THANK GOD for the earthquake

[birch]

how can you say she's honest when she is obviously lying? she is not a christian, and her message isn't christian. she's an anti-christian politician with an agenda.

so what? i think you may have to have an agenda to pay attention to such things.

the truth is, things are going to get a lot worse than this, and those left alive the longest, will get to witness and suffer through the worst and most of it. blessed?

tell me where she is lying? which means in regard to heathen nations and god's wrath?

we've already established that she may have been trolling but what is it about god's wrath on heathen nations you think is lying?


the only reason i converse with you at all, though like most christians, you have no sense of responsibility in reasoning (with any truth or facts), is because i don't think you are bad-hearted. but your intellectual dishonesty is a problem.

 

[wynn]

she IS un-christian.

i was just about to ask if trolling like this made some atheists feel either stupid or perhaps convicted. so many atheists use dumb fucks like her as their scapegoats.

Thanks for this! I was trying to get at this idea, but didn't have the courage.

Honestly, I felt stupid and convicted by the things she said in that video.

 

[wynn]

Then it doesn't makes sense. How does a singular cause (ie an earthquake) translate as a more direct personal involvement of an omnipotent god than a singular cause disguised through a multiplicity of events (ie heart disease), even thought he casualties and of the later is tenfold more and occurs on a daily basis

A singular cause (like an earthquake) seems more alike human action, and things that look like human action are seen as more direct, more personal, more intentional.
Compare an earthquake to a nuclear bomb explosion - they are similar in the above sense.

Conversely, adverse effects that accumulate slowly tend not to be seen as direct, personal, intentional. Such as heart disease or people getting burnt out in the workplace.

So if mortality visits everyone equally (in the sense that no one avoids it) how is it that drawing up demographics of creed or whatever is not superficial?

Because when we can presume there was intention behind something (and if only specific demographics are affected, this suggests there was intention at work, choosing), that places the action into a different category, one with potential for good and evil.

The Sun shines on everyone, so we don't think much of it.
Rhodes scholarships are awarded only to exceptional students, and Charles Manson only had something against the rich - this selectivity implies intention, and a recognition of intention brings in issues of good and evil.

So death is ultimately a question of one's badness catching up with one?

Yes, if the according intention can be stipulated, both for the dead one and the killer.

And this explains why young people are not bad and old people are (since teh mortality rates are skewered like that)

That would be rather recent reasoning; as in earlier times in most societies, mortality was a lot more even across the age groups.

 

[wynn]

Does it extend also to the choice of religious tradition (ie. "My independence is inconsequential, therefore, I'll just go with the first theistic tradition that comes to mind, no matter what anyone says")?

we always have a choice what we will consume bu the choice not to consume is not one of them.

IOW we are never in a state of inaction (hence our values, or what drives us to act may be theist, atheist or anything in between)

This is such a matter-of-fact explanation. I cannot derive an instruction for action from it!

Does it extend also to ignoring people who are nominally on the same path but have an adversarial attitude toward oneself?

Seriously, this is what I was thinking about. Is witnessing a demise like an earthquake, and considering that one might be in it at any moment, enough to say "Hey lady, you keep being mean to me, you're not my guru, so why would I have to treat you as if you were?" -?

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

See, just because she's now claiming that she was trolling, doesn't mean that she didn't really mean what she said. Her opinions and thoughts are inflammatory, and she expressed them to the whole world in really dire times, and that's what makes her a troll. The words trolling or troll don't exclude the possibility that views she expressed were her exact thoughts.

Also, what an idiot she was to give away her face with such evil meant words on the internet. I don't know, but most trolls I've met hide themselves behind 00110011011 and don't display their face next to the inflammatory messages.

 

[Shadow1]

anyway, trying to give exuses about thoe girls who said that, if few girsl said that, it doesnt mean that, somehow the bible, or christanity, or that church, is telling them to, or, teaching them to hate, and etc... it's also a misunderstanding, i mean, true what they said is horrible, instead of saying may god be with them, and may god help them, but, that doesnt mean, somehow, it's the christanity fault, so, if it's not about christanity as a relegion, why is this thread on the relegion section? it should be for example,in "Ethics, Morality, & Justice" section, or the "Free thought" section

 

[Lori_7]

tell me where she is lying? which means in regard to heathen nations and god's wrath?

we've already established that she may have been trolling but what is it about god's wrath on heathen nations you think is lying?


the only reason i converse with you at all, though like most christians, you have no sense of responsibility in reasoning (with any truth or facts), is because i don't think you are bad-hearted. but your intellectual dishonesty is a problem.

trolling is dishonest. and upon establishing her as a troll, it is then not intellectually dishonest to assume that she is not a christian, has an anti-christian agenda, which she is attempting to perpetuate or aggravate, by misrepresenting herself, then lying about her own beliefs in a grossly dramatic fashion, and attributing them to god, or to christ, or to a religion, or a doctrine that does not support them.

i know you don't want to believe that. you want to believe lies. this lady's beliefs are entirely unfounded, and her chosen method of delivery in itself, is a lie. and as long as people are around that want to hear it, she'll have an audience. but if you want to know the truth, you'll read the bible yourself. better yet, get to know god yourself. that way you can't skip all the aspects that don't fit your agenda. i would like you to read the book of revelation in particular, and to tell me honestly how you think this lady's platform is supported by what the book actually has to say. if you don't, you're no better than the religious assholes that spew this shit.

 

[birch]

trolling is dishonest. and upon establishing her as a troll, it is then not intellectually dishonest to assume that she is not a christian, has an anti-christian agenda, which she is attempting to perpetuate or aggravate, by misrepresenting herself, then lying about her own beliefs in a grossly dramatic fashion, and attributing them to god, or to christ, or to a religion, or a doctrine that does not support them.

i know you don't want to believe that. you want to believe lies. this lady's beliefs are entirely unfounded, and her chosen method of delivery in itself, is a lie. and as long as people are around that want to hear it, she'll have an audience. but if you want to know the truth, you'll read the bible yourself. better yet, get to know god yourself. that way you can't skip all the aspects that don't fit your agenda. i would like you to read the book of revelation in particular, and to tell me honestly how you think this lady's platform is supported by what the book actually has to say. if you don't, you're no better than the religious assholes that spew this shit.

wow, you are really dishonest. you will not in any way take responsibility for the religion you support and even accuse someone else of believing in lies when the bible does say that god's wrath is used against heathen nations. you also never own up to the fact it's in the bible.

if what she said was erroneous you would have an argument. you have none. you are dishonest.

it's unbelievable that you call her dishonest and we really don't know if she was trolling. but that's not the issue, is it? because what she said is a very fundamental belief of christianity. no one is trying to misrepresent your religion here.

this is just one of many scriptures in the bible related to god and nations.

http://bible.cc/micah/5-15.htm

http://bible.cc/psalms/79-6.htm

i understand this problem way better than you do. if we view this scripture soley as metaphors for morality rather than christianity or a particular religion (acceptance of jesus christ and conversion to christianity), then it would be more legitimate in that christians would have some grounds to say they are being misrepresented.

however, you are blaming christians who believe any nation that is not of christianity or obeying the christian god and thus will have god's wrath visited upon them as dishonest in accordance with the religion when it is.

this is the problem with christianity, both in the new and old testament. it set itself up with hypocrisy as a fundamental religion (regardless of the ethical metaphors) which excludes or would make every other religion incorrect or the wrong god. it's also wrong to accuse that girl of misrepresenting when it is clear it is in the bible and alignment with christianity.

why i think you are being dishonest is because if you don't agree with the beliefs in the bible, then why are you a christian? and why would you accuse others of being unchristian when they are just taking it from the bible which is the basis of the religion? if you are as pantheist or believe god is not of a particular religion, then why would you represent yourself as a christian (which is a fundamental religion)?

as for whether non-christians agree with these beliefs is another topic.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe she is not supposed to feel good about it, but what was the flood of Noah?

 

[birch]

Numbers 31:13-15 Moses, and Elea'zar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?

Isaiah 13:11,15-16 I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless. . . . Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
Hosea 13:16 Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

[10] "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.
[11] And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.
[12] But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it;
[13] and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword,
[14] but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.
[15] Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here.
[16] But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
[17] but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
[18] that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.
Joshua did what God commanded him to do:
Joshua 8:25-27

[25] And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.
[26] For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
[27] Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took as their booty, according to the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

Titus 2:9-10 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

what a wonderful god and religion.

has anyone noticed that these innocent and sweet christians always read from a bible that has this in it yet feel no responsibility to address it except to say it does not apply anymore? yet they keep it in their book like a dirty secret and hold fast to it. hmm, wonder why?

And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.

this part is just classically unethical. classic sociopathy.

 

[John99]

what a wonderful god and religion. it makes you wonder why anyone could be so attracted to such.

has anyone noticed that these innocent and sweet christians always read from a bible that has this in it yet feel no responsibility to address it except to say it does not apply anymore? yet they keep it in their book like a dirty secret and hold fast to it. hmm, wonder why?

Wasn't that stuff from the old testament? Looks like historical recorded information:

25] And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.

I am gonna get a Bible and read it.

 

[birch]

Wasn't that stuff from the old testament? Looks like historical recorded information:

25] And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.

I am gonna get a Bible and read it.

what??! what are you reading? not what i'm reading. those scriptures are direct commandments from the christian god.

so you believe the old testament is just 'recorded' information? there are no directives from god? these scriptures are not directives from the christian god?

do you know how to read?

 

[quinnsong]

what??! what are you reading? not what i'm reading. those scriptures are direct commandments from the christian god.

so you believe the old testament is just 'recorded' information? there are no directives from god? these scriptures are not directives from the christian god?

do you know how to read?

Birch, are you angry?

 

[John99]

do you know how to read?

What a stupid thing to ask someone responding to your posts.

what??! what are you reading? not what i'm reading. those scriptures are direct commandments from the christian god.

so you believe the old testament is just 'recorded' information? there are no directives from god? these scriptures are not directives from the christian god?

That is very dramatic, Birch. Sure look the hell like a historical account considering we are talking about a book over 2,000 years old.

 

[birch]

What a stupid thing to ask someone responding to your posts.



That is very dramatic, Birch. Sure look the hell like a historical account considering we are talking about a book over 2,000 years old.

i'm sure to you it does.

 

[birch]

on questions whether the old testament is considered valid today.

but to be serious, Jesus said he was the Messiah and one of the big things about the "coming of the Messiah" and subsequent Messianic Age is that we will no longer have to follow the "Old Law" the 613 commandments found in the OT. therefore because Christians believe he was the Messiah they believe they do not have to follow the Old Law.

this brings me to the concept of "reference" vs. "adhearance"

Just because you do not adhear to the law does not mean you can not reference the law. so that said, that does not mean that they can not refer to it and quote it as a reference and as a tool of ministry.
So their answer they give you is essentially what i am saying. and it is an homest and real answer. they are not "picking and choosing" they are referencing G-d's opinion on such matters while no longer adhearing to the "Old Law".
think of it this way, just cause its an old law no one follows does not mean it doesn't have any signifigance or relivance.
we should ALWAYS learn from and remember our roots/past/history and this is what Christians are doing when they refer to the OT yet do not follow laws like Kosher eating/dressing/living/bathing etc. or follow the holidays like Passover and Yom Kippur.
no one is altering G-d's laws or their lack of adhearance to the OT Laws by referencing some things and not following others.
hope that helps.

not adhering to the old law but referencing it. what bullshit. this has nothing to do with morality yet fundamental religions tout themselves as teachers of it. this is how they pretend to be ethical (since it is farce), by not adhering to the old law but by condoning the old law. what?

translation: god's morality has not changed, just his methods so the old testament is still god's word and laws.

the ends justify the means. this means the core values are condoned though such as oppression or slaughtering of non-christians or nations. absolutely unethical.

I will try to answer your core question, not all that extra. The Old Testament is a type of history but more a report of where God began a program using people at creation, gave them free will, but watched them fail a simple instruction and sin. The for four thousand years he took a select group from among many and tells us in this series of books how he attempted to prepare them to receive their redemptive Messiah. God created man for fellowship, he gave them free will rather than to force them to like fellow shipping with him. Man has always from the beginning been free to choose his own course. If not it become a forced relationship. So during these 4000 years, God also revealed to future man many points of wisdom, morals, social graces, health tips and how important it really is to be on God's side, etc. It is not a guide book for Christians, nor anyone else. God did some rather drastic house keeping in the attempts and successful effort to keep a clean bloodline from Adam all the way to Mary, the mother of JESUS. The Old Testament is God's covenant with Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelite. The New Testament is God's covenant with man from the era of Jesus until the end. When the covenant was made with Abraham, God did it. The covenant made through Jesus has to be accepted by man, Abraham did not have to accept. Once I as a Christian became saved, I also inherited all the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant. We did not inherit the social laws, so do not get that confused with this issue. God promised that his offspring would make great nations and he would bless them and many other things, this is what Christians inherit from Abraham but the most important part of that covenant is God promised Abraham that he would be their God.
So in that sense, the history of the Old Testament is some of the Christian's history, it introduces God to us, it allows us to know how difficult it was for God to bring Jesus to us with his hands tied so to speak and what our inheritance is through the covenant with Abraham. Our conduct in this world must reflect the teachings of Jesus rather than those of the Old Testament. Even in many of the teachings of Jesus, he drew upon the wealth of information and wisdom found in the pages of the Old Testament. We are of the New Covenant brought and bought by Jesus.

this one is just skirting with lots of mumbo jumbo. notice he doesn't mention the many direct commandments from god in the old testament to oppress, use, abuse, enslave or murder non-christians.

these two were the popular answers.

(2 Timothy 3:16,17) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

ALL meaning old and new testament. the reason why some people dont follow the old testament is because most people these days pick and choose what part of the bible they want to believe and go by what they want.

this one is more truthful to scripture.

The common Christian answer is that Christ "fulfilled" the law with his coming.

Of course, it's hard to understand how this is considered to have removed their requirements to follow the law, when it specifically states that he did NOT come to abolish it, or to remove "even the smallest letter".

My personal thought? Attempting to follow Old Testament law in a modern-day society would get you labeled a sociopath, and quite likely thrown in prison. After all, the most common punishment for fairly minor "crimes", such as adultery and sex before marriage, was death.

this one is the most honest and gives the real honest reason. neither the two above were the most popular answers rather than the first two.

pretty obvious why.

conclusion: this is why christians do not "directly" say they condone the type of actions, prejudice or morals in the old testament citing jesus christ fulfilled the law. but really, none of that makes any sense.

it is all a mix of psychotic and sociopathic reasoning. it just doesn't have any basis in anything sound or reasonable.

 

[John99]

Where are you getting these quotes from? When was the Old Testament written?

 

[Lori_7]

wow, you are really dishonest. you will not in any way take responsibility for the religion you support and even accuse someone else of believing in lies when the bible does say that god's wrath is used against heathen nations. you also never own up to the fact it's in the bible.

if what she said was erroneous you would have an argument. you have none. you are dishonest.

it's unbelievable that you call her dishonest and we really don't know if she was trolling. but that's not the issue, is it? because what she said is a very fundamental belief of christianity. no one is trying to misrepresent your religion here.

this is just one of many scriptures in the bible related to god and nations.

http://bible.cc/micah/5-15.htm

http://bible.cc/psalms/79-6.htm

i understand this problem way better than you do. if we view this scripture soley as metaphors for morality rather than christianity or a particular religion (acceptance of jesus christ and conversion to christianity), then it would be more legitimate in that christians would have some grounds to say they are being misrepresented.

however, you are blaming christians who believe any nation that is not of christianity or obeying the christian god and thus will have god's wrath visited upon them as dishonest in accordance with the religion when it is.

this is the problem with christianity, both in the new and old testament. it set itself up with hypocrisy as a fundamental religion (regardless of the ethical metaphors) which excludes or would make every other religion incorrect or the wrong god. it's also wrong to accuse that girl of misrepresenting when it is clear it is in the bible and alignment with christianity.

why i think you are being dishonest is because if you don't agree with the beliefs in the bible, then why are you a christian? and why would you accuse others of being unchristian when they are just taking it from the bible which is the basis of the religion? if you are as pantheist or believe god is not of a particular religion, then why would you represent yourself as a christian (which is a fundamental religion)?

as for whether non-christians agree with these beliefs is another topic.

i believe what i do because of what i've experienced, spiritually and physically. i do have an apocalyptic perspective. i only expect things to get worse. and if you read the book of revelation, you will see that my perspective is indeed biblical. it is made clear in this book, that being alive is a curse. going so far as to say that, in those days men would seek death and not find it, terrified, while mountains are falling on their heads, and stars are falling out of the sky, and bombs are blazing, and they're covered in sores. it may have a happy ending but it's not a nice book, and i don't buy this perspective of it being a blessing to survive in the tribulation.

beyond that, one of the major tenets of the bible and of christ's teachings is that judgement amongst men is incorrect, which renders this woman's evil rant moot. what the bible says is that we're all in this toilet together. how does this woman's rant compare with the idea of christian martyrdom? how can her accusation have any weight if christ is a personal savior? her message is to fear death. that it's a curse from a god who hates you. in a world this cruel and not knowing what's on the other side? that's a lie. if this woman knew god she would not be doing this.

 

[spidergoat]

So the words of John the Apostle of Patmos mean as much to you as Jesus?

 

[John99]

"Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. It works great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men; and by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it deceives those who dwell on earth, bidding them make an image for the beast which was wounded by the sword and yet lived; and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name."

"This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (Revelation 13:1-18 RSV)