|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Anti-theist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Paradoxically, most of Satan's servants on earth don't even believe he exists. Actually, I've found that most of Satan's servants on earth do believe that he exists, but rather mistakenly believe that they do not serve him. Exampli gratia, creationists who serve "their god" through lies and deception despite Christian doctrine clearly identifies the god so served as being Satan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Paradoxically, most of Satan's servants on earth don't even believe he exists. Paradoxically, most of the people on this planet don't believe that any of your other gods exist either. Not your jesus, your mary, your yahweh, or your elohim . Since your gods are known fiction then, by extension, any story and supporting cast is also known fiction. Your boogeyman satan scares no one but the stupid.
As for knowing what reality is, you would know, being the Master of All Reality.
That's right buckaroo. When physics speaks even your gods cannot resist my commands.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
That's right buckaroo. When physics speaks even your gods cannot resist my commands. Test for the True Believer: in an experiment in which an heavier-than-air object is to be released to fall to the floor, pray your greatest and most powerful prayers using your greatest and most powerful rituals to keep that object from falling at the rates predicted by physics. What will the effects of those prayers and rituals be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
That's a fool-proof test, no doubt about it. I can tell you put a lot of thought into that one.
Test for the True Believer: in an experiment in which an heavier-than-air object is to be released to fall to the floor, pray your greatest and most powerful prayers using your greatest and most powerful rituals to keep that object from falling at the rates predicted by physics. What will the effects of those prayers and rituals be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
So what's your results, asshole?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
On the contrary, YOU have zero evidence that He didn't. He did tell one man specifically and the early church did live that way, so they must have thought that it applied to them too.
In other words, you have zero evidence that Jesus said all his followers must live in socialist communes. Dredge writes:
It's irrelevant which member of the Trinity told them. The point is that they were told - and you just admitted that they were.
The Holy Spirit told them (after the day of Pentecost), not Jesus. Dredge writes:
According to Acts 4:35, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need," so yes, it is the same thing.
Jesus instructed the rich man to give away his wealth to the "poor" ... which has got nothing whatsoever to do with donating all his wealth to, and then living in, a socialist commune. Dredge writes:
Where's your evidence for that? And how do you reconcile different people having different requirements for salvation? It was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time, not for all Christians. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were commanded to live that way, let alone told that it is necessary for salvation."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Jesus instructed the rich man to give away his wealth to the "poor" ... which has got nothing whatsoever to do with donating all his wealth to, and then living in, a socialist commune.ringo writes:
Absurd. The "poor" that Jesus refers to in Matt 19:21 could not possibly be the Christian commune described in Acts (2, 4, 5) ... simply bcoz the Acts commune was not formed until after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) .... well after Jesus' time on earth!
According to Acts 4:35, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need," so yes, it is the same thing.
So the chronology alone makes a nonsense of you argument. The "poor" in Matt 19: is not a reference to the Christian commune in Acts, but to any poor people in the general community. There are about Bible 300 references to caring for the "poor", and none of them refer to a commune such as the one in Acts. Unsurprisingly, you won't find one Bible scholar or commentary on the planet who agrees with your ridiculous interpretation.Neither will you find any of the Early Church Fathers agreeing with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
ringo writes:
Jesus told the rich young man, in order to be "perfect" (Matt 19:21), he should give all that he had to the poor. So it was not a necessity, but a voluntary act on the part of the rich young man. He did tell one man specifically and the early church did live that way, so they must have thought that it applied to them too. Likewise in Acts 5:3-5, Peter said to Ananias,"why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not REMAIN YOUR OWN? And after it was sold, was it not AT YOUR DISPOSAL?" Peter is saying that before and after the sale of the land, Ananias was free to do with it whatever he wanted. In other words, the act of Ananias selling his land and giving the proceeds to the commune was not a necessity, but voluntary. The grave sin of Ananias and his wife was attempting to deceive the Christian community into thinking they were generous and devoted by donating all the proceeds of the land sale ... whereas the truth is, not only were they not as generous and devoted as they made out, they were dishonest as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
It was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time, not for all Christians. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were commanded to live that way, let alone told that it is necessary for salvation.
ringo writes:
Before I address your question, I would like to point out that I was wrong to state that it "was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time". Donating to the first Christian community in Acts (2, 4-5) was not a "requirement" - it was voluntary. Where's your evidence for that? Now, back to your question:If donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune were essential for salvation, it would be emphasised throughout the NT. But there is no mention of any such requirement ... not even in the few verses referring to the first Christian community in Acts (2, 4, 5). Furthermore, there are many sins mentioned in the NT, but - surprise, surprise - not donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not one of them.
And how do you reconcile different people having different requirements for salvation?
There are not "different requirements for salvation".Contrary to your hillbilly reading of Scripture, donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not a requirement for salvation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I didn't say it was. I said that the Christian commune was following the instructions of Jesus, contrary to your claim that their actions were completely unrelated to what Jesus said.
The "poor" that Jesus refers to in Matt 19:21 could not possibly be the Christian commune described in Acts (2, 4, 5) ... simply bcoz the Acts commune was not formed until after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) .... well after Jesus' time on earth! Dredge writes:
I didn't say it was. I said that they were following His instructions. The "poor" in Matt 19: is not a reference to the Christian commune in Acts, but to any poor people in the general community. Are all of your misconceptions based on lack of reading comprehension?
Dredge writes:
The commune in Acts was in direct response to what Jesus said. There are about Bible 300 references to caring for the "poor", and none of them refer to a commune such as the one in Acts. And the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira is an idication that the commune was a valid interpretation of what Jesus said. Why else would God kill the ones who didn't obey Jesus?
Dredge writes:
On the contrary, the early Church did exactly what Jesus said - and exactly as I have said. Unsurprisingly, you won't find one Bible scholar or commentary on the planet who agrees with your ridiculous interpretation.Neither will you find any of the Early Church Fathers agreeing with you. "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
God killed Ananias and Sapphira for not doing it. Doesn't that suggest that it was "wrong"?
Furthermore, there are many sins mentioned in the NT, but - surprise, surprise - not donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not one of them. Dredge writes:
Jesus told the rich young ruler that he "must" do it to be saved - i.e. it WAS a requirement for him. It also appeared to be a requirement for Ananias and Sapphira. So I'm stll waiting for you to explain why you think it is (conveniently) not a requirement for YOU. You clearly ARE suggesting different standards for different people. There are not "different requirements for salvation".Contrary to your hillbilly reading of Scripture, donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not a requirement for salvation. "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Jesus was answering the rich young man's question: Jesus told the rich young man, in order to be "perfect" (Matt 19:21), he should give all that he had to the poor. quoteHe asked, "What MUST I do?" He was asking for REQUIREMENTS. Jesus told him he MUST follow the commandments and the young man said: quoteHe was asking what else he was REQUIRED to do to have eternal life. And Jesus replied:quoteJesus was answering a question about REQUIREMENTS. Dredge writes:
Having eternal life is voluntary. The REQUIREMENTS for having it are not.
So it was not a necessity, but a voluntary act on the part of the rich young man. Dredge writes:
He was LEGALLY free to do what he wanted with the land. Roman Law and Jewish law did not recognize Jesus' REQUIREMENTS. The rich young man was legally free NOT to choose eternal life.
Peter is saying that before and after the sale of the land, Ananias was free to do with it whatever he wanted. Dredge writes:
Peter was quite clear. They were guilty of deception AND keeping back part of the proceeds. Keeping back part of the proceeds was clearly part of the wrongdoing. Lying about it only compounded the transgression. The grave sin of Ananias and his wife was attempting to deceive the Christian community into thinking they were generous and devoted by donating all the proceeds of the land sale ... (And Phat should be ashamed of himself for cheering your nonsense. I've been through all this with him before.)Edited by ringo, : Matthew 12 --> Matthew 19 "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: So what? Your interpretation is wrong. You didn't imagine yourself an expert at scripture, did you? Phat should be ashamed of himself for cheering your nonsense. I've been through all this with him before. You have had the audacity to state that parts of the Bible are wrong and that you only follow and quote the parts that get it right. The only reason you like the idea that Jesus expects everyone to give everything they have up before they gain eternal life is that you are a leftist who believes that people have a charge to take care of each other. Though you may be right, let me remind you that were the state EVER to declare that everyones money belonged to them I and many others would NOT agree with such a ludicrous idea. Even the Apostles told Ananias that the money remained his after the sale. And even if Jesus had spoken of such a requirment, it was clarely NOT applicable to everybody and the Apostles would no have ever read it since there was no Bible at that time. If they had the Holy Spirit, which is commonly believed, they would have done precisely what the Spirit led them to do. I have no shame over your preferred teachings."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Though you may be right, let me remind you that were the state EVER to declare that everyones money belonged to them I and many others would NOT agree with such a ludicrous idea "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" - some guy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And yet neither you nor Dread can defend your interpetation.
Your interpretation is wrong. Phat writes:
I have pretty good reading comprehension and I'm just pointing out what the scripture actually says. It's your interpretation that denies what the scripture says. It's your interpretation that is inconsistent with a large volume of scripture. And it's your interpretation that is egregiously self-serving.
You didn't imagine yourself an expert at scripture, did you? Phat writes:
I have said no such thing. You have had the audacity to state that parts of the Bible are wrong and that you only follow and quote the parts that get it right. I have said that many parts of the Bible are wrong, and they are. The Flood is a prime example. And I have said that Jesus' message did happen to get it right. What I have said about the passage in question (giving it all up for God) is exactly what Jesus said and that that principle permeates much of the Bible. I have not advocated that you should do what Jesus said. I have simply pointed out that that is what He said.
Phat writes:
I'm going to have to go through that sentence almost word by word to point out most of what's wrong with it:
The only reason you like the idea that Jesus expects everyone to give everything they have up before they gain eternal life is that you are a leftist who believes that people have a charge to take care of each other.Phat writes:
I have never said that I like the idea. I have said that that is what Jesus said.
The only reason you like the idea...Phat writes:
No. Jesus doesn't "expect" any such thing. He requires that his followers give everything up. If you don't do it, you're not his follower and you will not receive eternal life.
... that Jesus expects everyone to give everything they have up before they gain eternal life...Phat writes:
It's not a "charge" and it isn't exclusive to "leftists". EVERYBODY ought to take care of each other. That's the point of being a social species.
... you are a leftist who believes that people have a charge to take care of each other. Phat writes:
Get this through your thick skull, you moron: I HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT "THE STATE" TAKING ANYTHING!
... let me remind you that were the state EVER to declare that everyones money belonged to them ... Phat writes:
As I said to Dredge, that was Roman law and/or Jewish law. It has nothing to do with whether or not you give it up.
Even the Apostles told Ananias that the money remained his after the sale. Phat writes:
And yet neither you nor Dredge has been able to demonstrate that it is not applicable to everybody. Why would there be different requirements for salvation for different people?
And even if Jesus had spoken of such a requirment, it was clarely NOT applicable to everybody.... Phat writes:
DUH! The apostles heard it from Jesus Himself - and they obeyed. ... the Apostles would no have ever read it since there was no Bible at that time. (And yes, there was an Old Testament at the time. I have mentioned the widow who gave Elijah her last morsel of food even though she expected herself and her son to die as a result. For homework, go ahead and search the Old Testament for similar examples.)
Phat writes:
Then the apostles "Had the Holy Spirit" because they did what Jesus told them to do. And the early Church (except for Ananias and Sapphira) had it because they did what Jesus told them to do. And the lady with two mites. Etc.
If they had the Holy Spirit, which is commonly believed, they would have done precisely what the Spirit led them to do. Phat writes:
It isn't my "prefered" teaching. It's YOUR teaching.
I have no shame over your preferred teachings.quote Edited by ringo, : Removed sentence fragment. Don't remember what the whole sentence was supposed to be. "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024