Dan56

If the woman had real faith, she would not of had to drive into oncoming traffic to prove it. That's trying to show God how much faith you have by tempting Him to save you... And you don't tempt God. A mustard seed obviously doesn't have faith, its just a reference to a small amount of faith.. And in the bible, mountains are symbolic of nations. So all Jesus was saying to his disciples was that if they had a small amount of faith, they could move a nation.. And spiritually speaking, they did move nations to Christ .

Stupid is as stupid does... Driving your car into oncoming traffic is just plain stupid, while believing and trusting in a Supreme Being is faith. The Christian God did not advise anyone to jump off a cliff as a test of faith. Some people are just nuts. "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 6:16) and "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God." (Matthew 4:7)

Yes, I agree with you... I posted that looney story about that crazy woman driving into oncoming traffic as a ridiculous example of a religious nut trying to prove that faith works, but it was sarcasm of course. I agree with Frank Zappa, the Pennsylvania woman is a perfect example of human stupidity.

Scientific facts don't conflict with the bible. You simply prefer theories to the bible. Proper interpretation is not an attempt to harmonize anything, but rather an effort to properly understand what's written. If I interpreted the bible like you do, I wouldn't believe it either. Faith comes from hearing and understanding (Romans 10:17). Satan is not an entity conjured up by Christians, he is the same accuser and adversary in both testaments. And God does not work with Satan, they are opponents. If you paid attention to what's written, you'd know that. "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." (Revelation 12: 9&10) He didn't have to redeem us (believers), but he did. Breaking a law requires punishment, "He hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many" (Isaiah 53). There you have it, and its not difficult to understand. "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). He didn't redeem us from the law, but for breaking the law! Yes...

You are misinformed, the same Satan that showed-up in Job was the same Satan that tempted Christ in the wilderness. I know most here have no faith, but here's a true story about a proven Test of Faith by a Pennsylvania woman, who believed God would protect her....and He did. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/us/car-crash-god-pennsylvania/index.html I'm sure your non-believing attitudes will be severely shaken when you get some real modern day evidence that God is real and performed a miracle by protecting His own!!

If I'm not mistaken, you don't believe Noah's flood was world-wide either? You've stated that from a scientific perspective, it wouldn't have been possible. When read correctly, whenever the bibles speaks about all the erets, its simply referencing all the land that's relevant to the story being told, and not the entire earth. Whereas, the flood of Noah destroyed all the land possessed by the corrupted descendants of Adam.

I wasn't saying that at all.. The penalty for sin is why Christ came, its what he redeemed us from. Some Christians are idiots and biblicaly illiterate. There won't be an apocalyptic war that ushers in the return of Christ. As Christ said, it will be as in the days of Noah, and the anti-Christ won't be warlike. There will never be a third Temple either. Its received by faith... No, there were no non-Hebrew witnesses. No, Judaism rejects Christ and the NT.. The Jews were looking for another earthly king, one who would physically deliver them from captivity (yet again). Even Judas thought Christ was the one who would liberate them from Roman rule. But prophecy proclaimed a spiritual deliverer, one who would defeat death, sin, and the devil.

The stiff penalties attached with the Law of Moses were answered by Christ, who became the curse of the law. So the change was not an agenda to appease anyone. It was never a democracy open to change, the strict enforcement of Mosaic Law was necessary to govern and preserve God's chosen people, to pave the way Messiah would come.

That's essentially true, breaking one law puts you in violation of the whole law, which makes us all sinners worthy of death. So spiritually speaking, we are all guilty, and the curse of the law (penalty) is death. Period.. Everyone is dead to sin.That's God's concept of justice, but of course Christ removed the curse of the law. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). The cheating woman would be the offender, not so much an assailant since we're talking about a moral law, but definitely the one who left her husband a victim of infidelity. Christ was willing to forego the punishment for adultery for a couple of reasons, it takes 2 to Tango and the ones condemning her were likely the other side of that equation. Whereby, "Let he who is without sin (or who hadn't been with that woman) cast the first stone". Remember the law in Deuteronomy 22: 23-24, "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you". Secondly, Jesus did not come to condemn sinners, but to save them by suffering the punishment himself. As shown in the above verse, the man was to be stoned along with the betrothed damsel, because it was considered adultery with his neighbors wife. I know you don't agree with the penalty, but there's your equal justice. I imagine God could have rendered a less severe punishment, but He didn't.. He likely considered taking a vow and then breaking it to be a heathenistic practice He needed to discourage among his people. I reckon that most pacifist would fall to their knees and brown nose law breakers... Is that the 'wisdom' your espousing?

Its what God ordained, so what ever I think is appropriate is irrelevant.. And remember, they didn't have the electric chair, gas chambers, or lethal injection back then.

The penalty for sin has always been death. God has not evolved in that sense, the NT reiterates that the "Wages of sin is death". What changed was "Christ", who paid the penalty for sin. The remission of sin equates to the cancellation of debts, whereas all penalties are suspended. I doubt my remark about pacifism is fallacious, most here oppose the death penalty for any crime. So its not an argument as much as it is an observation. Past conversations have revealed an anti-punishment position by most of the liberal minded participants here. I'm relatively certain that they would all oppose 'stoning' for any crime, although they would probably make an exception if I broke a law I have an opposition to brutality too, mine is just geared toward the victim rather than sympathy towards the assailant. How's that for nuance? It is a forgiving religion, but it doesn't exempt law breakers from punishment automatically. Conditions must be met, reject the one who paid the price for sin and your liable for your sins. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).. I know how you like bible quotes, so I just had to throw in a verse..

I think Pete has adequately explained that.. He has been redundant in his critique of the biblical God, and I'm beginning to think he's not too fond of Him. Its not unusual for extreme pacifist to object to any and all physical correction (enforcement) of laws. The new covenant does permit divorce in the case of marital fornication, so cheaters aren't killed anymore (Matthew 19:9).

That was a Levitical law (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). A woman who was a virgin and betrothed to a husband, was considered to have committed adultery if she had premarital sex, and the penalty was death by stoning, including the guy who nailed her. Its not a matter of me justifying it, that's just the way it was under the old covenant. You think that snakes and donkeys talk, and then suggest my reasoning is off base for suggesting they don't? Okey-dokey... But I'm really just providing you with a more realistic interpretation.

They don't believe his interpretation.. He doesn't even understand that 'Thou shalt not kill' is accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder". So he thinks its a contradiction to kill a witch. He doesn't understand that some of Genesis is allegorical, i.e; the serpent was symbolic of Satan, who could talk. That's the problem with skimming over the bible instead of studying it, you end up trying to believe in talking snakes. I didn't need to listen any further after hearing how blind this guy is, no depth to him at all.

It is an "evidence" thread, which has strayed into the religious category, but I will exit the thread none-the-less.. Just a notation though, you write things as a point of fact such as, "Jesus is choreographed to fit the verses. Verses whose original meaning had nothing to do with Jesus". You can't possibly know that? Its funny how your evidence is absolute. The gospel according to Pete is no more reliable than the ones you claim are mythological.. jmo I quote verses to substantiate what & why I believe as I do, fully recognizing that others reject the bible. So its not directed at any one specific person per se, but just an explanation of what I believe.. Its difficult to reveal biblical evidence without quoting it, so I include passages that qualify what my position is on a topic.. But yes, its logical that a nonbeliever would dismiss biblical quotes as garbage. What's interesting to me is that seldom can anyone raise a legitimate argument, so they inevitably fall back on "its not true".. Sometimes, what can't be proven false can lend credibility to it being true, especially when there's subjective historical, archeological, and prophetic evidence to support it. If something is true, it can't be proven false. Jesus was the Truth, if you can't name anything he said or did that was false, then perhaps you can better understand why people believe in him... Happy 2020

I must of misunderstood? It sure sounded like Pete was sick & tired of me quoting bible verses. " Stop peddling it because it will never make sense to me. If a person does not believe the bible then quoting it or presenting it as presumed evidence means nothing to the reciever " Pete " If someone is told that they do not believe the bible as evidence then quoting more of it and using it to justify your argument is futile" Pete " The other mistake is they quote from these books and creeds as if people have not heard them before. Most agnostics.and atheists have heard them before and found them shallow and unfounded. " Pete " It does not take intelligence to quote scripture. " Pete........ " You play around with the bible as you want but I am not interested. " Pete You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace? I can only surmise that despite holding some similar moral values, the hatred for who Christ professed to be rules the day.. Kind of a "love the message but kill the messenger mentality".

So you believe that everything which falls short of empirical evidence automatically qualifies as a lie? I have no fear of dying because I believe in life everlasting. I'd believe the bible even without the promise of eternal life. And I believe its inspired by God, not made up by man. I don't assert things as fact, except fulfilled prophecy. The bible is received by faith, but I list evidence that I believe lend credibility to the stories. Its fine that you can't accept any of it, I just state reasons why I do.

You do not hear anything, except what you want to hear. That is why Christian voices confuse you. When you learn how to listen, you will hear us. We'll just have to disagree, I don't believe God knows our future decisions. If God already knew, then this whole experiment in the flesh would be an exercise in futility. You don't test people if you already know the result, and there's certainly no need to delay judgement if the verdict is already known. I was trying to avoid adding scripture to substantiate my thoughts since Pete is so offended by the bible, but my opinion is based on the many instances where God had no foreknowledge of what people would do.. So stop reading here if your bored with biblical references that substantiate my position, its the dogma Jonathan warned you about 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).

Whatever we believe is not nothing, whether its spiritual or physical. One is simply everlasting while the other is temporary. Jesus encompassed all of the things you value (love, friendship, kindness, honor, ethics, wisdom, doing what's right). So I read these things as saying that each of you endorse all the values Jesus espoused and demonstrated, but you disavow & repudiate Christ himself. It sounds illogical to embrace your values while refusing to endorse One who personified them to perfection. Be that as it is, remove the spiritual element and your essentially Empiricist, who embrace Nihilism. jmo

Yes, that was the whole point of my last post. I'm fully cognizant that your not looking for anything meaningful and aren't interested in anything beyond the here & now. That is your thing. 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. True, you've plainly acknowledged that you believe in nothing spiritual.... Its a fact, not an argument... Its just kind of sad for me to see someone content with that, seems like a bleak outlook, but I reckon its your choice.

Someone who talks about something you don't believe could be nothing but excessively boring. I'm not narrow minded, just convicted to one truth, it only seems rigid to those who are still looking for answers. If you ever find out your purpose, the meaning of life, or how you got here, let me know. And when you have this epiphany, please present verifiable evidence to prove it. I'd be agnostic too if the bible didn't exist, so it should be understandable why I quote a book that I've chosen to believe. And yes, remove the bible and I'd have to discuss what agnostics have discovered, which is essentially; 'I believe in nothing divine, I know nothing of spirituality, and I don't care'. Not exactly a conversation limited to geniuses. And I hate to be redundant, but until an Atheist can explain the fulfillment of the 22nd Psalm and dozens of other prophesies, the burden of proof falls on those who dismiss it as folly. There's evidence, you just won't accept anything you can't see, hear, or touch, but unfortunately, spiritual things are not discerned by physical observation alone.

True.... I'm not surprised that a nonbeliever would take issue with "no downside" to Christianity, but it shouldn't have been surprising that I'd explain why its not considered a downside to believers. All true... I never professed to fall in-line with traditional interpretations. I know you don't understand, but God knowing all things does not mean that all things known are set in stone. If God were unable to change whats foreknown, He could not be all powerful.. Not all animals of the world had to be saved in the flood, only the animals indigenous to the area being flooded. Its why you only see kangaroos in Australia. And Jesus made it abundantly clear that you either go on to eternal life or you perish, there's no eternal torture chamber, what goes into the Lake of Fire is permanently destroyed. If being heretical is not complying with Catholic doctrine, then I'm proud to be so. True, but my point was that I wasn't insisting that Atheist needed to take up my faith. And my second point was that your opinion of Christianity has always been disparaging. No problem, its normal to have a negative perspective of something that you find to be a bunch of baloney.

Its presumptuous to conclude that someone is living a lie without any evidence to support it. Just because God cannot be scientifically proven does not equate to a lie, it just demonstrates the limitations of science. The upside to God being real, is that time becomes an unimportant thing to live for, because time ends with the return of Christ. Life has no purpose beyond the grave without faith. For me, what little science can prove gives life little meaning. Pointing out the benefits of believing is not necessarily a call to anything. And if what I believe is true, there is no downside. If I said Atheism offers no hope, no inner peace, is a waste of time, is the cowards choice, and leads to no where, you would probably consider my perspective of atheism to be disparaging. Christians are going to point out the downsides. This is not disparaging. This is refusing to take your crap. See how the ball rolls both ways? We were created in the image of God, we are independent spirits with free will, and our choices can be altered by what we experience. Yes God knows the heart (omniscient), and yes, God can also change the heart (omnipotent). I'm living proof of that. Whereby, nobodies destiny is written in stone until the fat lady sings, which is after the Great White Throne Judgement.

That's not evidence, that's some nut who thinks he can control the weather... It rains on the just & unjust alike, if this wasn't true, the bible belt wouldn't get hit with so many tornado's.

You guys have obviously over-estimated my intellect ... I reckon that's about as close to a compliment as I'll get here