My tried-and-tested pancake recipe:

2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 cup rolled oats
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1-2 tablespoons brown sugar (depending on desired sweetness)
1 tablespoon of maple syrup
1 3/4 cups milk (I use Vanilla-flavored soy milk)
1 egg
2 tablespoons light olive oil
1 tsp each of nutmeg and cinnamon

Mix dry and wet ingredients seperately, then whisk together until lump-free, let stand until thickened, and then cook on medium heat. After about 30 seconds in the pan I add some sort of fruit combination into the pancake including blueberry, raspberry, pineapple, strawberry, apple, etc. I then cover the fruit with some more batter. Blueberry & pineapple is an especially delicious combo. Cook until golden on each side, then top with maple syrup or whipped cream (or both).

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

>>> You mean, because one country may have a dictator and another a cabal of communists running it, they can't use the same falsities and propaganda to make people surrender their rights (if they had any to begin with)? And why would you include only the findings of "Private" scientitians who agree with you? Aren't THEY in the pocket of someone? Say, investors in Al Gore's companies?

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

>>> I think you and others are in error on the number of 'scientitians' who believe anthropogenic global warming is both provable and a slam dunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

>>> Right. And everyone who disagrees with the wonders of socialism (e.g. factual data proving socialist programs don't work as intended or promised) is obviously in the pocket of evil capitalists.

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

It's amusing to no end that the same "rationalists" who never hesitate to jump on governments for using religion to control the public, find no danger at all when the same governments use distorted SCIENCE to hide their power grabs.

Unfortunately, public opinion has had it with these alarmists.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.


except in the US, taxes are the lowest they've been HISTORICALLY
and my taxes here in Canada haven't risen... I'd honestly like to see more substantiating on this point

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

alot of the problem is, there are some people out there, who just won't believe that a WUGGABOO exists, unless you put it into their hand and go... "Look, that's a WUGGABOO"

the next problem is, that they usually then call it "THE DEVIL'S WORK" and try to burn you and the WUGGABOO as witches

that comment was in regards to the time frame of climate change (global warming confuses too many mouth breathers with the whole "This winter was the coldest on record" schtick)

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

>> ^blankfist:

When's the last time you've ever heard a doctor or nurse give you dollar amount for your visit? Not often, because all we care about is the copay, right?


Well I think that's part of it. But I know why they don't give a dollar amount. It's because every person on the planet could have insurance but through different companies, and they all have different "agreed" payments for procedures. I get a kick out of getting a test that I was thinking "oh this is probably worth about 50 dollars worth of someone's time", and seeing that it's billed at about 120, but then insurance sets aside 60 of it, pays 20 and I end up paying 40. Sure they SAVED you 80 dollars on the test cost, but that test wouldn't cost 120 if they didn't negotiate like they do.

I worked for a billing agency for a few months a number of years ago, and I overhead one of the doctors talking to head of the billing department on a job site (I was doing IT work). The head guy told the doctor that they had to pick from 5-6 categories for what they agree to take for payment on procedures, they advised the doctor to take the highest payout. Doctor balked at the idea of charging so much for procedures that were more in line with the first or second column of like 5-6. Head guy tells the doctor that the negotiation only takes place every 5 years or so, so what it may cost now won't be what it costs in 3 years. So you have to take the higher rates unless you want to pay part of every persons procedure in 3 years. And also with this agreement, the doctor can't make patients any discounts unless they also offer those same discounts to the insurance companies. Told the doctor to offer people (uninsured or not choosing to use insurance) a discount if they paid same day, because insurance companies can't pay same day. This was a small and as far as I know unaffiliated practice in a mostly rural area....practice was attached in a seperated section of their house.

And it's pretty obvious how bullshit all of it is when you see it in practice....badmouthing it as someone whose trying to make a living at it probably means you'll be out of business due to pissing someone off who makes payments or losing out on a slew of customers.

And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.

It provides an absolute standard of conduct, one that is missing from atheism. How does it follow that since men have absolutely failed to live up to that standard that its irrelevnt? That indicates the depravity of man, not the absence of God.

Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.

This is why an absolute standard is necessary, because man is capable of rationalizing any type of behavior. The nazis rationalized that the holocaust was okay. It was subjectively good to them. Do you feel what they did objectively evil, and why?

Suppose that god existed, and this his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

Though your question is entirely a strawman argument, ill answer you anyway. First of all, there is no biblical command to stone divorced women. That's just patently false. Second, there was no biblical institution of slavery. Jesus said everyone was equal in the eyes of God. There were laws on the treatment of slaves, that's true, but slavery back then had different connotations. Often times, people who couldn't otherwise take care of themselves would become slaves in exchange for room and board. People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts. This is in contrast to the involuntary slavery that was predominant in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Now it's interesting that you've brought up slavery because there has never been an abolition movement outside of the Christian west. That doesn't really speak too well for atheist values does it.

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated. If you want to talk about further misconceptions you have about the bible, I'll be happy to do so in private..but I am not going to muddy the debate about absolute values vs relative values any further.

>> ^KnivesOut:
And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.
Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.
Suppose that god existed, and that his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

A Christian is someone who follows Christ and the true church is the body of Christ. This means that all the different denominations are false divisions in the body. This doesn't mean they don't have any Christians, it just means that the church is not a human institution..the catholics for example, most of what they do is not biblical, and is in fact blasphemy. There is no such thing as a pope, or nuns, or monks or priests in the bible. Neither are there sacraments. The conception of the virgin mary and the immaculate conception are both unbiblical and blasphemous. The same with bowing to statues, the worship of Mary, and confession. The catholic church is rife with apostacy. Does this mean no catholic is saved? I wouldn't say that..I don't limit God. I would say though that if I were catholic I wouldn't be confident of my salvation.

I wasn't "indoctrinated". I grew up agnostic, without any religion. I was a strict materialist who would have fit right in with many of the sifters here. I can understand the perspective of someone who can't see a spiritual reality because that used to be my perspective. I probably would have scoffed at this video too, but it would have been from the depths of ignorance. I have direct knowledge that there is a demonic host controlled by Satan who runs this world and is bent on seperating every soul on Earth from Jesus Christ. I have dealt directly with evil spirits, spoken to them directly, and have been directly deceived by them. This girl, whatever her history is, is/was possessed..of that there is no doubt.

Science is great, but this is spiritual warfare. You may not understand it, but you live in harmony with this world system and thus passively support the objectives of the enemy. Everytime you're arguing against Christ, you are doing Satans work for him. The world itself isn't frightening..

matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If you're a jew, you should know that much.
>> ^G-bar:
First, It is stated in the video that she had had this "possession" for a long time, and her medieval parents were taking her to those voodoo sessions for quite some time. This hints that the girl could be suffering from a minor mental illness and/or autism, which the parents are either too dumb or too religious to realize. Making her do things against her will over and over again might make her go completely crazy.
Second, If catholics are not the real Christians, who is? what are you shiny? how can you justify your own belief as the correct one?
And to sum it up, you throw every possible scientific measures against evolution, and now this? come on shiny, let go of your childhood indoctrination. Use your own eyes to see the world and you will see it is not as frightening as they told u it would be.

"This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species."

I don't think it really matters how long you wait or if one of the dogs lives in Alpha Centari..they will still just produce dogs according to the evidence. I suppose you could cook up anything and make it seem real by adding the magic value of millions of years..but without any real evidence its just pie in the sky

"I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next."

Fully formed as in, no true ancestors. There aren't any true ancestors for any of the major groups. There simply is no evidence in the fossil record demonstrating macro evolution which of course is seriously embarassing to darwinian theory. I highly doubt that darwin himself would maintain that his theory was true, just on the basis of the complexity of the cell and the DNA molecule alone.

"I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating."

I will check it out. It sounds interesting.. Here is something I recommend...

A critique of 29 evidences for macro evolution

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

"No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs. "

This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species.

"Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record."

I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next.

"The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild."

Again, this somewhat true. Adaptions for a specific thing often come at a price. Its why we still see so many simple organisms sitting around, bacteria still exists and has not evolved into more complex forms because simple works for that bacteria. If there is no strong evolutionary pressure then why evolve? However, there is PLENTY of pressure to evolve, be it exploiting a new niche, adapting better to hunt new prey or to survive in a different environment.

I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating.

@geesusfreek

Love and justice are indeed pitted at each other. Are you saying a parent could toss their child into a pit of flame, out of love? I really fail to see any parallel with this to parenting. A large segment of parenting is about avoiding the temporary pains of this life. The final judgment is anything but that. It isn't like parenting, at all. It is about the end of your life, be it for heaven or hell. Nothing could be more final. There are no parenting situations that come to mind, stay, a parent being on the jury for their child. If you are saying that a parent could say they love their child while also sending them to hell, I don't think that is very loving. And then, surely, "Love never fails" is false. If it is false, then there isn't much power in love, and not much use in God claiming it conquers all, as it doesn't...because people are going to hell.

To me, talking about society isn't taking it up a notch from parenting, it is taking it down a notch. I care much less about random people than my friends and family. I could kill strangers much more easily than my family members...because I love my family. I most likely wouldn't be able to kill my mother if she turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, because I love her. However, God seems to be able to throw people into a lake of fire by the millions, perhaps billions, or if the earth goes on long enough, trillions. This is an unfathomable amount of suffering. If a loving being could do this, I wouldn't want to be loved by it.

Lets say you have a child who is a murderous psychopath and another child who is perfectly obedient. Lets say that whenever you get these two children together, the murderer tries to harm the other child and that child lives in continual terror and fear. What is more loving in this circumstance? To tolerate the unrepentant murderer and ruin the other childs life, or to cast the murderer out? You can give the murderer all the hugs in the world, it wouldn't necessarily change his behavior. Love is an act of will, it is not something you can force or program into someone. Unless the murderer wants to change, there isn't going to be any relationship with so ever, let alone trust, and you couldn't trust this murderer no matter how much you loved him.

It is more loving to protect the other child and cast the murderer out than to ruin everyone elses lives for someone who refuses to change. God could love that murderer, and does..it is precisely because people don't want Gods love that they choose spiritual seperation from Him. You limit God and act like He doesn't give people an honest choice..but you don't seem to understand how wicked people actually are. It's because they prefer their sins and choose to be seperated from God that they end up in hell. There isn't going to be anyone there going "you got the wrong guy!"

If peoples choices are binding God, he isn't a very powerful God, nor is he the God I read about in the bible. As I said, I was a 5 point Calvinist. Is God overriding Pharaoh suddenly blank from the bible now? I really disagree with the whole idea of libertarian free will. I don't think it exists, and moreover, the idea that humans who's condition is COMPLETELY based on need would have even the slightest measure of libertarian free will is preposterousness.

I completely disagree that love is a 2 way street. One of my favorite lines from Babylon 5 is, as this love sick fool lay dying, he murmured "All love is unrequited love!" Stating the dubious nature of love. That we seldom choose those who we love, but it doesn't matter how great the pain of them not returning it is, you still love them. Like I said, I don't care if my mother turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, I would love her still even though she is incapable of it. If God isn't as capable as I am to love zombies, then I don't want his love.

Then I also don't understand how all the sudden my sins are my responsibility, when the whole idea of Jesus is completely irresponsibility. As soon as you accept Jesus, the logical implications are irresponsibility. Only the damned are responsible and somehow that is supposed to be fair. Jesus died for everyone sins supposedly. He then must turn around and deny people access to salvation because they denied him. That is the same as me burring the pick axe in my mothers head as she comes for my brains. She didn't say she loved me, time to embed this in her cerebral cortex.

Again, love is an act of will. When someone tells you that they don't love you anymore it is because they choose not to. It's not because the feelings dried up, it is because their will is against it. God didn't create robots, otherwise He wouldn't care what people did. If they did anything wrong He would only have Himself to blame. In your example of the Pharoh, God knew the Pharohs heart. What God caused him to do was already in his heart.

The way you're seeing justice has to do with the law. Justice is only obtained through Christ. People are responsible for their sins only because they refuse to come to Christ to be forgiven. He offers them the choice and if they refuse then they have to face Gods judgement on their own merits. It's what they're choosing, not what God is denying.

The entire metaphysical aspect of the bibles justice is very illogical to me. How does one inherit imperfection? Why is it so that perfect can't come from imperfect. You are making a fallacy of quantificational logic, mainly, the Existential Fallacy, or, putting the cart before the horse. I have no reason to accept these arbitrary positions. They aren't logical, therefore, I am not required to accept them.

Then the other main problem. You can't call something that wasn't a sacrifice a sacrifice. If he can't be judged, then no amount of justice was done. If I bestowed all my crimes on someone with diplomatic immunity, I hardly would say justice is done, more like avoided. He was never going to hell, he was never dying for our sins, if the payment of sins is blood and there is no blood, where is the justice?

Original sin? Once again, holding people to account for things they had no part in is of the highest level of injustice. To say everyone has sinned because one person has sinned isn't logical, it isn't something that I have to agree to. I would have to be compelled to believe so, and there is no sufficient reason to do so, not from what I read anyway.

It's not suprising you don't understand because these truths are spiritually discerned. God is the source of perfection. He is the perfect one and always has been. The only way something could be perfect is if it always was perfect. If it was imperfect at any time, it could not meet the definition of perfect. So something which is imperfect could only ever create imperfection. When man sinned, He created imperfection and became spiritually seperated from God. From that time until judgement day, all of Creation is in an imperfect state until it is completely reconciled and entirely remade. That is what the judgement is all about. Sin will be plucked out like it never existed. Man will be remade in Gods perfection and be restored.

Jesus could have been judged, if He had sinned. Remember He was tempted of the devil to abandon his ministry. If He had failed, Gods plan would have failed and would have incurred Gods judgement and earned condemnation.

People are held accountable for their own sins. Adams sin is why creation is in the state its in. Our personal sin is what determines where we are going. It doesn't really matter what state creation is in when you are born. You have the same chance of spending eternity with God as Adam did. There is no injustice there at all.

Once again, how is what Jesus did in anyway logically connected to Adam. They were both men, ok, they both liked bacon, sure...but Jesus isn't Adam. Jesus was a God man, how is he even remotely similar in nature to be able to transfer sins onto. If that be the case, my computer...err actually, lets not use the computer. My Soda can has lead a sinless live, so to my cats...never mind they are the devil too, so to my dogs. I wish to transfer my sins on to them.

Ahh wait. I guess you said they needed to be perfect to fulfill the law . But wait, why? If you sin, are you sinning or me? If I am held to account for only my actions, how are the actions of Adam being grandfathered on to me, but not your's? Why do sins transfer sometimes and not others? Why does being perfect mean you get to abolish the law for everyone, then turn around and apply it back to them? If the law is "fulfilled in Jesus" how it is then being reapplied? Actually, the HOW isn't needed, the WHY is? Why would Jesus condemn people if he just did away with the law? Spite? Is Jesus unable to love those who don't submit to him? I love all sorts of strangers that never loved me back, am I greater than Jesus?

I also don't agree with the idea that "He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down". For instance; "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy" ... "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Did God love the Israelites as he defines love for us? It doesn't seem so. There are countless examples of him destroying Israel because they worshiped a goat or something to that effect. God's actions nearly always conflict with the nearly perfect wording of love in 1st corth. Only Jesus comes close to living up to this letter of love via some of his actions, but others, like storming the money changers, reeks men acting like men, not Gods acting out of love.

Adam enjoyed a perfection of relationship with God in the garden. So before the fall, their natures were similar. Jesus was also a man and was capable of sin.

Hebrew 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He also imputed His divinity into man to restore us to perfection.

Again, you're held accountable to your own sins..you have as much opportunity as Adam did. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it. It isn't being reapplied, it is still in place. Apart from Christ you are judged, but through Him we are declared not guilty. That is the fulcrum of justice in this world.

God never failed to love the israelites; indeed He corrects those that He loves. To say God wasn't patient or kind with the israelites would be a huge stretch of the imagination. Also, in regards to Jesus, He had every right to be angry at how His Fathers temple had been defiled. Do you consider anger in God as disqualifying Him from being loving? You can be angry at someone and still love them, can't you?

You are also arguing points of the bible to me that I don't hold to have actually existed. The book of Job being one of them. The story of Adam and Eve seems equally unlikely. Noah seems so hard to believe that I always just pretended those parts of the bible never existed when I was a Christian. They always haunted me, though. I can't honestly believe that a Guy got a large boat and packed up a billion animals without them all eating each other and shitting themselves into sickness for 40 days. Then I am supposed to believe, yet again, that the earth was repopulated by a genetically unstable amount of people.

To me, God was never real. I always wanted him to be real. Seeing so much injustice in the world made me want some person whom "makes it all right" appealing. But there is so much wrong done in the bible, under God's command no less, that I seems unlikely as a source of hope for me any longer. How many people did God ordered slaughtered in the old testament? I have seen the number placed, if you include things Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, and such, it is around 25 million. I haven't double check that, but it sounds like a good number to start with.

This all entirely your lack of faith. Again, these are your stumbling blocks. The reason you don't know God as being perfect, or are unable to see Gods character in the bible as being without flaw, is because your understanding of Him is imperfect. You said it yourself, to you He never even existed. You failed to follow the first order of having a relationship with God, which is faith. Without that, He will remain entirely outside of your understanding.

Written off God, no. Like I said, I hope not to be correct. Worthiness isn't even a question. I don't thing much of me, if you knew anything about me instead of calling me arrogant by implication. The truth is, you sound like a very young Christian. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. But the way you speak to me is like that of dogmatic conversation and less than thought provoking. There isn't a single word you have said that I haven't heard from a sermon somewhere, or even, one that I gave myself to others. Did I mention that I have pastored people? Did I mention that I once had a small group ministry that was very successful.

In closing, I think you are conversing AT me rather than WITH me. Or so it seems, from the rather dogmatic reply form this took. While I know as a Christian your answers must be based on some amount of bible, the bible hold very little authority over the way I think now. As such, trying to appeal to me with justifications that ONLY come from the bible, like original sin take a leap of faith, one that I have denounced. You expect me to use circular logic, which I will refuse to do anymore with myself. I did that for years already, I am not going to spend any more time on it.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I am resolved to drop the subject, unless you want to have the final word...but I most likely wont reply. I only expect us to chase our tails. With you quoting bible philosophy to me, and me saying that isn't the way it MUST be, I need convencing...and round and round we go. I don't want to say I have heard it all, because I surely haven't, but all the logic you just hit me with is stuff I have thought about, extensively, and yet still am where I am today. I don't make a lot of money, I don't have lots of possessions, but what I DO have is literally thought years of considering my religions positions. I don't take them lightly, and I didn't care for the slight, though understandable, tone change at the end of your statements; like I was just foolishly doing this with no consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not young, not getting younger, and have and will always be thinking on this subject.

Over and out...must get more beer!

You mzy have felt inclined to return my dismissal of your claims as being in any sense original, but my understanding of Gods truth is not dogmatic. Mostly, what I know about God is from special revelation..scriputre is the expansion and explanation of the revelation of the truth I have already received. Which is not to dismiss its importance..it is primary. It is just that I already understood Gods love before I came to scripture..and that is how I came to know it is the truth...because I see that same love poured out on every page. I am not troubled by a single part of it..though I will admit that some of it is hard to explain to an unbeliever.

Again, I will say that if you understood the bible then you would know faith is primary and wouldn't have dropped it because you hit a brick wall in your own understanding. We have Gods direct guidence through the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, and not one thing we need to know will be held back from us. If you had perservered, the apparent inconsistances would be resolved for you. Since you gave up, you are stuck in the same place and always will be until you repent of your unbelief and lay down your understanding before the Lord. "Not my will, but yours".

If I get thrown in the can for posting to the Sift...will I qualify for a badge to add to my profile???

On a seperate..yet somehow similar note...YouTube has rolled out the ability to post and use vids that are licensed via Creative Commons.

Interesting.

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/06/youtube-and-creative-commons-raising.html

>> ^shinyblurry:
So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove.
No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Educate yourself:
Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.
>> ^shinyblurry:

but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah.
You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.
If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure.


I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":

1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Example:
[FORGERY]
>> ^shinyblurry:

I deny the Holy Spirit.
[/FORGERY]

Does that forgery make all your actual words fundamentally suspect?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Some religious theologians think that the myth argument is unsound? Color me surprised. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.

hilarious. So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove. Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart. I'm stating to get the idea that you don't actually know anything and I'm arguing with a search engine.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

I'm avoiding nothing; yes, there are other sources for Cyrus, but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah. You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.

If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure. Either way, your evidence is firmly in my territory. I'll happily admit that you have one example in the whole of human history of slaves being freed if you'll admit that Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist,
and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors
clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical
authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much
chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his
motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Do you have an actual argument, or what? Creation could ultimately only come from a single source; it makes logical sense there is only one God. A true God is a being whom was not created by anyone else, for which whom no one is a God to Him. Humanity has worshipped many Gods, but it doesn't mean there isn't one God. Humanity has worshipped, the sun, the earth, clay, stone, wood, themselves, money, power, sex..there are a million different things that are a god to people. Still has no bearing on the argument there is only one God. And if there is, then you will answer to Him one day.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.
Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.

I also hate Zeus. And Shiva. And Woden. Oh, no wait, I don't hate them, because I don't believe in them. If, however, there were Woden worshippers who kept getting in my face about how I couldn't go to Valhalla unless I did as I was told, I might start getting a little pissed at them. Not their god. But how could I fail to believe in him? I mean, we named a day of the week after the guy!
How can you deny that Woden exists, Shiny! Do you skip directly from Tuesday to Thursday? You're just a Woden hater! Come back to Woden before it is too late! You can still have a seat in Valhalla! If you don't, then when you die you will be left out to shiver in the cold before the gates, never to be warm and welcomed! And you will have nobody to blame because you have been warned!
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!
Heaven’s giant knows what happens,
Looking down from heaven,
Providing full jugs and sheaves.
Many a plant grows in the woods.
He is not born and grows not old.
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!