Original Sin?

§outh§tar said:
@ Godless and 786

If I presented that many verses to discredit the doctrine of original sin, and you can only show me one verse (which even happens to be in the same book of Romans), you must understand that you are taking the verse out of context.

To read the verse properly, it is only logical that you place it in the proper context.

The chapter from which you took the verse speaks of the reconciliation of man to God through the death of His Son. (Romans 5:10). Now the verse in question, verse 12, is only saying that in contrast to the separation of God through man's sin, we are joined to Him again through God.

Simply meaning, it is not God who sinned to separate us from Himself, but man who sinned to separated himself from God.

At both of you, it is a verse that many tout as a contradiction :rolleyes:, until you find out that it really is the only verse they can provide in their favor, and even then, only by taking it out of context.

I have read this chapter again, in context, but I still don't get your point. Could you please explain it better.

Anyhow, If everyone is accounted for their own sins, according to you, then why did Jesus die for our sins? Why was he accountable for our sins? And if nothing is passed on, then How was that Jesus's suffering took care of our sins?

Another interesting question out of this issue is that how did Jesus suffer if he was a God? Does that mean a part of God can get hurt or something?

In Trinity it is the Father+Son+Holy Ghost= 1 God.
If the Son can get hurt that makes 1/3 of God hurtable.
 
Original sin:

From the Vatican ok! Catholic encyclopedia:



III. ORIGINAL SIN IN SCRIPTURE

The classical text is Rom., v, 12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:

1. The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
2. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Rom., v, 19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
3. Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Rom., v, 18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

On this account, several recent Protestants have thus modified the Pelagian explanation: "Even without being aware of it all men imitate Adam inasmuch as they merit death as the punishment of their own sins just as Adam merited it as the punishment for his sin." This is going farther and farther from the text of St. Paul. Adam would be no more than the term of a comparison, he would no longer have any influence or causality as regards original sin or death. Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: "But death reigned", not only over those who imitated Adam, but "even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam." Adam's sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human race. Moreover, we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death. In order that a determined sin entail death there is need of a positive law, but before the Law of Moses there was no positive law of God appointing death as a punishment except the law given to Adam (Gen., ii, 17). It is, therefore, his disobedience only that could have merited and brought it into the world (Rom., v, 13, 14). These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned", to mean, all have sinned in Adam. This interpretation would be an extra proof of the thesis of original sin, but it is not necessary. Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate "and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned". We accept this second translation which shows us death as an effect of sin. But of what sin? "The personal sins of each one", answer our adversaries, "this is the natural sense of the words `all have sinned.'" It would be the natural sense if the context was not absolutely opposed to it. The words "all have sinned" of the twelfth verse, which are obscure on account of their brevity, are thus developed in the nineteenth verse: "for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners." There is no question here of personal sins, differing in species and number, committed by each one during his life, but of one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners. Similarly in the twelfth verse the words "all have sinned" must mean, "all have participated in the sin of Adam", "all have contracted its stain". This interpretation too removes the seeming contradiction between the twelfth verse, "all have sinned", and the fourteenth, "who have not sinned", for in the former there is question of original sin, in the latter of personal sin. Those who say that in both cases there is question of personal sin are unable to reconcile these two verses.


Catholic encyclopedia

have it out with THEM if you disagree but it clearly states were it originated from who invented and how it derived form BIBLICAL LITERATURE!! :bugeye:

Godless.
 
786 said:
I have read this chapter again, in context, but I still don't get your point. Could you please explain it better.

Anyhow, If everyone is accounted for their own sins, according to you, then why did Jesus die for our sins? Why was he accountable for our sins? And if nothing is passed on, then How was that Jesus's suffering took care of our sins?

The answer to that is in Romans 3:21-26. I am sure you have heard of John 3:16 as well, "For God so loved the world". Because of God's love for His creation, He gave His own son as propitiation (Rom. 3:25). No sin is passed on, but through God's love as I said, He put the burden of all humanities sins on His Son at the cross.

As for the doctrine of original sin and Romans 5:12:

As you can see, the verse starts off with the word "Therefore". This immediately shows that whatever conclusion is reached afterwards is the result of something said before. Meaning you can't reach that conclusion without using the premises laid out prior to that. I'll narrow the verses down to the two verses before, verses 10 and 11. The keywords in those two verses are "reconciled" and reconciliation". Now you obviously can't be reconciled if you haven't been separated. What verse 12 is reiterating to us is, as our sin has separated us from God, God's son will reconcile us with Him. What it means by "through one man sin entered" is that if no one hadn't sinned in the garden, then we wouldn't have been separated from God in the first place and therefore no reconciliation would be necessary. But because there was sin in the garden, there was a separation between God and man. This separation is what the verse refers to as "death spread to all men". The separation is what spread to all men because they too sinned. Adam didn't spread the separation as you can see, the verse says sin was the cause of the death, or separation. Which obviously means that you can't be separated unless you sin. Therefore those who say that sin is passed down are trying to say that you are separated from God even if you don't sin. Now we know that this is not true because if that was the case, then Jesus couldn't have been born by Mary since she was a sinner.

Another interesting question out of this issue is that how did Jesus suffer if he was a God? Does that mean a part of God can get hurt or something?

This is a very good question. Most people fail to recognize that Jesus did not only suffer physically. It is obvious that Christ suffered physically. He was bruised for our iniquities through many, many brutal scourgings. As 100% human, he would obviously have been subject to the anguish and pain physically.

What most critics fail to realize is that He is 100% God as well. As you can see in Matthew 27:46, He cries out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me."? If you look back in Matthew 26:39, He asks His Father if "this cup" could be taken from Him. Now obviously, one would have to understand what "this cup" was in reference to. I want you to look at Revelations 14:10 and 16:19. Again, a "cup" is mentioned. From these texts, we can see that is a metaphor for the pouring out of God's fury on sin. Now obviously one man cannot possibly die for the sins of everybody from the beginning of time until the end of time. Since it requires an eternity in hell for the sins of only man man, it would surely be impossible for a mere human to bear the burden of every sin ever commited and to be commited. That is where Jesus as God comes in. The reason He was praying about letting the cup pass from Him was that, when he died, His Spirit would be separated from God for an eternity to bear the sins of all mankind. This is why He asked God, "why have you forsaken me". Because He was separated from a Holy God who could not stand sin, even if it meant turning away from His only son. After an eternity in a moment (one of the great mysteries of Christianity), God passed over the sins of all of mankind because His Son, who is eternal, is the only one who can logically bear the sins of mankind.

"In Trinity it is the Father+Son+Holy Ghost= 1 God.
If the Son can get hurt that makes 1/3 of God hurtable.

Jesus is not 1/3 of God. This is a mistake many people make. Jesus is 100% God. See Colossians 2:9. God the Father is likewise "100%" God. This is also one of the great mysteries of Christianity. If Jesus were 1/3 of God, then there would be logically no longer be God after He was separated from His Father.
 
§outh§tar said:
@ Preacher X

I continually marvel at your impossible ignorance. The Bible never says "women are more evil".
i think it does. ill try and find the verse. i think it gpoes something like it was the woman who did the sin and not the man.

§outh§tar said:
14) This one is even sillier than the last. Does Eve not also blame the serpent for her trouble?
yes but the Bible blames her

§outh§tar said:
16) This is your stupidest argument yet. The adjective 'unclean' simply refers to the "unavailability" of the mother for sex during the time period. Of course, Islam might teach differently.
i doubt it does. who the hell has sex a week after giving birth and especially in them times. also why is their a difference between the uncleaness for a boy and a girl. and i think people took it literally its just that lately Christianty has been modernised by MAN so people dont turn a way from it. but remeber the mordenised Christianty is NOT what GOD said, t is man made.

§outh§tar said:
17) Wow are you really this ignorant? This text reveals that the women, who would congregate in the back of the church, would gossip and interrupt services. Why don't you actually read the chapter before taking things out of context.

ok maybe thats true but how do you understand the context of this verse? it does not say in the rest of the Chapter?

ok Southstar, sorry if i offended you but i didnt mean too. i guess my post was a bit rude. im not a scholar in Christinaty so if you come up with decent replies with sources i will accept them.
 
§outh§tar said:
@ Preacher X

I continually marvel at your impossible ignorance. The Bible never says "women are more evil".

i think it does. ill try and find the verse. i think it goes something like it was the woman who did the sin and not the man.

§outh§tar said:
14) This one is even sillier than the last. Does Eve not also blame the serpent for her trouble?
yes but the Bible blames her

§outh§tar said:
16) This is your stupidest argument yet. The adjective 'unclean' simply refers to the "unavailability" of the mother for sex during the time period. Of course, Islam might teach differently.
i doubt it does. who the hell has sex a week after giving birth and especially in them times. also why is their a difference between the uncleaness for a boy and a girl. and i think people took it literally its just that lately Christianty has been modernised by MAN so people dont turn a way from it. but remeber the mordenised Christianty is NOT what GOD said, t is man made.

§outh§tar said:
17) Wow are you really this ignorant? This text reveals that the women, who would congregate in the back of the church, would gossip and interrupt services. Why don't you actually read the chapter before taking things out of context.

ok maybe thats true but how do you understand the context of this verse? it does not say in the rest of the Chapter?

ok Southstar, sorry if i offended you but i didnt mean too. i guess my post was a bit rude (arrogance and rudeness is a natural talent of mine :D its even worse in real life as on the net after i type something i can look back and delete it. anywho, Im trying to stop and improve my character to be a better Muslim but like i said its natural. im not a scholar in Christinaty so if you come up with decent replies with sources i will accept them. and like i was saying im wondering how you can undersand the context of a verse in the Bible
 
Of course fuddy-duddy, Christians always run to the bible, from quote to quote, verse to verse, without ever answering a fucking thing. For one thing SothStar, the bible is NOT CLEAR, OR CONSCISE on any given fucking subject. This is why for many years, even scholars by now know THE BIBLE IS NOT REALIABLE! :rolleyes:

For example, you claim verses are taken out of context, but not even the "context" make any sense, because it's completely contradictory elsewere on the same freaking book.

i.e. And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

Now this is clearly an exageration of Jesus' or better yet a complete fuking LIE
because by prayer no one has been able to move a godamn mountain. Nor made it rain, nor cured AIDS. By prayer the individual only "feels" better, and hopes his or her prayers go answered. MOSTLY ARE NOT!!

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Now how many christians do you think have asked to be cured from AIDS only to die a few years latters?.

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

Yea right, People are still waiting to see MT. Everest moved.

Now that've we've covered on the deceptions of "jesus" lets see complete contradictions:

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

But that's just a few!! there are many more. as you KNOW!!

But yea, you will claim those senteces were taken out of "context" :rolleyes:

Godless.
 
The original sin was to disobey God and eat of the fruit in the first place. Our propensity to sin, that which was perpetuated since, throughout the history of mankind, was caused by a genetic manipulation of the flesh of Adam and Eve, upon eating the fruit. Somehow the fruit caused a genetic change in Adam and Even that has been passed down ever since...therefore, the sin of our flesh is like a birth defect. It's coded into our genes...a handicap if you will.

I know this because its been revealed to me through this "miracle" that I've experienced. The miracle involved healing someone who had been given the mark of the beast. Healing meaning a spiritual resurrection of sorts, as the mark completely cuts your spirit off from interaction with the Holy Spirit, and so feels like spiritual death. This person received the mark via a deception...just like Eve. The same deception actually. It's perpetuated through the alien abduction experience. These aliens of light, or beings of light that all of these new agers are referring to speak of a coming rebirth. Cataclysmic earth changes bringing about a rebirth of the planet. And a genetic manipulation bringing about a rebirth of humanity. They say that the genetic change will bring about spiritual enlightenment and eternal life. That we can become more like them...and after all, they claim to be our creators, and seemingly have all of the answers to the questions of the universe.

Anyway, the genetic change was brought about by consuming the fruit of a carnivorous plant. There is more to it than that...but at this time, I only know that this is how the change is initiated. And I know that the manipulation is perpetuated through the blood...an alteration of the genes via the blood supply. And as the change spiritually kills you, it makes your flesh immortal.

Just like in the garden...the original sin impaired our relationship and communication with God, because of the sin that was encoded into us created a veil. The mark of the beast takes the veil a final step further, and cuts us off completely.

In the garden, Satan said that if they ate of the fruit, then we would be like God, and know of good and evil. And he was right. And now we do know...for we have lived through the experience of it for all of these years. And so now, knowing what we know, we can make an informed choice as to which we would like to experience for all of eternity...good or evil...you choose. Spiritual rebirth through Christ gives eternal life to the spirit. The rebirth of the flesh through the mark of the beast gives eternal life to the flesh. Again...the choice will be yours to make. And that is why the earth will be burned...ashes to ashes...dust to dust.

Remember the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus about being reborn. Read John chapter 3. Flesh gives birth to the flesh...spirit gives birth to the spirit. This is what Jesus was talking about.

God has revealed many things to me through this miracle. The locust in Rev ch9 are the aliens. The torture that they bestowe upon those without the seal of God is the mark of the beast. That is why it says that men will seek death in those days and not find it. It is why the sun scorches them, and they develop sores in ch16. And it is why that through all of this...they will still not turn to god for help...through all of the wrath...because they are spiritually dead inside. Without the Holy Spirit, they can't decipher what to do...they have no good guidance.

The person who received the mark and was healed IS John...reincarnated. It explains what has happened in Rev ch10. The little scroll that John eats is the prophecy about the mark of the beast...and analogous to the fruit that he eats in this life to obtain the affliction. The deception with which it is delivered...sweet in his mouth and bitter in his stomach. It says that he must seal up the prophecy and not write it down, to be included in the Bible in verse 4. But then after he ate the scroll, in verse 11, he is told that he must prophesy again to many people and nations and kings. And that would be in this life...and very soon.

Babylon is the Vatican. The spirit within all denominations of organized religion which takes the Lords name in vain and witnesses falsely to Him is the spirit which bears the spirit of the antichrist. The mother of all prostitutes is jezebel...the spirit which witnesses falsely in the name of Christ within organized religion is the mother that births a false faith, and a false rebirth, which is the religion of the antichrist. Get yourselves ready people...there's a revolution coming.
 
I know this because its been revealed to me through this "miracle" that I've experienced. The miracle involved healing someone who had been given the mark of the beast. Healing meaning a spiritual resurrection of sorts, as the mark completely cuts your spirit off from interaction with the Holy Spirit, and so feels like spiritual death.
How would you heal someone who's been completely cutoff from the holy Spirit, the one who heals?

Babylon is the Vatican. The spirit within all denominations of organized religion which takes the Lords name in vain and witnesses falsely to Him is the spirit which bears the spirit of the antichrist.
What is wrong about a group of people organizing to do good?

The mother of all prostitutes is jezebel...the spirit which witnesses falsely in the name of Christ within organized religion is the mother that births a false faith, and a false rebirth, which is the religion of the antichrist. Get yourselves ready people...there's a revolution coming.
Wouldn't this mean that the new age religions, which are the ones who actually teach the new rebirth, are Babylon?
 
Preacher_X said:
i think it does. ill try and find the verse. i think it goes something like it was the woman who did the sin and not the man.

yes but the Bible blames her

Unfortunately, you are not even able to provide any verses at all which support your argument that Eve sinned, not Adam, or even that the Bible "blames" Eve. I would like to see where in Scripture you are getting this information from.

i doubt it does. who the hell has sex a week after giving birth and especially in them times. also why is their a difference between the uncleaness for a boy and a girl. and i think people took it literally its just that lately Christianty has been modernised by MAN so people dont turn a way from it. but remeber the mordenised Christianty is NOT what GOD said, t is man made.

unclean
2 : infected with a harmful supernatural contagion; also : prohibited by ritual law for use or contact

ok maybe thats true but how do you understand the context of this verse? it does not say in the rest of the Chapter?

I understand this context because it even happens to this day. Have you not ever been to a meeting or something and there are always women giggling or fooling around in the background?

The meaning is all too evident in context. The verse you have in question here is 1 Corinth. 14:34. which reads:

34Let your[4] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

In proper context, if you look at v.28, Paul exhorts the speaker of tongues to be SILENT in the Church. Again in v.30, he exhorts the prophets to be SILENT in Church. He expounds in v. 33 by saying God is not the author of confusion but of peace. I want you to read these verses for yourself to check them.

Now as you can see, if your claim that this verse says "women are more evil", or that women are to be "opressed", then you would illogically be concluding that the prophets and speakers of tongues are also "more evil". But the context obviously does not allow for this. The verse following v. 34 says if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home. Obviously, this must be taken in context, verse 33 says God is the author of peace, not confusion. As this is so, then we can only logically conclude that this applies also to the other two groups. This means that prophets, speakers of tongues, and women were not to speak out of turn, as v33 says, because this is "confusion", but God is the author of "peace, as in ALL the churches of the saints". Meaning that there is no unnecessary talk, save for "at home" (v35) since this contributes to confusion, instead of peace. I hope you understand :)

ok Southstar, sorry if i offended you but i didnt mean too. i guess my post was a bit rude (arrogance and rudeness is a natural talent of mine its even worse in real life as on the net after i type something i can look back and delete it. anywho, Im trying to stop and improve my character to be a better Muslim but like i said its natural. im not a scholar in Christinaty so if you come up with decent replies with sources i will accept them. and like i was saying im wondering how you can undersand the context of a verse in the Bible

It's ok, I hope we are still friends. It was only "natural" for me to retort too, not something I am particularly proud of. :)

I would like to sincerely apologize for my tone of voice in that reply. As I read through the comments, even I am shocked by my brutishness and rude behavior. Feel free to call me an idiot next time I behave that way :D
 
okinrus,

Hi...I honestly do not know how he was healed...I know that it was Jesus who did it though...but the science is beyond me. The logistics were, as far as I am aware, that he came to my house...in the spirit...with an angel or some other heavenly being...and he gave me a hug and a kiss. Before that happened, God had told me that he would be healed with a kiss, but I didn't really understand what he meant when he said it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people organizing to do good...nothing at all. What I am talking about is when people put going to church in place of being the church...in that organized religion is used as a substitute for a real personal relationship with God through rebirth by the Holy Spirit. And I'm not necessarily trying to point fingers at Catholics either, in that I see false witnessing in all denominations of organized religion all the time. I get the impression that the Vatican though is representative of this "substitution" or "falseness" that is found throughout organized religion.

See, to your next question, what happens is that people are really turned off to Jesus by "church people" who don't know him, but claim to, or slap his name on their forehead and go around witnessing falsely. People say to themselves that if that is what Jesus is all about, no thanks....if that is what Jesus does to you...turns you into some judgemental, boring, stupid, hypocrite then they don't want anything to do with Him. Because people see organized religion as the end, and it's not the end. It's supposed to be at best, a means to an end...the end being salvation and rebirth in Christ. This is what Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about too...that its not about the rules...its not about the organization...its not about "do this or don't do that"...and to tell the truth, organized religion has not come far since the days of Christ and the pharisees of the temple. Those people put Him to death, and I dare say that the majority of those in organized religion today, would not want to hear what He had to say to the people now either.

When Jesus said that there would be those who would say that they did this and that in His name, but that He never knew them...I'm paraphrasing scripture there...that is what He was talking about.

So anyway, those who are turned off to Jesus by the false witnessing of those in organized religion, then turn somewhere else to find the truth...because they are right in knowing that what they have witnessed couldn't possibly be it. Holier than thou people who take Jesus' name in vain and witness falsely cause those who don't know Jesus to dislike Him...to turn from Him and His word. And this behaviour...belief...spirit...is what? Anti...christ. Right into the arms of the antichrist.

I hope that you don't think I'm judging those who go to church. I know that many good-hearted, and well-intentioned people do...and many...probably most born again people do. What I am talking about are those who go to church for other reasons...for reasons that boil down to vanity...because it serves some purpose other than to worship God, or to hear His word...taking His name in vain. And many do. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
And just a couple of afterthoughts...

Nothing is impossible with God. It wouldn't be the first time that He brought someone back to life. This man's faith, strength, and willingness to seek the truth above all else is what saved him...it is why God healed him.

And to reiterate...or paraphrase maybe...it is the spirit within organized religion that causes people to take Jesus' name in vain, and thereby witness falsely to him that bears the spirit of the antichrist. I've heard a preacher refer to this spirit as the Jezebel spirit before, so I call it Jezebel. Jezebel bears...as in births, like a mother births a child...the spirit of the antichrist, by turning people away from Christ...or causing them to be anti-christ.
 
We are all looked upon as god's children."accordingly to the clergy" specially Adam&Eve, mythology on this explains that god made eve out of a rib, from adam. Hince of same blood, and bones. Sister!!


Genetically, a brother and sister only have 50% of genes in common. Parent/ child have 50% in common.
 
Godless said:
Of course fuddy-duddy, Christians always run to the bible, from quote to quote, verse to verse, without ever answering a fucking thing. For one thing SothStar, the bible is NOT CLEAR, OR CONSCISE on any given fucking subject. This is why for many years, even scholars by now know THE BIBLE IS NOT REALIABLE! :rolleyes:

For example, you claim verses are taken out of context, but not even the "context" make any sense, because it's completely contradictory elsewere on the same freaking book.

i.e. And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

Now this is clearly an exageration of Jesus' or better yet a complete fuking LIE
because by prayer no one has been able to move a godamn mountain. Nor made it rain, nor cured AIDS. By prayer the individual only "feels" better, and hopes his or her prayers go answered. MOSTLY ARE NOT!!


Wow, your ignorance befuddles me! You are obviously misinterpreting prayer as "the easy way out" of any obstacle. If you didn't insist on taking the verse out of context of Jesus teachings, you would have perfectly understood. See Matthew 7:11. The keyword here is "good thing". If you ask God to kill your neighbor because he ran over your dog, that is obviously not a good thing. If you ask God for a million dollars to spend on yourself, that is obviously not a "good thing". Any time you have a chance, you really should look up "George Muller" and read his biography. It will give you a lot of insight.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Now how many christians do you think have asked to be cured from AIDS only to die a few years latters?.

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

Yea right, People are still waiting to see MT. Everest moved.

Your "knowledge" of the Bible is really laughable. See here:
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/prayerScience.htm

Now that've we've covered on the deceptions of "jesus" lets see complete contradictions:

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6


Wow, and you actually claim to not be taking these verses out of context? Any half-intelligent human can understand this simple thing. In the first verse, God is pleased with His work, in the second, God is displeased with man's worK.

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

More taking out of context? Can you possibly be this ignorant of the text? The verse does not even at all imply that God "dwells" in the said house of sacrifice. In fact, He calls it "a house of sacrifice". I hope you can at least understand the difference between these things.

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

Wow, again taking out of context! The verse is OBVIOUSLY alluding to God dwelling in glory. This is EASILY referenced by Daniel 2:22, Revelations 21:23 and James 1:17.

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

This is your saddest argument yet. The very verse John 1:18 exposes your sham. The verse by concludes by saying 'the only begotten Son,[1] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. '

Obviously the keyword is "declared" as Jesus was seen by many and made MANY references concerning His relationship with God.

Concerning your OT verses:
All you need is to go ONE verse back to Exodus 33:22 to simply see that the keyword is "My Glory". I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look up "anthropomorphism".

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

Wow this is really sad. When you say "I am tired of eating, I will rest and eat later" it does not mean you are fatigued. You are obviously practicing eigesis and bringing foreign meanings into the word.

Why don't you look in the dictionary.

Even though "tired" can mean in certain contexts:
1 : to exhaust or greatly decrease the physical strength of :

It can also mean:
2 : to wear out the patience of

Now the contexts of the verses obviously don't allow for the former.

But that's just a few!! there are many more. as you KNOW!!

But yea, you will claim those senteces were taken out of "context"

Godless.

Considering you probably copy and pasted these and exercised enough ignorance to not even actually READ the verses, I see no reason to address the rest. I suggest opening a dictionary once in a while to understand that words may have different meanings in different contexts. It is something you obviously struggle to understand.
 
SourStar: "If you didn't insist on taking the verse out of context of Jesus teachings, you would have perfectly understood."
*************
M*W: What you call "Jesus' teachings" were nothing more than a figment of Paul's imagination. There are no "teachings" that Jesus wrote down, including "The Lord's Prayer."
*************
SourStar: "In the first verse, God is pleased with His work, in the second, God is displeased with man's worK."
*************
M*W: It amazes me to think how our ever omniscient creator could possibly create beings he is displeased with, unless he created humanity as one helluva cruel joke.
 
Medicine Woman said:
SourStar: "If you didn't insist on taking the verse out of context of Jesus teachings, you would have perfectly understood."
*************
M*W: What you call "Jesus' teachings" were nothing more than a figment of Paul's imagination. There are no "teachings" that Jesus wrote down, including "The Lord's Prayer."
*************
SourStar: "In the first verse, God is pleased with His work, in the second, God is displeased with man's worK."
*************
M*W: It amazes me to think how our ever omniscient creator could possibly create beings he is displeased with, unless he created humanity as one helluva cruel joke.

They call it "free will". If he created humans that would not displease Him, you would be screaming that your freedom was being repressed. He has let us be to choose to follow Him or reject Him through responsibilities. It is freedom of will that allows for this choice to be made.

Of course there are those who say that free will is a farce..
 
Oh! the "free will" card. Fundies always pull this one, even to explain evil.

Ya!! I'm quilty of copy-pasting, big deal, just type "bible contradictions" on google and you get thoundsands of sites some with very good ones as well.

http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

Toodles..

Godless.
 
Wow, considering all the so-called "contradictions" of yours have simply been revealed to be gross misinterpretations of the texts, exposing the tendency of you or whoever "discovered" those contradictions to take things out of context, you really should at least double check your "contradictions" for accuracy before posting them.

I grow weary of pointing out so many of these "contradictions" which turn out to be nothing more than eisegesis, ie, thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.
 
§outh§tar said:
What most critics fail to realize is that He is 100% God as well. As you can see in Matthew 27:46, He cries out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me."? If you look back in Matthew 26:39, He asks His Father if "this cup" could be taken from Him. Now obviously, one would have to understand what "this cup" was in reference to. I want you to look at Revelations 14:10 and 16:19. Again, a "cup" is mentioned. From these texts, we can see that is a metaphor for the pouring out of God's fury on sin. Now obviously one man cannot possibly die for the sins of everybody from the beginning of time until the end of time. Since it requires an eternity in hell for the sins of only man man, it would surely be impossible for a mere human to bear the burden of every sin ever commited and to be commited. That is where Jesus as God comes in. The reason He was praying about letting the cup pass from Him was that, when he died, His Spirit would be separated from God for an eternity to bear the sins of all mankind. This is why He asked God, "why have you forsaken me". Because He was separated from a Holy God who could not stand sin, even if it meant turning away from His only son. After an eternity in a moment (one of the great mysteries of Christianity), God passed over the sins of all of mankind because His Son, who is eternal, is the only one who can logically bear the sins of mankind.

Jesus is not 1/3 of God. This is a mistake many people make. Jesus is 100% God. See Colossians 2:9. God the Father is likewise "100%" God. This is also one of the great mysteries of Christianity. If Jesus were 1/3 of God, then there would be logically no longer be God after He was separated from His Father.

This is why Trinity is the most confusing part of the Bible for anyone to understand. By my understanding that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were equal. So if Son (Jesus) was 100% then that makes Father, and Holy Ghost 100% God aswell. That is logically impossible. Look if three are 100% that is a total of 300%. Everone knows that A WHOLE is 100%. So God in WHOLE would have to be 100%.

Now as you said that Jesus asked Father if "this cup" could be taken away. If Jesus was 100% God then he would not need anyone to take away "this cup". He himself could take it away. So really it is not the Father who has forsaken him, but it is himself. This clearly shows there are three seperate beings. Jesus asked if "this cup" could be taken away from him. Why is he (100% God) asking his Father. Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are 1 God, right? Then if Son is the God then that makes the Son, not only the Son, but also the Father, and the Holy Ghost. So if all (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) was him, then who is the Father that he is asking?
 
§our§tar: Wow, considering all the so-called "contradictions" of yours have simply been revealed to be gross misinterpretations of the texts, exposing the tendency of you or whoever "discovered" those contradictions to take things out of context, you really should at least double check your "contradictions" for accuracy before posting them.

I grow weary of pointing out so many of these "contradictions" which turn out to be nothing more than eisegesis, ie, thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.
*************
M*W: Your bible has been so grossly butchered and mistranslated over the past 5,000 years from the very first word! The crap that you read in your bible is so far from whatever was originally written and copied over and over by mere humans who were probably not educated. Even if you were fluent in Hebrew, the Old Testament wouldn't make any sense, because what you read in your bible has been changed, altered, and adulterated for centuries.

You believe that your bible is the word of God. You also believe the New Testament is about Jesus. No! It's about Paul. Paul never knew Jesus. How many times do I have to say it? You believe the words of an egomaniacal self-serving pathological liar and call it the word of God. How silly you xians are! Your bible has made all of you gullible fools! There's more truth to be found in a TV Guide than in your bible.

How can mortal humans, all victims of original sin according to you xians, be trusted to write down the word of God? The New Testament shouldn't even exist. Let's suppose for one minute (but definitely no longer than that) that Jesus was, perhaps, the Jewish Messiah. How do you think the Rabbi Jesus would feel having been Jewish and certainly no xian? If this were the case, your reading the NT would blaspheme his existence. Written for the most part by a man, and not even a good man at that, who never knew Jesus. If you have to read your bible to have faith, then your faith is flawed, but I already knew that.

If God had inspired the writing of your bible, no contradictions would be found; there would be no mistranslations. Your bible would be clear, distinct, understandable, unquestionable, uplifting, motivating and true. Your bible does not speak the truth, therefore, you believe in lies. You know what that tells me? That you're evil. You're diabolical. All xians are. All xians believe the same old lies.

If Rabbi Jesus was the Messiah, then he would have written something down. After all, he was apparently educated as a Rabbi. So there's no excuse. Jesus never made Paul an apostle. Paul appointed himself as an apostle.

I think most xians claim to be xians because they are simply superstitious. They're afraid NOT to believe -- just in case. If there was a Messiah, it would be clear to the entire human race. You don't give God credit for creating our most wonderful creation -- humanity. In your own simple-minded way, you blaspheme God who created humanity as a vessel in which the One Spirit of God dwells. It's preposterous you xians believe that somehow all humankind has the affliction of original sin. If that were the case, then humanity shouldn't even be here. God could have kept trying until he created a human he was content with, but that's actually in progress -- thanks to evolution, we're still in the process of our human creation.

But somehow, xians don't evolve spiritually. You're stagnant. You focus on your diseased soul which needs yet another dying demigod savior and, all the while, you're focusing on your own selfish soul and not on God. You fear God. You fear your creator. That makes no sense, but then, xians don't make any sense for what they believe is a lie.

When I was an xian, I was visiting The Vatican when I realized that this massive architecture of glitz and gold was standing between my soul and God. It wasn't the architecture, it was what it stood for -- the heart of xianity. It was not God's house.

My salvation is here and now, and I no longer fear God.
 
Back
Top