Jonathan H. B. Lobl

If Christianity were proven true

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

When a person can argue"little children" into young men, they really don't need a book anymore.  Might as well just admit to making it up.

 

 

When a mind is enslaved by faith -- and bound by the chains of belief -- It is silly to expect reason.  You are asking more than Dan can do.  It won't happen.  Neither facts, nor reason, nor reality will penetrate.      :wall:

 

I understand your frustration.  You think that if you're patient -- if you present the right combination of facts and reason, that reality will win out.  No.  It won't.  Dan cares about faith and belief.  Facts and reality bounce off him without effect.  Your logic will fail to penetrate.  Let it go. There is nothing to gain.  It's Dan.  It  doesn't matter.  It's Dan.     :wall:

 

 

:sigh2:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/13/2019 at 8:34 AM, Dan56 said:

 

In your extremely liberal mind-set, do you believe anyone should ever be accountable for anything? I get the feeling that if any of you guys ever saw a parent tap an unruly child on the rear-end for acting up in a store, you'd be on your cell phone in a second with 911 to report what you consider extreme abuse? :)

Of course, someone with an extremely conservative view would make such an assumption to ask this question? Shame on you.

I imagine that depends on the "tap" being given, wouldn't you? Remember the "taking care in disciplining"? There is care, then there is abuse. The line is where the amount of force lies. No?

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2019 at 10:00 PM, cuchulain said:

When a person can argue"little children" into young men, they really don't need a book anymore.  Might as well just admit to making it up.

 

You don't need to stay biblically illiterate, consider doing some research and looking it up yourself.. Perhaps you don't have a good Hebrew to English concordance? Learning sometimes requires a little effort;  https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/802-2-kings-2-23-25-elisha-and-the-lads-of-bethel

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Key said:

Of course, someone with an extremely conservative view would make such an assumption to ask this question?

I imagine that depends on the "tap" being given, wouldn't you?

 

Its just the 'feeling' I get from these guys, it stems from the constant objections about a God who punishes disobedience. I don't believe they believe in discipline, or at least any form of corporal punishment. 

You answered your own question above, as you would consider interfering with a parent who 'taps' (not beats) a spoiled and out of control kid in a store in order to straighten them out because you thought they were being too strict.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

You don't need to stay biblically illiterate, consider doing some research and looking it up yourself.. Perhaps you don't have a good Hebrew to English concordance? Learning sometimes requires a little effort;  https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/802-2-kings-2-23-25-elisha-and-the-lads-of-bethel

 

 

I followed your link.

 

"Idolatry was rampant in Israel during the days of the prophet Elisha, and paganism influenced young and old alike."

 

You have forgotten that this is an Interfaith board, with a Pagan membership.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/13/2019 at 11:34 AM, Dan56 said:

 

In your extremely liberal mind-set, do you believe anyone should ever be accountable for anything? I get the feeling that if any of you guys ever saw a parent tap an unruly child on the rear-end for acting up in a store, you'd be on your cell phone in a second with 911 to report what you consider extreme abuse? :) "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:16) .. So considering the law, those young men who were mauled got off easy.

 

 

By all means, let the punishment fit the crime. A return to the good old days.   Let us bring back the rack, thumbscrews, red hot irons, the iron boot, whipping post, amputations  -- and other instruments of "accountability".  We might even take the people who threaten social stability -- and nail them to a cross.

 

:sigh2:

 

It was good enough for the original bleeding heart liberal.

 

:sigh2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/16/2019 at 1:46 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Its just the 'feeling' I get from these guys, it stems from the constant objections about a God who punishes disobedience. I don't believe they believe in discipline, or at least any form of corporal punishment. 

You answered your own question above, as you would consider interfering with a parent who 'taps' (not beats) a spoiled and out of control kid in a store in order to straighten them out because you thought they were being too strict.

 

 

 

Your interpretation, not mine. Tap could be euphemism for a beating. People often say one thing when they mean another, but use a less menacing tag.

I understand the need for a fair spanking when needed, but also understand the need for measure of force to given situation. As it was for me growing up.

But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Arguing morality with someone who thinks its good to punish ANYONE with bear mauling is a waste.  It's NEVER acceptable punishment, and proves the doer is immoral...but especially against 'little children' for mockery.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Arguing morality with someone who thinks its good to punish ANYONE with bear mauling is a waste.  It's NEVER acceptable punishment, and proves the doer is immoral...but especially against 'little children' for mockery.

 

 

Dan has made it clear, that his morality comes directly from God.  At least, God as described and portrayed in the Bible.  What then, do we know about the morals of his God?  The God that gave Dan his morals.  That God.  The God that drowned the whole world.  This God has no restraint.  When he disciplines, he goes all out.  Mauling by bears is nothing, compared to drowning the whole world.  As described by his wonderful book of stories.

 

What do you think will happen?  That Dan will disagree with his God about anything?  Anything at all?  It won't happen.  It can't happen.  Faith over all.

 

Please.  The horse is worse than dead.  It's squishy.  Let it go.     :wall:

 

It's Dan.

 

:sigh2:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Key said:

Your interpretation, not mine. Tap could be euphemism for a beating. People often say one thing when they mean another, but use a less menacing tag.

I understand the need for a fair spanking when needed, but also understand the need for measure of force to given situation. As it was for me growing up.

But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it.

 

 

Nice try.  Dan will not -- can not -- disagree with his God about anything.  You are asking Dan, to have better morals than God.  Dude.  It's Dan.     :bad:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Key said:

Your interpretation, not mine. Tap could be euphemism for a beating. People often say one thing when they mean another, but use a less menacing tag.

I understand the need for a fair spanking when needed, but also understand the need for measure of force to given situation. As it was for me growing up.

But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it.

 

I agree that a child mocking or teasing their parents shouldn't have a dog tear into them as punishment.. But young Hebrew adults mocking their own prophet is tantamount to blasphemy against God. Its not a childish game or something done in ignorance, but a condemnation and a direct attempt to humiliate one of God's own anointed prophets. The punishment for that was death, but God probably let them off easy since they were young and foolish.

 

Your all conflating little kids making fun of their parents with young adults blaspheming a servant of God, but they are completely different things. David had an opportunity to kill King Saul a couple of times, but he was forbidden because Saul was anointed by God. While kids poking fun at an adult isn't a big offense, denigrating a prophet is something that would provoke God's vengeance.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I agree that a child mocking or teasing their parents shouldn't have a dog tear into them as punishment.. But young Hebrew adults mocking their own prophet is tantamount to blasphemy against God. Its not a childish game or something done in ignorance, but a condemnation and a direct attempt to humiliate one of God's own anointed prophets. The punishment for that was death, but God probably let them off easy since they were young and foolish.

 

Your all conflating little kids making fun of their parents with young adults blaspheming a servant of God, but they are completely different things. David had an opportunity to kill King Saul a couple of times, but he was forbidden because Saul was anointed by God. While kids poking fun at an adult isn't a big offense, denigrating a prophet is something that would provoke God's vengeance.

 

:sigh2:

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I agree that a child mocking or teasing their parents shouldn't have a dog tear into them as punishment.. But young Hebrew adults mocking their own prophet is tantamount to blasphemy against God. Its not a childish game or something done in ignorance, but a condemnation and a direct attempt to humiliate one of God's own anointed prophets. The punishment for that was death, but God probably let them off easy since they were young and foolish.

 

Your all conflating little kids making fun of their parents with young adults blaspheming a servant of God, but they are completely different things. David had an opportunity to kill King Saul a couple of times, but he was forbidden because Saul was anointed by God. While kids poking fun at an adult isn't a big offense, denigrating a prophet is something that would provoke God's vengeance.

"But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it." Look at my quote again. Now, do so with the understanding that Christ had often said we are the children of God, and that He is our Father. Kids, young or older, makes no difference, at all.

Then, also remember a little commandment He had given for us to "honor thy mother and father". To mock them then, would also be a form of blasphemy, yet punishment is not expected to be as severe. Why? Because it would be wrong.

I would think any God would not suffer words to hurt them, for they should be greater than us mere mortals.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Key said:

"But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it." Look at my quote again. Now, do so with the understanding that Christ had often said we are the children of God, and that He is our Father. Kids, young or older, makes no difference, at all.

Then, also remember a little commandment He had given for us to "honor thy mother and father". To mock them then, would also be a form of blasphemy, yet punishment is not expected to be as severe. Why? Because it would be wrong.

I would think any God would not suffer words to hurt them, for they should be greater than us mere mortals.

 

 

You are making kind assumptions about the mental and emotional health of the God.  In the Bible, God describes himself as a "jealous God".  This is emotional insecurity.  He also has anger issues that carry over for four generations.

 

If you want to go over God's other emotional deficits, there is plenty of material.

 

:sigh2:

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
 
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
 
(For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Key said:

"But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it." Look at my quote again. Now, do so with the understanding that Christ had often said we are the children of God, and that He is our Father. Kids, young or older, makes no difference, at all.

Then, also remember a little commandment He had given for us to "honor thy mother and father". To mock them then, would also be a form of blasphemy, yet punishment is not expected to be as severe. Why? Because it would be wrong.

I would think any God would not suffer words to hurt them, for they should be greater than us mere mortals.

 

Jesus said that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, all other sins are forgivable. A nonbeliever is not a child of God, whereby they are not culpable of blasphemy, only a believer can be guilty of that. Mocking ones parents is not blasphemy, its simply breaking a law. But when a believer mocks God directly or indirectly, its blasphemy.  The young people in the story knew Elisha was a prophet, so they were guilty. If they had been little kids or nonbelievers, the prophets response would have probably of been; "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

 

And by the way, your correct in that God didn't appreciate those who didn't honor their parents either; "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9).

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You are making kind assumptions about the mental and emotional health of the God.  In the Bible, God describes himself as a "jealous God".  This is emotional insecurity.  He also has anger issues that carry over for four generations.

 

If you want to go over God's other emotional deficits, there is plenty of material.

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

As I've pointed out before, this passage presupposes that the children carry on with the iniquities of their fathers.. In such cases, the offenses would apply to the children to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th generations until it stopped. And as the following verse points out, it does not apply to those who don't follow the iniquities of their fathers, but keep God's commandments instead. "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

 

And remember many moons aloft when RabbiO mentioned that "jealous" is better defined as "impassioned"
 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Jesus said that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, all other sins are forgivable. A nonbeliever is not a child of God, whereby they are not culpable of blasphemy, only a believer can be guilty of that. Mocking ones parents is not blasphemy, its simply breaking a law. But when a believer mocks God directly or indirectly, its blasphemy.  The young people in the story knew Elisha was a prophet, so they were guilty. If they had been little kids or nonbelievers, the prophets response would have probably of been; "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

 

And by the way, your correct in that God didn't appreciate those who didn't honor their parents either; "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9).

 

 

As I've pointed out before, this passage presupposes that the children carry on with the iniquities of their fathers.. In such cases, the offenses would apply to the children to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th generations until it stopped. And as the following verse points out, it does not apply to those who don't follow the iniquities of their fathers, but keep God's commandments instead. "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

 

And remember many moons aloft when RabbiO mentioned that "jealous" is better defined as "impassioned"
 

 

 

Imagine that.  The most popular and long in use, English translation of the Bible -- the Inerrant Word -- got it wrong.  Again.  It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

 

:mellow:

 

In case I need to say it -- that was sarcasm.  That kind of translation error, is exactly what I would expect, if God had no part in it.  What kind of God does not protect translations of the inerrant word?  A God that does not exist -- or does not care -- or is not capable.  

 

:mellow:

 

Which brings us back to the point of this thread.  If Christianity were proven true.

History counts for something.  What is Christianity, with the King James Bible?  About 800 years in error.  You have been clear that you don't think the Catholic Church was a legitimate vehicle for the Word.  That leaves us with 2,000 years of -- What?

 

:birgits_giggle:

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/20/2019 at 9:30 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Imagine that.  The most popular and long in use, English translation of the Bible -- the Inerrant Word -- got it wrong.  Again.  It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

 

In case I need to say it -- that was sarcasm.  That kind of translation error, is exactly what I would expect, if God had no part in it.  What kind of God does not protect translations of the inerrant word?  A God that does not exist -- or does not care -- or is not capable.

 

 

God inspired the bible, He did not translate it into hundreds of different languages. There are not matching words for every Hebrew word, so the translators sought to find the best corresponding words. "Jealous" just means that God is passionate about faithfulness and exclusive worship.  The Hebrew word in Exodus 34:14 is קַנָּא, "jealous" "qanna" Strong's Concordance. The Word "jealous" would mean passionately providing, passionately protecting. passionately polishing and promoting on to God's perfect desire and design. Its not a negative word, but corresponds more with the zeal or enthusiasm of a zealous God. Today, we define jealous as a negative emotion, but zealous to me reflects a God who is engaged in the ardent pursuit towards the salvation of souls.... So while we have the inerrant Word, its just takes a little effort to understand the meaning by double checking what the English is defining. There are simply some Hebrew words that don’t have any direct translation in English. God cared enough to give us the intellect to study His word instead of just skimming over it and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.. jmo

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

God inspired the bible, He did not translate it into hundreds of different languages. There are not matching words for every Hebrew word, so the translators sought to find the best corresponding words. "Jealous" just means that God is passionate about faithfulness and exclusive worship.  The Hebrew word in Exodus 34:14 is קַנָּא, "jealous" "qanna" Strong's Concordance. The Word "jealous" would mean passionately providing, passionately protecting. passionately polishing and promoting on to God's perfect desire and design. Its not a negative word, but corresponds more with the zeal or enthusiasm of a zealous God. Today, we define jealous as a negative emotion, but zealous to me reflects a God who is engaged in the ardent pursuit towards the salvation of souls.... So while we have the inerrant Word, its just takes a little effort to understand the meaning by double checking what the English is defining. There are simply some Hebrew words that don’t have any direct translation in English. God cared enough to give us the intellect to study His word instead of just skimming over it and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.. jmo

 

 

:huh:

 

Your reasoning is tortured.  I will keep this simple.

 

God did not write the Bible.

God inspired the Bible.     :birgits_giggle:

 

God did not translate the Bible.

God did not inspire the translators.  They were left to their own best efforts.  Poor flawed men.

God got bored and wandered off.

 

Your secondary argument, is that God gave us intellect, to figure things out.

No evidence.  No proof.  Just intellect, to see everything wrong with the inerrant word.     :birgits_giggle:

 

This is where you start in about "seeing by faith" and how much God values "belief".     :birgits_giggle:

Blessed are those who have not seen and believe anyway.

 

Around and around and around.     :sigh2:

 

What ever floats your boat.     :coffee:

 

:mellow:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2019 at 6:10 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

:huh:

 

Your reasoning is tortured.  I will keep this simple.

 

God did not write the Bible.

God inspired the Bible.     :birgits_giggle:

 

God did not translate the Bible.

God did not inspire the translators.  They were left to their own best efforts.  Poor flawed men.

God got bored and wandered off.

 

Your secondary argument, is that God gave us intellect, to figure things out.

No evidence.  No proof.  Just intellect, to see everything wrong with the inerrant word.     :birgits_giggle:

 

This is where you start in about "seeing by faith" and how much God values "belief".     :birgits_giggle:

Blessed are those who have not seen and believe anyway.

 

Around and around and around.     :sigh2:

 

What ever floats your boat.     :coffee:

 

:mellow:

 

 

Agreed... so long as it doesn't sink my boat.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Agreed... so long as it doesn't sink my boat.

 

 

 

:clap:

 

It's Dan.  You know the drill.  No facts.  No evidence.  Only bald assertions and arguments about "faith".

 

Next comes the insults.  Psalms 14 & 53:  "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

 

I think your boat can take it.     :birgits_giggle:

 

:mellow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.