Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[chelseacarlton]

He's not "returning".

So Jesus isn’t a boomerang?

Do you believe that Jesus existed?
Not the biblical myth dude, but someone fitting his general description?
Is there sufficient evidence as such?

 

[Total Power]

So Jesus isn’t a boomerang?

Do you believe that Jesus existed?
Not the biblical myth dude, but someone fitting his general description?
Is there sufficient evidence as such?

Jesus of NT never existed. There are no contemporary accounts of his life and outside of a mention if "James, the brother of Jesus" (which might not even been a reference to THE Jesus) the only accounts are from the four gospels. Which are anonymous and written decades after Jesus' death.

 

[Roylion]

Do you believe that Jesus existed?
Not the biblical myth dude, but someone fitting his general description?
Is there sufficient evidence as such?

I've certainly presented the case for a mythical Jesus argued by the likes of Richard Carrier, in order to demonstrate just how little evidence there is for Jesus.

There may have been a historical figure that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on. Who that was exactly is open to debate. There are a number of possible candidates. The Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, appears to be largely fictional. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. The later the author, the more fantastic the stories. The process is similar to many of the stories in the King Arthur Cycle. (Lady of the Lake, the healing properties of Excalibur, Arthur merely sleeping ready to rise again when Britain is threatened) and so on.

The Gospels were clearly written to show how Jesus was the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The resurrection as an event is not mentioned anywhere other than the Gospels, which themselves were written not as history but as theological works.

 

[Total Power]

I've certainly presented the case for a mythical Jesus presented by the likes of Richard Carrier, in order to demonstrate just how little evidence there is for Jesus.

There may have been a historical figure that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on. Who that was is open to debate. There are a number of possible candidates. The Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, appears to be largely fictional. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors.

The Gospels were clearly written to show how Jesus was the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The resurrection as an event is not mentioned anywhere other than the Gospels, which themselves were written not as history but as theological works.

My opinion is as below:

there probably was at least one wandering philosopher and preacher named yeshua ben-yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph) in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

Theeir probably was at least one preacher with radical ideas who was arrested for blasphemy and sedition, and was subsequently executed, in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

There probably was a man who claimed to be a prophet or even the son of God, and attempted to rally the Hebrews in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

Were all of these the same person? Maybe. Possibly not, though. Yeshua ben-Yosef was an extremely common name, the Hebrew equivalent of "Josh, son of Joe". it was a time of great turmoil for the Hebrews, and there were multiple rebellions and uprisings and religious upheavals at the time. A lot of rebels and rabble-rousers were captured and executed for promoting revolution against the Roman Empire.

However, that said, the Jesus presented in the narrative of the Gospels almost certainly did not exist. The story presented by the New Testament is heavily mythologized borrowed from many other existing religions, and is possibly a mixture of different stories about different people who all lived around the same time.

 

[Roylion]

My opinion is as below:

there probably was at least one wandering philosopher and preacher named yeshua ben-yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph) in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

Theeir probably was at least one preacher with radical ideas who was arrested for blasphemy and sedition, and was subsequently executed, in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

There probably was a man who claimed to be a prophet or even the son of God, and attempted to rally the Hebrews in Roman Judea in the early 1st century AD.

Were all of these the same person? Maybe. Possibly not, though. Yeshua ben-Yosef was an extremely common name, the Hebrew equivalent of "Josh, son of Joe". it was a time of great turmoil for the Hebrews, and there were multiple rebellions and uprisings and religious upheavals at the time. A lot of rebels and rabble-rousers were captured and executed for promoting revolution against the Roman Empire.

The 'Jesus Myth theory' can be looked at from two angles.

1) That there was no Jesus of Nazareth who lived between c. 4 BC – AD 35 and that he was a complete fiction, a literary character.

2) That a Jesus who was some sort of seer and/or teacher lived sometime before AD 40, but his actions and deeds as outlined in the Gospels are essentially fiction and have been adapted from the deed of other figures also named Jesus, and/or have been constructed to fulfill Jewish prophecy and/or have been constructed from pagan mythologies in order to appeal to new converts.

I tend to lean towards the second of these.

Dr. Richard Carrier holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, specializing in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire. He is a professional historian.

Since 2005 he has considered it "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person". He argues that that the entire Gospel can be read out of Old Testament scripture and someone who fanatically fasted and prayed and meditated and searched the scriptures for some solution to the major social evils of their day would be in a prime position to have such a revelation.

Carrier in fact suggests that investigating the historicity of Jesus, most historians make the initial assumption that Jesus existed by prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!") Having made that initial assumption, without necessarily looking at the evidence for it, they then go to determine who this historical Jesus was. In other words he argues that the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it.

Many well known Bilical scholars are former Christians including Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann. Maurice Casey is a former Christian as well. Paula Fredrikson is a convert from Roman Catholicism to Judaism. None of them can conceive of a mythical Jesus. They take his existence for granted. Bart Ehrman himself recognises that he was once a fervent Christian and that his thinking even subconsciously has been influenced by his early roots of Christian belief.

Gerd Ludemann, also a former Christian argues that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, which includes the resurrection. Even so, he still can’t conceive of a mythical Jesus, or at the very least that the Jesus of the Gospels may be an amalgamation of a number of other figures. An example of another such amalgamation to produce a series of legends around a possibly a mythical figure or perhaps a number of historical figures is that of King Arthur.

Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann considers that there are "reasons for scholars to hold" the view that Jesus never existed.

Dr. Hector Avalos (who you mention below) wrote in 2007 in his ‘The End of Biblical Studies’, that there is a plausible theory for a completely mythical Jesus.

A few candidates that claimed to be the Messiah that the literary Jesus could have been based on follow. For example:

Simon bar-Giora - a messianic pretender. The forces of John of Giscala had occupied the temple (which became a "den of thieves"). They were implacable enemies of the priests, who were seen as lapdogs of the hated Romans. So the priests struck a bargain with Simon bar-Giora to enter the temple to expel their rival revolutionaries. Simon and his troops make a triumphal entry into the city, were hailed as deliverers, and proceeded to "cleanse the temple" of the robbers who infest it. Sound familar? But the Roman siege eventually forced Simon to try and tunnel out to safety. Giving up on the plan, he tunneled up, bursting out of the earth in full regalia of a Judean king before stunned Romans, who then take him to Rome and execute him as King of the Jews.

Jesus Ben Stada. He was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century AD. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew, in fact he is descrbed as being 'hung on a tree', on the eve of a Passover. The rabbis who constructed the Babylonian Talmud believed that it was ben Stada who was elevated by the Christians to that of a godhead, but still confuse him with another Jesus ben Pandira.

Athronges (about 4-2 BC). A shepherd. After proclaiming himself a messiah, Athronges led the rebellion against Archelaus and the Romans. After a protracted struggle Athronges and his brothers were defeated.

And on top of all these then there was also other messianic pretenders / self styled prophets / Kings of the Jews in the first century AD including:
- Carabbas
- Theudas the Galilean
- Judas the Galilean
- Jesus bar-Abbas (possibly the Barabbas of the Gospels)
- Elymas bar-Jesus
- Jesus Justus (claimed by one scholar to be the son of Jesus Christ)
- the martyred Samaritan Messiah.

Celsus (c. AD 180 CE) is said to have argued that Jesus was the bastard son of a woman called Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera, used magic to deceive people into believing he was the son of a god, and there was no real difference between Christianity and many of the mystery religions existing at that time and some of the elements (such as the resurrection and virgin birth) could be found in older myths.

"It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."

In fact Celsus apparently identifies the Jesus of the Gospels as Jesus ben Pandira, who is also mentioned by Josephus. He was a supposed wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.), This Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation. One scholar has identified the name Pandira as having an Egyptian origin and is written 'Pa-neter-ra', translated as the 'Son of Ra'. Perhaps this is the origin of the stories that the Holy Family spent some time in Egypt after fleeing from Herod.

 

[Total Power]

The 'Jesus Myth theory' can be looked at from two angles.

1) That there was no Jesus of Nazareth who lived between c. 4 BC – AD 35 and that he was a complete fiction, a literary character.

2) That a Jesus who was some sort of seer and/or teacher lived sometime before AD 40, but his actions and deeds as outlined in the Gospels are essentially fiction and have been adapted from the deed of other figures also named Jesus, and/or have been constructed to fulfill Jewish prophecy and/or have been constructed from pagan mythologies in order to appeal to new converts.

I tend to lean towards the second of these.

Dr. Richard Carrier holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, specializing in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire. He is a professional historian.

Since 2005 he has considered it "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person". He argues that that the entire Gospel can be read out of Old Testament scripture and someone who fanatically fasted and prayed and meditated and searched the scriptures for some solution to the major social evils of their day would be in a prime position to have such a revelation.

Carrier in fact suggests that investigating the historicity of Jesus, most historians make the initial assumption that Jesus existed by prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!") Having made that initial assumption, without necessarily looking at the evidence for it, they then go to determine who this historical Jesus was. In other words he argues that the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it.

Many well known Bilical scholars are former Christians including Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann. Maurice Casey is a former Christian as well. Paula Fredrikson is a convert from Roman Catholicism to Judaism. None of them can conceive of a mythical Jesus. They take his existence for granted. Bart Ehrman himself recognises that he was once a fervent Christian and that his thinking even subconsciously has been influenced by his early roots of Christian belief.

Gerd Ludemann, also a former Christian argues that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, which includes the resurrection. Even so, he still can’t conceive of a mythical Jesus, or at the very least that the Jesus of the Gospels may be an amalgamation of a number of other figures. An example of another such amalgamation to produce a series of legends around a possibly a mythical figure or perhaps a number of historical figures is that of King Arthur.

Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann considers that there are "reasons for scholars to hold" the view that Jesus never existed.

Dr. Hector Avalos (who you mention below) wrote in 2007 in his ‘The End of Biblical Studies’, that there is a plausible theory for a completely mythical Jesus.

A few candidates that claimed to be the Messiah that the literary Jesus could have been based on follow. For example:

Simon bar-Giora - a messianic pretender. The forces of John of Giscala had occupied the temple (which became a "den of thieves"). They were implacable enemies of the priests, who were seen as lapdogs of the hated Romans. So the priests struck a bargain with Simon bar-Giora to enter the temple to expel their rival revolutionaries. Simon and his troops make a triumphal entry into the city, were hailed as deliverers, and proceeded to "cleanse the temple" of the robbers who infest it. Sound familar? But the Roman siege eventually forced Simon to try and tunnel out to safety. Giving up on the plan, he tunneled up, bursting out of the earth in full regalia of a Judean king before stunned Romans, who then take him to Rome and execute him as King of the Jews.

Jesus Ben Stada. He was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century AD. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew, in fact he is descrbed as being 'hung on a tree', on the eve of a Passover. The rabbis who constructed the Babylonian Talmud believed that it was ben Stada who was elevated by the Christians to that of a godhead, but still confuse him with another Jesus ben Pandira.

Athronges (about 4-2 BC). A shepherd. After proclaiming himself a messiah, Athronges led the rebellion against Archelaus and the Romans. After a protracted struggle Athronges and his brothers were defeated.

And on top of all these then there was also other messianic pretenders / self styled prophets / Kings of the Jews in the first century AD including:
- Carabbas
- Theudas the Galilean
- Judas the Galilean
- Jesus bar-Abbas (possibly the Barabbas of the Gospels)
- Elymas bar-Jesus
- Jesus Justus (claimed by one scholar to be the son of Jesus Christ)
- the martyred Samaritan Messiah.

Celsus (c. AD 180 CE) is said to have argued that Jesus was the bastard son of a woman called Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera, used magic to deceive people into believing he was the son of a god, and there was no real difference between Christianity and many of the mystery religions existing at that time and some of the elements (such as the resurrection and virgin birth) could be found in older myths.

"It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."

In fact Celsus apparently identifies the Jesus of the Gospels as Jesus ben Pandira, who is also mentioned by Josephus. He was a supposed wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.), This Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation. One scholar has identified the name Pandira as having an Egyptian origin and is written 'Pa-neter-ra', translated as the 'Son of Ra'. Perhaps this is the origin of the stories that the Holy Family spent some time in Egypt after fleeing from Herod.

Consider this: if there was an historical Jesus he supposedly sent 12 disciples out to spread the word, heal the sick and raise the dead, cleanse leprosy , drive out demons and such. But there is not one shred of evidence these people even existed, if there were 12 men roaming around the ancient world raising the dead surely there would have been something

But there's nothing, only myth and legend, if these men existed they would have been some of the most important men in history yet history is silent.
If the 12 disciples are an invention then why not Jesus?

 

[Vdubs]

You are not reading, THE BIBLE.

The Bible clearly states what happens to the unbelievers.

Since Jesus disappeared and Christianity been on the decline some 100 years ago life has dramatically improved.

His sacrfice didn't pay off, he should never come back. Just like when he came he didn't restore shitt, he didnt solve any real life issues, homosexuality, slavery, wife beating, incest etc. We have solved all these issues! Much better society than xtians could ever hope to be.

Now you really are deluded. Our society is as depraved as it has ever been, and it certainly would not be if ALL people actually followed Jesus and ALL his teachings. Dare to imagine that...

 

[Gough]

Now you really are deluded. Our society is as depraved as it has ever been, and it certainly would not be if ALL people actually followed Jesus and ALL his teachings. Dare to imagine that...

Praise depravity.

 

[Roylion]

Our society is as depraved as it has ever been,

Is it? How so?

 

[Vdubs]

Is it? How so?

To someone who does not believe that we can sin, and do sin.
I have explained the concept in the next post, and yes, it centres on sin.

 

[Vdubs]

Total depravity doesn't teach that we are all as evil as we possibly could be in a practical sense. Total depravity simply means that every part of our being is corrupted by sin. Sin, which a few here have no belief in, no concept of . And specifically, that our human will, is bent in on itself, so that we will not seek God, we will not choose God, in and of ourselves. We need God's grace, (Grace = God's Riches At Christ's Expense) His powerful working, to change our hearts, and to change our minds, so that we do choose Him.

So total depravity is really about our inability to do what God calls us to do, because of our own sinful corruption. And an understanding of that helps us to appreciate the wonderful grace and mercy of God, who seeks those who are not just lost, but who are wayward and stiff-necked and rebellious, like so many on this thread. And He gives us a heart. And a real conscience.

The Bible says that this new covenant promise is that God will take away our stony heart and give us a fleshy heart, a heart that beats with love for Him. That's the difference between being totally depraved and unable to come to God on our own, and His grace that invades our lives and makes us new creatures. That is what we truly believe as Christians, and we see the amazing results in so many converts who have changed hearts, attitudes, and ongoing reliance on and relationship with God.

 

[chelseacarlton]

not worthy of a reply to someone who does not believe that we can sin, and do sin.
But I have explained the concept in the next post, and yes, it centres on sin.

Christianity is just like big pharma, create a disease and have the magic pill to cure it, no thanks to both rorts!

 

[mcnulty]

Sin, which a few here have no belief in, no concept of .

I think everyone “gets“ sin. They just don’t load it with as many logical contortions as you lot do.

 

[Roylion]

To someone who does not believe that we can sin, and do sin.

Well I don't. I am sinless. Always have been. Always will be.

 

[Total Power]

Now you really are deluded. Our society is as depraved as it has ever been, and it certainly would not be if ALL people actually followed Jesus and ALL his teachings. Dare to imagine that...

Yes we need to go back to the dark ages where you own a slave, treat black people with contempt, kill a homosexual by stoning, kill a woman for not being virgins, kill a man if he doesnt convert into christianity etc etc all cause, you know, life was great back then. Yes i realise you love all of the above, but most of the rational folks are better off today than being a savage. Are you a savage? you are giving me the impressio deep down that you are, cause God cannot be anything but good? You yourself have accepted that you can't explain the horrible attrocities in the Bible cause god cannot be good. This gives you the licence to see rape, murder slavery as good as god cannot be bad! despite evidence suggesting that your version of God is brutal.

Yes i don't dare to imagine what would have happened if we actually followed the teachings of the Bible. Imagine, stoning, rape, murder, blasphemy, threatening people with hell, asking to leave your parents cause you are the messiah...and many more...impressive hey?

Jesus said, unbelievers are wicked and you shouldn't make friends with them, so i assume you only make friends with Chrstians? if not you already dont believe in Jesus.

And How did Jesus help 2000 years ago? what problems did he solve? how did we get better? He couldn't even deliver his message properly. He couldnt preserve he Bible from being manipulated even. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that we actually got better, thanks to secular education. He failed 2000 years ago, he will fail again if he came.

Our society is just fine, better than it has ever been, we need less religion and more empathy.

 

[Total Power]

Total depravity doesn't teach that we are all as evil as we possibly could be in a practical sense. Total depravity simply means that every part of our being is corrupted by sin. Sin, which a few here have no belief in, no concept of . And specifically, that our human will, is bent in on itself, so that we will not seek God, we will not choose God, in and of ourselves. We need God's grace, (Grace = God's Riches At Christ's Expense) His powerful working, to change our hearts, and to change our minds, so that we do choose Him.

What has gods grace solved? Outside of your belief that you are going to heaven? what real life problems has 'faith' fixed? stopped wars? stopped raping other cultures? stopped looting nations? gender equality? slavery /racism? gender rights? blasphemy? tell me one thing the christians achieved through the Bible over the past 2,000 years that cannot be achieved through secular means? JUST ONE! for every good that you show i can show 100 bad that your mob did. The proof is in the pudding

Christ well and truly failed. So much for omnipotence. Take a look at the history! Christians killed a billion people if not people, destroyed cultures, lives, families, destroyed nations and their wealth. What has Christ's sacrificed achived in real terms???

Christ has failed, he will get an F for his pathetic effort.

So total depravity is really about our inability to do what God calls us to do, because of our own sinful corruption. And an understanding of that helps us to appreciate the wonderful grace and mercy of God, who seeks those who are not just lost, but who are wayward and stiff-necked and rebellious, like so many on this thread. And He gives us a heart. And a real conscience.

We discussed this before. You assume god is good. This is a FAUX assumption, you are unable to show why god is good, repeating a lie a 100 times doesn't make it true. We are truly innocent, there is no need to send Jesus just lift the ******* curse you dingbat.

Adam and Eve were innocent and couldn't tell right from wrong, then how could they be held accountable for not following a standard of right and wrong?

Right from the beginning, this doctrinal system falls apart completely. It would be like executing a baby for breaking a law - it's absurd... but I guess it's what's being proposed - this doctrine presumes that babies are guilty sinners too. Preposterous. Absolute nonsense.

It follows that they are being punished for failing to follow in blind obedience.

God gives us free will then demands we behave as if we do not have it.

So what's the point other than to torture us with desires, and torture us in hell if we try to fulfill them.

It's the sadistic god of a masochistic race.

God is NOT good, even you have admitted you are not able to read his character. If you are not ABLE to read his character why you assume his good? cause he told you so? this is weird to me, nothing there in the Bible which tells me God is good! NOTHING. More like an attention seeking petulant child who kills and torture people if they are not obidient.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It is quite possible that the Jesus of the gospels is an amalgam of all of these characters. Starting off with an older version, new stories are added which reflect the deeds of later characters. Also at some point it gets rewritten to include a whole load of Old Testament prophecies, plus (although maybe at the same time) a whole pile of allusions to the rebellion and Roman destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Then another rewrite to incorporate the new theological ideas of the paradigm shift which happened after the temple was destroyed.

If you had a time machine and went back to meet the original Jesus that started the story he would be nothing at all like the one depicted in the gospels. That Jesus is a myth.

I reckon the same thing applies to Robin Hood and King Arthur. Lots of different tales of different people mixed together into one, and then rewritten to incorporate a social/political theme into the narrative.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Why has gods grace solved? what real life problems has it fixed? stopped wars? stopped raping other cultures? stopped looting nations? gender equality? slavery /racism? tell me one thing the christians achieved through the Bible over the past 2,000 years that cannot be achieved through secular means? for every good that you show i can show 100 bad that your mob did. The proof is in the pudding

Christ well and truly failed. So much for omnipotence.




We discussed this before. You assume god is good. We are truly innocent, there is no need to send Jesus just lift the ******* curse you dingbat.

Adam and Eve were innocent and couldn't tell right from wrong, then how could they be held accountable for not following a standard of right and wrong?

Right from the beginning, this doctrinal system falls apart completely. It would be like executing a baby for breaking a law - it's absurd... but I guess it's what's being proposed - this doctrine presumes that babies are guilty sinners too. Preposterous. Absolute nonsense.

It follows that they are being punished for failing to follow in blind obedience.

God gives us free will then demands we behave as if we do not have it.

So what's the point other than to torture us with desires, and torture us in hell if we try to fulfill them.

It's the sadistic god of a masochistic race.

God is NOT good, even you have admitted you are not able to read his character. If you are not ABLE to read his character why you assume his good? cause he told you so? this is weird to me, nothing there in the Bible which tells me God is good! NOTHING. More like an attention seeking petulant child who kills and torture people if they are not obidient.

If god was soooo very good and awesome and powerful, sin wouldn’t exist and everything would be hunky dory.
Clearly it’s all his * up or he doesn’t exist, they are the only two reasonable possible solutions to the problem of this god character.

 

[Total Power]

If god was soooo very good and awesome and powerful, sin wouldn’t exist and everything would be hunky dory.
Clearly it’s all his fu** up or he doesn’t exist, they are the only two reasonable possible solutions to the problem of this god character.

My theory is that either Satan wrote majority of the bible. Or The bible is actually written to weed out people that will agree with anything as long as they think they will be getting something out of the deal. Because when you consider that, theoretically, Satan is still around doing things with control over much of this world, then why could he not have edited and adjusted the bible? It would certainly make a lot more sense of it.

 

[Total Power]

The Bible says that this new covenant promise is that God will take away our stony heart and give us a fleshy heart, a heart that beats with love for Him. That's the difference between being totally depraved and unable to come to God on our own, and His grace that invades our lives and makes us new creatures. That is what we truly believe as Christians, and we see the amazing results in so many converts who have changed hearts, attitudes, and ongoing reliance on and relationship with God.

Narcissistic if you ask me. Your god is also irrelevant without his creation, it's not like we asked to be created, he created us.

But you are unable to define the character of your God. Loving, Kind, caring god, you are unable to back it up with your scriptures. And your point is simply isn't true. Dis-obeying someone means that you don't respect their authority or judgement. In no case ever, except Christianity, does not obeying someone mean that you don't love them. This is "special pleading".

"One does not love God, at least the Christian God, if they do not obey Him." I have heard so many Xtians say it to me. This is the kind of statement that would come from a mentally abusive parent or spouse. "You don't love me if you don't obey me! Now, do what you were told."

You yourself have admitted you can murder a hundred children but if you repent and ask for mercy then you will be forgiven. Imagine Hitler is in heaven cause he might have accepted Christ before he died. Any rapist, any murderer any pedo will be in heaven. It's just shithouse logic.

It’s worth asking of Christians, if God deemed the killing of your child to be good, as he did to the children of Egypt etc would you suddenly hold this abhorrent act to in fact be good?

Fortunately, without the dictates of a divine moral arbiter, we have empathy and reason to guide us in making moral decisions. With Divine Command Theory which Christians, we have obedience to authority and no morality at all.

You are an obidient slave, i will give you that, you live your one and only life in mental slavery! As i said before if you are wrong you lose everything. This is the reason why Xtianity is going down the toilet. Give it another 20 years, it will be fully dead in Australia and Europe. Beliefs like this gives anyone a pass to do anything and still go to heaven (apparently), beliefs like these does a lot of harm to you conscience and also to the society.

 

[Total Power]

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Now you really are deluded. Our society is as depraved as it has ever been, and it certainly would not be if ALL people actually followed Jesus and ALL his teachings. Dare to imagine that...

Yes but what you won't acknowledge is that the depravity all started with christianity

 

[chelseacarlton]

Total depravity doesn't teach that we are all as evil as we possibly could be in a practical sense. Total depravity simply means that every part of our being is corrupted by sin. Sin, which a few here have no belief in, no concept of . And specifically, that our human will, is bent in on itself, so that we will not seek God, we will not choose God, in and of ourselves. We need God's grace, (Grace = God's Riches At Christ's Expense) His powerful working, to change our hearts, and to change our minds, so that we do choose Him.

So total depravity is really about our inability to do what God calls us to do, because of our own sinful corruption. And an understanding of that helps us to appreciate the wonderful grace and mercy of God, who seeks those who are not just lost, but who are wayward and stiff-necked and rebellious, like so many on this thread. And He gives us a heart. And a real conscience.

The Bible says that this new covenant promise is that God will take away our stony heart and give us a fleshy heart, a heart that beats with love for Him. That's the difference between being totally depraved and unable to come to God on our own, and His grace that invades our lives and makes us new creatures. That is what we truly believe as Christians, and we see the amazing results in so many converts who have changed hearts, attitudes, and ongoing reliance on and relationship with God.

“Keep the virgins for yourselves”.
You talk about depravity, your filthy little morally inept book is the reason depravity exists......any questions?

​

Numbers 31:18 ►

​

STU XRF TSK COM LEX Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. New Living Translation Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. English Standard Version But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. Berean Study Bible but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man. King James Bible But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. New King James Version But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately. New American Standard Bible However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves. NASB 1995 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. NASB 1977 “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Amplified Bible But all the young girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves [to marry]. Christian Standard Bible but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not gone to bed with a man. Holman Christian Standard Bible but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not had sexual relations." American Standard Version But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Brenton Septuagint Translation And as for all the captivity of women, who have not known the lying with man, save ye them alive. Contemporary English Version But do not kill the young women who have never had sex. You may keep them for yourselves." Douay-Rheims Bible But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves: English Revised Version But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Good News Translation but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins. GOD'S WORD® Translation But save for yourselves every girl who has never gone to bed with a man. International Standard Version You are to allow the young women who haven't yet had sexual relations with a man to live for yourselves." JPS Tanakh 1917 But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Literal Standard Version and all the infants among the women who have not known the lying of a male you have kept alive for yourselves. NET Bible But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours. New Heart English Bible But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. World English Bible But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Young's Literal Translation and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves. Additional Translations ... Study Bible Vengeance on Midian …17So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but spare for yourselves everygirl who has never had relations with a man. 19All of you who have killed a person or touched the dead are to remain outside the camp for seven days. On the third day and the seventh day you are to purify both yourselves and your captives.… Berean Study Bible · Download Cross References Numbers 31:17 So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, Numbers 31:19 All of you who have killed a person or touched the dead are to remain outside the camp for seven days. On the third day and the seventh day you are to purify both yourselves and your captives. Treasury of Scripture But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 21:10-14 And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in Oboth… Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Deuteronomy 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, evenall the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

 

[western royboy]

Are you OK now ? Serious because a bit of community connection can help etc . They say regular church goers are the happiest

I’m fine - and I’ll never go near a Church again and I’m a lot better for it

 

[Evolved1]

Church is a horrible place. Imagine waking up early on Sunday to listen to some self-important man teach you about fairytales, and then sing songs about the greatness of an evil being who drowned 99.9% of humanity, will torture most of the people you care about for eternity, and does nothing to solve any of the real problems in the world.

For the pleasure of listening to Pastor Knownothing, you get to throw your hard earned coin in the plate. Then you are given the chance to spend time with people who pretend their life is perfect, pretend to be your friend, and also claim to be experts in the fairytale.

Thank god I'm an atheist.