The point Charity tried to illustrate was that it's ___ to say God spared someone in a certain situation when someone else in the same situation was not spared. Unfortunately she chose an example steeped in politics. And that opened the door to Oldiesman responding with an implication that God's favor is on a particular politician.
And THAT opens the door to a conversation about whether God intervened in Butler and, if he did, whether He did so because of politics.
That got shut down.
Here's the timeline. Nathan had written on July 14th about the former president being shot in the context of how people's "beleefs" cause division and destruction. You then wrote a post on July 19th where you mentioned candidate X and the fallen firefighter in the context of who God spared and who he didn't. My post about “you know who” being shot in Baker, PA. was written on July 20th in the context of some calling the incident a miracle. That post was not deleted and I wrote yesterday that I appreciated this.
It wasn’t until 4 months later in November that Oldiesman replied to my July 20th post. Both his post and my reply were deleted for the reason you gave above. I think my reply to Rocky’s post of Nov 10th was also deleted.
2 hours ago, modcat5 said:
Ok, i'm done arguing.
Do not post politics.
Do not post in response to a post about politics.
If i need to err on the side of scorched earth to be consistent I will do so.
I would much rather try to apply some reason, but if that's going to result in accusations of needing to get over myself, screw it.
Invoking names of political charlatans to illustrate a higher point, or even referring to events as short hand for political charlatans as a way to make a non-political point, can only grease the slide. Slippery slopes are lubed by the best intentions.
Thank you for your reply. I guess from the standpoint of the Pontius Pilate's story, it was an injustice. From the standpoint of the redemption story, it was God's righteous plan was it not?
Please do not refer to anyone in the public eye as a "political charlatan."
Doing so validates the expression of an opposing view, which opens a political discussion.
Surely we can discuss the question of whether God is arbitrary in who he spares or doesn't spare without having to resort to expressions of political preference.
Invoking names of political charlatans to illustrate a higher point, or even referring to events as short hand for political charlatans as a way to make a non-political point, can only grease the slide. Slippery slopes are lubed by the best intentions.
Let it go. It's done.
Looking back on the whole thing, I agree. I just provided the whole timeline in reference to the timeline modcat5 provided. I have no animosity towards his email or his decision to delete the posts.
I am now realizing I misread oldiesman's post who seems to have misread my previous post from July 15. I mentioned non-believers in that one but not that I was one.
On 7/15/2024 at 8:58 PM, Charity said:
I guess I was coming from the perspective that as far as Christians are concerned, their beliefs are rooted in the supernatural or spiritual realm and therefore have top authority over all human thoughts, desires, etc. Non-believers are not just disagreeing with them but with their God.
Below is oldiesman's reply to the above post. I read it as "I get a sense that you do notbelieve in a God that exists."
On 11/14/2024 at 6:27 AM, oldiesman said:
I get a sense that you do believe in a God that exists, otherwise why all the disagreement?
So just to be clear, I have believed in God from a child growing up in the RC church right up to the earlier part of this year. I began this thread because of the doubts I was having about God and the bible. I now am an atheist but still interested in discussing the biblical teachings about God and Jesus because of the influence they had on my life in the past and how they influence the beliefs and actions of people today.
But wasn't the crucifixion the reason why he was spared all the prior deaths by stoning?
If not spared from, spared for. Either way, it was Ya (fka El) who did the reserving. It was Ya's purpose. Ya is more just and moral beyond all understanding, right? How can the crucifixion be unjust if it was Ya's purpose? And did Jesus overcome this justified crucifixion? Or was it Yahweh who raised him?
When Bullinger, Lamsa (T6TMOG) and wierwille (T7TMOG) changed and twisted the text to solve an imagined problem, they created more problems by their so-called solution.
More contradictions and errors necessarily arise when claiming inerrancy than when letting Mark be Mark, Matthew be Matthew, John be John...
Blood sacrifices can be traced as far back as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient nomadic rituals. The writers of the OT simply assigned it to their god.
It's very barbaric. A real, all-loving and all-powerful god, however, would have come up with something more humane when relating with the mankind he created.
So just to be clear, I have believed in God from a child growing up in the RC church right up to the earlier part of this year. I began this thread because of the doubts I was having about God and the bible. I now am an atheist but still interested in discussing the biblical teachings about God and Jesus because of the influence they had on my life in the past and how they influence the beliefs and actions of people today.
7 hours ago, Charity said:
Blood sacrifices can be traced as far back as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient nomadic rituals. The writers of the OT simply assigned it to their god.
It's very barbaric. A real, all-loving and all-powerful god, however, would have come up with something more humane when relating with the mankind he created.
I often bring up the above two false attributes of God, but rarely do I mention the all-righteous-and-just trait of god. This concept was one of the main reasons I began to doubt in the existence of yahweh - specifically the examples of his wrath being rained down regularly on people in the OT and which will again show up in the end times via his son.
I’m thinking of starting a new topic in the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible or the Atheist sub-forum to discuss, what to me is, this disturbing idea that there must be a penalty for sin because God is righteous and just. Many Christians find comfort in believing that evil people will get their due one day, but this actually happening is something that must be taken on faith.
Many Christians find comfort in believing that evil people will get their due one day
That's karma. You don't need to be of any particular faith to believe in it. Personally, I'm more of a believer in the law of statistics. If you have a habit of blowing through stop signs and red lights, you increase your odds of getting t-boned someday.
Blood sacrifices can be traced as far back as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient nomadic rituals. The writers of the OT simply assigned it to their god.
It's very barbaric. A real, all-loving and all-powerful god, however, would have come up with something more humane when relating with the mankind he created.
As we all know Jesus' act of giving his life is regarded by Christians as the ultimate in love and sacrifice for man's sins. Don't know why it had to be this way, but since it's the ultimate in love and sacrifice there was no other ultimate way to prove God's love to mankind. But, you appear to be canceling Jesus' sacrifice by saying it was simply copied by earlier cultures like it all is a hoax? I've heard it before; only wanted to know if you believe this too. Thx.
As we all know Jesus' act of giving his life is regarded by Christians as the ultimate in love and sacrifice for man's sins. Don't know why it had to be this way, but since it's the ultimate in love and sacrifice there was no other ultimate way to prove God's love to mankind. But, you appear to be canceling Jesus' sacrifice by saying it was simply copied by earlier cultures like it all is a hoax? I've heard it before; only wanted to know if you believe this too. Thx.
vpw taught that Jesus was not God. Do you still believe this or have you returned to the belief in the trinity?
That's karma. You don't need to be of any particular faith to believe in it. Personally, I'm more of a believer in the law of statistics. If you have a habit of blowing through stop signs and red lights, you increase your odds of getting t-boned someday.
I don't think it's karma though when an uncaught serial killer sincerely obeys Rom 10:9-10 at the end of his life, gets saved and then has the promise of eternal life while his unsaved victims will either spend eternity in hell or die a second death in the lake of fire.
mj412 wrote in the "Justice" thread linked above, "I mean if you think the scriptures prove all evil men will die I do not read , I read all men who deny Jesus as LORD. will burn ."
Since I believe the bible is man's word and not God's, I'm interested in why Paul would come up with a concept like Rom 10:9-10 (which was written before any of the gospels) and attribute it to the god yahweh. What benefit was there to him in doing so?
The possibility exists that we may never know why much of any of it was written. Geopolitical struggles? Ethnic rivalries? The list goes on.
You're probably right. Best I can do is search the internet for what others have written about the historicity of Paul like Richard Carrier for example.
As we all know Jesus' act of giving his life is regarded by Christians as the ultimate in love and sacrifice for man's sins. Don't know why it had to be this way, but since it's the ultimate in love and sacrifice there was no other ultimate way to prove God's love to mankind.
No oldiesman, that's simply not true, but you can't come to this realization if you won't question why "it had to be this way."
I heard someone say recently, "Nobody thinks they need a savior unless they also think they need saving. So this good news wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the bad news, and the bad news is that you are bad; you are inherently flawed; there is something wrong with you at the core of your existence, and it needs to be repaired – it needs to be fixed – you are inherently broken.
You have to convince someone why they need the message before you can actually convince them to accept it. The main message of the gospel is not that you can be saved. The main message of that gospel is that you are so bad that you need to be saved. These people aren’t coming to you to deliver good news; they’re coming to you to deliver bad news so that they can give you the good news."
Therein lies the problem - an ancient book makes up the problem so it can give you the made-up solution. It does not have to be this way.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
47
92
215
Popular Days
May 18
36
May 13
28
May 16
24
Nov 13
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 77 posts
Rocky 47 posts
Nathan_Jr 92 posts
Charity 215 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2024
36 posts
May 13 2024
28 posts
May 16 2024
24 posts
Nov 13 2024
24 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Yeah, see. That kinda leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We were either following the teachings of a man with devil spirits or he was wrong about what he taught. That means he could have been
Raf
I consider myself humanist as well. Since there is no hierarchy in humanism, no one really gets to define it. This website gathers various definitions that permit us to ascertain some kind of co
Nathan_Jr
I don't know if they accept the science or not, but I suspect it doesn't matter to them either way because of the new earth. If anything, I could see them pointing to climate change as evidence of the
Posted Images
Charity
Here's the timeline. Nathan had written on July 14th about the former president being shot in the context of how people's "beleefs" cause division and destruction. You then wrote a post on July 19th where you mentioned candidate X and the fallen firefighter in the context of who God spared and who he didn't. My post about “you know who” being shot in Baker, PA. was written on July 20th in the context of some calling the incident a miracle. That post was not deleted and I wrote yesterday that I appreciated this.
It wasn’t until 4 months later in November that Oldiesman replied to my July 20th post. Both his post and my reply were deleted for the reason you gave above. I think my reply to Rocky’s post of Nov 10th was also deleted.
Got it
(hot chocolate with whipped cream for me)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Invoking names of political charlatans to illustrate a higher point, or even referring to events as short hand for political charlatans as a way to make a non-political point, can only grease the slide. Slippery slopes are lubed by the best intentions.
Let it go. It's done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The Crucifixion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thank you for your reply. I guess from the standpoint of the Pontius Pilate's story, it was an injustice. From the standpoint of the redemption story, it was God's righteous plan was it not?
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Please do not refer to anyone in the public eye as a "political charlatan."
Doing so validates the expression of an opposing view, which opens a political discussion.
Surely we can discuss the question of whether God is arbitrary in who he spares or doesn't spare without having to resort to expressions of political preference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Looking back on the whole thing, I agree. I just provided the whole timeline in reference to the timeline modcat5 provided. I have no animosity towards his email or his decision to delete the posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
But wasn't the crucifixion the reason why he was spared all the prior deaths by stoning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
You're JUST catching on to that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Ok, then.
Now you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I am now realizing I misread oldiesman's post who seems to have misread my previous post from July 15. I mentioned non-believers in that one but not that I was one.
Below is oldiesman's reply to the above post. I read it as "I get a sense that you do not believe in a God that exists."
So just to be clear, I have believed in God from a child growing up in the RC church right up to the earlier part of this year. I began this thread because of the doubts I was having about God and the bible. I now am an atheist but still interested in discussing the biblical teachings about God and Jesus because of the influence they had on my life in the past and how they influence the beliefs and actions of people today.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If not spared from, spared for. Either way, it was Ya (fka El) who did the reserving. It was Ya's purpose. Ya is more just and moral beyond all understanding, right? How can the crucifixion be unjust if it was Ya's purpose? And did Jesus overcome this justified crucifixion? Or was it Yahweh who raised him?
There's probably a glove for this.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Actually I also misread Oldiesman's post. My brain also put a "not" in there that was not there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When Bullinger, Lamsa (T6TMOG) and wierwille (T7TMOG) changed and twisted the text to solve an imagined problem, they created more problems by their so-called solution.
More contradictions and errors necessarily arise when claiming inerrancy than when letting Mark be Mark, Matthew be Matthew, John be John...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
It was your "You're JUST catching on to that?" post to oldiesman that got me to read his again 2 more times to be sure what it actually said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Blood sacrifices can be traced as far back as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient nomadic rituals. The writers of the OT simply assigned it to their god.
It's very barbaric. A real, all-loving and all-powerful god, however, would have come up with something more humane when relating with the mankind he created.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I often bring up the above two false attributes of God, but rarely do I mention the all-righteous-and-just trait of god. This concept was one of the main reasons I began to doubt in the existence of yahweh - specifically the examples of his wrath being rained down regularly on people in the OT and which will again show up in the end times via his son.
I’m thinking of starting a new topic in the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible or the Atheist sub-forum to discuss, what to me is, this disturbing idea that there must be a penalty for sin because God is righteous and just. Many Christians find comfort in believing that evil people will get their due one day, but this actually happening is something that must be taken on faith.
I read with interest this short thread (especially the posts by "think fish" and "mj412") - Justice By Abigail, August 9, 2005 in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's karma. You don't need to be of any particular faith to believe in it. Personally, I'm more of a believer in the law of statistics. If you have a habit of blowing through stop signs and red lights, you increase your odds of getting t-boned someday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
As we all know Jesus' act of giving his life is regarded by Christians as the ultimate in love and sacrifice for man's sins. Don't know why it had to be this way, but since it's the ultimate in love and sacrifice there was no other ultimate way to prove God's love to mankind. But, you appear to be canceling Jesus' sacrifice by saying it was simply copied by earlier cultures like it all is a hoax? I've heard it before; only wanted to know if you believe this too. Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
vpw taught that Jesus was not God. Do you still believe this or have you returned to the belief in the trinity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I don't think it's karma though when an uncaught serial killer sincerely obeys Rom 10:9-10 at the end of his life, gets saved and then has the promise of eternal life while his unsaved victims will either spend eternity in hell or die a second death in the lake of fire.
mj412 wrote in the "Justice" thread linked above, "I mean if you think the scriptures prove all evil men will die I do not read , I read all men who deny Jesus as LORD. will burn ."
Since I believe the bible is man's word and not God's, I'm interested in why Paul would come up with a concept like Rom 10:9-10 (which was written before any of the gospels) and attribute it to the god yahweh. What benefit was there to him in doing so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The possibility exists that we may never know why much of any of it was written. Geopolitical struggles? Ethnic rivalries? The list goes on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
You're probably right. Best I can do is search the internet for what others have written about the historicity of Paul like Richard Carrier for example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
No oldiesman, that's simply not true, but you can't come to this realization if you won't question why "it had to be this way."
I heard someone say recently, "Nobody thinks they need a savior unless they also think they need saving. So this good news wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the bad news, and the bad news is that you are bad; you are inherently flawed; there is something wrong with you at the core of your existence, and it needs to be repaired – it needs to be fixed – you are inherently broken.
You have to convince someone why they need the message before you can actually convince them to accept it. The main message of the gospel is not that you can be saved. The main message of that gospel is that you are so bad that you need to be saved. These people aren’t coming to you to deliver good news; they’re coming to you to deliver bad news so that they can give you the good news."
Therein lies the problem - an ancient book makes up the problem so it can give you the made-up solution. It does not have to be this way.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.