern of harassment towards certain political affiliations," according to the affidavit.

Matthews has been charged with five counts of felony terroristic threatening, four counts of misdemeanor terroristic threatening and nine counts of harassing communications, which is a misdemeanor.

Matthews was in the Baxter County jail Wednesday with bail set at $15,000. He is scheduled to appear in Baxter County Circuit Court today.
=======================

[JoeWeber 2,720]

AtrusBatleth

*********
how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated?

Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno.

What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?

Point of clarification: you are confusing me with motionscribe. I already answered your question JoeWeber.

My apologies.