Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What scripture says that is everyone receives some kind of evidence that would lead that person to conclude that there is a God, or at the very least, push them enough in that direction to be led to Jesus Christ. It also says that rather than acknowledge it, some people suppress the truth God has revealed them because of sin. It is all too common that humans suppress the truth naturally and effortlessly when it reveals something which causes them discomfort.

Having received (supernatural) evidence that sufficiently proves to me that not only is there a God, but that His name is Jesus Christ, I have faith that all of this is true. I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for revelation they did not receive. I have also spoken with many people who have been given such evidence, such as @A10anis, who was shown supernaturally that God spared Him in a car wreck, but still denies God and refuses to repent.

As far as the rules go, no Christian expects the unbeliever to obey them. We expect that you hate Gods rules and would avoid following them whenever possible, except where they match up with the general morality of the culture. The point isn't really about following the rules, when it comes to why you should accept Jesus Christ. The point is that everyone has broken these rules, and that come judgment day, God will find you guilty for breaking them unless you have repented and turned to the Savior for forgiveness. Jesus Christ came to bring reconciliation with God, and forgiveness for our sins, so we could have a meaningful and loving relationship with God. It is our sins that separate us from Him.

>> ^Sketch:

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.
I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

Lol @shinyblurry

So..

Yahweh punished Jesus the only person not deserving punishment..
..in order to avoid punishing all sinners.. who actually deserve punishment..

..unless of course you don't believe/accept Jesus was punished for your sins.. in that case, Yahweh will punish you regardless?!

..all because Yahweh really doesn't want to punish anyone? [but himself who is jesus?] o_O?!

Yeeeah, because that makes sense. Oh, but i guess "moral" sense is much different than rational sense.

*cough cough* batshit crazy *cough*

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

While I couldn't state that I know no gods exist I will say it right now that I know your god doesn't exist. Christians have defined him out of existance with these two statements you can't deny repeating ad nauseum.

1. God loves us all
2. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus

If these two statements are true according to Christianity then nowhere on Earth would we find Muslim, Hindu or Bhuddist or whatever people (especially children) dying with no plausable way to find Jesus.

What hope would a two year old girl starving to death in Afghanastan have of picking up a bible, reading it, finding it's claims any more credible than those of the quaran, converting to christianity and being saved before she dies of malnutriution. It can't be believed. Therefore I have no problem saying your god does not exist full stop.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

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

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

The point is that, contrary to what the video suggests, the word Christian comes from the 1st century, and has historically been the word followers of Jesus Christ use to refer to themselves. A christian is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior:

christian - Χριστιανός (Christianós)

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

The Jews rejected Jesus because they were looking for a war Messiah who would install them as rulers of the world. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah who would die for the sins of the world as predicted in Isaiah:

53:4-6

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

As noted in the OT, the jews were constantly under punishment because they ignored the direct commands of God, and constantly persecuted and murdered the prophets God sent to them. In this case, it was no different.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

Show me what you're referring to, specifically.


>> ^joedirt:
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

Paul was forgiven for his former ways, because he turned from his sins and accepted Jesus Christ as Lord. Otherwise, you would be correct, that he would fall under this judgement. And this isn't the standard of Paul, it is Gods standard.

>> ^marbles:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Using Paul's own standards he is condemning himself to hell, no? Or is it righteous to persecute and kill Christians?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'never mind the buzzcocks, simon amstell, stephen fry, accepting jesus' to 'never mind the buzzcocks, simon amstell, stephen fry, josie long, accepting jesus' - edited by hpqp

You're right, I didn't state that very well.

There isn't anyone good. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Without Jesus, we are all hellbound. But, the good news is that God made a provision for us.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to pay the price that we ourselves could not pay. We are saved by faith in Him, that He rose from the dead. Thereby, we are saved by the grace of God, not because of something we did.

Now, your example is not valid. You cannot manipulate the grace of God. Your life isn't guaranteed, and the only reason you're drawing breath right now is because of God. If you think you can go out and commit a bunch of crime and then ask God for forgiveness later, knowing full well what you're doing, you're sadly mistaken.

btw, at least your idol Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to admit the real reason why he won't come to God for forgiveness..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA&feature=related

skip to 6:25



>> ^acidSpine:
Sorry but you fail hard. Entrance into Heaven is based on two things. 1. Accept Jesus as your lord and saviour. 2. Ask forgivness for your sins. Unless not doing these things counts as evil, being evil doesn't get you sent to hell. Under your "moral" system I could go out, kill a whole bunch of people, ask Jesus for forgivness and walk straight through the pearly gates.
Your Religion is a poorly constructed tissue of lies transparently constructed for controlling the masses and being a self righteous dick to people who don't agree with you. Like Hitchens, I too am glad there isn't a shred of evidence that this is true.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Satan doesn't force people to do evil, nor do people get confused about what is right and wrong. Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong. God allows people to use their free will choice, and He allows them to reap the consequences of their actions. He gives them every chance to repent and gives them fair warning of the consequences if they don't. Everyone has a real chance to prove themselves in this world, and if they prove themselves to be evil, then that is what they are. God isn't looking to send people to hell, but if they prefer doing evil then they deserve to go there.
This isn't about what you consider fair, lets just lay that joke to rest. This is about your desire for personal autonomy and your rejection of Gods authority. It's your desire to sin without consequence. Like every other unrepentent sinner, you are a hypocrite who shakes his fist at God because he knows full well that he is guilty and doesn't want to be judged for it. You refuse to come to God for forgiveness because you prefer your sins.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Sorry but you fail hard. Entrance into Heaven is based on two things. 1. Accept Jesus as your lord and saviour. 2. Ask forgivness for your sins. Unless not doing these things counts as evil, being evil doesn't get you sent to hell. Under your "moral" system I could go out, kill a whole bunch of people, ask Jesus for forgivness and walk straight through the pearly gates.
Your Religion is a poorly constructed tissue of lies transparently for controlling the masses and being a self righteous dick to people who don't agree with you. Like Hitchens, I too am glad there isn't a shred of evidence that it's true.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Satan doesn't force people to do evil, nor do people get confused about what is right and wrong. Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong. God allows people to use their free will choice, and He allows them to reap the consequences of their actions. He gives them every chance to repent and gives them fair warning of the consequences if they don't. Everyone has a real chance to prove themselves in this world, and if they prove themselves to be evil, then that is what they are. God isn't looking to send people to hell, but if they prefer doing evil then they deserve to go there.
This isn't about what you consider fair, lets just lay that joke to rest. This is about your desire for personal autonomy and your rejection of Gods authority. It's your desire to sin without consequence. Like every other unrepentent sinner, you are a hypocrite who shakes his fist at God because he knows full well that he is guilty and doesn't want to be judged for it. You refuse to come to God for forgiveness because you prefer your sins.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Not true. Do what thou wilt is directly from the Book of the Law which Crowley wrote and which he said he received from a spirit, ie a demon..perhaps even from Satan himself.

As far as "true hearted" rebellion goes, Satan is the original rebel and all of this so-called freedom of thought is systemic from his desire to usurp Gods position and authority. It isnt at all restrictive to follow the moral law of God, its in fact the only real fredom, and its provided to liberate us from slavery to sin and to the devil. It's the forbidden fruit redux, where humanity is yet again not trusting God but seeking after the knowledge himself, which the devil happily provides, leading the children as the pied piper into the pits of hell.

Yes, not everyone fears God, but not everyone has the common sense not to stick their finger in an electric socket either. There is a concise explanation for sin, and accepting Christ isn't a license to sin. Disobedience to God is never a moot point, saved or not. This video is speaking to the heart of the deception, which is the satanic lie of "do your own thing". It's relative versus absolute truth. It's at the roots of this wicked and perverse generation, which rejects Gods moral authority and seeks only to glorify itself.

I have had personal experience with demons and demon possession, and know they are working to deceive every person about the truth; to lead people away from God. What the bible says about this world being under dominion of Satan is not an exaggeration..it is the horrifying truth of this place, that there is deception working against you on every conceivable level. It really comes down to what kind of person you are..if you are content with the lie, if it suits your moral character, if you love the world instead of the one who made it, then you have already earned your reward and will seek nothing further. Unless this wickedness offends you and unless you want something better, the lie will be all you see. Mick and all the rest of these delusionals are working to spread the satanic lie, many willingly and knowingly. Selling your soul in rock and roll isn't just a popular expression but a literal truth.



>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!


>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.

i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.

again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.

be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

@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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>