Gullwind

Good and evil are relative. We decide, as a society, what we consider good and evil. Individuals may disagree, and if they take actions that are against society's definitions they may have to accept the consequences. Certain actions are harmful to the society as a whole and are almost always considered evil (murder, rape, etc.).

Different cultures today have different definitions of good and evil. Some cultures do not consider slavery to be evil. Ours does. Which one is right? In some societies, women walking around topless is perfectly normal. In ours, no-so-much (unfortunately )

Ah. You are using your own definition of "of the world." Personally, I would consider taking physical form and interacting with elements within the world to be, however temporarily, "of the world."

So let me get this straight. A sinner taking physical form for the purpose of leading god's little science experiment astray doesn't qualify as bringing sin into the world. Only a naive human making a choice without the ability to understand the consequences counts.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Helpmabob

I don’t accept that there are any substantial inconsistencies in the Bible. And some prophecies may not have come to pass yet.What do you do when science confirms the Bible, as it does, more often than not? Also, science has to change regularly when they find errors and omissions or ‘better science’. It is constantly being augmented. The Bible reveals eternal purpose and consistency. You are comparing chalk with cheese and saying that chalk is anathema because you cannot (reasonably) eat it on a sandwich.

Other parts of the Bible make it clear that when Jesus comes again, there will be no chance to turn – no way of dissociating yourself from sin. Most probably, there are those that will live after you have gone. Some of these will turn to God. The premature appearance of God in the world again would deny these people the opportunity to love God with all their heart mind as soul as intended. Have you no consideration for them? God has – this is why He delays judgement.

I agree it is not recorded in so many words and admittedly, not all of the Levites will be made pure. The Levites were well aware of any uncleanliness before God and were sticklers rule following and for animal sacrifice. If anyone was ‘pure’ it was them. Jesus would make them purer than they could ever make themselves - properly pure. However, some Levites will be made pure (along with many other ancient people) even though they chronologically preceded Christ. .[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...;&version=31;]. I suggest that this person alluded to in Malachi 3:3 can only be ChristAfter the Lord came, He ushered in a new covenant with His people. In the old covenant, faith in the sacrifices was sufficient to please God. Now faith in Christ and His sacrifice is sufficient. Faith in the sacrifices made in olden times will be deemed acceptable because of Christ. And these sacrifices would plainly not work for us now.

In order to achieve these sweeping changes, someone recognisably different, one who spoke with authority and performed miracles was required, and indeed was longed for and prophesied about. To bring in the new covenant with its new commands, as Jesus gave in the gospels: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-39&version=31

How do you choose? Of course it is simple – there is one gospel from God as much as there is one only God. I believe and trust and live out this gospel. It’s up to you if you prefer to believe a gospel of relativism and flexible morality if you want – what exactly do you believe incidentally?

The gospel of salvation by grace delights my heart. It rescues me from my sinful state. I rejoice in the presence of God. I receive peace, and understanding and the growing recognisable fruit of the spirit in me life. The heavens declare God’s glory.I can’t generally justify other peoples comments here. There are those that seem to operate a kind of flexible belief system, for example asserting on the one hand that there is no God, whilst on the other hand attacking God for anything and everything. At least the Israelites, when they had rejected God for a spell, returned to God when they recognised how much their rejection of God damaged themselves.


For you perhaps, but not for me.Maybe. But that doesn’t make good and evil what they are – they just are.God is.

There is nothing physically dangerous about Satan. Who is scared of a man who dresses up in a red cape and horns and runs about with a pitchfork? We should be wary instead of the suggestiveness and duplicity of sin that goes on in a man’s soul and that will be his downfall.

Katastrophikus

Please provide support for your claim. When does science confirm the bible more often than not?

Also, you seem to imply that, somehow, scientists ignore evidence when it confirms the bible. If this is not what you are implying then I apologize. If this is, indeed, what you are insinuating, please provide some support.

spin

You don't answer the question in any of your response.

How did you choose it? People following the other gospels can say exactly the same thing as you have, ie avoid answering the question. You give no means of choosing this stuff that you take as gospel. If you had been born under another prevalent religion you would probably be saying similar things about the local gospel.

You've already presumptuously purveyed your definition of what I believe.

Citing your religious literature is not a response to the question of how you choose.

You made the assertion that Johnny Skeptic hated this god entity of yours and I asked you to justify that assertion, responding how can a person who doesn't believe in something hate it? I think you should simply either justify this assertion or retract it like a good person.

This is a non sequitur, Helpmabob.

Now, you still have not, for many posts, made any attempt to separate yourself (and your belief in a god entity which needs no external evidence to confirm its existence) from the schizophrenic who believes all sorts of things that don't need external evidence to confirm their existence. Is there some good reason for this shirking of your responsibilities to yourself?


spin

Gullwind

I didn't say that morals were relative for individuals. I said they were relative across different cultures. Surely you don't deny that cultures in different parts of the world consider different behaviors moral?

Actually, that is precisely what makes them what they are. In some cultures, women walking around topless is moral, in others it isn't.

Interesting, since the bible specifically allows slavery, and never speaks against it. Personally, I find it reprehensible, but that's just me.

I don't see what this has to do with whether Satan brought sin into the world before Adam or not. :huh:

Jack the Bodiless

Helpmabob:
You may not choose to "accept" them, but that won't make them go away.
Yes, science corrects its mistakes. The Bible does not. It was false originally, is false today, and will remain false forever: it lacks a correction mechanism.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances most certainly did not deny future generations “the opportunity to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind as intended”. In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says that even AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church, the disciples went about “confirming the message of his grace” with tangible signs and wonders. The KJV translates “signs and wonders” as “miracles”.

No amount of appearances by Jesus would deny anyone the opportunity to love God with all of their heart, soul, and mind, certainly not any more than the supposed presence of the Holy Spirit denies anyone the opportunity to love God with all of their heart, soul, and mind. If God’s current intention is to send Jesus back to earth for the final time in the year 2075, additional prior appearances by Jesus would most certainly would not deny anyone the opportunity to love God with all of their heart, soul, and mind.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (NIV)

Johnny: In those cases, it was Jesus’ miracles that convinced people to accept him, not his words. Any deceptive, evil being who had that kind of power could have achieved the same results with the same message, or with a similar message.

Actually, the return of Jesus at ANY time would deny billions of potential future humans the opportunity to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind. Have you no consideration for them?

Why does God make people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11? Why does God punish people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5? Why does God kill some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, and babies, and innocent animals.

The premature DEPARTURE of Jesus has caused millions of people to reject Christianity who would have accepted it if Jesus had not left the earth. Many people are much more convinced by tangible evidence than they are by spiritual evidence. Spiritual evidence can easily be subjective and misinterpreted. Most humans believe that they tangibly exist, but most humans do not believe that the God of the Bible exists, which is obviously exactly like the God of the Bible wants it to be. The very best evidence would have been, and would still be now, the presence of Jesus (tangible evidence), AND the presence of the Holy Spirit (non-tangible evidence). You most certainly cannot get away with claiming that Jesus and the Holy Sprit are not able to co-exist on the planet earth at the same time, and that it would be counter-productive for them to do so.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

In another thread, I told rhutchin, who is a Calvinist, and a fan of Pascal's Wager, the following:

Helpmabob, are you by any chance an inerrantist?

Will you please tell us why Muslims are so successful at preventing God from convincing their children to become Christians? Have you no compassion for Muslim's children?

Solo

Could you explain something ? Why do you persist in arguing with someone whom you believe to be "schizophrenic", i.e. by definition suffering from disordered thought ? Don't you see the paradox ?

Also, on the matter of belief and objectivity, Andrew Crawfort, a renowned British psychologist specializing in psychoses, and therefore someone well positioned to dish out psychiatric labels to interlocutors, made a big point in saying that he reminds himself constantly, that if a belief is adjudged "insane" it is always by another belief.

Helpmabob indicated to you that he does not want to argue, but to "clarify".
I have every confidence that when his wisdom matures in strength to equal his faith, he will see that his relationship with God is an internal matter which simply cannot be demonstrated by logical argument to those who do not avail themselves of such a privilege, or prefer to talk about it in other terms.

Jiri

spin

I never said he was a schizophrenic. I was asking him to show he wasn't acting like one. It is a matter of having an objective peg to hang one's position on.

When dealing with other people, you have to find some means of communicating. When you operate with a closed system, you cannot communicate. You misunderstand: I am not saying Helpmabob is schizophrenic. (And I have no problem with schizophrenics other than the frequent inability to relate with other people.)

Helpmabob is not clarifying anything. So far he hasn't provided any mechanisms to do so. We need to find some common ground as a foundation for discussion. One cannot simply accept the presuppositions of the other from which to start. That has the propensity to disfigure all discourse. If you see his relationship with god as an internal matter, than how the hell do you think it can be distinguished from the matters internal to the schizophrenic?

The problem is an epistemological one. If you cannot say how you know something, what is the value of that "knowledge"? We only know what we can verify outside ourselves. So, do you get the reference to the schizophrenic?


spin

jakejonesiv

That's right, this prophecy was not fulfilled by Jesus. The rest of you comments are snake oil.
Even if the author of Malachi 3:3 did intend the passage to be messianic, it doesn't refer to Jesus. This is a typical Christian error. Any mention or supposed allusion to a messiah in the Hebrew scriptures is automatically thought to refer to Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth as a simple conversation with a Jewish Rabbi will confirm.

Jesus, whether literal or mythical, did not fulfill this "prophecy."
That is not what Malachi 3:4 says. "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years."

Not only is Jesus' alleged human sacrifice not in view here, it is totally excluded.

Now a question for you Helpmybob, what about Jeus was supposed to be sacrificied at the crucifixion? His human body? His life? Since God can't be killed, would it have to be a human sacrific?

Can you point out a few passages in the "Old Testament" where human sacrifice (voluntarily or involuntarily by the victim) was approved by God?
I hate to tell you this Helpmabob, but the words attributed to Jesus in Matt 22:37-39 are neither unique or original.
Muslims say the same thing about the Injil and Allah. In fact they are more consistent because they abide by a strict montheism, and most Christians embrace the 3-Gods-in-1 Trinity (total nonsense).

Jake Jones IV