Posted on 05/24/2002 6:43:47 AM PDT by Dallas
You have now demonstrated conclusively that you are a liar.
Christians pretty universally do accept that the Old Testament was at one time the rule of God -- hence God at one time favored the murder of homosexuals. I guess he's gotten more enlightened since then. Guess even your God can make mistakes.
Don't kill the messenger. It is a common assertion of Christians, as documented in the Bible, that Jesus said the only way to Heaven is "through him." Your fellow Christians say this means that to get to heaven you have to accept that Christ died for our eternal salvation. Hence non-believers in Christ fail to "get in" thorough a belief in Jesus -- hence they suffer eternally in a lake of fire (also claimed in the Bible.)
I'm not sure why you get mad at me for simply echoing what your own Christian brothers and sisters preach from the hilltops.
I never make this stuff up. I don't have to. Christians come up with this goofy stuff on their own.
No.... We know the layers of rock are old because we've tested them using radiometric dating methods..Read on, you might learn something.
No.... The geologic column was devised over one hundred years ago and has not changed. Radioactivity was only discovered about 50 or 60 years ago. Dating techniques chosen are very selective using elements with long half-lives (U-Pb-Rb-Sr), purposely to support the already chosen dates. Another tautology.
Which gave the sequence, but not the age. Radiometric dating provides the age, something geologists otherwise could only guess at.
Not so deeply buried in here is an allegation that there are radiometric elements that are known to give contrary results. Could you name those elements and the alternative ages they've signalled? Or are you just pulling that out of your backside?
Not to be rude, but do you really want to know? I can dig it up. At this point I can say that 5-10 years ago, the main elements used for dating were Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, and Rubidium-Strontium (I forget which isotopes). When different methods are used, it is rare to get even two to agree, much less all three. It's all very complicated and expensive and involves a lot of assumptions about migration of atoms into and out of the sample, contamination, initial concentrations, etc. The elements used are all very soluble in water and if the sample really is millions of years old, how can you be sure the sample has been unaffected by temperature and erosion in that time period? You can't.
They have some more exotic methods now with other elements (after all, you won't find uranium or radioactive potassium, etc. in every sample). In fact, to date such a fossil you have to find a "tuff" which is a volcanic deposit, that may be miles away for the actual fossil, but is presumed to be in the same stratum/age. It's almost impossible to predict the initial concentrations of mother/daughter isotopes in a modern volcanic deposit. Ancient volcanos, pure guesswork.
To top it all off, any time you send a lab a sample to be tested the first thing they want to know is what stratum (rock layer) was the sample taken from, i.e., how old do you think it is?
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Some Christians accept this, some reject it. But even if they reject it, the Old Testament DID call for the murder of homosexuals -- whether you care to admit it or not.
I do not. And neither would he. The Old Testament scripture is clearly stating that the act is criminal. The punishment is harsh, as is much in the Old Testament. It does not specify an executioner or method. The death of one's soul is "to surely die" as well. This does not make God a murderer...then or now.
Christians pretty universally do accept that the Old Testament was at one time the rule of God -- hence God at one time favored the murder of homosexuals.
I am not seeing evidence that "everytime they call for the killing of homosexuals" is applicable to this day and time. The statement appears as it initially did....as inflamatory rhetoric.
I guess he's gotten more enlightened since then. Guess even your God can make mistakes.
Backing off, I see. In the overall post alone you demonstrate either an increase in understanding of Christianity (Old vs New testament, etc.) or an acceptance that the claims made were innacurate. Grudgingly, based upon the remarks that follow, but evidence of God's work nonetheless. One cannot deny the truth when reading directly from it. It is a waste of time to project the expectations of mortals onto the psyche of a higher power.
I do not expect you to agree with me or with Christians, but I do expect a fairness in debate. Given that exists,you should expect the same.
Thank you for taking time to go to the source.
You are mixing claims. I simply assert that most Christians claim that unless you accept Jesus, you are not getting in to heaven, and the alternative to heaven is eternity in a lake of fire. So says the New Testament. Every time a Bible is published, therefore, the claim is repeated -- via the Bible -- that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, atheist, and according to many fundamentalists, Catholics are all going to that eternal lake of fire.
Are you saying Jews, Muslims, Hinds, pagans and atheists all get into heaven and escape the eternal lake of fire?
To me at any rate, the evidence for an ancient earth and for faunal succession is so compelling that I question both the sanity and integrity of the young-earthers.
Am I?
Every time his believers claim his words tell us to kill homosexuals.
31 posted on 5/24/02 12:31 PM Central by jlogajan
Every time his believers claim he condemns non-believers to eternal hell fires.
Every time his believers claim he told them to burn non-believers at the stake for not believing them, every time his believers gouge out the eyes and flay the flesh of non-believers.
___________________________
I simply assert that most Christians claim that unless you accept Jesus, you are not getting in to heaven, and the alternative to heaven is eternity in a lake of fire. So says the New Testament. Every time a Bible is published, therefore, the claim is repeated -- via the Bible -- that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, atheist, and according to many fundamentalists, Catholics are all going to that eternal lake of fire.
There is a very large difference between someone's belief that another's eternal existence is to be judged by God after death ....than the claim that such a belief somehow means that person deserves physical death, or for that matter that we are called to do so.
Are you saying Jews, Muslims, Hinds, pagans and atheists all get into heaven and escape the eternal lake of fire?
Where did I say so? Because God says something will happen to someone does it mean that I am called upon to see that it is done? None of those people answer to me.
As the president once said when confronted in a similar fashion... I don't get to choose who goes to heaven. He chooses, not I. It is a responsibility or power I have not been given, and one that I do not want. I am not qualified to give passes or to withhold them.
I am, however, charged to observe actions, and to be aware of the world around me.
You are mixing your reaction to potential judgement, based upon Christian belief, with your distaste for individuals who fear and respect the power that you deny exists. It is a leap to suggest that Christians could derive even the slightest bit of satisfaction from such a fate, ....now or after death.
Granted there are degrees in terms of seriousness of sin. But all sin is something that can separate us from Him.
Since he wants NONE to perish, he sent his son to die a substitutionary death (once and for all). No more sacrificial system. The laws of the old testament show us that mankind cannot live up to Gods standards. And that we need a savior. The only covering for sin is blood. And since God loves every human being greatly... he has provided a sacrifice for us all.
Our pagan culture loves to talk about how politically incorrect the Jehovah God of the Old Testament is.... but they don't get the story right. God considers all humans are on the same playing field (iniitially). All have sinned and fall short of the his glory and his ways.
If there was ever a level playing field and folks that 'ought' to show love for everyone (not just those with the same beliefs).... it ought to be Christians.
If you've seen otherwise, then don't hold it against folks that don't follow their master commpletely. Jesus touched the untouchables of his day (the lepers) and he commands us to love one another. If we say we do and yet we don't, then we are liars and the truth of God does not abide in us.
Now since some of you folks don't adhere to Judeo-Christian absolutes.... then ok... who'se your god? What defines truth for you? Is it that ever-sliding scale which is dependent upon man's culture or the norms of a given period of time? That's a slippery slope and it doesn't take much to see that it is an untennable position. Things you would consider 'unthinkable' today could well be the norm and socially acceptable 100 years from now (e.g. harvesting humans or 'cloning farms').
Without absolute truth and direct revelation from God we are hopeless.
Folks ask yourself.... who's your God? I guarantee it's who you obey (just look at your palm pilot and your checkbook to figure it out).
As to how long the world has been around. I'm a Christian and it doesn't matter to me if it's 4 billion years old... a few million... 10K or just 6K years.
The bottom line is God created it and life does not... cannot come from non-life. To Him 1000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as a 1000 years. I personally think that there's plenty of figurative parts in Genesis and what is most important is the order of events. People can call it watered down all they want... but I choose to let God be God and I'm not gonna cram him into my limited undertanding of scripture (e.g. eschatology issues as well).
Thus, I don't have any problem hearing the best scientific data available and trying to make sense of it (i.e. I wouldn't call em lies from the devil).
However mankind and science are not my 'gods' and thus I don't take everything or every theory that is thrown out there as absolute truth. Remember a couple of years ago they found a chunk of stuff that they said proved that there was life on Mars. Hogwash I thought.... how do you know it was from Mars? And it turns out that they had misinterepretted what was in the rock anyhow. And also, how does stuff leave one planet and get to another (without a few million bucks wasted).
Ok... that's enough.
How does that make any sense, though? He's God, all powerful. He could simply snap his (figurative) fingers and change anything to the way he wanted -- why go through the whole drama of the crucifiction. And why didn't he get it right in the first place? Why the need for revision 2.0? Everything about God-myths are so anthropomorphic it always has that flavor as if some goat-herder made them all up.
"You are mixing claims"
Am I?
"Every time his believers claim his words tell us to kill homosexuals."
I thought you were saying that I was saying that believers in God call for the killing of homosexuals all the time ("every time".)
Maybe you did mean it the way I meant it -- i.e. "whenever". Thus what I meant is "Whenever his believers claim his words tell us to kill homosexuals." Refering to my condemning Spider-Man and/or his believers.
I can see where this short sentence could have created confusion, considering the statement I was responding to.
Some Christians accept it, some do not. - logjgogan
What I meant to say was that I did not accept his painting of Christianity based upon the old testament scripture quoted.
Please clarify.
Oh, I am aware of that. I am aware the Bible is interpreted in many different ways by many different sects. No doubt.
However there are plenty of sects who do advocate the murder of homosexuals -- some of them post on this forum and have admitted as much.
They seem to have the Biblical quotes to back them up. I should take you as a spokesmen for true Christianity instead of them because why?
Isn't that what those hundreds/thousands of years prior to Jesus' coming about?
Why did he even make humans at all? No one can answer that. But we do know he loves every human greatly (more than each of us can even love our own kids). Would you give up your one and only son so that folks who hate you can become members of your family and be with you for eternity?
It boils down to this.... either an almighty God exists or he doesn't. Is he a holy God? I'd hope so and how could he be perfect otherwise.
Has that almighty being contacted humans at all? If he has... then he's probably done so in a major religion... choose one. If he hasn't... then he's not very loving if you ask me (letting us all flounder down here and we still don't even know his name).
So if we 'assume'.... ok, so God has revealed himself to mankind in some way... then I would contend that it better be through a religion which has a simple message (otherwise God would really only be making himself available to an elite group).
If God loves everyone... it better be a simple message and one that he wants the world to hear. So far Christianity fits the bill.
And let's go a step further.... in this 'religion', would it be one that forces/requires people to live in a 'good enough' manner to get to heaven (being in His presence... be rewarded... whatever)??? Well if it was, then it would mean that some group of folks are 'good enough' to be with this almighty and holy good because of their good efforts.
If that were true, then that almighty and holy good really wouldn't be that holy and almighty (as he'd simply just wanting to be hanging around the 'best' of the human race).
In the Judeo-Christian framework I'm talking about.... no one is good enough. We'd all be in hell (separated from his presence forever... since he can't stand sin)... if it weren't that he provided a means to be forgiven.
I certainly believe that those who believed in the sacritical system of OT times are in his presence but God revealed the better means and the final sacrifice at just the right time.
He chose to do it in the crossroads of the world and at just the right time (when there was a common language for once, when there was a decent road system and when ther was peace).
If God wanted to broadcast his message at the world and heave everyone hear it... it's hard to imagine better methods (other than using lightning bolts across the world and having an audible voice heard everywhere).
But if he did that... then it wouldn't be by faith that folks believe Him and choose 'Him' over the things of this world.
I think God wanted to demonstrate that he could make things that although they are physical beings (basically animals) in an engaging and engrossing physical world and yet they would choose to believe in his existance and follow his ways (albeit in totally contractidatory manner to their environment and the world that surrounds them). And this whole thing called human existance is just that being played out.... we're seeing which humans are the ones that will choose to bend the knee and recognize that there is a great God that is out there.
And many many many will not... because of that basic human instinct called pride.
You can call it primtive all you want... but after 9-11 I think almost everyone would agree... evil is real and does exist and conversely so must good.
Peace.
Please tell us a few of these sects, and name one Christian FReeper who has advocated such trash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.