To those who believe in a kind and merciful ? ....why is the world so hostile to life?
Options
Comments
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
Okay, so you believe in one ? that is half good and half evil I guess?
One that is perfectly okay with parasites that eat children alive, many times in countries without good access to doctors or medicine? Sounds like an interesting ? , and maybe that's the ? we have now. But how is such a ? kind or merciful at all, especially if those children are helpless against flesh eating bacteria that is very painful and aggravating for parents to see and go through? Or parasitic worms that grow out of children's limbs in many nations worldwide? Sounds like a creepy ? , assuming such a being is one. But it's an interesting viewpoint.
The view there is one ? that is responsible for all these natural hostilities is very disturbing to me, and why I lean against it but I respect your opinion.
Not so much a half and half ? . Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, even if they are autonomous.
Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, or do you mean good itself? Because yeah, the Zika virus is far from good lol.....it's why I lean toward there being several forces at work, not just one "? ", assuming it even deserves to be called that. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Lol you really don't know what the ? you talking about. You just literally posted the same prophecies which I just literally explained to you why you are wrong. No where is it mentioned that world peace will every be obtained before the end of time. No where is it every mentioned Isreal getting along with its neighbors before the end. No where is it every mentioned that the whole world will worship one ? . I don't know how a person can ALWAYS be so wrong yet full of themselves.
Come on man, seriously? I'm taking quotes directly from the Bible, the quotes that Old Testament experts have validated as true by modern day and ancient Jews. You can run, but not really hide, from the FAILURE of Jesus to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies, as modern day and ancient Jews can easily attest to. I know you have no serious rebuttal to this, it's been 2,000 damn years and I'm not impressed. If you're impressed however, great. Jews and most others aren't.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca/resources-info/the-jewish-messiah
The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity.
The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).
--Hmm, no wonder Jews after 2,000 years still feel Jesus did not fulfill the old prophecies and promises of the real messiah. Every Orthodox Jew will agree with this, and again, Jews wrote the damn Old Testament. Lol come on brah give it up! It's over.
You're really ignorant when it comes to the bible Seriously you are and should stop talking about it. I said it in the last two post the prophices aren't fulfilled until the second coming. How hard is that for you to understand. NOT FULFILLED UNTIL THE SECOND COMING. The whole point of being a Christian is that the bibke is the only authority that matters and is canon to ? 's word. That is the one and only canon which is why I been saying you don't understand and don't know what the ? you talking about at all. Post as many sources of other books from Judaism, Catholic, Orthodox, in the end the bible holds supriority over all.
I guess the Christian view will make little sense to me until the 2nd Coming. It just sounds like such a long shot thing to happen after 2,000 years, that I can't help but laugh at it. But hey, if believing this comforts you, by all means take comfort in it.
I'm more of a "seeing is believing" kind of guy. The Christian viewpoint is still an interesting one, even if I still see no evidence for it.
Lol its funny you suggest evidence and state bring a seeing is believing guy when whatever belief system or lack of belief system has as little evidence as Christianity. But stay on your high horse so full of yourself when you know as little of the universe as I know. The fundamental difference between between you and me is that I honestly keep an open mind to my faith and recognize it only as faith where you clearly and false have a sense of superiority that is misguided at best and completly ignoble at worse. I don't laugh at you that'd above me. I do pity you because of your hatred
How am I on a high horse? I simply want evidence of the Christian viewpoint, if someone is going to bring it up in response to my original question.
If someone doesn't have the evidence, that's fine. I don't pretend to have all the answers of the universe at all. It's why I asked the question to begin with but I do believe if there is a ? , there are multiple ones, based on the state of the world and universe.
And I gave you the answer as to why ? is merciful from a Christian viewpoint and you didn't accept the answer. So you think christian has literally zero merit but base on your one only observationof the world there is multiple gods? And yet you laugh at christians. You have literally zero evidence for your view point but demand it from others
The view of there being multiple gods out there makes more sense to me then the Christian view because it is IMPOSSIBLE for a "loving and merciful ? " at the same time allowing the helpless children and families worldwide, animals and humans, to suffer in so many ways from so many natural disasters. As Albert Einstein said, if there is a ? , it is likely distant and probably unaware of what much of its creation is doing or up to. Maybe not as powerful a ? as some say. And again, maybe several gods are competing against each other.
I'm open to all possibilities but so far at least, there seems to be almost nothing backing up the Christian viewpoint. And that's perfectly okay. It allows me to see other viewpoints, though I still welcome any viewpoint which may be interesting.
That's a belief that you have again it's no more legit then Christianity regardless of how you personally see it. It's funny you laugh at christians and their belief and yet you have the sane unfounded, unproven belief and somehow they are more legit the Christianity.
It's honestly hilarious that yiu continue to say their is nothing backing Christianitywhen their is literally NOTHING backing your belief but your own feeling of the universe. But tell yourself whatever you want to make yourself feel smarter/more rational then you actually are.
That's because the Christian viewpoint has no evidence and frankly, I don't like lazy gods, such as the one you worship. People have to wait for the 2nd coming for proof the Christian ? is real? After 2,000 years, it's obvious the Bible ? either doesn't exist (likely), is lazy as ? , or a total psychopath.
It is what it is bruh. And with the new Zika virus going around, the one that shrinks the heads of babies, giving it BRAIN DAMAGE AT BIRTH, the Bible ? seems faker then the tooth fairy. Oh and by the way, the Zika virus is spread by mosquitoes, is the lazy Bible ? gonna do something about it? No? Well he's a lazy ? then. I'm better off worshipping nothing or a more impressive ? .
Believe whatever you want I honestly don't give a ? . Just don't come in here as though your belief is anymore justified then mine. It's a belief as simple as that. Don't say only the Christian viewpoint say every single view point which includes yours
I'm agnostic as I said, so I admit to not knowing everything. But I also know what makes sense, and what doesn't sense....either way, the search for answers continues.
So believing in multiple Gods makes sense believing in one ? doesnt. Lol ok keep telling yourself that what you believe in is rational -
kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
Okay, so you believe in one ? that is half good and half evil I guess?
One that is perfectly okay with parasites that eat children alive, many times in countries without good access to doctors or medicine? Sounds like an interesting ? , and maybe that's the ? we have now. But how is such a ? kind or merciful at all, especially if those children are helpless against flesh eating bacteria that is very painful and aggravating for parents to see and go through? Or parasitic worms that grow out of children's limbs in many nations worldwide? Sounds like a creepy ? , assuming such a being is one. But it's an interesting viewpoint.
The view there is one ? that is responsible for all these natural hostilities is very disturbing to me, and why I lean against it but I respect your opinion.
Not so much a half and half ? . Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, even if they are autonomous.
Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, or do you mean good itself? Because yeah, the Zika virus is far from good lol.....it's why I lean toward there being several forces at work, not just one "? ", assuming it even deserves to be called that.
No I mean ? itself. I lean towards I don't know wtf I'm talking about because how could I possibly? It's no fun when everything is what we say it is because we say it is. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Sin
I thought you said Jesus forgave and died for our sins? Are you trying to say him dying for our sins didn't make a difference in the long term?
JUST CAUSE UR FORGIVEN FOR SOMETHING DOESNT MEAN U STILL WONT GET PUNISHED!
YEAH U SAID SORRY FOR BREAKING YOUR MOMS FLOWER ? AND SHE FORGAVE U, BUT U STILL GOT A WHIPPEN -
@The_Jackal
If there is one ? , why is so much of the world in constant competition with each other? Why would one ? create a world in which so many different animals, bacteria and others are constantly eating each other alive and doing worse to each other? If there is one ? that made all this intentionally, then it seems a little weird in the head and not worthy of being called a ? . More like a weird, anti social force of some kind.
Things are getting so bad with the Zika virus that in El Salvador, public officials are telling women there to not get pregnant for two years.....you believe one ? created such a hostile world, with bacteria shrinking children's heads and giving them brain damage? And killing the baby in painful ways? Then that "one ? " is a cruel monster. It actually makes sense IF THERE IS a ? that there are multiple ones, some that have negative energies and some with positive ones. I don't see the sense in one "? " making a world so hostile and cruel to living things. If there truly is one ? though, I don't think it's worthy of being called a ? , based on the natural hostilities of the world. Not man made ones, NATURAL ones. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Sin
I thought you said Jesus forgave and died for our sins? Are you trying to say him dying for our sins didn't make a difference in the long term?
JUST CAUSE UR FORGIVEN FOR SOMETHING DOESNT MEAN U STILL WONT GET PUNISHED!
YEAH U SAID SORRY FOR BREAKING YOUR MOMS FLOWER ? AND SHE FORGAVE U, BUT U STILL GOT A WHIPPEN
Oh give me a damn break man. I understand if my mom gave me a whupping, but giving my great grandchildren a virus that's gonna shrink a baby's head and make it brain damaged for the rest of its life? That's sick and twisted man, that means your kind of ? has a grudge that is unending and ridiculous.
Would you pour flesh eating bacteria on a little baby because your baby dropped some apple juice? -
Look at how ridiculous mother nature is lately...........
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-zika-virus-spreads-el-salvador-asks-women-not-to-get-pregnant-until-2018/2016/01/22/1dc2dadc-c11f-11e5-98c8-7fab78677d51_story.html
MEXICO CITY — The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years, an extraordinary precaution aimed at avoiding birth defects believed to be linked to the mosquito-borne illness.
What until recently was a seemingly routine public health problem for countries that are home to a certain type of mosquito has morphed into a potentially culture-shaping phenomenon in which the populations of several nations have been asked to delay procreation. The World Health Organization says at least 20 countries or territories in the region, including Barbados and Bolivia, Guadeloupe and Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Panama, have registered transmission of the virus.
--Smh at the hatred nature is showing us lately. Maybe Earth is trying to send us a message?
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
Okay, so you believe in one ? that is half good and half evil I guess?
One that is perfectly okay with parasites that eat children alive, many times in countries without good access to doctors or medicine? Sounds like an interesting ? , and maybe that's the ? we have now. But how is such a ? kind or merciful at all, especially if those children are helpless against flesh eating bacteria that is very painful and aggravating for parents to see and go through? Or parasitic worms that grow out of children's limbs in many nations worldwide? Sounds like a creepy ? , assuming such a being is one. But it's an interesting viewpoint.
The view there is one ? that is responsible for all these natural hostilities is very disturbing to me, and why I lean against it but I respect your opinion.
Not so much a half and half ? . Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, even if they are autonomous.
Things that come out of ? are not ? itself, or do you mean good itself? Because yeah, the Zika virus is far from good lol.....it's why I lean toward there being several forces at work, not just one "? ", assuming it even deserves to be called that.
No I mean ? itself. I lean towards I don't know wtf I'm talking about because how could I possibly? It's no fun when everything is what we say it is because we say it is.
Yeah, it's all beliefs and thoughts in the end. For all we know, maybe ? has gotten tired of us, and just wants to ? us off already, just like the dinosaurs got killed off.
Maybe roaches are the new chosen ones. They say roaches are the only ones who would survive a nuclear explosion, so maybe our ? or the gods have special plans for them. Who really knows. -
alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior. -
It's really no logical way to reconcile a purely benevolent ? with a malevolent world.
It's closely related to the inconsistency of asserting that a perfect being can create imperfection.
Had ? (assuming he exists for arguments sake) created a perfect world without evil,
it would not infringe upon our free will. Surely, it would limit our choices, though our choices are
already limited by our very nature at present.
-
Creating a perfect world without evil and then putting freewill creatures on it is logical impossible.
If you limit my choice then I am not truly free as it is now only the laws of physics limit what man can or cannot do. -
alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert. -
It's really no logical way to reconcile a purely benevolent ? with a malevolent world.
It's closely related to the inconsistency of asserting that a perfect being can create imperfection.
Had ? (assuming he exists for arguments sake) created a perfect world without evil,
it would not infringe upon our free will. Surely, it would limit our choices, though our choices are
already limited by our very nature at present.
Exactly, free will should really be called limited will. Our "free will" is limited by so many factors that calling it free will is almost a joke. I do believe many have some semblance of free will but just as many, if not more, don't really have free will at all.
Our choices are limited by so many natural factors, environment, intelligence, childhood, even genetics (some have weak immune systems or are weak in general). A healthy genius with a millionaire father has way better choices in life then an orphan in Brazil who suffers from malaria or some other horrible tropical disease. Free will, in this world at least, is not really free at all. Add to that natural disasters and calamities like viruses and cruel bacteria, and many people, especially children, have no serious choice in their life at all. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert.
There were people in the Bible who didn't need a miracle to believe in Jesus so what about them? One "small" example is the Samaritan woman. She wasn't like "show me trick and I will follow you". Jesus didn't "magically" cause the stones to fall out of her accusers's hands. He exposed their sin and they turned away. Jesus exposed her sins and she came to faith.
...and what about Judas? According to your understanding, he should have been convinced as well. He was a disciple so he had a front row seat to it all. But he still ended up betraying Jesus and in the end, realizing he was in sin, killed himself. And I guess Jesus's Cruxificion could have been prevented if he just did a few more magic tricks in front of the Jews. The Jews had him crucified because they believe he was a blasphemer...not because they were not impressed with the show.
Miracles were a part of what Jesus did in his ministry, but he is not ultimately defined my his miracles which I hope you will see. He came to show how we are all sinners in need of a savior. If you don't embrace that, a thousand "miracles" are not going to change your mind.
-
For the ARGUMENT that MAN has sinned and thus he's beholden to some debt of ? . Couple of things wrong with this theory.
1 ? manipulated mankind after their supposed sin. Therefore how can he blame them for being sinners. 2 Examples stand out. 1 Kicking Eve and Adam out of the garden. 2 Confusing the languages in the Tower of Babel. Specifically stating is there nothing man will be able to do if they spoke one language.
2 ? mentions no such sin when establishing his covenant with Israel. He never said since Adam sinned then you must always be servants. He said I brought you out of the land of EGYPT and for that you are indebted to me. I have made a covenant relationship with you. One in which the Jews did not break after building the second temple. No he stated that you are my chosen people that I have chosen as a nation. As a nation I'm going to send you my Messaiah.
3. Jesus was not the WORLDS messiah. Understand what that word means. Then you will understand how he didn't fulfill the covenant between Israel and ? . Therefore saying that he will make things right upon his return is Hogwash. Go look at the original promise given to the Jews in Isaiah.
4. ? never fulfills a promise not the other way around. What makes you think he will fulfill one now? Its like making a deal with a lawyer who isn't even clever at deceiving you. Where is the land of Milk and Honey originally promised to the Jews in ? . Look at the promise he made in Isaiah
For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.
4 “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
That never happened.
Now we are to believe in a Messiah's return that is almost 2000 years delayed.
(FOR YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GRAB ISAIAH TEXT AND THEN SAY JESUS WAS PREDICTED IN ISAIAH LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE BOOK IS TALKING ABOUT CYRUS. Specifically it states.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
WHERE ARE JESUS'S OFFSPRING?)
-
rodneyskinner wrote: »For the ARGUMENT that MAN has sinned and thus he's beholden to some debt of ? . Couple of things wrong with this theory.
1 ? manipulated mankind after their supposed sin. Therefore how can he blame them for being sinners. 2 Examples stand out. 1 Kicking Eve and Adam out of the garden. 2 Confusing the languages in the Tower of Babel. Specifically stating is there nothing man will be able to do if they spoke one language.
2 ? mentions no such sin when establishing his covenant with Israel. He never said since Adam sinned then you must always be servants. He said I brought you out of the land of EGYPT and for that you are indebted to me. I have made a covenant relationship with you. One in which the Jews did not break after building the second temple. No he stated that you are my chosen people that I have chosen as a nation. As a nation I'm going to send you my Messaiah.
3. Jesus was not the WORLDS messiah. Understand what that word means. Then you will understand how he didn't fulfill the covenant between Israel and ? . Therefore saying that he will make things right upon his return is Hogwash. Go look at the original promise given to the Jews in Isaiah.
4. ? never fulfills a promise not the other way around. What makes you think he will fulfill one now? Its like making a deal with a lawyer who isn't even clever at deceiving you. Where is the land of Milk and Honey originally promised to the Jews in ? . Look at the promise he made in Isaiah
For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.
4 “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
That never happened.
Now we are to believe in a Messiah's return that is almost 2000 years delayed.
(FOR YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GRAB ISAIAH TEXT AND THEN SAY JESUS WAS PREDICTED IN ISAIAH LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE BOOK IS TALKING ABOUT CYRUS. Specifically it states.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
WHERE ARE JESUS'S OFFSPRING?)
1. ? is not blaming all of mankind for being sinners but he does acknowledge that that's the state mankind is in now when it comes is israel things get more complex because of the covenants he made with them.
2. The jews did break the law after the second temple read Malachi it's right there at the very start of the book
3. Israel misunderstood the covenant, Make things right??? ? is not really coming back to make things right he's coming back to end things.
4. funny enough is seems that the jews are in a way doing that right now to the palestinians kicking them our of their own towns but anyway isaiah 53 is not about cyrus, does this sound like any mortal king to you
isa 53:3
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
jesus offspring are this spiritual children the millions of christians all across the planet -
Creating a perfect world without evil and then putting freewill creatures on it is logical impossible.
If you limit my choice then I am not truly free as it is now only the laws of physics limit what man can or cannot do.
? could have made it impossible to commit evil
just as it is impossible for man to breathe underwater.
If ? authored the laws of physics,
he's limiting you in some way because you aren't exactly
free to do everything.
I believe kingblaze worded it better than I did:kingblaze84 wrote: »Our choices are limited by so many natural factors, environment, intelligence, childhood, even genetics (some have weak immune systems or are weak in general). A healthy genius with a millionaire father has way better choices in life then an orphan in Brazil who suffers from malaria or some other horrible tropical disease. Free will, in this world at least, is not really free at all. -
double
-
alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert.
There were people in the Bible who didn't need a miracle to believe in Jesus so what about them? One "small" example is the Samaritan woman. She wasn't like "show me trick and I will follow you". Jesus didn't "magically" cause the stones to fall out of her accusers's hands. He exposed their sin and they turned away. Jesus exposed her sins and she came to faith.
...and what about Judas? According to your understanding, he should have been convinced as well. He was a disciple so he had a front row seat to it all. But he still ended up betraying Jesus and in the end, realizing he was in sin, killed himself. And I guess Jesus's Cruxificion could have been prevented if he just did a few more magic tricks in front of the Jews. The Jews had him crucified because they believe he was a blasphemer...not because they were not impressed with the show.
Miracles were a part of what Jesus did in his ministry, but he is not ultimately defined my his miracles which I hope you will see. He came to show how we are all sinners in need of a savior. If you don't embrace that, a thousand "miracles" are not going to change your mind.
Ok you have some fair points there, Jesus didn't need miracles to convince all of his followers back then. But there's a difference between being a decent guy and proving one is a ? and heaven only achievable by being Christian and following the Bible's rules (that's a whole other thread, but I'm tempted to bring up some of the odd and strange rules there).
And let's say Jesus is a "savior", who is gonna save the paralyzed children suffering from the Zika virus? As if being a parent isn't tough enough, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions someday, have to deal with nature made viruses that paralyze a child and shrink their heads in the cruelest of ways? Who is gonna save the homeless people in NY and elsewhere from freezing in this cold and snow storm that is setting records? Humans are gonna keep "sinning", so what's Jesus waiting for? Too many contradictions in your narrative. -
Creating a perfect world without evil and then putting freewill creatures on it is logical impossible.
If you limit my choice then I am not truly free as it is now only the laws of physics limit what man can or cannot do.
? could have made it impossible to commit evil
just as it is impossible for man to breathe underwater.
If ? authored the laws of physics,
he's limiting you in some way because you aren't exactly
free to do everything.
I believe kingblaze worded it better than I did:kingblaze84 wrote: »Our choices are limited by so many natural factors, environment, intelligence, childhood, even genetics (some have weak immune systems or are weak in general). A healthy genius with a millionaire father has way better choices in life then an orphan in Brazil who suffers from malaria or some other horrible tropical disease. Free will, in this world at least, is not really free at all.
No because he wanted to create freewill having creatures THEREFORE he had to allow us the ability to do evil.
We can do everything possible not anything we can think of the reason why is very logical if you think about it because once something is created it cannot do anything meaning it cannot do anything it thinks of.
for example people cannot time travel or fly under their own power or negate the laws of cause and effect and when you say you can do anything it has to include the impossible -
rodneyskinner wrote: »For the ARGUMENT that MAN has sinned and thus he's beholden to some debt of ? . Couple of things wrong with this theory.
1 ? manipulated mankind after their supposed sin. Therefore how can he blame them for being sinners. 2 Examples stand out. 1 Kicking Eve and Adam out of the garden. 2 Confusing the languages in the Tower of Babel. Specifically stating is there nothing man will be able to do if they spoke one language.
2 ? mentions no such sin when establishing his covenant with Israel. He never said since Adam sinned then you must always be servants. He said I brought you out of the land of EGYPT and for that you are indebted to me. I have made a covenant relationship with you. One in which the Jews did not break after building the second temple. No he stated that you are my chosen people that I have chosen as a nation. As a nation I'm going to send you my Messaiah.
3. Jesus was not the WORLDS messiah. Understand what that word means. Then you will understand how he didn't fulfill the covenant between Israel and ? . Therefore saying that he will make things right upon his return is Hogwash. Go look at the original promise given to the Jews in Isaiah.
4. ? never fulfills a promise not the other way around. What makes you think he will fulfill one now? Its like making a deal with a lawyer who isn't even clever at deceiving you. Where is the land of Milk and Honey originally promised to the Jews in ? . Look at the promise he made in Isaiah
For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.
4 “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
That never happened.
Now we are to believe in a Messiah's return that is almost 2000 years delayed.
(FOR YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GRAB ISAIAH TEXT AND THEN SAY JESUS WAS PREDICTED IN ISAIAH LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE BOOK IS TALKING ABOUT CYRUS. Specifically it states.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
WHERE ARE JESUS'S OFFSPRING?)
1. ? is not blaming all of mankind for being sinners but he does acknowledge that that's the state mankind is in now when it comes is israel things get more complex because of the covenants he made with them.
2. The jews did break the law after the second temple read Malachi it's right there at the very start of the book
3. Israel misunderstood the covenant, Make things right??? ? is not really coming back to make things right he's coming back to end things.
4. funny enough is seems that the jews are in a way doing that right now to the palestinians kicking them our of their own towns but anyway isaiah 53 is not about cyrus, does this sound like any mortal king to you
isa 53:3
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
jesus offspring are this spiritual children the millions of christians all across the planet
Big difference between OFFSPRING and followers. And the prophecies said the real savior would be UNDEFEATED in battle and ? ALL his enemies as a general and eventually king. Jesus got his ass kicked and died as a carpenter. I can name other gods with more impressive track records then that. -
You know what @kingblaze84 when it comes to religion I'm dusting my sandals off and shaking my clothes off about you. You don't want to learn or understand the Christian perspective on anything all you really want to do is disrespect ? and Christianity.
It's been a waste of time speaking to you about religion and this will be my last post to you about the subject
-
Okay, so I guess the Old Testament prophets didn't know what the hell they were talking about......
By that same connection, it must mean the Bible ? is phony and doesn't exist. After all, the Old Testament prophets were WRONG and inaccurate about what the real savior was supposed to do in its lifetime. So imagine what else they were wrong about.
