ForumGarden

xfrodobagginsx;1501271 wrote:


What is that supposed to be?

I don't watch random videos. If you cannot take the time to write what you have to say, then I will dismiss you, completely.

Just what does some low grade Gospel show with a bunch of people with the stereotype vacant expressions on their faces have to do with the Fundamental Teachings of Jesus? I don't recall anything about his playing the piano, violin, or any musical instrument at all, for that matter. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity at all. It is nothing but corporate money grabbing pap.

Let's all just post videos, it saves a lot of time and effort.:wah:

Creationist Dr. Kent Hovind Debates 3 Evolutionists At Once:

xfrodobagginsx;1501352 wrote: Creationist Dr. Kent Hovind Debates 3 Evolutionists At Once:






Entertaining, but irrelevant to the question.

Hovind is another wannabee.

I wonder where this "heaven" is located.

Ted;1501362 wrote: Hovind is another wannabee.


Hovind destroys the Evolutionists every time he debates them because he has the truth on his side.

Ted;1501367 wrote: I wonder where this "heaven" is located.


Above the first and second heavens. First heaven=Atmosphere Second Heaven=Outer Space Third Heaven=Beyond Them 2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I know such a man--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--

4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

If you choose to believe that go for it. I buy none of it. Hovind is a wannabee. Heavens 7 of them sorry but I see that as pure nonsense. It's wishful thinking based on ancient texts that were never meant to be taken literally. Most of it is midrash. The church of today is not even close to the church of the apostles. It is a modern invention. Literal reading is about 200 years old. There are some 22000 variations on the Christian theme and many of them claim to have the real truth. Whose truth does one believe?

Many Christians, it would seem, do not trust the Divine. They need it in writing (the Bible) like a contract, signed, sealed and delivered. One wonders if they are going to take God to court if things don't go the way they want. This is a fear of the unknown so they need that comfort of a contract. Personally I put my trust in God. I do not need a contract.

The bible and the internet are very similar.

Most people simply scroll down to the bottom and click 'AGREE'.

Lol

Ted;1501391 wrote: Many Christians, it would seem, do not trust the Divine. They need it in writing (the Bible) like a contract, signed, sealed and delivered. One wonders if they are going to take God to court if things don't go the way they want. This is a fear of the unknown so they need that comfort of a contract. Personally I put my trust in God. I do not need a contract.


The Bible is God's Word, our source for absolute Truth. If you put your trust in God, then why not believe His Word?

xfrodobagginsx;1501428 wrote: The Bible is God's Word, our source for absolute Truth. If you put your trust in God, then why not believe His Word?


Because it is not absolute truth and it is not god's word. Why can't you see through all those lies?

Fuzzy;1501437 wrote: Because it is not absolute truth and it is not god's word. Why can't you see through all those lies?


It IS absolute truth and it IS God's word. Why can't YOU see through all of the lies? When you accept Jesus Christ, He changes your way of thinking. It's a real thing that truly happens. If I weren't a Christian, I would be just a deceived as you. Think about it like this...if Christianity is false as you believe, then WHY does it bother you so much that I believe it? It doesn't affect you. It's because you are convicted by it. IF Christianity is true, THEN you have to answer to God. You don't want that to be true.

It is MAN's word. MAN's word repeating the Chinese whispers of folklore gathered from combinations of myths & legends from around the world. Even the Bible doesn't claim to have been written by God. It even give the name of the claimed authors - all of which were Mortal Humans. Nowhere in the Bible is there a Book of God, or a Gospel According to God. Throughout the Bible there are references supposedly written verbatim of conversations between people and / or God, despite there being no-one else there. A typical example, for instance, is the Temptation of Christ, where it is written exactly what was written in a private conversation between the 2 parties in the middle of the desert. But who was there to witness this & to record what was supposedly said? The same goes for Moses chatting to a bush. Or the things said by a talking snake in the garden of Eden. There is only one other genre of writing where you find this sort of structure of writing - Fiction, which is all the Bible is.

FourPart;1501440 wrote: It is MAN's word. MAN's word repeating the Chinese whispers of folklore gathered from combinations of myths & legends from around the world. Even the Bible doesn't claim to have been written by God. It even give the name of the claimed authors - all of which were Mortal Humans. Nowhere in the Bible is there a Book of God, or a Gospel According to God. Throughout the Bible there are references supposedly written verbatim of conversations between people and / or God, despite there being no-one else there. A typical example, for instance, is the Temptation of Christ, where it is written exactly what was written in a private conversation between the 2 parties in the middle of the desert. But who was there to witness this & to record what was supposedly said? The same goes for Moses chatting to a bush. Or the things said by a talking snake in the garden of Eden. There is only one other genre of writing where you find this sort of structure of writing - Fiction, which is all the Bible is.


It's not Chinese whispers or folklore. It's the truth.



The Bible WAS inspired by God and the Bible DOES affirm this:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

If it were folklore as you claim, Jesus Christ couldn't have fulfill hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in the Bible.

As I've said on many times to Pahu, getting a witness in a trial to testify as to his own innocence is not worth a thing. If it were then the trial need never progress any further than "Not Guilty". Nor can quoting a work of fiction, no matter how frequently you try it, be used to attest to itself. I could write a story book about Father Christmas waging war on the Easter Bunny & constantly paste quotes from it. It doesn't make it any less a work of fiction.

Jesus did NOT fulfill any prophecies. There isn't even any evidence as to his existence, let alone fulfilling any vaguery 'prophecies'. The very stories of his existence have generally been accepted by Biblical scholars to have been written in order to match prophecies. The clue is in his name. Jesus of Nazareth - not Jesus of Bethlehem. There's a contradiction for a start. The census? No record of it. No census supposedly for the purpose of taxation would ever be interested in having anyone return to their birthplace - they just want the money, regardless of where they were born - if, indeed they even knew where they were born. It's all a load of twaddle, and constantly quoting the same old lies doesn't make those lies true.

If one understands the ancient style of writing then one is not concerned about the contradictions of which there are many. They become unimportant,

FourPart;1501444 wrote: As I've said on many times to Pahu, getting a witness in a trial to testify as to his own innocence is not worth a thing. If it were then the trial need never progress any further than "Not Guilty". Nor can quoting a work of fiction, no matter how frequently you try it, be used to attest to itself. I could write a story book about Father Christmas waging war on the Easter Bunny & constantly paste quotes from it. It doesn't make it any less a work of fiction.

Jesus did NOT fulfill any prophecies. There isn't even any evidence as to his existence, let alone fulfilling any vaguery 'prophecies'. The very stories of his existence have generally been accepted by Biblical scholars to have been written in order to match prophecies. The clue is in his name. Jesus of Nazareth - not Jesus of Bethlehem. There's a contradiction for a start. The census? No record of it. No census supposedly for the purpose of taxation would ever be interested in having anyone return to their birthplace - they just want the money, regardless of where they were born - if, indeed they even knew where they were born. It's all a load of twaddle, and constantly quoting the same old lies doesn't make those lies true.


You're premise is wrong. It's not a work of fiction and it's not even really 1 book, it's 66 books with 40 sources. How is it that they do not contradict each other and the stories line up, even though they lived in different parts of the world over a 1600 year period and many of them didn't have access to the other's writings? He did live in Nazareth...it is possible to be born in one place and then live in another. Even Him living in Nazareth later is a fulfillment of prophecy. Mt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. If constantly quoting the same lies doesn't make it truth as you say, then stop doing it. Jesus Christ is the most documented figure in Ancient History. You have been duped. Many historical writings of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible and they do not contradict the Biblical writings.

So why not Jesus of Jerusalem? How much of his life was actually written about his life in Nazareth? The contradictions are vast, and were written centuries apart. Chances are they weren't even about the same person. Even today there are works of fiction which could easily be taken to be about the same characters, although written in different ages by entirely different authors. With only a little creative editing, for instance, the stories of Tarzan & Mowgli could easily be made to be about the same person. The story of a boy, raised by animals to live as one with them in the jungle - it even includes talking snakes. Proof positive of the Garden of Eden, I suppose.

FourPart;1501463 wrote: So why not Jesus of Jerusalem? How much of his life was actually written about his life in Nazareth? The contradictions are vast, and were written centuries apart. Chances are they weren't even about the same person. Even today there are works of fiction which could easily be taken to be about the same characters, although written in different ages by entirely different authors. With only a little creative editing, for instance, the stories of Tarzan & Mowgli could easily be made to be about the same person. The story of a boy, raised by animals to live as one with them in the jungle - it even includes talking snakes. Proof positive of the Garden of Eden, I suppose.


Jesus was obviously born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth. Have you ever moved in your life? Not real hard to understand there. Why does it matter how much of His life was written about in Nazareth? His ministry started when He was probably 30. It doesn't focus on His upbringing it focuses on His ministry, death, burial and resurrection. It's obviously not a contradiction. I struggle to see how you see any contradiction there. The gospels weren't written centuries apart and the entire NT was written by 90 AD. The OT was written Centuries apart some of the books. No Contradictions though. It's amazing actually how it all fits together so perfectly. It's much more complicated than Tarzan. If can't see that, then you need to ask the Lord to help you see what you are missing.

Why ask a lord when you're around, exfro?:wah:

Fuzzy;1501560 wrote: Why ask a lord when you're around, exfro?:wah:


If you mean why ask The Lord, well, the Bible is His word and that is where I get my info.

Ted;1501445 wrote: If one understands the ancient style of writing then one is not concerned about the contradictions of which there are many. They become unimportant,


There aren't any contradictions, but there are differing points of view from the same events.

xfrodobagginsx;1501627 wrote: If you mean why ask The Lord, well, the Bible is His word and that is where I get my info.


You mean instructions on how to beat your slaves, who needs a good stoning, how to sacrifice your first born, how to rape women from a different tribe and all that other incredible stuff?

You say I should ask the Lord. Ok, I'll keep it simple & ask the Lord. Hey, Tarzan, LORD of Greystoke, WTF is all this about some other fictional character being ordained as a Peer of the Realm?

That's something I haven't been able to figure out yet. 'The Lord' is that big daddy or his so called son cheeses?

Thou shalt not yeah I know etc etc

BTW, I think Lord Blackadder would make an excellent god or something like that. He's got a good sense of humour.

Fuzzy;1501643 wrote: You mean instructions on how to beat your slaves, who needs a good stoning, how to sacrifice your first born, how to rape women from a different tribe and all that other incredible stuff?


The culture was very different back then. Slavery wasn't the same slavery as it was here in America. It was voluntary. Stoning was used for the Death penalty. They don't rape women at all and were not allowed to.

In Numbers 31 we are told that God said it was ok to kill all the Canaanites but to save the virgins for themselves (Hebrew soldiers. I would call that slavery since the women had no choice in the matter . They sure knew soldiers back then. It would appear from Numbers that God approves of warcrimes.

Fuzzy anyone but Lord Black please.=!. Oh and leave Trump out too.

Ted;1501703 wrote: In Numbers 31 we are told that God said it was ok to kill all the Canaanites but to save the virgins for themselves (Hebrew soldiers. I would call that slavery since the women had no choice in the matter . They sure knew soldiers back then. It would appear from Numbers that God approves of warcrimes.


They took them as wives because so that they could take care of them. The whole world culture was completely different back then. Had they not taken them as wives, the women would have died. God was establishing a Nation that would bring the Gospel to the whole world so that the World would not have to suffer the torments of eternal hell. It was illegal to force someone into slavery against their will. The slavery of the Bible was typically voluntary and for a term of 7 years in order to pay off a debt.

The Bibles teaches people to regularly beat their slaves. I suppose that is voluntary as well?

Ted;1501708 wrote: Fuzzy anyone but Lord Black please.=!. Oh and leave Trump out too.


Are you saying you don't worship god Trump? He will send you to the eternal fire pit.

FourPart;1501792 wrote: The Bibles teaches people to regularly beat their slaves. I suppose that is voluntary as well?


Show me the chapter and verse you are referring to.

Exodus 21:20-21

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Luke 12:47-48

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Exodus 21:2



But if the slave says to you, “I do not want to leave you, because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave’s ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever.

It has been said that, on average the atheist knows the bible better than the theist.

It could be that theists conveniently ignore the outdated instructions but still claim 100% correctness of the fairy tales.

Fuzzy;1501869 wrote: It has been said that, on average the atheist knows the bible better than the theist.

It could be that theists conveniently ignore the outdated instructions but still claim 100% correctness of the fairy tales.


Not!!! Atheists misinterpret the Bible in gross ways because they don't understand it. It's plainly obvious to anyone who studies the Bible and actually believes it. If they really understood the Bible, they would believe it. Because it's an amazing book that cannot be explained how it came to be other than an act of God Himself.

FourPart;1501856 wrote: Exodus 21:2



But if the slave says to you, “I do not want to leave you, because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave’s ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever.


You do realize that the slavery back then was primarily voluntary to pay off a debt for a term of 7 years right?

xfrodobagginsx;1501941 wrote: You do realize that the slavery back then was primarily voluntary to pay off a debt for a term of 7 years right?


That answer doesn't explain the awl through the ear. You keep avoiding certain issues. Could it be that that is what you still do with your slaves in order for them to stay with you 'forever'? Forever means eternity, doesn't it?

Fuzzy;1501972 wrote: That answer doesn't explain the awl through the ear. You keep avoiding certain issues. Could it be that that is what you still do with your slaves in order for them to stay with you 'forever'? Forever means eternity, doesn't it?


Those were special circumstances and was not the status quo. Those races to be removed from that area so that the Jews could live there. They took them so that they wouldn't be left with no way to take care of theirself. Had God not established His nation, the Savior couldn't have come in Jesus Christ. If the Savior hadn't come, we would all go to hell. Forcing someone into slavery was punishable by death.

From gotanswers.com

Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing, which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

That answer still doesn't explain the awl through the ear.

Fuzzy;1501990 wrote: That answer still doesn't explain the awl through the ear.


The awl through the ear was voluntary, if a servant decided to stay with and serve their master instead of using his God given right to leave after 7 years, then they pierced their ear and it meant that they were a life time servant. Pretty easy to understand really.

The Bible states that if a slave dies from the after effects of a beating (so long as it isn't immediate), then that's ok, because the slave is the master's property. Does that sound voluntary? It also says that a child born of a slave also becomes the property of the master. Does that sound voluntary? Does nailing a slave's ear to a door sound voluntary? If all this sounds voluntary you have one pretty weird idea of volunteering.

FourPart;1502112 wrote: The Bible states that if a slave dies from the after effects of a beating (so long as it isn't immediate), then that's ok, because the slave is the master's property. Does that sound voluntary? It also says that a child born of a slave also becomes the property of the master. Does that sound voluntary? Does nailing a slave's ear to a door sound voluntary? If all this sounds voluntary you have one pretty weird idea of volunteering.


You mean this verse? Ex 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Yes, it's voluntary because the person voluntarily became a slave to pay off a debt. The term was typically 7 years. Nailing a slaves ear to a door? Where do you see that in the Bible?

The world was a completely different place back then. Slavery was part of every culture and entrenched in every society. They really weren't civilized the way men of today are. Not saying that it's ok, but God understood where man was at at that time.

Fuzzy;1501869 wrote: It has been said that, on average the atheist knows the bible better than the theist.

It could be that theists conveniently ignore the outdated instructions but still claim 100% correctness of the fairy tales.


First of all, I don't think this is true at all. Whoever said that is probably an atheist their self. Secondly, even if it were true, there is a difference between knowing what the Bible says and understanding what the Bible says. Liberals take things way out of context because they don't understand the context. I think it's probably because of their unbelief. God has designed it in such a way that you can't really understand it without the Holy Spirit. You may think it's a cop out, but ask anyone who used to be an atheist then converted to Christianity how their view of the Bible has changed literally over night many times. It's not that Christians can't misinterpret the Bible, but it's that Non Christians cannot understand the Bible and that statement is even Biblical.