Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Boxcar

So you are saying in effect, that God is by far the biggest mass murderer that ever existed on this planet. Those who do not believe in him will be thrown into the "lake of fire" forever while the "chosen ones" will dance with joy.

I don't know anyone who wants to follow a God that goes against every iota of what "good" is and would commit the greatest sin ever making all the mass murderers that ever existed combined, look little league. God would be committing the greatest of sins ever while your Bible keeps scaring you from committing one. A God who disobeys his own 10 commandments and his own sons decree of loving your enemies and neighbors.

You only know about God from what you read. The people who committed the recent mass shootings also read things and what they read caused them to believe they are justified in their mass killings. We are all outraged. But here you are justifying similar mass killings times a billion that God will destroy.

IMO, Actor who I believe is an Atheist or Agnostic, is closer to God than you who claim to be a "chosen one". That's because Actor does not have a "concept" of who and what God is. He just says he does not exist or prove it. You on the other hand have defined a God that's basically horrendous and fits the profile of a demon, not a loving God with your concept of the "elect". Satan also operates with his "elect". By saying God has an "elect" you would lower God's powers to those of Satan. Satan cannot love unconditionally. If your God cannot love unconditionally then he does not have love because true love is unconditional. Then he is no different than Satan.

Although I believe in God, i never really KNEW God till I had a personal experience with God a few years ago. Since then I have experienced his love a handful of times that is beyond anything in the Bible or this planet. I love God more than anything and anyone. I could never say that before I had my experience and it blows my mind every time I say that because I never imagined I would ever feel that way. My approach to God was intellectual like yours but with different criteria. And my love for God is not because of something I read but because it is from a real experience with God. A few seconds of God's love trumps everything in the Bible that says he has "favorites" or is not universal or requires anything from you. He accepts you as you are.

Jesus responded to a question about being thrown into the "lake of fire" according to the Bible by a person who had an NDE. Jesus said, "would a parent throw their kid into a lake of fire? Think how much more God loves you than your parents".

This is one example of why i don't take the Bible literally.

A couple of things: "the elect" is NOT my personal concept. I didn't invent it. I didn't create it. I didn't design it. Believe it or not, it's a biblical concept, per your "best friend" Jesus and his apostles.

Matt 24:22-24
22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible.
NIV

See also Mk 13:20, 22; Rom 11:7; 1Tim 5:21; 2Tim 2:10; 1Pet 1:1.

So, it appears the doctrine of the elect is in scripture 8 times more than your most favored Lk 17:21 text that you have distorted and perverted to accommodate your fanciful presuppositions. And this doesn't include the illustration of the doctrine and explicit statements in the OT when God chose Israel to be his covenant people. If we include that, we're easily looking at hundreds of times more than Lk 17:21. Yet, somehow the circuits in your dark, web-filled, bat-inhabitated attic compute all this to be my personal idea.

Secondly, how is God a "monster" since he has provided a redemptive remedy for mankind's sins? It's God's fault that most men freely choose to not believe His gospel? Its His fault that men love the darkness, and love their worldly pleasures, and love money, and love power, and love themselves above all else, and love the accolades of their fellowman, and love falsehoods? I don't get it.

[dnlgfnk]

It's quite tedious to read of a metaphysician who continually quotes scripture about a personal divinity to a phenomenologist, and a phenomenologist who can't/won't acknowledge that his personal experiences derive from an independently real, transcendent God unconstrained by human experience.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

It's quite tedious to read of a metaphysician who continually quotes scripture about a personal divinity to a phenomenologist, and a phenomenologist who can't/won't acknowledge that his personal experiences derive from an independently real, transcendent God unconstrained by human experience.

But it does show that we're all creatures of or captives to FAITH. My faith is in a Person, as he's been revealed in the Word of God and by the [experiential) indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit who has been given to me as a guarantee of my eternal destiny. Light's faith is in the word of NDEs, which he takes quite literally, of course, and in his personal experiences.

It appears one of us needs to "test the spirits" (1Jn 4:1) to see which of us has the right object for our faith.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

A couple of things: "the elect" is NOT my personal concept. I didn't invent it. I didn't create it. I didn't design it. Believe it or not, it's a biblical concept, per your "best friend" Jesus and his apostles.

Matt 24:22-24
22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible.
NIV

See also Mk 13:20, 22; Rom 11:7; 1Tim 5:21; 2Tim 2:10; 1Pet 1:1.

So, it appears the doctrine of the elect is in scripture 8 times more than your most favored Lk 17:21 text that you have distorted and perverted to accommodate your fanciful presuppositions. And this doesn't include the illustration of the doctrine and explicit statements in the OT when God chose Israel to be his covenant people. If we include that, we're easily looking at hundreds of times more than Lk 17:21. Yet, somehow the circuits in your dark, web-filled, bat-inhabitated attic compute all this to be my personal idea.

Secondly, how is God a "monster" since he has provided a redemptive remedy for mankind's sins? It's God's fault that most men freely choose to not believe His gospel? Its His fault that men love the darkness, and love their worldly pleasures, and love money, and love power, and love themselves above all else, and love the accolades of their fellowman, and love falsehoods? I don't get it.

I figured you would eventually come up with a response .Your "whatever" statement reeked too much of capitulation.

Regarding that you did not come up with the concept of the "Elect" I am well aware of that. But this is NOT something innate in the Bible. This is Calvinism known for its "TULIP" doctrine which you have discussed previously. The "U" stands for "Unconditional election" that describes the actions and motives of God prior to his creation of the world, when he predestined some people to receive salvation, the elect, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation.

I have just one thing to say on Calvinism. John Calvin is NOT Jesus Christ. In effect, when you believe in Calvin's doctrine you believe in Calvin, not Christ. You believe his interpretation of the Bible. That's your business, but only about 5% of Christians buy his philosophy.

Regarding my belief in God, it is not based on the NDE's as you say. I sight those experiences as evidence,but that is not why I love God more than anyone or anything.

And it's not for a cause or a political view. Its not to be a goody two shoes or to get to heaven. Its not for wealth or miracles or anything else. It is simply because God and I are one deep down. It is my true nature. God is who I am. It's hard to understand if you have not experienced it. Its not egotistical. I am not God, but he resides within me on such a deep level that you cannot tell where you end and God begins or vice versa. This is why I sight Luke's "God is within you" that Jesus said as the #1 importance of the entire Bible.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I figured you would eventually come up with a response .Your "whatever" statement reeked too much of capitulation.

Regarding that you did not come up with the concept of the "Elect" I am well aware of that. But this is NOT something innate in the Bible. This is Calvinism known for its "TULIP" doctrine which you have discussed previously. The "U" stands for "Unconditional election" that describes the actions and motives of God prior to his creation of the world, when he predestined some people to receive salvation, the elect, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation.

I have just one thing to say on Calvinism. John Calvin is NOT Jesus Christ. In effect, when you believe in Calvin's doctrine you believe in Calvin, not Christ. You believe his interpretation of the Bible. That's your business, but only about 5% of Christians buy his philosophy.

Regarding my belief in God, it is not based on the NDE's as you say. I sight those experiences as evidence,but that is not why I love God more than anyone or anything.

And it's not for a cause or a political view. Its not to be a goody two shoes or to get to heaven. Its not for wealth or miracles or anything else. It is simply because God and I are one deep down. It is my true nature. God is who I am. It's hard to understand if you have not experienced it. Its not egotistical. I am not God, but he resides within me on such a deep level that you cannot tell where you end and God begins or vice versa. This is why I sight Luke's "God is within you" that Jesus said as the #1 importance of the entire Bible.

So John Calvin invented election? What part of the 8 NT "election" verses didn't you understand? Or do you think those verses are talking about God being mankind's elect!? I would not put it past you to just nonchalantly walk off that cliff.

For your info, all Calvin did was systematize the 5 Doctrines of Grace that are all found in scripture. He did not invent any of those 5 doctrines, any more than I did. I came by my Calvinism from the same place Calvin did.

How convenient that you take Lk 17:21 so literally, after telling us that you don't interpret scripture literally. And it's also as equally convenient that, according to your own standards of "inconsistency", this passage fails miserably since it is one of kind in the whole bible. But yet you cling to it like a fly to horse manure. You must have majored in Cognitive Dissonance when in college. I can tell you passed with flying colors.

And so what the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe has chosen to save some and pass over others? What is that to you? You make it sound like God is somehow morally obligated to save all. What if he decided to give over most of mankind to their natural love-lust for worldly things, while at the same time, choosing to deliver many others out of this world by bringing them into his kingdom and making them His new creation in this present age so that they would be made fit to abide with Him in his Holy Sanctuary forever in the eternal, visible kingdom? He gives most people over to what they desire the most, while giving others a new heart so that they would desire Him as their greatest treasure instead of the world. What is unjust about this? The Potter does not have a right over his clay pots to do with them as he sees fit?

[boxcar]

Biblical Battle Tales Confirmed Using Variations In Earth's Magnetic Field

Brief changes in the strength of Earth’s magnetic field have been used to provide more precise dates for the destruction of Middle Eastern cities, concurring with Biblical accounts.

https://www.iflscience.com/biblical-...ic-field-65904

This proves once again the historical accuracy of the bible. Of course, this secular science publication does cautions us not to extrapolate too much from this one story by characterizing earlier recorded events in scripture as "factual". God forbid! We can't allow the bible to encroach too much on skeptics' space, would we?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Biblical Battle Tales Confirmed Using Variations In Earth's Magnetic Field

Brief changes in the strength of Earth’s magnetic field have been used to provide more precise dates for the destruction of Middle Eastern cities, concurring with Biblical accounts.

https://www.iflscience.com/biblical-...ic-field-65904

This proves once again the historical accuracy of the bible. Of course, this secular science publication does cautions us not to extrapolate too much from this one story by characterizing earlier recorded events in scripture as "factual". God forbid! We can't allow the bible to encroach too much on skeptics' space, would we?

What it does not prove is biblical accounts of miracles, particularly the claim of a resurrection. Confirmation of the destruction cities is hardly a big deal.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What it does not prove is biblical accounts of miracles, particularly the claim of a resurrection. Confirmation of the destruction cities is hardly a big deal.

Everything is a "big deal" to a skeptic since most skeptics believe virtually everything in the bible is myth.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Everything is a "big deal" to a skeptic since most skeptics believe virtually everything in the bible is myth.

Everything in the New Testament is myth with the possible exception of a little bit of philosophy. I refer to the writings of Isaac Asimov.

Archeology supports the Old Testament as far back as the Babylonian captivity. The Abrahamic religions seem to be copied from the Babylonian religion. Archeology refers to a "House of David." Anything older than about 600 B.C.E. is suspect.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

[B][size=4][center]

https://www.iflscience.com/biblical-...ic-field-65904

Do you know what "iflscience" is? Do you seriously think anything on that site is reliable?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Do you know what "iflscience" is? Do you seriously think anything on that site is reliable?

Sure. https://www.iflscience.com/about

What is not reliable on that site?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sure. https://www.iflscience.com/about

What is not reliable on that site?

Take the claim that "brief" changes in the earth's magnetic field can be used to precisely date the destruction of ancient cities. As a physicist I find that claim to be highly questionable.

The earth's magnetic field does flip over extremely long periods, i.e., the change is not brief. It lasts for many millennia.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Take the claim that "brief" changes in the earth's magnetic field can be used to precisely date the destruction of ancient cities. As a physicist I find that claim to be highly questionable.

The earth's magnetic field does flip over extremely long periods, i.e., the change is not brief. It lasts for many millennia.

Why? I thought natural processes are just like God: They can do anything!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why? I thought natural processes are just like God: They can do anything!

Well, you are wrong. Natural processes have limits. Example: matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Well, you are wrong. Natural processes have limits. Example: matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

Really? Well stick around. Science is making new discoveries every day. You might get lucky and live enough.