July 23, 2008

Welcome, I love you!

I want to break a little hear and talk about the purpose of God's Law (Ten Commandments) in light of any new entrants to this blog. First, I want to see all of you saved in Heaven with my family and I, so we can all look back at these times and have a smile or two. The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. So please examine the fruit that I give here to determine its value.

Christianity isn't here to make the ride more comfortable it's here to save you from the deserved punishment for breaking the Law.

Debunking AtheistsThat is the purpose of the Law. We can see the work of God's Law illustrated in civil law. Watch what often happens on a freeway when there is no visible sign of the law. See how motorists exceed the speed limit. It would seem that each speeder says to himself that the law has forgotten to patrol this part of the freeway. He is transgressing the law by only fifteen miles and hour- and besides, he isn't the only one doing it.

Notice, however, what happens when the law enters the fast lane with red lights flashing. The speeder's heart misses a beat. He is no longer secure in the fact that other motorists are also speeding. He knows that he is personally guilty, and he could be the one the officer pulls over. Suddenly, his "mere" fifteen-MPH transgression doesn't seem such a small thing after all. It seems abound.

Now look at the freeway of sin. The whole world naturally goes with the flow. Who hasn't had a lustful thought at one time or another? Who in today's society doesn't tell the occasional "white" lie? Who hasn't taken something that belongs to someone else, even if it's a "white-collar" crime? They know they are doing wrong, but their security lies in the fact that so many others are just as guilty, if not more so. It seems that God has forgotten all about sin and the Ten Commandments. He "has said in his heart,'God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see'"(Psalm 10:11).

Debunking AtheistsNow watch the Law enter with red lights flashing. The sinner's heart is stopped. He places his hand on his mouth. He examines the speedometer of his conscience. Suddenly, it shows him the measure of his guilt in a new light-the light of the Law. His sense of security in the fact that there are multitudes doing the same thing becomes irrelevant because every man will give an account of himself to God. Sin not only becomes personal, it seems to "abound." The law shows him that his mere lust becomes adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); his white lies become false witness; his own way becomes rebellion and a violation for the First Commandment; his hatred becomes murder in God's sight (1 John 3:15); his "sticky fingers" make him a thief. "Moreover the Law entered that the offense might abound." Without introduction of the Law, sin is neither personal, nor is it a threat: "For without the Law sin is dead (the sense of it's inactive and a lifeless thing)"(Romans 7:8)[taken from WotM]

God came as a man here on earth to pay for all your sins. By sins I mean breaking the Ten Commandments which are God's Law. The Law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don't realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the "mirror" of the Ten Commandments.(Romans 7:7) Have you stolen, lied, dishonored your mother and father etc. then you broke his Laws, and the penalty is death. Revelation 21:8 says all liars have their part in the lake of fire. But God doesn't want that to happen to you, nor do I.

Debunking AtheistsJesus died on the cross, he took the punishment for the sins of this world, for your sins, and my sins; he was being bruised for our iniquities, the Bible says. He was paying our fines in his life's blood so we can leave the courtroom on the Day of Judgment. He rose from the grave and defeated death. It was a legal transaction. God views you as a criminal. You broke God's Law (the Ten Commandments), and Jesus paid your fine. That means that God can legally dismiss your case. You can leave the courtroom on the Day of Judgment because another paid your fine. Does that make sense?

What you have to do is repent, which is turn away from sinning and trust in Jesus, that He died on that Cross for your sins and put your faith in him. You must trust Jesus as you would that "parachute". Let him lead your life, then you will be forgiven of all your sins and have eternal life. Isn't that great news!

God's Word simply declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God's will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.

tinyurl.com/WelcomeIloveyou

90 comments:

  1. "Christianity isn't here to make the ride more comfortable it's here to save you from the deserved punishment for breaking the Law."

    Question, how is it "just" to place the sins of the father on the son? We are claimed to be born sinful...that it 'passes through the semen'. How is this just or moral? To use one of your analogies, what would you think of a judge who says, "Sir, you are to serve 20 years for your crime. In addition, because you have a son, he will also serve a 20 year sentence when he becomes of age"???

    "Who hasn't had a lustful thought at one time or another?"

    This is the definition of a dictator. Thought-crime? How Orwellian! Yeah, who hasn't had a lustful thought...today? As Fulk Greville said in his work Mustapha: "Born under one law, to another bound; Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,Created sick, commanded to be sound." You can't blame the design for the designer's flaws. Free-will won't get you out of this unless you concede that God is not all knowing either.

    I wish to challenge the notion of vacarious atonement through jesus' death, I have written on this over at my blog:

    http://ofmicrobesandmen.blogspot.com/2008/07/skeptics-meeting.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I seriously want you to look at the arguments on that link because I want to challenge this central tenant of xtianity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan- I've carefully examined the fruits, and the best ones come from materialism. True, the fruits of religion look even juicier and riper, but they are imaginary: they just fade away like waking from a dream.

    clostridiophile: in my browser anyway, your links are being curtailed. Here at Blogger, html links work thusly:

    (a href="desired url")your name for url(/a href)

    Now substitute <> for () and you're in business.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And what is your evidence for these minority opinions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zilch,

    Yeah, I was just lazy...see if this works:

    chrizzies blood

    ReplyDelete
  6.      Okay, I really dislike seeing the "now just substitute...." It makes it easier to make a mistake. The way to include a hyperlink is <a href="Link address">Relevant text</a>

    Dan:

         Subjects under a despot's dictatorship also have fear in the presence of the "enforcers." Because unjust laws are set up to make everyone a "criminal." They know that they are in danger from a wicked system even though they have done nothing genuinely wrong. It can get even worse when the "law" can change at the whim of the "enforcers."
         It's easy to say that everyone has a lustful thought. After all, they are involuntary. Any system which makes an involuntary act a "crime" is itself corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Welcome Dale, who are you addressing?

    Your Honor, Pvblivs is misleading the witness..sustained.

    "They know that they are in danger from a wicked system even though they have done nothing genuinely wrong."

    Lying and stealing isn't wrong? Murder isn't wrong? Adultery isn't wrong? Dishonoring your parents isn't wrong? Please you know in your conscience they are, we all do admittedly or not.

    "It's easy to say that everyone has a lustful thought. After all, they are involuntary."

    Involuntary? Says who? looking at a woman and admiring her beauty is one thing but 'pornography of the mind' is entirely different.

    'The devil made me do it', is no excuse, on Judgement Day.

    We the jury, find the defendant...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         Looks like the advocate is sustaining his own objection. I believe that is known as a "kangaroo court." You will find that remarkably few people have murdered. But this actually gets to my point. You have an "enforcer" claiming that involuntary anger is "the same as" murder. This is, of course a farce and an indication of a corrupt system. Lying and theft, you can usually find, provided you are tallying childhood when the people involved didn't know any better and could not be expected to know any better. Right and wrong is something that must be learned. Only a wicked "judge" would fail to take that into account.
    "'It's easy to say that everyone has a lustful thought. After all, they are involuntary.'
    "Involuntary? Says who? looking at a woman and admiring her beauty is one thing but 'pornography of the mind' is entirely different."
         The facts speak for themselves. Were it not involuntary, you could not reliably say that everyone does it. Let's take your speeding example. It's true that most motorists on the road speed; but not all! If you reliably claim that everyone does something, it is preliminary evidence that we are talking about something unavoidable. It also means that pronouncing it "a crime" is apt to be suspect itself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. clostridiophile- yep, it worked. Thanks, and a nice blog you have there.

    pvblivs- Sorry to have aroused your ire. Someone told me once how to print the hypertext as plain text, but it didn't work for me, perhaps something about my German keyboard, where everything is in a different place...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pvblivs,

    "Right and wrong is something that must be learned. Only a wicked "judge" would fail to take that into account."

    For the record: Are you saying that you do not understand that lying, for example, is wrong? Relax, by the time you get to that horrifying day of Judgment you will understand right from wrong, don't worry the judge God is righteous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Update: it works for me with the code found here, if anyone's interested:

    <a href="url">text</a>

    Sorry, Dan, don't mean to turn your blog into a html course...

    ReplyDelete
  12. NP Zilch,

    we seek truth here whatever the subject.

    Riddle me this batman, how do you initiate those numeric character reference codes? For example: &#8224 &#8734 Do I put them in brackets <&#8224>? haven't figured it out yet

    I would love to say toche&#180 without c/p

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan- you simply need to add the semicolon after the code, thusly:

    &#x;

    where "x" is the number of the code,
    and don't put spaces where none belong.

    If you don't have accents on your keyboard like I do, it's often easiest to just google the word you want and copy it, like this:

    google "touche", copy "Touché"

    ReplyDelete
  14. I m tingling with excitement

    † ∞

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan:

         Actually, I haven't lied since the time I understood it to be wrong and in a sense that I understood it to be wrong. For example: I do not consider the Santa Claus fantasy to be wrong (in a moral sense.) I also do not consider it wrong to lie to an assasin (although this has never come up) to protect his target.
         "[D]on't worry the judge God is righteous."
         Not in meaningful sense of the word -- if you are correct that the only real critereon is whether someone accepted Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Lying and stealing isn't wrong? Murder isn't wrong? Adultery isn't wrong? Dishonoring your parents isn't wrong? Please you know in your conscience they are, we all do admittedly or not."

    Dan, I know you christians claim that morals are absolute and all, but I can imagine several examples where stealing would be acceptable, same with dishonoring your parents. However, does anyone really need the supernatural aspects-fear-in order to recognize just by their own merit that moral actions should be practiced, rather than immoral?

    ""It's easy to say that everyone has a lustful thought. After all, they are involuntary."

    Involuntary? Says who? looking at a woman and admiring her beauty is one thing but 'pornography of the mind' is entirely different.

    'The devil made me do it', is no excuse, on Judgement Day."

    It's you Christians that have demonized sexuality. What could be more natural, and more pleasurable? Yet this is viewed as filthy by you all. Again, if we forget about the grumpy despot watching us screw down here, there are obvious reasons why we shouldn't have 24-7 orgies. Have you never thought of this? Also, what the fuck difference does it make WHAT WE THINK ABOUT? It is positively unnatural for you to think that having sex fantasies is wrong. I wouldn't think of cheating on my wife...but I would not claim that I don't think about other women when I see them. Actually, I don't believe a word of what you Christians say when it comes to this...Ted Haggard said that homosexuals were disgusting, afterall. We all know what you all are supposed to say you think; but as myself and pvblivs have said, you can't control your thoughts...what misery you must go through everytime you see a beautiful woman (or man, I don't want to assume anything).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan,

    On my blog you claimed that god revealed himself in such a way to you that you KNOW he exists. You responded to part of my comment to you, but didn't answer my request that you describe your direct revelation from God where he unequivically demonstrated his existence to you, personally. I'm waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Clostridiophile,

    "It is positively unnatural for you to think that having sex fantasies is wrong. I wouldn't think of cheating on my wife...but I would not claim that I don't think about other women when I see them."

    Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

    Do you know what this meant? That God judges even your thought life. If you are cringing at the thought that your wife and friends finds out what you think about then you are consumed with lust. God sees your thought life.

    Lets do an experiment. Here is a good way to tell if what you are doing is wrong. Go tell your wife every thought about other woman that you have. Every thought. See how she feels in a month, see how many nights you sleep on the couch. Lusting is wrong and your conscience, and your wife's conscience, knows it.

    "Ted Haggard said that homosexuals were disgusting, afterall."

    We have been through this, Ted Haggard was a false convert. I pray that changes for his sake.

    "what misery you must go through [every time] you see a beautiful woman" No misery at all, I say she is a beautiful woman. The difference is I don't "Camp Out" with thoughts of pornography of the mind.

    Sin was very pleasurable for me. I sure thought getting drunk and fornicating was a fun Friday. After I was "born again" those thought don't even cross my mind, do I fail sometimes sure but the difference is I don't "camp out" anymore. God gives you that strength.

    I should be dead about 5-7 times already in my youth but God kept me here for a purpose, when I see the eyes of my children, I understand why I was kept here. This is just one of many ways God revealed himself in such a way to me that I KNOW he exists.

    Maybe I will do a post about it later.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan:

         A being who would seek to judge my thought life is wicked. In this case, the reasoning is obvious. He (or rather the religious leaders who claim to speak for him) wants some involuntary "sins" so that no one is unafraid. Seriously, what sort of monster do you worship? And why? Any being that twisted is apt to send you to torment anyway and laugh at the way you trusted him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

    Do you know what this meant? That God judges even your thought life. If you are cringing at the thought that your wife and friends finds out what you think about then you are consumed with lust. God sees your thought life.

    Lets do an experiment. Here is a good way to tell if what you are doing is wrong. Go tell your wife every thought about other woman that you have. Every thought. See how she feels in a month, see how many nights you sleep on the couch. Lusting is wrong and your conscience, and your wife's conscience, knows it."

    Dan,

    My wife and I are both atheists, we are both biologists, and we are both familiar with human psychology and behavior. She knows what I think, I know what she thinks. At least in our relationship (a strong, satisfying one) we are open and honest. I know she finds other men attractive, and she knows I find other women attractive. Of course we fantasize. Now, if this sort of thing becomes an issue, I remove myself from the situation. This is what responsible and honest people do. I would never hurt my wife, and I don't need some stupid fear of "HELL" to make me behave appropriately. I love her, that is all the motivation I need to be faithful.

    ""Ted Haggard said that homosexuals were disgusting, afterall."

    We have been through this, Ted Haggard was a false convert. I pray that changes for his sake."

    No true Scotsman...and just cause you say it ain't so, doesn't matter. I thought that we are all filthy sinners...so how does that make him a "false convert", isn't this exactly how he would be expected to behave...like a sinner?

    "Sin was very pleasurable for me. I sure thought getting drunk and fornicating was a fun Friday. After I was "born again" those thought don't even cross my mind, do I fail sometimes sure but the difference is I don't "camp out" anymore. God gives you that strength."

    How do you know "god gives you that strength"?? This is all in your head...YOU are giving you that strength and claiming that it is superantural in origin...you've talked yourself into it. Can't you see this?

    "I should be dead about 5-7 times already in my youth but God kept me here for a purpose, when I see the eyes of my children, I understand why I was kept here. This is just one of many ways God revealed himself in such a way to me that I KNOW he exists."

    Oh, so the whole "revelation" is just your own personal change in behavior that you have subjectively claimed to be the work of a "god". Can't you admit that you couldn't possibly determine whether this is truly supernatural...or that this is all in your head?

    ReplyDelete
  21. " A being who would seek to judge my thought life is wicked. In this case, the reasoning is obvious. He (or rather the religious leaders who claim to speak for him) wants some involuntary "sins" so that no one is unafraid. Seriously, what sort of monster do you worship? And why? Any being that twisted is apt to send you to torment anyway and laugh at the way you trusted him."

    pvblivs,

    These people simply can't see the problem here. They are so fearful that they will end up in hell if they reject these immoral teachings that they don't stop and recognize that these teachings were set up to control their thoughts. Pure psychology. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm watching this with rapt attention -- I am on a vacation of sorts, so I cannot respond in a timely manner, nor with the same frequency.

    But...

    I am looking forward to hearing Dan's explanation of exactly how any entity could convince him that it is worthy of worship. I am especially curious as to what aspect of this explanation explains away the possibility that this entity could merely be either a delusion, or, if real, a minion attempting to steer him off course.

    For me, and, I believe, for anyone with reasonable fortitude, the only way I can be convinced that an entity is worthy of worship is to have my free will removed -- which defeats the purpose.

    Furthermore, Dan has yet to have addressed the facts that the biblical accounts of the actions of god are, in a great many cases, quite evil. If there is such a thing as absolute morality (a position which I am unwilling at this time to openly dispute), and if god is "unchanging", then he has many times endorsed, condoned, and even regulated evil actions. To worship such a being -- infinitely powerful or not -- is to worship evil.

    So regardless of the abilities, attributes, and history of this god, worshipping any entity is in itself an unnatural act of servitude, and despite all the rest, this fact alone makes religion a mild (in most cases) form of insanity.

    [Also, let me not sit silent amidst the HTML lesson. The <a> tag has been pretty thoroughly (and accurately) described to this point, as has the inclusion of the semicolon at the end of a special character reference &lt;, for example.

    However, rather than use the character code to type the character 'é', why not merely use the Character Map to identify the appropriate Alt key sequence? To type the word touché, for instance, merely type 't-o-u-c-h', then hold down the Alt key, and type '0-2-3-3'. Release Alt, and the 'é' character will magically appear! Praise god!]

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan,

    "then hold down the Alt key, and type '0-2-3-3'"

    Now that is genius, thanks. If I looked harder on character map I would of found it, but thanks.

    Furthermore, Dan has yet to have addressed the facts that the biblical accounts of the actions of god are, in a great many cases, quite evil. If there is such a thing as absolute morality (a position which I am unwilling at this time to openly dispute), and if god is "unchanging", then he has many times endorsed, condoned, and even regulated evil actions. To worship such a being -- infinitely powerful or not -- is to worship evil."

    Aww, come on! I have answered this but with the help of Ty...:

    I'm not sure why God allowed for those stories to be put in the Bible.

    But what I do know is that God included the story for a reason, and we can learn from the story even if the story offends our sensibilities or sense of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Clostridiophile,

    "I know she finds other men attractive, and she knows I find other women attractive. Of course we fantasize. "

    You know what I concede, you're right. I was injecting there. I fully understand there are couples who even share other couples and various degrees of trust. It was a bad example on my part, but I will still reserve the fact that all people still knows it "as wrong" in their conscience even though they still attend orgies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "You know what I concede, you're right. I was injecting there. I fully understand there are couples who even share other couples and various degrees of trust. It was a bad example on my part, but I will still reserve the fact that all people still knows it "as wrong" in their conscience even though they still attend orgies."

    Thoughts and actions are different, Dan. Thoughts cannot be helped; voluntary actions can.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan, you say:

    I'm not sure why God allowed for those stories to be put in the Bible.

    This is a good example of why I keep coming here. I disagree with you, but unlike many Christians (and many atheists, alas) you are at least willing to admit that there are things in your belief system that you are unsure about. In my book, that's the first step on the road to wisdom.

    But what I do know is that God included the story for a reason, and we can learn from the story even if the story offends our sensibilities or sense of justice.

    But what do we learn? What I learn is that God is a pretty nasty guy, and that just about everyone nowadays has better morals than He does.

    Actually, what we learn is that morals evolve. Jehovah's morals are pretty much what we would expect of a Iron Age tribe: deal fairly within the tribe, deal harshly with dissent, and kill your enemies ruthlessly. But even within the time span of the Bible, God decidedly improves His character between the Old and the New Testament, and most civilized societies have taken this evolution further, so that such practices as sexism and slavery, for instance, are no longer condoned as they were in the "Good Book". Luckily, most Christians have evolved beyond the morals of the Bible as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I hope you'll forgive me for another p.s. One- clostridiophile said it. Of course I too am attracted to other women. That's only human. But if I were to tell my wife about all the women I find attractive, she would simply be bored to tears. What is important to her, and to me, are things that affect our relationship, not fantasies. If God is bothered by such fantasies, you'd think He would have created us differently...

    And two- my conscience has never bothered me at orgies. My carbon footprint (not mentioned in the Bible, as far as I know) is far more of a worry.

    Three- stan: the advantage, for those of us who shall not be named, of googling the word in question and copying it, is that one can also be sure of the spelling.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Christianity has never been able to arrive at a universal agreement about what its 'god' is and how to worship it, never mind providing any reasonable evidence for its existence. As a result it has always relied on fear of death, fear of the 'afterlife', ignorance, superstition and peer-pressure. The ten commandments were carefully designed to be part of this. I think the idea of them being 'written in stone' is based on the stone tablet showing King Hammurabi's codes of law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi
    http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

    The Louvre museum in Paris, France houses Hammurabi's original stone law tablet, which predates Christianity by about 1792 years. Given the biblical ten commandments were supposedly blasted into rock by a supreme being it is incredible these have not survived while the earlier stone tablet, created by a mere human has.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Giblet,

    That was very interesting, as I had never heard of Hammurabi. You mad a true statement and the tablet did in fact predate Christianity but it didn't predate Moses and the The Hebrew Tanakh a.k.a. Scripture. The Tower of Babel built by the descendants of Noah, angered God so God confused everyone with different languages. Everyone split up caring the legends of the flood and various Law's set to them by God. Logically we see that one of these descendants named Hammurabi wanted to preserve what his ancestors from Babel told him.

    It actually affirms the Law's set by God to Moses and the similarities are apparent. The same is true for the Flood

    Thanks for the info

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan- the difference in the dates of the Tanakh and Hammurabi's tablet is that we actually have the tablet, dated to around 1750 BC. The earliest known bits of the Tanakh are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to around 150 BC. So we only have the word of the Tanakh to go on for the dating of Moses. It might of course be true; but given the fact that the Tanakh places the creation of the world on October 23, 4004 BC (give or take a day or two), and says that bats are birds, we might be justified in taking its stories with a grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Poe's Law applies, I can't tell if this is satire or for real.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Really? Poe's Law just because I have a funny Picture?

    Anyway, I am sincere I love you and I want to see you saved.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan said:

    "Lying and stealing isn't wrong? Murder isn't wrong?"

    and

    "For the record: Are you saying that you do not understand that lying, for example, is wrong?"


    You can't seriously think that these things are black and white issues. In normal everyday life, these things are obviously wrong, whether you are 'born again' or atheist. However, there are many situations when lying, stealing and murder are justified. In all of the below cases, either you can please God and go to heaven or your kids get killed...what would you do Dan?



    1. Lying - A murderous criminal breaks into your house and forces you to hand over all your valuables. He ties you up and motions to leave. He pauses and asks you are their other people in the house. Your children are upstairs asleep in bed.

    Do you
    a) lie and tell him no-one else is here. He leaves and your children are safe.
    b) please God and tell him your kids are upstairs. Your kids are killed.



    2. Stealing - A murderous criminal breaks into your house and forces you to hand over all your valuables. He hears a noise made by your children upstairs. They are in serious danger. Fortunately, in a split second momentary lapse of concentration on his part you have a chance to steal the criminal's gun. Remember the gun is his property, not yours.

    Do you
    a) steal the gun and force him to surrender.
    b) please God and don't steal the gun. Your kids are killed.



    3. Murder - A murderous criminal breaks into your house and forces you to hand over all your valuables. He hears a noise made by your children upstairs. They are in serious danger. Fortunately, in a split second momentary lapse of concentration on his part you manage to steal the criminal's gun. However, he pulls out his backup gun and races up the stairs. Your children are seconds away from potentially being killed.

    Do you
    a) murder him by shooting him in the back. This is not self-defence as he was not attacking you.
    b) please God and don't murder him. You kids are killed.


    If you think option a) is justified in any of the above examples, then you agree that morals aren't absolute and your 10 commandments can be broken at times depending on the situation. This means God's word isn't infallible...

    Hmmm. Well if thats true then......

    ReplyDelete
  34. rhiggs,

    We have heard these positions before but to be brief (very busy) all three subject deal with defense of self or defense of others which is a justified stance biblically and is scripturally sound.

    If you do not protect the defenseless then you are evil yourself.

    In the very same breath, would it be stealing if I steal bread to feed my family? The answer is an easy, Yes!

    The Bible indicates that man may take the life of another in four and only four circumstances: Where necessary, man may take life in defense of self, in defense of others, and acting in defense of one’s nation against foreign aggressors. Finally, the state has the civil duty to execute criminals who have been properly convicted of capital crimes. There are no other biblical grounds for taking the life of another person.

    The best thing I could do for the man trying to harm my children is witness to him try to reach his conscience and get him saved, that is loving thy neighbor.

    There is no trickery, The Bible is extremely logical and sound. We don't have all the answers for why things happened in the Bible but Salvation is clear and true and Hell is a real place that we all must avoid.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan said "The Bible indicates that man may take the life of another in four and only four circumstances"



    Only four huh?

    According to the bible:

    You can kill a priests daughter if she is a prostitute...

    "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)


    And you can kill adulterers children too...

    "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)


    We all know you can kill homosexuals...

    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)


    Oh and obviously you can kill everyone in a whole town if some people there worship another God. That goes without saying really...

    "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)


    So lets recap...

    You can kill prostitutes, kids of adulterers, homosexuals and whole towns that harbour nonbelievers...

    Where do they fit into your four circumstances Dan?

    And don't give me the 'out-of-context' explanation for the above quotes. Literal interpretation applies to all of the bible or none of the bible. You can't pick and choose the parts you like...

    ReplyDelete
  36. rhiggs,

    Excellent points and there are somethings I just don't have the answers for. But that doesn't mean the answers don't exist.

    Coincidentally, just a couple of days ago I read Revelation 2:22-23 also because I am almost finished with reading the Bible again. We must apply good hermeneutics to understand it.

    "And I will kill her children with death"

    Matthew Henry said: "That is, the second death, which does the work effectually, and leaves no hope of future life, no resurrection for those that are killed by the second death, but only to shame and everlasting contempt."

    Adam Clarke said: "That is, I will certainly destroy her offspring and memory, and thereby ruin her designs. Jezebel’s two sons, being both kings were both slain; and after that, all the seventy sons of Ahab; (2 Kings 10:1) in all which the hand of God was very visible. In the same manner God predicts the destruction of the heretics and heresies referred to (Revelation 2:16)."

    Leviticus 20:13, Yes, Homosexuals shall die in the Old Covenant but Because the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross they shall still die but that means "now" the second death. We have no part in "killing" homosexuals we are to love our neighbors as instructed by Jesus. Also the same goes for Deuteronomy 13:13-19.

    Remember back in the Old Testament days we were in "Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David"

    After Christ died on the cross and was resurrected he sat on the throne as High Priest and began the New Covenant or 'Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom'

    Which does bring us full circle to my "four circumstances"

    In reflection I may be wrong. God is just and if I kill a man in our courts because I witnessed him raping and beating a child it would be justified. Hopefully God will view that as a "justified killing" if not I am forgiven by Christ's blood and I would be repentant and remorseful although I was placed in a "no choice" situation.

    God knows our heart and if I took a life for no reason or for some personal gain, He will know that, and I would certainly go to hell.

    Don't worry about all that God will do the right thing even if we don't. You just have to worry about getting saved. So please do so today!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan,

    You firstly say you don't have the answers...

    Then you attempt to use hermeneutics to explain it, which is essentially the 'out of context' excuse that doesn't fly.

    "...It was ok to kill homosexuals for a while, but now its not..."

    That is not convincing at all. Surely God's word is God's word is God's word...

    ...plus Revelations is the last book of the New Testament so your Old Covenant vs New Covenant argument seems pretty self-contradictory and your full circle journey to the 'four circumstances' breaks down.

    You seem to be unsure about your arguments as you admit you may be wrong and that God would 'hopefully' see a certain killing as justified even if it is technically outside of the four circumstances. Yet in a previous post you said...

    "The Bible indicates that man may take the life of another in four and only four circumstances"

    and

    "There are no other biblical grounds for taking the life of another person."


    Do you see the inconsistency in your reasoning Dan?

    First of all its...

    - Murder is wrong

    Then...

    - Murder is wrong except for these four circumstances

    Then when pressed...

    - Murder is wrong except for these four circumstances and other times too when 'hopefully' God will understand


    This inconsistency stems from your need to relate everything back to the bible and God's word. Unfortunately, the intricacies of life aren't fully covered in the bible so you can't find all the answers you're looking for.

    The reason you believe and trust everything in the bible is because you believe it to be God's word. Why? Much of it was written by men far after the events described. That is a fact. This is why preaching about things like morality and using the bible as your source will always fail. It was written by men with the same shortcomings as us, it is NOT God's inerrent word.


    As for your last point...

    "You just have to worry about getting saved."

    This really annoys me. Why do I need to worry about being saved? Its funny that only hardcore Christains like yourself tell me this and not God or Jesus themselves. People like you try to make others feel like they are dirty or tainted and should be ashamed of being human. We have to be saved, we have to be cleansed. You have NO basis for this and NO evidence of what happens after death, so please spare me the attempted guilt-trip.

    Most people in this world have good morals and are kind to others despite of their religious background or lack thereof. I don't need a bible or four circumstances to tell me right from wrong. Neither should you...if you always base your morals on what someone else tells you then it says a lot about your lack of inherent morality...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rhiggs,

    "You seem to be unsure about your arguments as you admit you may be wrong and that God would 'hopefully' see a certain killing as justified even if it is technically outside of the four circumstances."

    It isn't outside the circumstances but within those four, I hope God forgives but of course I cannot be 100% sure until I find Scripture to back it up.

    If you want to back me in a corner and ask me will God forgive me for shooting the pedophile that was raping a child to save that childs life, my answer will be "I sure hope so."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan,

    I think you're missing my point...basing morality on a book written by man is not going to cover every possible eventuality, so you shouldn't preach that it does.

    Example:

    What if I see you about to shoot the rapist, but I can't see what your shooting at. I just assume you are about to shoot someone.

    In my misunderstanding of the situation I shoot you because I am trying to defend whoever you are about to kill. You die and the rapist gets away, but my intentions were perfectly fine with respect to God's four circumstances.

    What then?

    You don't know do you...? Hence your book doesn't cover every angle and you shouldn't act like its the be all and end all of morality.

    ITS NOT


    Also, your point about Old Covenant vs New seems strange for a number of reasons. The 10 commandments were dished out in the Old Testament, which means they were part of the Old Cov yet you reject other 'words of God' from the same era, ie killing homosexuals and prostitutes. Also, the Revelations kid killing passage is quite clearly in the New Testament (so New Cov) and yet you seem to reject it.

    More inconsistency Dan...


    Would you please be good enough to reveal to me the passages from the bible which outline the four circumstances?

    I'm especially interested in the last two:

    3) one may kill in defense of one’s nation against foreign aggressors.

    4) the state has the civil duty to execute criminals who have been properly convicted of capital crimes.


    Also, could you explain to me how these passages differ from those which state one can kill prostitutes and homosexuals? This will hopefully clarify why you follow only some of Gods commands and not others.

    Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rhiggs,

    "What then?"

    Well laughingly those sure are a unique circumstances.

    Well even if that did happen and you were remorseful and repentant and put your life in the trust of Jesus you would be fine. If not then that would be just one of thousands of sins that you commit each year and would have to face God on Judgment Day.

    "The 10 commandments were dished out in the Old Testament, which means they were part of the Old Cov yet you reject other 'words of God' from the same era, ie killing homosexuals and prostitutes."

    We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament. The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way we are to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because Jesus has come, the perfect sacrifice. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law.

    The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.

    The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.

    On a side not the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11 are still "in effect"
    because it is repeated and continued in the NT. Plus the fact that 'clean' and 'unclean' foods hasn't changed.

    A fantastic rule is you follow the OT unless it's NOT repeated or continued in the NT.

    "Would you please be good enough to reveal to me the passages from the bible which outline the four circumstances?"

    I would have to research it for you, please be patient because my time is getting so limited. The irons in the fire are growing. I am curious myself because I remember reading in the Bible telling priests to protect and defend but I couldn't find it recently. The search continues...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan,

    Well you'll have to excuse me for not being convinced by any of those answers.

    You seem to speak with authority on matters to do with the bible and especially biblical morality in this article...

    ...yet when pressed you admit you don't even know where in the bible these 'four circumstances' come from.

    I point out several passages which CLEARLY state thats its ok to kill people in circumstances outside of your four, and you fail to address them. Simply saying that some of Gods laws were modified in the NT is not good enough. That means God wasn't absolutely right the first time around, hence why should I believe He is right the second time around?

    Dan, can you even acknowledge this?

    Why is it that the laws which are deemed acceptable in todays society are the correct ones and the ones that aren't are the 'out-of-context' ones?


    Now, I implore you to consider this for a moment. 2000 years ago society was much different and it was probably deemed acceptable to kill people for certain acts, such as adultery, prositution amd homosexuality. This is when the bible was written by HUMAN BEINGS who lived by that moral code.

    In todays society, morality has changed so that most decent people find it completely unacceptable to harm any of the above people. So in todays society, religious types like yourself try to reinterpret the scriptures to change the context of the passages that seem a bit out-dated with respect to morality.

    With regards killing, granted your first two circumstances seem reasonable and I'd even stretch to the third but I totally disagree with capital punishment, as do most of Europe and a lot of US states. Imagine if in a few hundred years time, morality changes again and capital punishment is considered unacceptable by all. People like you will reinterpret that fourth circumstance and all of a sudden it will have been taken out of context...

    ...I imagine even 100 years ago religious people had no problem with 'thou must kill homosexuals', but then society changed and so did the context of the scriptures...

    Again, can you even acknowledge that this is a possiblity or are you completely blinded by your faith in the bible? You seem to be a reasonable enough person which I appreciate as many others of your persuasion are quite the opposite.

    Oh, and I await the 'four circumstances' bible passages with anticipation...

    Peace...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rhiggs,

    I just don't understand you. You ask:

    "Why is it that the laws which are deemed acceptable in todays society are the correct ones and the ones that aren't are the 'out-of-context' ones?"

    But I addressed this in my last comment but then you said:

    "Well you'll have to excuse me for not being convinced by any of those answers."

    Are you trying to confuse me?

    Remember ceremonial, civil, Moral.

    Keep in mind I am not an "authority" by any stretch of the imagination, The authority all belongs to God and His Word. That is the true wisdom, not I. By dismissing me because I can't remember a verse is a little...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dan,

    I'm not trying to confuse you, I'm just trying to understand you because you are making outrageous claims about morality without even citing the relevant passages.

    The bible is your source of morality, so show me the passages which clearly distinguish the cermonial from the the civil from the moral, and why we can follow some but not others. And also the passages that outline your four circumstances for justified killing.

    All you're giving me is your interpretation of what the bible says, and this can be fudged into anything you want...just ask Fred Phelps et al...

    ...hence I'm not convinced


    Especially since I've asked for the passages several times and you keep avoiding it and saying you're busy...what am I supposed to think?

    You say I'm dismissing you because you can't remember a verse, but you have written an article on biblical morality and God's law so I find it strange that you don't know the verses that back up your claims...

    ...if I rambled on about something which basically told you that you are immoral and are going to be tortured for eternity, I would expect you to ask me to back up those claims with primary evidence. I don't think I'm being unreasonable or a little...

    Oh and just saying the bible is God's word and is true wisdom means nothing...I could say its not God's word and it is far from true wisdom...my opinion is as valid as yours...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rhiggs,

    First where did I say you are confusing me?

    Second

    "what am I supposed to think?"

    You are supposed to have patience and give me time to research that point for you unless you wish to help me by Goggling it?

    Today I have over 3000 visitors posting questions and comments, I am not writing you off I am prioritizing. Sorry you just lose to my kids needs, it is something we both have to accept. Now I have to go make lunch for the kids not to mention give them baths. I am swamped for now. Patience is a virtue and you issue is coming up on the list.

    I am suspect that you actually don't want to search for the answers but just want to squeeze me because if it were so pressing, then you would spend your time finding out yourself. Remember "search and you will find?" Am I close?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan,

    You said..."I just don't understand you."

    I said..."I'm not trying to confuse you"

    Semantics...


    You wrote the article, not me.

    You made the claims, not me.

    I came across the article and asked some questions which you haven't answered. And AGAIN you give me the 'busy' excuse. You aren't the only busy person with kids in the world Dan.

    Imagine I said to you that you were going to hell and so on...

    You said 'really, that seems a bit irrational of you, please show me what you are basing that assumption on'

    I say 'no I'm too busy, look it up yourself. I have to feed my kids'

    Talk about trying to give me a guilt trip!!

    Cop out. Its not up to me to find evidence of YOUR claims Dan. I don't believe a word of it so thats why I ask YOU to show ME the passages. I'm sure you have a bible at an arms reach, so go ahead and show me what you are basing this article on.

    If you again claim you are busy, please answer this. Your blog is called 'Debunking Atheists'. What gives you the arrogance to use such a name? It should be called...

    'Too Busy to Debunk Atheists but I'll Just Make Claims and Then You Find the Evidence, Its There Somewhere, I Swear...If you Continue to Ask Me I'll Accuse You of Squeezing Me and Disrupting Me from Feeding my Kids'

    Much more accurate...

    ReplyDelete
  46. You win Rhiggs,

    Admittedly, I have been putting you off because it will take time but that is unfair.

    Squeaky wheel get that grease, and you're squeaking more then a trapped mouse. Good job! So I will know put off my day to research this point for you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13)." Source

    Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12. In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.

    Romans 13 explains about military killing in a war situation.

    The 'priest to defend' claim was a mistake because it's in the apocrypha

    It said: "Then Simon accepted hereof, and was well pleased to be high priest, and captain and governor of the Jews and priests, and to defend them all."

    Unless I was thinking about Jeremiah 1:17-19, but I am not sure.

    Psalm 82:3 "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy."

    Did I miss anything? I trust you will let me know if I have. Sorry it took so long, I do love Google.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Much obliged...

    I will read through the passages and get back to you...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan,

    I have read through the passages you sent me and in an attempt to put them properly in context I have read several passages before and after your selected ones. This has been quite illuminating…

    You say that Exodus 21:12-14 and Leviticus 24:17, 21 outline special circumstances for murder. Here they are:

    Ex 21:12" He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13" But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. 14” If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.

    Sounds reasonable. But if you continue reading…..

    Ex 21:15” And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16” And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17” And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

    So why are smiting or cursing your parents and stealing no longer punishable by death? They are God’s infallible word too.

    Lev 24:17” If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.

    Lev 24:21” And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

    Again, sounds reasonable. But in the passages immediately preceeding these…..you can kill for blashphemy…

    Lev 24:11” And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12” And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them. 13” And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14” Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15” And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16” And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

    Or kill for homosexuality in an earlier chapter…

    Lev 20:13” If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.


    You then strangely outline the passages that allow for the killing of adulterers. (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). So are you saying you agree with these laws or not?

    You then quote Deuteronomy 20:1-20 as God’s instructions for waging war. Here are some of those passages…..

    Deut 20:13” And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword 14” But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all 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. 15” Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16” But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. 17” But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

    So basically you can take the women, children and cattle and do what you like with them. Also, you shall kill everything that breathes, thus wiping out all existence of an opposing society. This is absolutely awful advice from an all-merciful God. Do you agree with him?

    The passages on accidental death (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13) actually seem quite reasonable.

    But you then say…

    “Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12. In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.”

    Sorry but nowhere in those passages does it say what you claim, that “…the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood”. It says fight for your people and protect your city. Coupled with Deuteronomy 20:1-20 (above) you can kill innocent women and children too. Is this your justification for fighting a foreign aggressor? For example, do these passages justify the Iraq war?

    Same with Jeremiah 1:17-19. Again, its ok to protect your city. Nothing specifically about murder.

    Finally you quote Psalm 82:3 as instructions for defending others. Lets read the whole of Psalm 82 instead of just your selected line…..

    Psalm 82:1” God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2” How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3” Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4” Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5” They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6” I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7” But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8” Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

    So here God is speaking to a congregation of other gods (…other gods??!!) presumably in heaven. He is instructing them to defend the poor and fatherless, etc. He is NOT telling this to regular humans.

    So have you shown me passages outlining your four circumstances for murder?....

    1)Self-defence – I agree with this anyway

    2)Defence of others – I agree with this too but the quoted passage is delivered to Gods not humans so doesn’t really count

    3)Defence against foreign aggressors – The quoted passages say many things, including that you can kill innocent women and children so I’m not convinced

    4)Capitol punishment – Nothing on this


    Even if you showed me convincing evidence of passages justifying the four circumstances, that still doesn’t explain why other circumstances are ignored. In Exodus you just choose what you want and ignore whats said in the very next passages about killing those who steal or curse their parents. This has nothing to do with different types of law, this is God’s word.

    My point is that you are basing your morality or a VERY loose interpretation of some bible passages which when read in their full context advocate some terrible things too. So its rather arrogant of you to preach on this blog about whats right and wrong because you are (deliberately or not) leaving out selected ‘laws’.

    You are making outrageous claims that sinners will go to hell for eternity based on NOTHING. You have no evidence, just your own biased interpretation of some 2000-year-old human writings.

    Take home story: Your bible has as much nastiness in it as goodness. Stop preaching. Live and let live…

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rhiggs,

    "So why are smiting or cursing your parents and stealing no longer punishable by death?"

    What you feel to realize is they still are but now it's called the second death.

    I should of been more clear to say to read the chapters of Nehemiah 4, Zechariah 9, 2 Samuel 10 for the examples.

    "For example, do these passages justify the Iraq war?"

    Can anyone think of any reason to justify that failed war?

    "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself" So basically you can take the women, children and cattle and do what you like with them.

    Not "what you like with them" just within the boundaries of His Law of love thy neighbor. You can't rape children. This just seems the more noble thing to do instead of leaving the innocent to starve in a stripped city. Give them a home and something to eat.

    " he judgeth among the gods" I believe gods of the earth are the judges of the earth not other gods in heaven or a better description the "judicial branch.". Example: Judges 2:17

    Let's just say I am completely off base and have no clue about the morals of God. That still doesn't excuse YOU from honoring God and that doesn't mean you will not suffer on Judgment Day. It says thou shalt not kill on one page and the very next says you shall stone him to death (capitol punishment) but I am hard pressed to find similar passages in the New Covenant, has the second death replaced capitol punishment? Possibly, but it also says in Romans 13 to honor your leaders.

    Like I said if my kid is getting raped then the guy is going down hard if God doesn't agree I am OK with His judgment.

    "Live and let live…" What you are asking me to do is criminal. I just can't let people die in a burning house, I must do everything I can to save them from that fate. Live and let die? NO way!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan,

    "This just seems the more noble thing to do instead of leaving the innocent to starve in a stripped city. Give them a home and something to eat."

    It also says to kill everything that breathes, so there is no nobility here at all.


    "Let's just say I am completely off base and have no clue about the morals of God. That still doesn't excuse YOU from honoring God and that doesn't mean you will not suffer on Judgment Day. It says thou shalt not kill on one page and the very next says you shall stone him to death (capitol punishment) but I am hard pressed to find similar passages in the New Covenant, has the second death replaced capitol punishment? Possibly, but it also says in Romans 13 to honor your leaders."

    You seem confused as to the conflicting advice in the passages. The reason is that the bible was written by many different men and so it contains many such contradictions. That is why you shouldn't use it as your basis for morality.

    Nothing in everyday life provides me with a reason to honor God. God has never asked me to honor him. You and other religious types are the only people who say I should based on some 2000-year-old text. People of other religions tell me to honor their god/gods. They believe they are right just like you. The Romans believed in their gods, as did the Greeks and countless other civilisations.

    Do you really expect me to be convinced by your own interpretation of the truth derived from several ambiguous and self-contradictory passages from one of the many holy books on this planet?

    I'll stick to what I can see with my own eyes thanks:

    Reality...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rhiggs,

    "You seem confused as to the conflicting advice in the passages. The reason is that the bible was written by many different men and so it contains many such contradictions."

    That is logical? So if you don't understand a book you blame the book and throw it out? Just because I don't have all the answers for every question doesn't mean God or His Word doesn't. By all means don't follow me follow God He will do a much better job to lead people. There are zero contradictions just people misunderstanding The Word.

    ReplyDelete
  53. No, if I don't understand a book or if, like you ,I don't have all the answers...

    ...I don't spend my whole life preaching from it. I don't take what I read as truth without further verification. Its healthy to question things...especially 2000-year-old human text

    You say there are no contradictions, but then you are blinded by your faith:

    "The bible is the word of God. I know because it says so in the bible."

    ReplyDelete
  54. I find the use of the phrase "debunking atheists" kind of fallacious. Atheists aren't the ones making any kind of claims. Atheists simply do not believe the claims of the religious, mostly due to a lack of any shred of evidence. If you're going to debunk atheists, your only course is to provide irrefutable evidence of your god. Saying that you're going to debunk atheists is like saying you're going to debunk people who don't believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. The only way to do so is to pony up with the solid evidence. Attacking other schools of thought often associated with atheism, such as evolution, is not evidence and does not take you a single step closer to proving your side of the argument. If you want to say evolution is a flawed theory, fine, but that doesn't prove your god created the world anymore than it proves that the world was created by a purple elephant.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Stealpick,

    Keep in mind it isn't debunking atheism, it's debunking atheists which can be accomplished on various subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dan,

    I didn't say "debunking atheism" at all. But are you claiming you can debunk atheists without debunking atheism? What exactly is the difference? It also sounds like you're admitting that you can't debunk atheism, only atheists, whatever that means.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hi Dan,

    Still waiting for a clarification on the difference between debunking atheists and debunking atheism. And still waiting for a single post where you get around to doing either of those things. You know, when you have a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  58. StealPick,

    "Still waiting for a clarification on the difference between debunking atheists and debunking atheism."

    How about here and here

    Let me know if you need more 'clarification'

    ReplyDelete
  59. No, all you're doing is arguing with atheists. You're not "debunking" them at all unless you prove your God exists, which you still have not done in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yea, admittedly there is a great deal of arguing with atheists in the very kindest of ways though, but it goes beyond that if you are involved in these conversations. We are exploring the mind of an atheist to see if it holds up to scrutiny which in many cases, it hasn't. Common sense, logic, and truth should prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan you said," "We are exploring the mind of an atheist to see if it holds up to scrutiny which in many cases, it hasn't. Common sense, logic, and truth should prevail."

    You haven't shown at all that the logic of Atheists or Theist that disagree with you,does not hold up. All I've see you do is use flawed logic and circular reasoning. When your caught in a logical corner, you just abandon trying to defend it and move onto something else.

    For example, Its been about a month and 18 days, and I still see no evidence to support you claim that,"Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God"

    what can be asserted without evidence, and be dismissed without evidence.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  62. Atomic Chimp,

    what can be asserted without evidence, and be dismissed without evidence.

    Fair enough, but what about a plethora of evidence that is rejected because of presuppositions? It is you who cannot account, in your worldview, reason as it presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God.

    I will be doing another post about presuppositions being biblical so stay tuned for even more evidence that will be rejected by you and others. Happy, early, false messiah day.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan, I'm not the one making a claim, you are.

    You claimed that "Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God", I'm just asking to see your support for it.

    what can be asserted without.... You know the routine.

    I look forward to your supporting evidence.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  64. See I just noticed you said it again. In your reply you state that, "reason as it presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God."

    I need to see evidence there are universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic" in the universe and"ch cannot be accounted for outside of God" as constructs by man to describe what he observes, for example, or any other possible source of origin.

    You can't just say it and it will be true. Show me the flawless logic objective evidence to support those claims as being the correct one.

    I anxiously await your supporting evidence.

    You can't claim anyone is a false Messiah unless you can provide support for you assertion that anyone considers this person you are speaking of is a Messiah, and that there is a real Messiah in the first place.

    I also look forward for objective evidence to support those claims too.

    Good Luck!
    ~Atomic Chimp!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Atomic Chimp,

    You claimed that "Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God", I'm just asking to see your support for it.

    I hold that not only God has revealed Himself in Creation and conscience, He has also revealed Himself in history and experience. In particular, supremely, in Jesus Christ.

    If you feel you must fold your arms in disbelief for all of this, then that is your choice, but how can I fight to change your point of view? Evidence isn't want you are looking for, evidenced by the rejection of any. What you are seeking is justification for your beliefs. That I cannot help you with, you are simply wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dan said:

    "Fair enough, but what about a plethora of evidence that is rejected because of presuppositions?"


    Hmmm...like all the evidence for evolution which you reject because it doesn't fit into your magic book.

    Good point Dan.

    Happy Darwin Day!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan you said,"I hold that not only God has revealed Himself in Creation and conscience"

    So you finally admit that the only evidence is subjective. Well, I've heard just as food subjective evidence from believers of Alien abduction, crystal healing, and Bigfoot.

    I'm glad to finally see you admit that you have no evidence to support you universal laws of logic nonsense.

    "He has also revealed Himself in history..."

    Please show me where any historian considers the only historical record of God as Jesus, the bible, as anymore of a historical document than the Iliad. Please show evidence to support that it is a factual historical record.

    "If you feel you must fold your arms in disbelief for all of this, then that is your choice, but how can I fight to change your point of view?"

    I'm not folding my arms, I'm just asking for evidence. Any intelligent person would do the same. Why should I change my world view just because you claim something is true?

    "Evidence isn't want you are looking for..."

    You are incorrect. I would like to see evidence to support you claims but you only offer hearsay, flawed reasoning and subjective evidence but you believe that it enough. I can understand why you are so easily swayed by the God argument. I only hope you don't make other life decisions on baseless assumptions too.

    "you are simply wrong."

    By making bold assertions, it does not make you correct. I am only pointing out that your evidence is not evidence at all. That I am not wrong about at all. My position on a God or Gods is like all claims, I will assume it is not correct until I can be shown the supporting evidence. So Dan, it is you who are wrong.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  68. AC,

    Please show me where any historian considers the only historical record of God as Jesus, the bible, as anymore of a historical document than the Iliad.

    Are you claiming that history can be written without bias? Really? Go talk to your friend John at DC (hey AC/DC) about that because he disagrees with you entirely.

    I'm not folding my arms, I'm just asking for evidence.

    False. You are folding your arms asking for more evidence. Since the evidence already at hand you are just merely rejecting.

    My position on a God or Gods is like all claims, I will assume it is not correct until I can be shown the supporting evidence.

    You forgot to write the rest.

    ...until I can be shown the supporting evidence that I will accept according to my worldview, otherwise I will merely reject it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Oh I forgot:

    Word is Bond! (John 1:1,14)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dan Said,” Are you claiming that history can be written without bias?”

    Dan, I meant it contains things that are not true and never happened, and used the example of the Iliad to illustrate that. In other words, much like the Iliad, the bible speaks of some actual historical figures, places and events that are accurate, but the majority of the events can characters in its stories are fictional. Even though the Iliad is not thought to be a factual historical record, and I’m sure you’ll agree due to its involvement of many Greek gods, archeologists have been able to confirm certain aspects of it being accurate and continue to use as a basis for archeological investigation.

    ” You are folding your arms asking for more evidence. Since the evidence already at hand you are just merely rejecting.”

    You can continue to make assertions, but all I’ve seen you present is assumptions and subjective evidence.

    Please keep in mind that people who claim Alien Abduction and Crystal Healing are true, also validate their claims through subjective evidence. If you believe what you presented is valid, then their claims are too. If I am correct, please point me to where you have offered more than hearsay, assumptions or personal revelations and experiences.

    ” You forgot to write the rest.

    ...until I can be shown the supporting evidence that I will accept according to my worldview, otherwise I will merely reject it.”


    If you are claiming what I consider to be valid evidence to be unique, you are incorrect. My basis for what is evidence is the same as used in scientific, legal, historical, and archaeological investigations. I draw this from my education in the sciences and minor studies in the other categorizes mentioned about accumulated in that process. If I am incorrect, please show me support for your claim that subjective evidence and assumptions, without corroboration by some form of objective evidence, is considered valid. I can also provide many citations for what is accepted valid evidence if needed.

    Based on your definition of what is valid evidence, we should believe that not only all the Greek gods mentioned in the Iliad are real, but also things such as crystal healing, astrology, alien abduction and dowsing.

    Just like the examples I mentioned above, god is supernatural, outside of the natural world. Our methods of validation depend on the constraints of the natural world, if he is not bound by these constraints, then he cannot be falsified. This makes your god claim no better than one made by a person who's paranormal claims are driven by an over active imagination, driven by wishful thinking and preferential biases.

    Dan, you can keep making these assertions but that will not make your evidence valid nor your claims true.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  71. One of your most basic precepts here is the "Gee, how did that skyscraper come about except by planning?" is a variation on the "watchmaker" argument...which has been easily debunked a long time ago. And I can do it in one sentence:

    Skyscrapers are not alive.

    But, let us say that they were, since you brought them up as evidence against evolution (which only applies to living things).

    Let's take some prehistoric living skyscrapers. And they reproduce (yes, this is a silly notion, but you started it). There are certain factors in these prehistoric skyscrapers that allow some offspring to survive, some offspring to thrive, and some offspring to do neither. In order for these baby skyscrapers to survive, for example, they must have a stable foundation. Some will have a foundation, some won't. Some will have enough concrete, and others will have sticks. These baby skyscrapers that have ill-formed foundations will die.

    But, all this is a silly analogy. Watches, skyscrapers, 747s, cars...all have the same fallacious foundation:

    They are not alive. They cannot reproduce. They cannot react to their environment. They are not alive.

    When you understand why your example is flawed, maybe you can start looking to the other examples that are just as flawed. Such as the math one.

    Take a bunch of marbles. All different colors. Throw them on a hardwood floor. Notice their arrangement when they stop moving. Is the green marble touching the red marble? Plot their arrangement and then gather up the marbles (don't lose them!) and then throw them on the floor again.

    How many times must you throw the marbles on the floor for them to land in the same exact configuration as your first throw? Mathematically impossible?

    Guess it was impossible for the marbles to ever land like that.

    Your entire argument against evolution is one of a strawman. You don't accurately portray evolution for what it is, then you attack that portrayal.

    Good luck in your future endeavours.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Daniel,

    I have to say I am quite confused by your comments. I reread it and see nothing about evilution mentioned.

    On the subject, I do have many posts (Page one,and Page two) that discuss the matters that you are talking about in more detail. You might want to take a look at them to see a more detailed argument instead of mere prehistoric skyscrapers and marbles. :7)

    BTW welcome, I love you.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Might I ask you why everyone is born to break the law by default and thus be set already on the road to hell without a first choice? Is it just for God to enforce the state of "criminal" against everyone born of the first criminals? (to interchange "sinner" with "criminal" as to you they both seem to be the same)

    It appears God goes against your own version of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Welcome Tim,

    Well no one if forcing you to break the Laws. Just like Adam and Eve you have choices. You choose to break His Laws. No one if forcing you to lie, steal, disobey your parents, etc.

    So it isn't by default but you are indeed wicked by your criminal activity. If you are judged by the Ten Commandments you will be guilty for being a wicked sinner aka a Law breaker. Unless you claim that you have never broken His Laws. Do you?

    You do have a choice though. God does give you an out to plea, to throw yourself at the mercy of the court, and be set free. Do you want that path? Are you ready to face your criminal past and own up to your wickedness? Do you understand what God did so you don't have to go to jail? Er um hell?

    Do you understand that you are really evil?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thanks for the welcome Dan :) Allow me to test your logic.

    According to your religion's reasoning, all have sinned. That means that everyone (including those who would rather not sin) have sinned. I believe you call it a "sinful nature." I cannot quote the reference off the top of my head, but I think it said in the Bible that we are born sinners (can look this up if you want to know where it is). Shouldn't we be born to naturally not want to sin and make the choice to do our first sin while fully aware of what it implies? I'm sure the first time each of us lied, stole, etc. was not because of an intent to defy the one who is supposedly the creator of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Tim,

    "including those who would rather not sin" 

    You mean people with a conscience? Well I would hope so. But yes we have all sinned (Romans 3:23)

    I believe you call it a "sinful nature."  

    Actually we are cursed to die because of the original sin, otherwise we would still live eternally. Adam brought death and disease to us. I cannot do justice to the poetic words of the Bible, it is best explained in Romans 5:12-21.

    Shouldn't we be born to naturally not want to sin and make the choice to do our first sin while fully aware of what it implies? 

    So what stopped you from doing such a thing. God did give us the greatest gift of all that holds the most weight to it. He gave us freedom of choice. Choice to sin or not, choice to follow Christ or not, and ultimately to burn in hell or not. We still have choices in life. Although I believe that you have to be called to God by God we still have the choice to do so. To me it is a 50/50 thing.

    I'm sure the first time each of us lied, stole, etc. was not because of an intent to defy the one who is supposedly the creator of the universe.  

    So then you are claiming that you are born without, and have to be taught, a conscience? Are you claiming that when you lie you don't know your lying?

    I am one to believe, with ample evidence that I can expound if you wish, children go to heaven. They cannot make adult decisions yet, such as follow God or not, and the weight behind such a decision.

    When you lie, you know full well that you intend to defy. Agree?

    ReplyDelete
  77. So you're saying that we are damned because of Adam's sin, and that whether or not we ourselves sinned, we'd be sent to hell anyway?

    I am glad that you do not take well to saying that young children are not to be held responsible. However, does your religion agree with you? I hear that a very common teaching is that we immediately inherit Adam's sin, that we are born into a "sin nature."

    By the way, you say that we all have a choice, and yet you say that we all sinned. Doesn't that lead to the conclusion that something drives humanity to all sin? You'd think that someone besides your Jesus would not sin if it really was a choice. Remember that billions of people have lived in the lifetime of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Tim,

    So you're saying that we are damned because of Adam's sin, and that whether or not we ourselves sinned, we'd be sent to hell anyway? 

    I only said you will die because of Adams sin, otherwise we still would of all lived forever here on earth.

    You may spend eternity in hell if God judges you by your own personal sin.

    Get it?

    You'd think that someone besides your Jesus would not sin if it really was a choice. 

    Nice, good job. Now answer that one yourself personally. You have a conscience (with knowledge), so why did you dishonor your parents, lust, or lie? Why were you acting wicked when you had a choice? You may even had the desire to do the right thing and yet did not. Why?

    Truth is you didn't have the choice, you are a slave to sin.(Romans 7:14-25)

    If you desire to do good and be good the only choice you have is to be born of a new heart (Ezekiel 36:20-27) and must be born again in Christ. (John 3:7, 1 Peter 1:23)

    I am glad that you do not take well to saying that young children are not to be held responsible. However, does your religion agree with you?  

    Yes completely. I might address or expound on that one in a new post, if not I will come back to it.

    Are you ready to repent and trust in our Savior, Jesus Christ, to do the right thing now?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Okay Dan,

    "Truth is you didn't have the choice, you are a slave to sin.(Romans 7:14-25)"

    How are we to be held accountable if it is out of "slavery" that we impulsively do things deemed morally incorrect? And presumably this "slavery" is caused by Adam's issues, so in effect, we are indirectly damned for Adam's sins (unless you want to reprove that statement).

    "If you desire to do good and be good the only choice you have is to be born of a new heart (Ezekiel 36:20-27) and must be born again in Christ. (John 3:7, 1 Peter 1:23)"

    What about morally good atheists? Some of them do more good than the average Christian. It simply seems to be a matter of lifestyle, not of belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Tim,

    You asked: "What about morally good atheists?"

    First, please show me one. All men are wicked and evil. All of them.

    Maybe this will help you, because I am sure you view yourself to be more moral then Ted Haggard or Charles Manson.

    Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."

    We think we are good when we break God's laws daily. I am sure a thief considers himself to be good compared to a rapist and that rapist considers himself good compared to someone that murdered a person and that murderer considers himself a good person compared to a serial killer. I am sure that serial killer considers himself good compared to a democrat. When we compare each other by each others standards we all seem to be good "at least I am not as bad as he is" mentality. We must be compared to the righteous standard of God's Law. If we do that you will simply see that we all fail and all fall short of the righteousness of God. We are simply wicked and wretched sinners and will be judged according to those sins.

    God, nor I, want that to happen to you but unfortunately that is your fate. Unless you would like to hear how to avoid such a tragic event, do you?

    Because God gave us grace, there is a way to avoid that situation.

    If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

    The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

    CARM had an acronym God's Riches At Christ's Expense.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "First, please show me one. All men are wicked and evil. All of them."

    Yep that's right, including Christians. I've known some hardcore fundamentalist/baptist Christians who are at about the same moral level as some good non-Christians I've also known. You said "If you desire to do good and be good the only choice you have is to be born of a new heart (Ezekiel 36:20-27) and must be born again in Christ. (John 3:7, 1 Peter 1:23)" and this seems to signify that it is not by "divine intervention" that people are morally good but by a choice of lifestyle.

    "God, nor I, want that to happen to you but unfortunately that is your fate. Unless you would like to hear how to avoid such a tragic event, do you?"

    This picture sums my response up pretty well (please do not take offense): http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5536206&op=23&o=all&view=all&subj=2210222015&aid=-1&oid=2210222015&id=605070095

    ReplyDelete
  82. Tim,

    Thanks for goofing all over this conversation.

    You said pertaining to wickedness of men. "Yep that's right, including Christians." 

    Of course Christians, remember we are not perfect but forgiven. The difference is that we are humble enough to admit that we are wicked and need help to change that. You show silly pictures and avoid all questions. Good luck with that.

    You also proclaimed "I've known some hardcore fundamentalist/baptist Christians who are at about the same moral level as some good non-Christians I've also known." 

    Someone said: It only takes but a moment to become a Christian, but it takes a lifetime to be the Christian one becomes. It is vital to study God’s Word on a daily basis, to learn from it, and to grow in it.

    You cannot develop Christian perspectives without the daily disciplines of prayer and study and meditation on the Word of God.

    Please don't take offense, but you're a dork. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  83. I just ran into this blog and thought that the title "Debunking Atheists" was very ironic.

    How can a position of non-belief in something be debunked?

    In the case of Atheism, we are talking about non-belief in a god, or gods. Therefore, in that particular situation, the obvious answer to my question is that the believer needs to justify the claim "I believe in God", or "God exists", and of course define what that label God points to.

    Does this blog try to do so? I have not taken the time to read a lot here but I did not run into any attempt at trying to prove God's existence. Is there such thing on this blog?

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hugo,

    Welcome!

    One thing for sure is there is no such thing an neutrality with the subject of God. You must pick a side. Either you will trust God's Word or you will not. (Matt 6:24)


    You cannot come here, as an atheist, and claim that all the evidence is still not enough. You, as a non believer, have presuppositions that make up your worldview of a non belief in God.

    "How can a position of non-belief in something be debunked?"

    It's more a blog to show absurdities in the worldview of the individual atheists not necessarily atheism, hence the name. As for your request, if you would like, start here.

    Enjoy your time and thanks for the visit.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Would you be interested in a guest post at some point outlining the The Outsider Test for Atheists (OTA)?

    We've been planning one for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Madeleine,

    >>Would you be interested in a guest post at some point outlining The Outsider Test for Atheists (OTA)?

    Sounds like a Loftus thing but I will consider it. You can email me the details, if you wish. Its on my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  87. It is a Loftus thing, we plan to take his self-hailed as unanswerable test for Christianity that he claims has turned some Christians into Atheists, the test for which he is most famous for creating, and apply it to atheists. Can't have one standard for Christians and and a separate standard for atheists now can we ;-)

    It is on our to do list, I will email you once we have done it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. There are a number of things that don't make sense to me.
    1) Why would a person experiencing lustful thoughts, telling white lies or maybe stealing money as a child deserve to suffer eternal agony?
    2) Even if a person did deserve to suffer eternal agony, why should they try and get out of it?
    3) Isn't it unfair that Jesus should take the rap for other people's wrongdoing?
    4) If each person deserves eternal punishment and Jesus was to accept the punishment for everyone's wrongdoing wouldn't he have to be punished for eternity?
    5) Why do we need to do all that stuff at the bottom of the blog if Jesus has paid our fine and God can now legally dismiss our case?
    6) How can someone believe that Jesus is the Messiah if they don't know whether he is or not?
    7) Finally how do you know that all this stuff about Jesus taking the rap for us etc is true?

    I suspect you're pulling our legs.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Peter,

    OK lets get these answered.

    1) Because its an offense to an eternal being that deserves eternal punishment. When you lie to someone (sin by breaking the 9th Commandment) you are not lying to that person but to God Himself. Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. A lie to an eternal God, deserves eternal punishment.

    2) Great point. We cannot try and do ANYTHING to get out of it. We do, after all, certainly deserve the punishment, but God gave us Grace so we can spend eternity, instead of in agony, worshiping Him as we were created to do in the first place.

    3) Unfair yes that is where we should be grateful for that sacrifice that, and this is the important part, Christ gladly laid His life down for us so we can spend eternity with Him. I am so thankful for Him doing that. I will be glad to worship Him for all of eternity as our Lord and Creator.

    4) First, you must understand that God said the penalty for sin is death. (Romans 6:23) Maybe you remember that saying that its better that a 1000 people go free then one innocent man be imprisoned. The concept is that the legal system MUST be just, in order for things to work. Jesus Christ, being completely innocent and who NEVER sinned, has taken the sting of death upon Himself as the ultimate Sacrifice for all of mankind, as a gift to us all. The fine has been paid.

    5) Like I said, its a gift for us. When you are given a gift, to keep free will in tact, you MUST open the gift yourself. Plus, if you are to be set free you cannot keep breaking the law to continue to be innocent. So you must turn away from sin completely, and that act is called repentance.

    6)Not sure of the question but, God placed the Commandments on all of our hearts. It is also the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    7) I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. So we ALL know it is truth by God's revelation. While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that we know for certain He exists.

    7b) >>I suspect you're pulling our legs.

    If I was, then this entire universe would be unjust. A place I certainly would not want to live in.

    I hope this helps you understand more but don't ask me, ask God Himself. He WILL manifest Himself to you, as promised. (1 John 2:27, John 14:21)

    Salvation is not just for the next life Peter - Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

    We all pray that God is reaching out to you at this very moment and softening that hard heart of yours. It will be a great celebration to find you in heaven someday, and I cannot wait to hug you when I see you there, if not sooner.

    Thanks for stopping by,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>