Dan56

Death is certain for every living thing on earth, simply because cells die sooner or later. But beyond our physical existence is our spiritual existence, and its that part of us that never perishes. But since Atheist don't believe in an eternal spirit, how could the Lake of Fire be construed as any kind of threat? That was my point, i.e; I'm not afraid of a boogeyman because I don't believe in him. Believers don't fear hell because we'll never end up there, and nonbelievers don't fear hell because they don't think it exist.

The bible is the same throughout... The laws and punishment of the old testament were simply kept and answered by Christ, now the curse of the law (punishment) of the OT was replaced by grace in the new covenant.

When you think about it, you can't get anymore fairer than an eye for an eye or a life for a life...Justifiable karma, you get what you dish-out. I personally don't believe something because I want it to be true, I simply judge it and and decide whether its true or false. Death is certain for everything living, there's no threat to it.

The context of Psalm 137:9 (killing infants) is calling for revenge against the Babylonians & Edomites, who enslaved the Jews and killed their babies in like manner. Simply a plea for God to intervene. Isaiah 13:16 was the prophecy, and the prediction was fulfilled by the Medes & Persians when God used King Cyrus to repay what Babylon had done, which freed the exiled Jews from Southern Iraq. That was how it was back then, an eye for an eye, punishment rendered was the same as the offense dished out. Just as with all the cities Joshua eliminated, the Canaanites sinned against God for 400 years, even sacrificing children to Baal. God gave them a choice, leave or die, they chose the latter.

Pharaoh initiated the whole process by hardening his own heart ten times during the first five plagues (Ex. 7:13,14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35 and 13:15). It was always and only Pharaoh who hardened his heart during these plagues. https://christianindex.org/hardened-pharaohs-heart-101/

The decline is actually a prophecy that would precede the second coming of Christ. As Paul put it; "That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." (2 Thessalonians 2:3). How about that, you've meticulously documented the evidence that you often seek, the bible said it would happen and you've inadvertently proved it to be true.

And that's why its accepted by faith.. Everyone can read the gospels and decide for themselves whether the story and players are real or just an unknown collaborated hoax. But as I've mentioned before, people lie for a reason, so for what purpose did the new testament authors have to fabricate an imaginary tale of someone who you claim never existed? What was the payoff? Persecution, affliction, and death? It all rings true for me, but everyone makes that decision for themselves. My examples of other historical figures is just to illustrate that anyone's biography can be questioned. When people decide not to believe something, they attack the narrative. When you can't disprove the story, question the source. The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Matthew & John's gospels aren't narrations per se, but rather reports and quotes of what they witnessed. And Jesus literally spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to be an apostle. Paul interacted and had a lot to do with other disciples too. If Jesus wasn't real, consider the odds of a few uneducated backwoods hicks from Galilee ever being able to pull-off the biggest scam in history? I suspect that the inspiration behind the New Testament came from a source much higher up.

How is it wasting ones life to believe in something beyond the here & now? The hope of something better and eternal gives life meaning & purpose, and this soul soothing peace and well being adds to the quality of life. By learning, your really inferring that someone see things in the same light that you see them. Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot? The human error could be yours? I can't learn that your correct because I don't believe what you believe. Faith has never been an argument. A person simply states why they believe as they do, its not a seductive trap, its just a reality beyond what you perceive to be real. Accepting that fact might ease your frustration.

I don't insist that you hate the biblical God, you've done that yourself by referring to him as a blood thirsty maniac who commits genocide, kills his own son, etc. If there is no God, but I believe He exist, then I'm a fool.... If the biblical God is real, but you reject Him, then your the fool... One of us is wrong and making a foolish choice, time will tell. The only difference is that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul.. But if your wrong?

We've been to the moon, 12 men have walked on the moon, none of them testified that there were little green men there. Do you believe them? I do. Coincidentally, 12 men walked with Christ, all of them testified that Jesus was on Earth. You don't believe them, but I do.

Its the gospel according to Luke, Mark, Matthew, & John....... Not Dan. Why would there be any historical records of a peasant from Nazareth? There's no historical records outside of the Koran about Mohammad, or for that matter, not much about William Shakespeare either. There were at list 70 apostles sent out who testified about Christ, all of Rome eventually accepted his story as gospel. I doubt an imaginary figure could have changed the world. But nothing would convince a person who chooses not to believe, they will deny it all happened no matter the documentation. I simply choose to roll with it and accept by faith that its true. Note that there's no evidence of anyone from the time saying it wasn't true, no disciple who walked with Christ said, "I didn't see any miracles". No one said, "He has not risen from his tomb, here's his body over here". It should be easy to prove an untruth, but no one from that time period did because they couldn't.

Despite his biblical fame, little is known about Pilate. Only a small number of historical accounts that date close to his lifetime survive today. With limited information, we cannot understand his psychological makeup or assign an accurate biography of Pilate. When he went before Pilate, Jesus answered some questions but did not defend himself. There is no contradiction here.. When Jesus refuses to speak, it is because the law does not require him to testify against himself. Jesus would not interact with Herod because he was merely hoping to see some miracle. If Jesus had defended himself by speaking or performing miracles, it could have prevented his death. When Jesus refused to speak, it was when he was in the presence of the Jews. When Jesus did speak with Pilate, it was inside his residence, where the Jews would not enter. The conversation was not of his guilt or innocence, but about his identity and his mission. The gospel writers wrote by inspiration ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), they weren't with Jesus when he met the Samaritan woman at the well, his trial, or crucifixion (accept John). People who choose to believe the biblical account of these things trust what God revealed by revelation more than a persons recollection. The "Word" was and is too important to rely on human memory.

If you could travel to the past and stop Booth from killing Lincoln or Oswald from killing Kennedy, your interference with what had happened could very well change what will happen. That's what I meant by freewill and time being interlinked, what we do in the present determines the future.

By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.

5 people mentioned it. King David (Psalms 22:18), Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:24... That's multiple sources... The 4 gospels were written between 40 and 70 AD. My Caesar comparison was not diversionary, its very relevant in proving ancient history. For example; Very little hard evidence about Cleopatra exists. Most of what know about her today is based on a biography written by Plutarch 200 years after her death. Early accounts of her life were given the anti-Cleopatra, pro-Roman slant promoted by Octavian. So with regards to the details of the crucifixion, I doubt that 500 written reports would meet with your satisfaction? It boils down to whether a person chooses to believe in the accuracy of what people of any time period recorded. Would you believe that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address if there were no pictures? Did Lincoln write it or was it the work of Edward Everett?

For one, more than one person recorded the same thing. Can you prove that the story of Julius Caesar being stabbed to death by the senate was accurately reported? I personally trust the source, but nearly every historical event is accepted by faith. We really cant even trust that anything on CNN is accurately reported.

Its only argumentative when you insist someone see's things the way you do. You think its an annoyance when Christians try to convert nonbelievers, but I'd suggest that your frustration could be construed as an attempt towards reverse conversion? Faith is based on something, its seldom blind, but your correct, its futile to discuss the virtues of a faith with someone who's committed to it, especially when you have nothing better to offer. I simply point out why I believe as I do, disagreement or nonacceptance doesn't bother me... I only chimed in here because my name was mentioned, no religion intended.

If they accurately reported what happened, then there's no bias about it.... It was unbiased confirmation of a 1000 year old prophecy. What was their agenda? To prove Roman soldiers gambled?

I simply referred to something that I've previously and accurately posted before. No sense in being redundant, especially with people who get annoyed with ongoing biblical references. "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Psalm 22:18). "And they parted his raiment, and cast lots" (Luke 23:34)... "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots" (Matthew 27:35). So that's the word for word prophecy and its recorded new testament fruition. Sounds pretty specific to me!

There's no factual proof, but plenty of evidence, and that evidence is sufficient for me. I accept it because it has convinced me, but not everyone can or will believe what can't be physically demonstrated, and some still wouldn't believe their own eyes even if it were. A thousand years before Christ, the Psalmist wrote that Romans soldiers would gamble for the cloak of the Messiah at his crucifixion.. Just a coincidence to you, but a divine prophecy to me. When someone describes something like that in detail, I don't see how it could be chalked-off as a lucky guess.

I don't think so.. The biblical God is interactive, not stagnant. He is merciful and forgiving, and that is part of His character. God does not change His principles, but His reaction to us alters in accordance to how we change. In other words, God may forgive one person but not another, not because God is inconsistent, but because one person may repent while another won't. I believe the bible, so of course I quote it in order to substantiate what I believe. I personally find lots of evidence for God, but I suspect no evidence would satisfy you. You've simply chosen not to believe because you detest the biblical God. That's partly why we're called by faith, God wants your trust and love, and only faith can demonstrate that. Proof of God would not relinquish your resentment towards Him..

I wasn't arguing, just engaging in a friendly conversation. My simple point was that since we make decisions everyday, I believe we have free will. Whether or not God has foreknowledge of our decisions has no bearing on our choices. To me, that is reasonable and a reality. Knowing what someone will do or might do does not negate the fact that they are independently deciding for themselves. Perhaps your tired of arguing because there's no logical argument in response to that simple fact. I agree that God is unchanging in character & principles, but He has had a change of heart in response to what people do and don't do. I believe God interacts with us in real time, and his actions are ever changing in accordance to what every individual does or fails to do. God made a judgement against Israel due to David's sin, but He relented when David repented. God said, "Neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin" (Jeremiah 32:35). God searches the hearts of men because we have free will. "The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9 ). We know that many will perish, so the will of the Father does not override the choices of the unrepentant.

Probably a good idea.. Doesn't make much sense to argue about a book you don't even believe, let alone understand. I disagree of course.. Why did God stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac just in the nick of time? "And he said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12). Doesn't sound like 'all knowing' to me? Several times in Scripture God Himself said of certain events that they 'did not come into his mind' (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked, it repented Him that He had made man and grieved Him at His heart (Gen. 6:5-7), God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe Him (Ex.4:1-12); or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him or not (Deut. 8:2, 16). God did not know that Israel would backslide as far as it did (Deut. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19). God searches the hearts to find whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9). He discovers deep things (Job. 12:22); He tries the hearts and reins of men so that He may know them (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chr. 28:9; Rom.8:27; 1 Cor. 2;10; Rev. 2:23), proving all men for the same reason (Ps. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7). The 1,522 "if's" and the many hundreds of conditional requirements of God throughout Scripture are sufficient proof that God does not cause all acts and events by His own decrees, and are sufficient proof that He changes His mind and His own dealings with men as they conform or refuse to conform to His will. God goes Himself, or He sends messengers throughout the whole of His vast creations to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other organization would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions can be taken accordingly. Examples of such agency constantly reporting to God can be found in all these passages (Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Matt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16). The 6,468 commands in the Bible regulating man as to his part in the eternal plan of God, and setting forth his responsibility to God and man, the 1,260 promises and blessings, rewards or loss of rewards, the hundreds of warnings, curses, blessings and dealings of God on the basis of conformity to His will. Such facts and many others make it clear that God does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with. There is not one statement of Scripture in the entire Bible saying God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all the vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past; or that He has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future. God's plan will not fail and it is known from the beginning to the end and what He plans to bring to pass on Earth He has power to do, but concerning the free moral actions of free moral agents, He does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in His plan. He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to His plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose His own destiny. God wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; John 3:16; Rev. 22:17). God is infinite, but there's no definitive loop. You may be over thinking it. "Free will" and "Set in Stone" don't mix. Being made in the image of God, we make choices, we aren't programmed robots. For example; sin = death, but God intervened, so sin can be erased, therefore what would have been no longer needs to be. God chose not to control us, so our independent decisions are unknown, God is not omniscient in that respect. God doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), but many will perish, God is not omnipotent in that respect. God knows the beginning from the end because He is the beginning and He will determine the end, but every choice we make in the interim isn't determined or known beforehand.

Well, I don't see it that way at all. Sure, there are parameters too everything, but ultimately the game is not rigged, being confined to rules superimposed by a Creator doesn't eliminate individual choices. i.e; If your playing poker, the rules don't define the outcome, God may know the cards your dealt, but he doesn't know if you'll throw a card. There are countless biblical examples of where God did not know how people would react. Its not because God is not omniscient, but that we are created after His own image and were given sovereignty over our own destiny via our own choices. We are not programmed to react, therefore our actions constitute free will, even if they are foreknown. No one is punished forever because they fail to be obedient to God, they perish because they reject God. Christ was planned from the beginning to answer for sin (Genesis 3:15), so there would be no condemnation for our shortcomings. Whereby, the drunk who falls to temptation can repent and need not perish. True, A&E did not know evil, but disobedience is a choice, and disobedience to God is sin (sin = evil). "Surely thou shalt die" was the 'or else', but despite the warning, they plowed ahead and chose death. But inequity aside, a Savior was promised, who bore our inequities, and those who receive him are alive in Christ.

She knew the ice cream was in the refrigerator, but had the self-discipline not to indulge without permission. Obedience to God works the same way. There's a spiritual factor that ought to influence our choices too. There is a 'chance' because decisions can go either way. I'm sure Abraham didn't want to sacrifice Isaac, but he was willing because God commanded it to test his faith. I'm sure Jesus was hungry when he fasted in the wilderness for 40 days, but he overcame his environmental and biological needs and brought them under subjection to his spirit. That's what separates us from the animals. i.e; I want this, but God says "no', so I will obey my God and not be a slave to sin. Sometimes we deny ourselves in order to please our God.