Part 13 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

These to should be getting run through the ringer by real christians. The fact no other christian has told WR to tone down the idiocy is astounding. And mitt drooling over how WR does such a good job inspite of WR recent lunacy about all babies could have been eaten by adults at noah's flood time.
Either they agree with the lunacy being presented or are to ashamed to post. But someone has to save face for christianity in these forums.

 

That was my question. Gifted's series of posts makes much sense. It would seem there were a few different god's. They each have different characteristics. One of the names is a plural name, actually there may be a few.
It is why, when moses was on the mountain, the israelites went back to worshipping another god. Even though they supposedly all just witnessed a sea parting so they could cross it without egyptian soldiers killing them. They seemed to have lost their faith extremely fast. As the story goes.

 

Something we agree on. Probably why there are 3 religions of abraham based on this on God.
And thousand of sects of christianity, based on this God.
Many details seem to be left out.
So as you have stated often regarding this, 'God hardened pharaoh's heart' means pharoah changed his heart/feelings on his own accord. Which means, you are adding interpretation to the written word.

 

There is only one religion of God of Abraham and that is Christianity.
Judaism has forsake God of Abraham by denying God Jesus Christ.
Islam has totally wrote their own story that has nothing to to do with the Abraham God that is Jesus Christ.
No interpretation is being added only explain.

 

There are many gods mentioned in the Old Testament. When you've studied it you are surprised by just how many, and the different nations who worshipped both different gods, or, in many cases, the same god with a different name. Israel were never faithful to their God for any length of time before the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. We don't know a lot about them after Cyrus letting some return, until the time of the Maccabees, when some of the Jews turned to Hellenism.

Many Jewish houses had 'teraphims' - household idols.

What a lot of people get confused with is that most of the 'nations' mentioned - Moab, Edom etc were often made up of 'city states'. Cities which had their own ruler and often their own god, and would come together - usually - when danger threatened.
We see this vividly in Philistia. 5 main cities, with their own rulers, often combined to invade Israel.

Oooops I'm waffling again.

 

By all means, waffle away. I have not studied early jewish religions to find out how all this started.
These answers are way more educational than just saying simply, we ate them. oops, I waffle.

 

You really do not read the Bible much or any material on the Bible. James 2 = The book of James Chapter 2. Holy spicoly batman, you really have not studied much material on the Bible or you would know this. Put James 2 into google and click on one of the online Bible links which will there will be 3 or 4 of them in the top 10 and it will take you directly to James 2. Biblegateway.com for example. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2

Note that when you click on this link, it will take you to "James 2" in the Bible.

Further - this is me you are talking to - the fellow that has consistently corrected your erroneous claims in relation to the Bible and each and every time so far you have been proven wrong.

So it is a bit ridiculous for you to state dogmatically "why do you make false claims". Once again, scripture proves you wrong.

James 2 is talking about faith in Jesus and doing what the law commands.

James 2:14

James here is asking a clear question. Can someone be saved on the basis of faith ?

We know from the religious history and the Bible that there was a split between the Church of Jerusalem (Jewish/Judeo Christians who followed the disciples - led by James brother of Jesus) and the Hellenists (mostly Greek gentiles that followed Paul)

After the destruction of the Temple the Pauline Christians the split widens but the beginnings of that split we can see from the writing of James.

This split was over whether or not the law of the OT was valid.
http://followingtheancientpaths.fil...ing-split-between-syna-church-1st-century.pdf

James in this letter is addressing this divergence of doctrine and he is clearly referring to Christians at the time that were claiming "salvation by faith alone" = Sola Fide.

So James poses the question "Can faith without works = faith alone save someone" Can we be saved purely on the basis of faith ?

James gives an example and states categorically: Faith by itself without works is dead

James gives us another example: You say you have faith that God is one = Even demons believe that.

Here James gets straight to the point: It is a foolish person that even needs to be shown that "faith alone is useless"

Abraham was justified by his works. Sure he had faith in God, but he was justified by his works.

.

If there was any doubt in the first example James states it again "A person is justified by works" not by faith alone

Then for the third time in this short letter James states "faith without works is dead"

Was there a doctrine among the early Christians "Salvation by faith alone" ? Of course, this is what Paul preached.

Does James believe that this is false doctrine ? According to James only a fool believes such things.

 

To explain your "good and loving" God drowning babies....you MAKE UP things "possibly" being true, like the pre-Flood people having babies just to eat them ONE MINUTE after delivery (Remember, to spare God's image, not ONE baby could have existed the minute the rain started to pour.).

Didn't you FIRST try "God took those babies to Heaven" for God ordering the slaughter of the Amalekite babies? Why not for the drowned babies?

Or did you see a flaw in your previous rationalization....perhaps even a BIBLICAL flaw in your previous rationalization???


Now...it's simply a joke. As noted earlier, your logic on cannibalism holds no more water than your attempt to claim that's "possibly" what happened during the Flood...without a single shred of Biblical evidence.

 

Mitt Ryan just undercut EVERYTHING he claims abuot the Bible.

If there are "left out details"....then it is possible that one of those details could CONTRADICT what Mitt says about the Bible...or even his own faith.

 

Today many babies are being aborted, infanticide and neonaticide are the modern term for killing babies including babies before they were born. and God love these innocent babies so much that He destroyed all the wicked and evil adults that are committing this horrendous crime in Noah's flood.

In the Amalekite situations the Amalekite were as evil as the early people of Noah's flood just like Hitler, Imperial Japan were training their children to be wicked soldiers the Amalekite were training their children to be as evil and wicked as their adult to destroy the Hebrews. The babies souls were all saved before the adult Amealekite can make them to become evil RIP

No flaw the enemies and actions were very clear to defeat and destroy wicked and evil people that has plague this planet and made it a hostile place to live on. How about you are you defending the wicked and evil are you saying that God should let the Amalekite wipe out the Hebrews? Or let the wicked and evil people of Noah's time to consumes the entire planet and make it a pure wicked planet?

There is no joke when people are suffering, when evil and wickedness threatens the very fiber of humanity. Your logic that there is no babies or where are the babies is very alien. Biblical evidence is in the scripture Genesis 6: 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. continually evil in every imagination and thoughts that said it all everything is sums up cannibalism, infanticide, neonaticide, abortion, ethnic cleansing, cannibalism, torture, rape, impaling, etc. etc. etc. what more or how much more wickedness and evil do you want are those not enough for evil for you?

 

It does not matter what I believe. The fact is that according to the Bible God killed children and babies.

You claim to believe that the Bible is true so I was wondering how you feel about God killing all those babies and killing children in front of their parents as punishment to the parents.

Certainly not after the flood as all of them would have been killed other than Noah's kids. There is no mention in Genesis of people eating all their babies. If this fantasy works for you so be it.

I have already answer your question God is no trickster man are.

Clearly you do not know what the word "regardless" means. It was not an expression of doubt.

If God did not get rid of the evidence then who did ?

Man did not remove all the evidence.

What belief makes you a true Christian ?

The belief that people ate their babies or that God kills babies or your belief that God is a trickster ?

 

Christianity wrote their own story as well. It is called the New Testament.

Islam has their "New Testament" as well. It is called the Quran.

Just like Christianity, Islam regards the Torah to be scripture and believe in the God of Abraham.

 

So just because of your error it means I don't read the bible much?...lol

You should have written in the book of James chapter 2....and not James 2. Or perhaps written James ch. 2...I mean what's so hard about being specific? It avoids confusion. There are other books that have 2 or 3 books tied to them.

If someone was to write in the book of John 3, or John 1, or John 2 what would you regard those to mean? That would confuse you, no doubt since there is the book of John, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John.

Or how about Corinthians 2, do you think people would regard that as the book of 2 Corinthians or Corinthians chapter 2? They would probably believe it has to be the former since there are 2 books of Corinthians.

The point is, to avoid confusion be more specific, don't be lazy.

Everytime when I quote Scripture at the end I give the book it came from, the chapter, the verse/verses and then what bible it was quoted from...in other words I'm being very specific.

You should get into the habit of being very specific yourself to avoid confusion when referring anything to do with Scripture.

 

There is only one book of James so your comments in relation to John and Corinthians do not apply. The format for scripture is Book, Chapter, Verse. Since there is no 2 James or 3 James, there is no point in putting a 1 in front.

James 2 by convention is James Chapter 2

Now is this just another avoidance tactic or did you wish to comment on the fact that you were completely clueless in terms of the content of James and apologise for saying that I said something false when it turns out that you are the one who, once again, has no clue ?

 

Way to avoid answering anything he posted. No one is surprised you dodged, yet again.
WanRen, mitt needs a little help here.

 

Rather than making up stories about what you think is in the Bible, perhaps you should try reading the Bible to find out why God was killing babies.

In many instances God gives his rational for killing people so my suggestion is that you quote from the Bible to give Gods rational rather than putting words in Gods mouth.

 

the disturbing thing is that most christians, by the time they get around to reading the small print, are already lost. so coming across biblical references to broad scale kidocide has no more impact than do references to fluffy lambs. I've sat side by side with a christian and read this stuff out loud - together - and the sheer lack of response in that person was very creepy. he kept remarking on the peripherals, and the meanings of those peripherals, just as though the important bit "kill everyone!" wasn't even there.

 

I think many Christians and especially Christian scholars have come to the realization that many of the stories in the Bible came from the imagination of man and had little to do with some command from God.

The funny ones are the literalists. Fundamentalists who claim to believe that every word is from God but they run and hide and make things up when something comes up that conflicts with the man made dogma they learned from their local Pastor.

It gets even more interesting when you study the early Christian Church. The main two competing groups were the Hellenists (non Jews who were converts of Paul also known as Gentiles) and Judeo Christians (Jews who followed the disciples of Jesus)

The Judeo Christians wanted to keep the OT and believed in the law. The Hellenists moved further and further away from being bound by the law to the point of actual denial of the OT.

That was the early Pauline Christian Church. Now, some 1900 years later, these Pauline Christians now think the OT is the literal word of God.

The inability to come to grip with God killing babies and so forth do so because they are under the influence of a sophisticated form of mind control.

When you take a child and scare the "hell" out of that child by telling that child "If you do not believe in God you will burn in hell" this has a powerful impact on their subconscious.

This is then reinforced with black vs white, good vs evil, God vs Devil ideology where cult doctrine is Good and anything contradicting cult doctrine is evil.

They then implant what are referred to as "thought stopping devices". When an adherent comes across information that conflicts with cult doctrine the adherent will go into denial mode.

I will give a couple of examples:

In a conversation with some Hare Krishna adherents I had backed them into a logical corner and all of a sudden they started chanting and singing ... LA LA LA Hare Hare ..Rama Rama ... I was stunned. At the time I did not know what this was.

Later in life I had a close friend get indoctrinated into a Christian Cult. Some non denominational group. He started acting weird, no longer going out to bar's with us because "the devil was there" an so on.

I remember clearly sitting in a Hotel Room with this friend discussing scripture a few years later after he had moved to a different city and I was visiting. He would make a claim and I would rebut that claim using scripture. Slowly but surely I had him backed into a corner.

He was sitting in a chair across from me and I was on the bed. Right when I had him in a position where my scripture conflicted with his doctrine so much that he could not respond .... all of a sudden he turned white. I will never forget this. Then all of a sudden he is on his knees grasping at my hand staying "Pray with me now .. Pray with me now"

I was horrified. Later I studied cult mind control and learned that this was a thought stopping device that had been intentionally planted in this person.

I am not suggesting all Churches do this but some of the lighter indoctrination is inherent in the dogma to varying degrees'.

When things are "black and white" ... anything that conflicts with cult/church doctrine is seen as the Devil or has the possibility of condemning this person to hell.

Most of the time the adherent is not even consciously aware that this process is going on but it is going on sub consciously which affects their conscious actions.

This is where the denial and making up the most ridiculous and illogical stories in order to defend beliefs. The person has to because if even one tenet of their beliefs is admitted to be wrong the whole structure collapses ... down the hole to hell.

I have given a very simplified explanation but if your are interested you can start by reading a book written by Steve Hassan "Cult Mind Control. Pulled up a video here ... have not seen it so not sure if it is similar to the book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw-oF-Z_I7U

 

So when did killing babies and or people become rational?

 

Good question .. need to ask this one to Mitt and Wanren

 

I think they are afraid of me as they haven't answered one question that I have asked yet!

 

everything you say is correct.

and I've had the book for years! read it through a few times. while not a scholarly tome, there's plenty of worthwhile material in it, and the man understands the psychiatry involved.

the interesting thing about these "thought stopping" devices is that they're almost always unwittingly set. the implanters are themselves programmed to believe they're doing the right thing, and don't understand the mechanics of what they're doing at all. prosaically, you can only be implanted effectively by someone who themselves has an intact implant. it can be done in the lab, of course, and has been done - with double and triple blinds - and the mechanics are easily seen in such trials. you can indoctrinate/implant ANYTHING, literally.

but back to the thought stopping, which is the thing we see manifesting here all the time. there are some that seem to be able to think their way around it, so I suspect in these peeps there's enough of the rational (sane?) individual left to recognise what's happening and work through it. but even these will slam down the blinders when anyone gets to close to the void. awful business.

 

You are not making sense. If WR is so against what the Jews or Muslims believe in, it's because He knows they are not worshipping the same God as we Christians do.

Clearly you are blooter. We have time after time told you that their god is not the same God as we Christians believe in, and you still don't understand that which makes you an obtuse of a person.

If we were worshipping the same God, then it would mean all 3 religions are true but that can't be the case because there are differences, in other words they contradict each other...is it sinking in somehow for you to understand that?

It would mean God is not immutable, He contradicts Himself but we know that's not God's nature, for He is immutable, unchanging, He doesn't contradict Himself.

He can't be saying to the Muslims, you know you are right...Jesus is not my Son, He was just a prophet. Or say to the Jews, you know you are right, Jesus is not the Messiah then say to us Christians, "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."---John 3:16 NLT

It's because they are atheists, my friend WR is a Christian who believes in the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He has professed that Jesus Christ is his Lord Savior.

He would be contradicting himself if he were to believe in Hinduism/Buddhism as well as Christianity. He is not a confused person, go look in the mirror when you have time, you will see a confused person...lol...hey j/k now...relax...take a deep breath!...lol

 

you're absolutely right. you hit the nail square on the head, and said it out loud!

since you do, in actual fact, all worship the same god (we're talking historically, culturally, and literally here, not MR's personal feelings on the matter), there's a serious problem with the whole shebang. you're either all correct, or none of you are.

your response above tells us your sensible self acknowledges the problem. you've applied a rather overwrought salve in the form of asserting that we misunderstand. on the contrary, we understand too well.

 

But it does matter what you believe either you support the propagation and expansion of wicked and evil people or not. And yes there is no denying that the Bible mention killing of babies but to ignore the fact that the Bible also mention the reason behind it which is all about defeating wickedness and evilness just show where you stand or believe or else you won't be here posting and insisting that God killed babies only you are presenting your beliefs.

How do you feel if God had not acted to defeat the massive wickedness and evilness that was plaguing this world? Are you with the wicked and evil or are you with the good?

I feel great that God decided to intervene and help the good people from being cleanse by the powerful wicked and evil people.

There is also no mention of innocent babies being killed only wicked and evil people is clearly mention. My post that the reason there is no babies was because they were probably cannibalized was base on your question where are the babies. Isn’t it obvious if God did not killed the babies and God clearly stated the wickedness and evil of man was so great this would mean that the wicked and evil man have killed the babies either cannibalized them, mutilated, infanticide, impaled the babies as trophies or offer them to Satan.

Good I agree, man are trickster.

Regardless mean “I don’t care”

Evidence still exist up to now the wickedness and evil is still around us daily killings, torture, rape, abortion, infanticide, neonaticide, murders, ethnic cleansing are still evident of man’s wickedness and evilness.

Man can not and will not removed all the evidences even with magic because there are still many wicked and evil that wants to manipulate evidences such as false claiming that God killed innocent babies in order to turn good people against God and to their side.

Believing in Jesus Christ the Son of God the God the God of passion, love, hope and eternal happiness.

The belief that God killed the wicked and evil
That God is on the side of good people
That God save all innocent babies from wicked and evil people
That man are so evil that they will cannibalised their own this include babies and adults.
That man will torture, murder, steal for no reason except for the joy of it
That man will collect human parts as trophies
That man have no compassion or understanding of human rights
That man are trickster and will use magic to trick people into worshiping them