Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Whenever someone suggests something that you disagree with...you always ask..."show me where it says that in scripture". But when someone ELSE asks you to provide the scripture in order to support YOUR argument...then your reply always is..."just because scripture doesn't say it doesn't mean it didn't happen". We don't know what really happened, Boxcar...scripture is all that we have to go on. And you yourself has said that scripture is enough...so, I don't know why you are doing all this extra projecting now...about what MIGHT have happened, or not.

As the Gospel of Luke stands...there was no repentance that went on, no matter HOW you choose to define the word. The first thief ridiculed Jesus...by mocking him that he should have been able to save himself if he were indeed the "Son of God". The other thief, who was obviously of higher character...reprimanded the first thief by reminding him that they were being killed because they were criminals...whereas Jesus was an innocent man. When the thief asked to be remembered by Jesus...he never expressed any "change of mind"...and that is obvious to any logical person who has read that story. And you know this yourself, but, being the intellectually dishonest person that you are...you will bend any fact in order to support a faulty argument. Yes...there is another Gospel which reports that BOTH these thieves were ridiculing Jesus...but that Gospel doesn't report the part of the conversation where the thief asks Jesus to remember him. So...you've conveniently elected to COMBINE the two gospels...by suggesting that the "repentant thief" initially ridiculed Jesus...but then "changed his mind". But this "combining" only exists in your mind...and not in scripture. And that's why you are not worth talking to, when it comes to such matters.

You're reading your presuppositions into the text. Narratives are frequently illustrations of biblical doctrine. And repentance is logically inferred from the larger context of all scripture and from the Lukian passage itself.

And so what the "other gospel" (Mat 27:44) provides only part of the account on what went on with the thieves, since the two thieves are not the focus of Matthew? Does this make this gospel contradict Luke's version? We've been down this road before. In fact, Mr. Halv challenged me on this once upon a time and I demonstrated how the two passages are not contradictory by actually applying the Law of Noncontradiction to the two passages. In fact, let's go further with this: Mark's account only acknowledges the presence of the two thieves but is silent on anything they spoke. Is this another contradiction? And John's gospel says nothing at all about two thieves? Maybe they never existed, heh?

Mathew's gospel eports both thieves insulting and mocking Christ, while Luke reports that only one thief mocked and insulted Christ, whereas the other one admitted guilt, owned his sins, confessed that his punishment was just, rebuked the other criminal for not fearing God, confessed Jesus' innocence, implicitly confessed that Jesus was the King of Israel and implicitly trusted Jesus by humbling asking Him to remember him when He came into his kingdom. Therefore, I would say the mindset of this second thief was very different from what it was hours earlier when hanging on his cross. This thief definitely had a change of heart toward himself and Christ, and this is precisely what repentance is all about. It's about turning away from sin unto God through Christ. It's a 180 degree turnabout.

Also, your latest objection now is entirely dishonest since it's a red herring -- a distraction meant to hide your original objection which was the Luke23 passage doesn't explicitly state remorse or regret or sorrow for sin, which in your world means there was no repentance. But when I asked you about the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 and if it was teaching repentance, you switched tactics by offering up a different objection in order avoid the parable and my question.

What is also entirely dishonest is to ignore the full context of scripture when understanding any given passage.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're reading your presuppositions into the text. Narratives are frequently illustrations of biblical doctrine. And repentance is logically inferred from the larger context of all scripture and from the Lukian passage itself.

And so what the "other gospel" (Mat 27:44) provides only part of the account on what went on with the thieves, since the two thieves are not the focus of Matthew? Does this make this gospel contradict Luke's version? We've been down this road before. In fact, Mr. Halv challenged me on this once upon a time and I demonstrated how the two passages are not contradictory by actually applying the Law of Noncontradiction to the two passages. In fact, let's go further with this: Mark's account only acknowledges the presence of the two thieves but is silent on anything they spoke. Is this another contradiction? And John's gospel says nothing at all about two thieves? Maybe they never existed, heh?

Mathew's gospel eports both thieves insulting and mocking Christ, while Luke reports that only one thief mocked and insulted Christ, whereas the other one admitted guilt, owned his sins, confessed that his punishment was just, rebuked the other criminal for not fearing God, confessed Jesus' innocence, implicitly confessed that Jesus was the King of Israel and implicitly trusted Jesus by humbling asking Him to remember him when He came into his kingdom. Therefore, I would say the mindset of this second thief was very different from what it was hours earlier when hanging on his cross. This thief definitely had a change of heart toward himself and Christ, and this is precisely what repentance is all about. It's about turning away from sin unto God through Christ. It's a 180 degree turnabout.

Also, your latest objection now is entirely dishonest since it's a red herring -- a distraction meant to hide your original objection which was the Luke23 passage doesn't explicitly state remorse or regret or sorrow for sin, which in your world means there was no repentance. But when I asked you about the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 and if it was teaching repentance, you switched tactics by offering up a different objection in order avoid the parable and my question.

What is also entirely dishonest is to ignore the full context of scripture when understanding any given passage.

This "combining" of the gospels of Matthew and Luke as it pertains to the thief incident...has it been formally acknowledged by any particular Christian denomination...or is it your own contribution to scripture?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And so what the "other gospel" (Mat 27:44) provides only part of the account on what went on with the thieves, since the two thieves are not the focus of Matthew? Does this make this gospel contradict Luke's version? We've been down this road before. In fact, Mr. Halv challenged me on this once upon a time and I demonstrated how the two passages are not contradictory by actually applying the Law of Noncontradiction to the two passages. In fact, let's go further with this: Mark's account only acknowledges the presence of the two thieves but is silent on anything they spoke. Is this another contradiction? And John's gospel says nothing at all about two thieves? Maybe they never existed, heh?

It could be that those ancient Israeli nomads were simply writing down their imaginings. After all...man has been a storyteller ever since he first learned how to speak a language.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mathew's gospel eports both thieves insulting and mocking Christ, while Luke reports that only one thief mocked and insulted Christ, whereas the other one admitted guilt, owned his sins, confessed that his punishment was just, rebuked the other criminal for not fearing God, confessed Jesus' innocence, implicitly confessed that Jesus was the King of Israel and implicitly trusted Jesus by humbling asking Him to remember him when He came into his kingdom. Therefore, I would say the mindset of this second thief was very different from what it was hours earlier when hanging on his cross. This thief definitely had a change of heart toward himself and Christ, and this is precisely what repentance is all about. It's about turning away from sin unto God through Christ. It's a 180 degree turnabout.

Neither Matthew nor Luke independently mention a "repentance"...but you've managed to invent one by combining the two narratives. Not bad...the "Great Deceiver" would be proud of you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God's foolishness is wiser than the world's wisdom. This is why God's wisdom is of inestimable value.

And there is only one right way to understand scripture: The way the original hearers understood it.

But why would your omnipotent all knowing, and all loving old man in the sky punish his children with death to teach them anything?

Sounds like your god's wisdom is not up to the task of being a wise loving 'father". Once again you justify the randomness and chaos inerrant to the cosmos, to some sort of inept guiding hand that smacks down humans for not following or believing primitive tribal superstitions like total depravity.

You propose a god who knows only anger and vengeance.
So guess just like you he must go back to school to catch up on his worldly wisdom.

You think the sky will rightfully strike down unbelievers.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God's foolishness is wiser than the world's wisdom. This is why God's wisdom is of inestimable value.

And there is only one right way to understand scripture: The way the original hearers understood it.

Again. All of your proclamations has your god contradicting himself or "revealing" .
himself in opposite ways. Until I began debating you I had never heard the tern "natural revelation"

In theology, general revelation, or natural revelation, refers to knowledge about God and spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy and reasoning. Christian theologians use the term to describe knowledge of God purported to be plainly available to all mankind. General revelation is usually understood to pertain to outward temporal events that are experienced within the world or the physical universe. The definition may be extended to include human conscience or providence or providential history.

Then we have your preferred way Special revelation, and/or Biblical Revelation......

A theological Special revelation is a theological term used mainly by evangelical scientists and Christian theologians which refers to the belief that knowledge of God and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures, a disclosure of God's truth through means other than through man's reason.

Why is your god at odds with himself? Bunky

How come his "NATURAL" revelation contradicts his "special" and his and yours Biblical inspiration"]

Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human authors and editors of Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God.[1]

His and yours natural revelation via 17th century Bishop Ussher says the universe was created in under 10,000 years and his and your biblical revelation says in 6 days.

AND TO FURTHER THE CONTRADICTION, his and yours NATURAL REVELATION OPPOSES THOSE WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND the natural world who say it took at least a million times as long, or around 14 billion tears

So we have
natural revelation
Special revelation
Biblical inspiratiomn
Scientific fact or real natural revelation

All at each other's throats

Got lota splain' to do Lucy

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

You propose a god who knows only anger and vengeance.

Not to diminish what you've said here, but are you certain about that?
Has boxcar not said anything about God's Love?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Not to diminish what you've said here, but are you certain about that?
Has boxcar not said anything about God's Love?

At one moment he claims love. But proceeds to describe what he calls god's "justice" which is mostly retribution thru' abhorrent punishment or death. There is no justice in condemning all of humanity for eating the wrong literal fruit.

An omniscient "god" should have known all about his children disobeying him. Why couldn't he have been clearer in his arbitrary rules. Omnipotence means getting stuff done. Coupled with omniscience, one has to wonder of the origins of such a tall tale and be skeptical about what Genesis and the fall of man really means.

I don't know about you but even when my son was very young I found an explanation at even his level of understanding, helped him get what was the message. I adfmit I am neither all knowing or all powerful, but apparently more loving to my children then boxcar's god to his.

Eh, god is not that dumb or cruel except in twisted literal interpretations.

[hcap]

In many ways the Buddhist concept of compassion towards all sentient beings is less distorted and much easier to grasp than the literal evangelical fundamentalist Christian concept of "love".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Again. All of your proclamations has your god contradicting himself or "revealing" .
himself in opposite ways. Until I began debating you I had never heard the tern "natural revelation"
Then we have your preferred way Special revelation, and/or Biblical Revelation......


Why is your god at odds with himself? Bunky

How come his "NATURAL" revelation contradicts his "special" and his and yours Biblical inspiration"]
His and yours natural revelation via 17th century Bishop Ussher says the universe was created in under 10,000 years and his and your biblical revelation says in 6 days.

AND TO FURTHER THE CONTRADICTION, his and yours NATURAL REVELATION OPPOSES THOSE WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND the natural world who say it took at least a million times as long, or around 14 billion tears

So we have
natural revelation
Special revelation
Biblical inspiratiomn
Scientific fact or real natural revelation

All at each other's throats

Got lota splain' to do Lucy

God has never contradicted himself or been at odds with himself. What you refuse to understand is that He is righteous by nature -- something NONE of us are and must punish sin. And the punishment for all and any sin is capital punishment! Are you so blind that you cannot see that the entire world is broken and steeped in corruption?

Yet, God in his great love for the world provided the one and only remedy for sin in the Righteous Man Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the sin debt of all those who trust in Him and his finished sacrificial, substitutionary work of Cross.

But because you are obstinate and stiff-necked and refuse God's gracious, loving offer, it will be YOU who will have "lota splain' to do" when you meet the righteous Judge of all the earth upon your death. Then see if any of your gods of scientism will come running to your rescue.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There is only one way to understand scripture...the way that Boxcar explains it. Like the part about the death of Judas. One Gospel says that Judas hanged himself...and the other Gospel says that Judas fell headlong and had his guts spill out of his abdomen. So...Boxcar interprets this as Judas originally hanging himself, and then the rope subsequently breaking...thus causing Judas to fall headlong and rupturing his abdomen. Even though the only way a hanged man can fall headlong is if he were hanging from his feet. But, WAIT...it could have been that he chose to hang himself from a tree that was itself hanging over a cliff. As if a suicidal man would bother to go to such lengths in order to kill himself.

You are a fool, boxcar...and I am TWICE the fool for engaging you in conversation.

No, it's not the only way a hanged man can fall headlong. I have explained this on a few occasions in the past.

[hcap]

God has never contradicted himself or been at odds with himself. What you refuse to understand is that He is righteous by nature --

How long did it take god to create the universe?

And according to the unimpeachable word of god, the bible, how old is it now?
And do you believe it literally?

[hcap]

...And the punishment for all and any sin is something NONE of us are and must punish sin. And the punishment for all and any sin is capital punishment! Are you so blind that you cannot see that the entire world is broken and steeped in corruption? Are you so blind that you cannot see that the entire world is broken and steeped in corruption?

No, not the entire world.

You must be kidding about all sins punishable by capital punishment!

Ewer steal a few pieces of candy when you were a kid?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, not the entire world.

You must be kidding about all sins punishable by capital punishment!

Ewer steal a few pieces of candy when you were a kid?

Yes, the entire world!

And, no, I'm not kidding! All unbelievers are enemies of God, which means all unbelievers cannot obey Jesus' two greatest commandments. And this is just for starters! Since all sin is infinitely offensive to God, the sin debt of all will take all eternity for unrepentant unbelievers to pay.

Furthermore, you have already admitted that you, along with the rest of the world, are liars. Therefore, since this is an objective, universal truth, then absolute truth exists.

[boxcar]

2 teen girls are facing a raft of felony charges in alleged plot to kidnap and kill 9 people

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/2-14-old-g...opstories.html

Here's a little taste of Total Depravity, youth-style.