It's all too sad, really. The fact that they all get their morality from a god "in a book" that also claims that wearing more than one type of fabric in clothing, or eating shrimp, are abominations along with homosexuality. (Clearly, no one's really taking this god seriously unless the god agrees with THEM, not the other way around.)

So why doesn't the research ask how many think mixing fabrics or eating crab meat are sins? It's the same god making the same claims. So why do they discard one abomination (sin) but gladly keep another, completely ignoring the god that says don't do either?

Clearly they aren't getting their morality from this god, or from actually reading the book from whic...

It's all too sad, really. The fact that they all get their morality from a god "in a book" that also claims that wearing more than one type of fabric in clothing, or eating shrimp, are abominations along with homosexuality. (Clearly, no one's really taking this god seriously unless the god agrees with THEM, not the other way around.)

So why doesn't the research ask how many think mixing fabrics or eating crab meat are sins? It's the same god making the same claims. So why do they discard one abomination (sin) but gladly keep another, completely ignoring the god that says don't do either?

Clearly they aren't getting their morality from this god, or from actually reading the book from which they think they get their morals, but from the church pulpit.

The church doesn't tell them that eating shrimp is a sin, even though it's clearly an abomination to their god. Why not? Seriously. Why not? (Silently, we all know the answer, don't we.)

Could it be that people are simply exercising their confirmation bias, and what the god wants is irrelevant?

"If a congregation teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, 29% said they'd be more likely to visit or attend that church but 32% said they'd be less likely."

If the god of the bible mattered, the score would be 100%.

Lexica, outstanding insight - way to go.
Aces, I completely agree that the context from which the prohibition on homosexual acts is drawn renders the text useless for discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. You've seen an obvious point that many of my fellow Christians miss.

In facts, all six of the Bible's brief statements on homosexuality have serious hermeneutic flaws. Given the radical inclusion demonstrated by Jesus - who, after all, is said to be the example of God behaves in human flesh - it hardly seems appropriate for Christians to over-rule his example over six brief and contextually questionable comments. Neither homosexual orientation (a modern concept) nor loving, monogam...

Lexica, outstanding insight - way to go.
Aces, I completely agree that the context from which the prohibition on homosexual acts is drawn renders the text useless for discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. You've seen an obvious point that many of my fellow Christians miss.

In facts, all six of the Bible's brief statements on homosexuality have serious hermeneutic flaws. Given the radical inclusion demonstrated by Jesus - who, after all, is said to be the example of God behaves in human flesh - it hardly seems appropriate for Christians to over-rule his example over six brief and contextually questionable comments. Neither homosexual orientation (a modern concept) nor loving, monogamous same-sex relationships are ever even mentioned in the Bible.

To determine whether homosexuality is a sin or not, is not by the churches, but what the Bible says. I do not see a hermeneutic flaw. In fact, it is clear enough for a 6 year old to understand it.

(Rom 1:22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,(Rom 1:23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.(Rom 1:24) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
(Rom 1:25) who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(Rom 1:26) ...

To determine whether homosexuality is a sin or not, is not by the churches, but what the Bible says. I do not see a hermeneutic flaw. In fact, it is clear enough for a 6 year old to understand it.

(Rom 1:22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,(Rom 1:23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.(Rom 1:24) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
(Rom 1:25) who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(Rom 1:26) For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
(Rom 1:27) Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Can it be any more clear??

Whoa, there, jay - they

changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things

Paul - the only NT writer to say anything about it - writes from Rome of people who created images of people and animals and worshiped them. And as a result of doing so, they were changed into people dominated by lust.

I have never known people who worshiped images and became omni-lustful as a result of it.

The gay and lesbian people I have known have not been people dominated by lust, and have been people distinguished among their communities as people of honor.

Further, they are not people who were changed from h...

Whoa, there, jay - they

changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things

Paul - the only NT writer to say anything about it - writes from Rome of people who created images of people and animals and worshiped them. And as a result of doing so, they were changed into people dominated by lust.

I have never known people who worshiped images and became omni-lustful as a result of it.

The gay and lesbian people I have known have not been people dominated by lust, and have been people distinguished among their communities as people of honor.

Further, they are not people who were changed from heterosexual to homosexual orientation - many cannot remember having ever been heterosexual.

Further, once again, this passage has nothing to say about homosexual orientation (a modern concept) and it simply never raises the question of loving, monogamous, often even God-worshiping homosexual relationships. Far from it.

Very far.

the actual word of God?

Does it not strike anyone as odd that the "actual" word of God wasn't "...actually..." written by one?

The "actual" word of god turns out to be nothing more than the part you want to believe, be it from the Koran, Bible, or the dispensations of the Báb [Bahá'í Faith].

Bahá'ís believe that the founders of the religion, The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, received revelation directly from God. As such their works are considered divinely inspired. These works are considered to be "revealed text" or revelation.

See? Yet every single faith, religion or whatever that claims a god-inspired word were written by MEN!

Isn't that strange? (Sorry Masbury, I know this is off-topic to h...

the actual word of God?

Does it not strike anyone as odd that the "actual" word of God wasn't "...actually..." written by one?

The "actual" word of god turns out to be nothing more than the part you want to believe, be it from the Koran, Bible, or the dispensations of the Báb [Bahá'í Faith].

Bahá'ís believe that the founders of the religion, The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, received revelation directly from God. As such their works are considered divinely inspired. These works are considered to be "revealed text" or revelation.

See? Yet every single faith, religion or whatever that claims a god-inspired word were written by MEN!

Isn't that strange? (Sorry Masbury, I know this is off-topic to homosexuality and church preferences, but the presuppositions here that people "factually" state as "God's word" is incredulous.)

The Creator of the Universe from atom to cosmos couldn't write his own book without a man? (Uh, what does god need with a spaceship?)

If there is an "actual" god who created the universe, then why look at what men wrote "claiming" it came from god when you simply need look directly at what god actually created!

God "actually" wrote the universe, and every Law of Nature that orders it.

It's called 'the real world', and it's far more educational and revealing than the superstitious guesses called "inspired".

Just study what God ACTUALLY wrote!

Ooops. That would be the sciences, wouldn't it?

The true teachings of Jesus are revealed by where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's testaments of his life agree. That is where we see the verifiable truth of what Jesus taught.

The bible was written, edited and compiled by men. There was some divine inspiration in its compilation, but there was also purely mortal motivation in it as well. That is why the Holy Spirit is so important. The Holy Spirit guides you past the humanism in the bible, to what truly expresses the word of God. So it's not so much the book that is "divine"; it just contains the Good News about Jesus. That's the only part that's really relevant to most people. But once you have the Holy Spirit in your life, you have a "divi...

The true teachings of Jesus are revealed by where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's testaments of his life agree. That is where we see the verifiable truth of what Jesus taught.

The bible was written, edited and compiled by men. There was some divine inspiration in its compilation, but there was also purely mortal motivation in it as well. That is why the Holy Spirit is so important. The Holy Spirit guides you past the humanism in the bible, to what truly expresses the word of God. So it's not so much the book that is "divine"; it just contains the Good News about Jesus. That's the only part that's really relevant to most people. But once you have the Holy Spirit in your life, you have a "divine copilot" to guide you.

The bible is of the mortal world, but not all of its message is mortally inspired.

Why is that relevant?

1. For the same reason its relevant in court. It's hearsay, otherwise. Even third person hearsay.

2. You claimed you can use the Holy Spirit to tell which parts were god's word and which were humanism. Time to make good on it.

If the Holy Spirit doesn't know who they are, it cannot be God's word. (Do I need to explain that?)

PS:

Strange you should think WHO these people were as minutia. They are supposedly witnesses giving testimony to extraordinary events. And nobody knows who they are?

You wouldn't accept that in any other venue except religion. But there's a bigger problem. The people writing ABOUT these people didn't know who they were either. And to top i...

Why is that relevant?

1. For the same reason its relevant in court. It's hearsay, otherwise. Even third person hearsay.

2. You claimed you can use the Holy Spirit to tell which parts were god's word and which were humanism. Time to make good on it.

If the Holy Spirit doesn't know who they are, it cannot be God's word. (Do I need to explain that?)

PS:

Strange you should think WHO these people were as minutia. They are supposedly witnesses giving testimony to extraordinary events. And nobody knows who they are?

You wouldn't accept that in any other venue except religion. But there's a bigger problem. The people writing ABOUT these people didn't know who they were either. And to top it off, you don't know who the people that wrote about those people were either!

But that'll all be cleared up in a moment, right?

That's a spurious accusation if ever I saw one. Why does it matter what their names were? Why does it matter what Jesus's real name was? The legacy of the Disciples is meaningless; it's "manufactured importance" to try to get a "gotcha" on me. It wasn't important who they were. They became new men by learning Jesus' teachings. Jesus's teachings are the all-important thing, and it wouldn't matter whether they were presented by Peter, or Mary, or anyone else for that matter. The very reason there is 4 versions of Jesus's teachings in the bible is so that we can verify each against the others.

You're asking for meaningless things. If they are important to you, then you aren't getting the meani...

That's a spurious accusation if ever I saw one. Why does it matter what their names were? Why does it matter what Jesus's real name was? The legacy of the Disciples is meaningless; it's "manufactured importance" to try to get a "gotcha" on me. It wasn't important who they were. They became new men by learning Jesus' teachings. Jesus's teachings are the all-important thing, and it wouldn't matter whether they were presented by Peter, or Mary, or anyone else for that matter. The very reason there is 4 versions of Jesus's teachings in the bible is so that we can verify each against the others.

You're asking for meaningless things. If they are important to you, then you aren't getting the meaning of the bible. The only thing important about Jesus's legacy is that he's a descendant of King David, which he was through his mother.

Stop paying needless attention to the Who, and pay attention to the What. As it is, you're just trying to manufacture something new to fight about, and I just won't do it. It's juvenile and meaningless.

You're missing the point on purpose to cover for what you know to be a dishonesty.

You claimed certain parts of the bible as the word of god. And, you claimed the Holy Spirit can inform you which were from god and which were not.

That seems reasonable to me, since they (god and spirit) supposedly are one and the same.

So to see if your claim is true, I simply asked for an answer that YOU would not know (or wouldn't be able to fake) but that god or Holy Spirit WOULD know!

Since they (or it) guide you on this anyway, it shouldn't be a problem. They do this for you *anyway*, so you claim, right?

It didn't need to be the names of the storytellers. It could have been anything you couldn't...

You're missing the point on purpose to cover for what you know to be a dishonesty.

You claimed certain parts of the bible as the word of god. And, you claimed the Holy Spirit can inform you which were from god and which were not.

That seems reasonable to me, since they (god and spirit) supposedly are one and the same.

So to see if your claim is true, I simply asked for an answer that YOU would not know (or wouldn't be able to fake) but that god or Holy Spirit WOULD know!

Since they (or it) guide you on this anyway, it shouldn't be a problem. They do this for you *anyway*, so you claim, right?

It didn't need to be the names of the storytellers. It could have been anything you couldn't fake. It could have been the location of the Tree of Knowledge, or any verifiable fact that you wouldn't know but the Spirit would.

An answer would have verified your statement; both of them actually, in one answer!

But when objectively tried... divine excuses! You've merely demonstrated the opposite of your claim.

But if you would challenge the TRUTHFULNESS of what you think is happening (in your own mind) you would have discovered that your belief that the Spirit is guiding you is nothing more than your imagination.

My guess is you would never challenge your beliefs, though, because it would expose the truth, and you aren't interested in the truth, but in believing.

"Believing" holds more value to you than whether the thing you believe "in" is true.

That's why the Lord Xenu can exist for others as much as the Holy Spirit can exist for you. Your need to believe is greater than your need for the truth. That's how religion works.

But you can test it anytime you're brave enough. It requires honesty.

You think you're clever with your little quip, but the truth is I've heard that same line thousands of times before. God, and the Holy Spirit are not performing monkeys that cater to the will of their critics. If it was in any way important to know that information, then I would know it. However, logic and reason tell me that information is unimportant, so why would the Holy Spirit waste its time just to pull off some vaudeville trick? It's ludicrous! It's not a test of honesty; it's a test of gullibility, and I rank as "not gullible" on that test.

You are quite wrong. I change my beliefs quite often, unlike the crank Atheists that try to convert me constantly. They give me new things to th...

You think you're clever with your little quip, but the truth is I've heard that same line thousands of times before. God, and the Holy Spirit are not performing monkeys that cater to the will of their critics. If it was in any way important to know that information, then I would know it. However, logic and reason tell me that information is unimportant, so why would the Holy Spirit waste its time just to pull off some vaudeville trick? It's ludicrous! It's not a test of honesty; it's a test of gullibility, and I rank as "not gullible" on that test.

You are quite wrong. I change my beliefs quite often, unlike the crank Atheists that try to convert me constantly. They give me new things to think about, which I meditate on and either discard as unfounded, or adopt into my viewpoint. That is something that I have not seen any Atheist Evangelist do.

The Holy Spirit doesn't just exist for me. It exists for everyone, unlike your Lord Xenu. Your "Lord Xenu" is a conjuration of your own mind, while the Holy Spirit is something external that I accepted into me.

All in all, your challenge is intellectually spurious and lacking any fundamental logic.

The rest of "Christendom" is mostly non-Christian.

However, what you're saying is that you're too lazy and/or afraid to find out the truth of it for yourself. A person needs to find out for themselves the truth of Jesus' teachings, and the Holy Spirit guides each person through a very personal experience of developing a relationship with God. What convinces me might be far more than what you'd need, or much less. Each person is unique, so each person's path to the truth is unique.

What is common, though, is the understanding of the two new commandments that Jesus gave, and how well you live those commandments.

Love the Lord with all your heart and soul

and

[i]Treat other people i...

The rest of "Christendom" is mostly non-Christian.

However, what you're saying is that you're too lazy and/or afraid to find out the truth of it for yourself. A person needs to find out for themselves the truth of Jesus' teachings, and the Holy Spirit guides each person through a very personal experience of developing a relationship with God. What convinces me might be far more than what you'd need, or much less. Each person is unique, so each person's path to the truth is unique.

What is common, though, is the understanding of the two new commandments that Jesus gave, and how well you live those commandments.

Love the Lord with all your heart and soul

and

Treat other people in the manner in which you would want to be treated yourself (a.k.a. the "Don't be a Douche!" commandment)

Everything in the bible can be measured against those two commandments for a simple confirmation as to whether they are the word of Man, or the Word of God.

Paul's condemnation of homosexuals? Violates Jesus' second commandment, so that is all Paul, nothing of God's word in it.

A person needs to find out for themselves the truth of Jesus' teachings, and the Holy Spirit guides each person through a very personal experience of developing a relationship with God. What convinces me might be far more than what you'd need, or much less. Each person is unique, so each person's path to the truth is unique.

Hummmm. Perhaps you're right. The Holy Spirit guides each person through something different because each person is unique.

A very long time ago the Holy Spirit told me that it's absurd for a god to be jealous of its own creation.

These days it tells me that I can differentiate between god's word and man's word simply by who wrote it. Like this:

Did man write it? ...

A person needs to find out for themselves the truth of Jesus' teachings, and the Holy Spirit guides each person through a very personal experience of developing a relationship with God. What convinces me might be far more than what you'd need, or much less. Each person is unique, so each person's path to the truth is unique.

Hummmm. Perhaps you're right. The Holy Spirit guides each person through something different because each person is unique.

A very long time ago the Holy Spirit told me that it's absurd for a god to be jealous of its own creation.

These days it tells me that I can differentiate between god's word and man's word simply by who wrote it. Like this:

Did man write it? Yes. It's not god's word.
Did god write it? Yes. It's god's word.

Simple.

Man did not "write" the atom, nor the rules under which it operates. Man wrote none of the laws of Nature, nor the universe under which it operates.

What god wrote holds true for all creatures in all the universe in all time, and is not subject to change even in so far as we have mastered those laws ourselves.

Can you see the difference in what god writes, versus what man writes? Man writes in books. God writes in universe.

The HS also told me that no god requires man to do anything on his behalf... not write books, not kill, not tell others how to live their lives.

The HS also tells me that if a truth is not a fact, its not a truth. It also tells me that no miracle requires faith as a witness; no fact requires belief to be true; and no god ever accepted the death or harm of an innocent person as the payment for a crime of the guilty.

God does require something from His children. He expects them to play nice with each other; none of this killing each other, cheating each other, stealing from each other, ignoring those in need, oppressing each other, etc.

All the basic things that a Christian needs to know are in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While each contains some unique stories that differentiate each from the others, where you can be assured of the truth being is in the events and stories that they agree on. Other than that, anything that goes against Jesus' Most Important Commandment (treat other people in the manner that you would want to be treated) is not the word of God.

For example, the damnation of hom...

God does require something from His children. He expects them to play nice with each other; none of this killing each other, cheating each other, stealing from each other, ignoring those in need, oppressing each other, etc.

All the basic things that a Christian needs to know are in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While each contains some unique stories that differentiate each from the others, where you can be assured of the truth being is in the events and stories that they agree on. Other than that, anything that goes against Jesus' Most Important Commandment (treat other people in the manner that you would want to be treated) is not the word of God.

For example, the damnation of homosexuality is not the word of God. If you want any sort of suggestion as to God's standing on homosexuality, there are basically 2 important elements:

1) Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin. If it was such a horrible sin, then surely he would have mentioned it at least once.

2) God embraced and blessed the reign of King David, even though David and then-King Saul had a homosexual relationship before David was crowned. In truth, the entire reason why David became king is because after coming to the attention of the King, Saul fell in love with David, and took him into his home. Thus, it could be argued that the entire line of David was dependent upon a homosexual relationship.

No, I've just separated God's Word from the Humanism by putting the bible in context.

Then perhaps it's the Humanism that is God's word. The parts you've ascribed to God are precisely the Humanism! That's what I'm trying to draw your attention to.

Treat other people in the manner in which you would want to be treated yourself (a.k.a. the "Don't be a Douche!" commandment) -- Humanism!

And that came long before Christianity or Jesus.

And that "first commandment?" Loving the Lord with all your heart? Without the second part, is meaningless, because neither you nor anyone else knows "the Lord" from the man in the moon (as has been demonstrated).

Like everyone else, you'v...

No, I've just separated God's Word from the Humanism by putting the bible in context.

Then perhaps it's the Humanism that is God's word. The parts you've ascribed to God are precisely the Humanism! That's what I'm trying to draw your attention to.

Treat other people in the manner in which you would want to be treated yourself (a.k.a. the "Don't be a Douche!" commandment) -- Humanism!

And that came long before Christianity or Jesus.

And that "first commandment?" Loving the Lord with all your heart? Without the second part, is meaningless, because neither you nor anyone else knows "the Lord" from the man in the moon (as has been demonstrated).

Like everyone else, you've cherry picked the parts you think are good, and discarded the rest. If a god led you to do that then Bravo! It should have led everyone to it, too. Or better. He should have written a better book.

But such is religion. Pick what you want, toss the rest!

"The messages and teachings of Jesus Christ are the divining rod by which you measure everything else in the bible. It's not cherry-picking; it's reading the bible thoughtfully, and with reason."

Here. Give me an example. Divine the meaning of this passage from Genesis. Tell me about the "signs". And by all means, use the Holy Spirit, Jesus or God to decipher how to use the stars as "signs."

Gen:1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs.."

Tell me what a shooting star means, or the meaning of GI 862.1 / HIP 111170 / HD 213429 / SAO 146135, as divined from the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
---
...

"The messages and teachings of Jesus Christ are the divining rod by which you measure everything else in the bible. It's not cherry-picking; it's reading the bible thoughtfully, and with reason."

Here. Give me an example. Divine the meaning of this passage from Genesis. Tell me about the "signs". And by all means, use the Holy Spirit, Jesus or God to decipher how to use the stars as "signs."

Gen:1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs.."

Tell me what a shooting star means, or the meaning of GI 862.1 / HIP 111170 / HD 213429 / SAO 146135, as divined from the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
---

Wait! Before you do, I'm going to make a prophesy. I predict you'll once again do everything possible to change the subject... but you WON'T answer the question according to your claim.

Why? Because you and I both know perfectly well that your Holy Spirit (Jesus interpretations and so forth) cannot answer any question that *you personally* do not already know!

Wonder why that is.
---

Now, please go ahead and divine how to utilize "signs" from the sky. Tell us the meaning of a shooting star and GI 862.1, according to your claim.

[And if you say that part didn't come from god, I'm going to ask you to highlight which parts did.]

Old Testament?
not prophesy?
birth of the messiah?

You just said you weren't going to change the subject!

The subject is the meaning and utilization of "signs" in the celestial sky... and your claim to divine meaning from the bible via Holy Spirit or Jesus.

And here's what I said:

"I'm going to make a prophesy. I predict you'll once again do everything possible to change the subject... but you WON'T answer the question according to your claim."

Did you try to change the subject? Yes.
Did you answer the question according to your claim? No.

How many times must your claim fail before you honestly realize that your ability is imaginary?

Didn't I state that if *you* don't know the...

Old Testament?
not prophesy?
birth of the messiah?

You just said you weren't going to change the subject!

The subject is the meaning and utilization of "signs" in the celestial sky... and your claim to divine meaning from the bible via Holy Spirit or Jesus.

And here's what I said:

"I'm going to make a prophesy. I predict you'll once again do everything possible to change the subject... but you WON'T answer the question according to your claim."

Did you try to change the subject? Yes.
Did you answer the question according to your claim? No.

How many times must your claim fail before you honestly realize that your ability is imaginary?

Didn't I state that if *you* don't know the answer, neither does your Holy Spirit?

Wonder why that is.

I wonder where the nexus is between my not understanding something and that something's veracity (or lack thereof).

I'm not trying to make such a connection, or such a claim. One has nothing to do with the other.

One's ability to understand something has nothing to do with whether that something is true.

For instance if E=mc2 is true, its truthfulness is not contingent on anyone's ability to understand the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light. E=mc2 was just as true in the first century BC, long before anyone could have possibly understood it. (But then, that's not what's being tested by the significance of my questions.)

But if you claim that you can...

I wonder where the nexus is between my not understanding something and that something's veracity (or lack thereof).

I'm not trying to make such a connection, or such a claim. One has nothing to do with the other.

One's ability to understand something has nothing to do with whether that something is true.

For instance if E=mc2 is true, its truthfulness is not contingent on anyone's ability to understand the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light. E=mc2 was just as true in the first century BC, long before anyone could have possibly understood it. (But then, that's not what's being tested by the significance of my questions.)

But if you claim that you can speak to Albert Einstein to figure out what E=mc2 means (supposing no one has figured it out) and I ask you, "Ok, what does the 2 mean, or the m or the E, ..." I'm not testing for the truthfulness of the equation, I'm testing for the truthfulness of the claim of being able to speak to Dr. Einstein! (And that's what's being tested by the significance of my questions.)

So far, the evidence of being able to speak to the Holy Spirit to decipher the bible (as was claimed) is the same as being able to speak to Dr. Einstein. One might think Dr. Einstein would know the meaning of what he wrote, wouldn't he? As would the Holy Spirit.

@darkeforce

God and the Holy Spirit are not Google;
they don't bend to your will, no matter how selfishly you demand
answers to irrelevant questions.

My bad. I thought the contents of the bible "were" relevant. Like

Matthew 7:7-8 (In the words of Jesus)

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth..."

Matthew 18:19 (also in the words of Jesus)

"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven."

John 14:13-14 (also in the words of Jesus)

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that wil...

@darkeforce

God and the Holy Spirit are not Google;
they don't bend to your will, no matter how selfishly you demand
answers to irrelevant questions.

My bad. I thought the contents of the bible "were" relevant. Like

Matthew 7:7-8 (In the words of Jesus)

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth..."

Matthew 18:19 (also in the words of Jesus)

"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven."

John 14:13-14 (also in the words of Jesus)

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

-----

Couldn't be clearer.

Would you like to claim "out of context" now, and that what Jesus said isn't what he meant?

Because if what he said isn't what he meant, and this is how he communicated, then he'd be a chronic liar.

But in fact if YOU say it means anything OTHER than what it actually says, you would be the one lying. Because as I understand it, Jesus is/was sin free, and lying is a sin. So Jesus can ONLY say what he means and YOU may not change the meaning into anything other than what it says.

"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

"Ask, and it shall be given you..."

It doesn't say Jesus will perform like a monkey. (That's your own invention.) It says "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

Does the Holy Spirit tell you Jesus was lying? Then if the HS cannot answer those questions, who must be?

@darkeforce

Ask God yourself, if these questions are so necessary for you to know. Invite God and the Holy Spirit into your life, then read the bible according to His divine lead, and you will learn what you need to know. There's nothing simpler.

Been there, done that, for many years. I got the same answers you got. Nothing. Let's stop pretending. If anyone who asked in earnest got answers from the HS there would only be one religion, and on questions like these, it would be the same answer.

Face it: here we are umpteen comments later and you still can't get an answer from the HS about that which the HS supposedly wrote or inspired.

Face it: I could ask the Pope for an ans...

@darkeforce

Ask God yourself, if these questions are so necessary for you to know. Invite God and the Holy Spirit into your life, then read the bible according to His divine lead, and you will learn what you need to know. There's nothing simpler.

Been there, done that, for many years. I got the same answers you got. Nothing. Let's stop pretending. If anyone who asked in earnest got answers from the HS there would only be one religion, and on questions like these, it would be the same answer.

Face it: here we are umpteen comments later and you still can't get an answer from the HS about that which the HS supposedly wrote or inspired.

Face it: I could ask the Pope for an answer on the same question and I'd get the same runaround. But I WON'T get an honest answer.

An honest answer could only say the truth. "I ... don't ... know!"

You don't know because the HS does NOT intervene and give answers; answers come from your imagination and intellect. (Or from somewhere else in the real world.)

So on ANY question that has an objective factual answer that can't be faked or lied, -- until you're able to speak the truth -- you will always give an excuse why the HS won't answer. But the results will be the same... no answer.

But if you can imagine an answer that sounds right or "feels right" you will pretend it came from the HS. The proof of this self-trickery is to ask for an answer that can't be faked.

Oh, and that jazz about the flying monkey? If you believe in the bible, Jesus clearly disagrees with you. Or does the Holy Spirit tell you his words are irrelevant?

All I'm saying is... stop lying.

It's not my fault that you copped out before you got your answers; I got mine. I'm not pretending. You're just a quitter, and are trying to blame your lack of patience and faith on me.

Who cares what the pope says? The only voice he has in his head was behind the Nazi movement as well. He's a charletan; God doesn't have any one singular representative on earth; he has millions. They're called Christians.

You call it a "factual answer", but the truth is that it is frivolous, unimportant nonsense. It doesn't matter. The people don't matter; only the message. Maybe if you had tried asking a relevant question, then maybe you would have gotten an answer. Your question is akin to asking if Peter...

It's not my fault that you copped out before you got your answers; I got mine. I'm not pretending. You're just a quitter, and are trying to blame your lack of patience and faith on me.

Who cares what the pope says? The only voice he has in his head was behind the Nazi movement as well. He's a charletan; God doesn't have any one singular representative on earth; he has millions. They're called Christians.

You call it a "factual answer", but the truth is that it is frivolous, unimportant nonsense. It doesn't matter. The people don't matter; only the message. Maybe if you had tried asking a relevant question, then maybe you would have gotten an answer. Your question is akin to asking if Peter was straight-haired, or if he had a Jeri-Curl — it's utterly irrelevant.

You want a factual answer? Jesus was the Son of God: Fact. He came to show people the true nature of God: Fact. He told people that the old ways had passed away, and that there was a new commandment: Fact.

All I'm saying is... stop ducking the issue. The fact of this isn't about me giving you answers; it's your guilt about your lack of faith. You're trying to constantly justify to yourself that you were right to be a quitter, and I'm just your sounding board. You're in denial.

I'm not lying. I never lie; the Truth does much more damage.

Your technique is consistent. It is simply to change the subject.

Asking a question entails no faith, no waiting period, no quitting. These are things added to the conversation as an explanation for not getting an answer, thereby attempting to change the subject to waiting, having faith, quitting.

If you were charged with saving all of mankind by demonstrating one thing about Jesus you call fact, we would all perish at your hands.

Fact is not belief. And for you to say all those things are fact is simply lying. You wish to believe they are true; it's called faith. But call it what it is -- faith.

By your usage of fact, you may as well say Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Un...

Your technique is consistent. It is simply to change the subject.

Asking a question entails no faith, no waiting period, no quitting. These are things added to the conversation as an explanation for not getting an answer, thereby attempting to change the subject to waiting, having faith, quitting.

If you were charged with saving all of mankind by demonstrating one thing about Jesus you call fact, we would all perish at your hands.

Fact is not belief. And for you to say all those things are fact is simply lying. You wish to believe they are true; it's called faith. But call it what it is -- faith.

By your usage of fact, you may as well say Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Until you can acknowledge the difference and speak the truth (or say "I believe") this is pointless. You're admitting out loud that any faith is as a fact.

That's lying.

You see, now; you calling it "changing the subject" doesn't make it so. You've been given your answer; it's not my fault you aren't satisfied with it. Maybe if you had asked God yourself, rather than trying to get your answers through an intermediary, then you might have been more satisfied in the answer.

But seriously, melodramatic much? You really think the knowledge of the original names of Jesus' disciples are going to save mankind? You're being ridiculous, bordering on hysterical in your mania of trying to twist what I say to make it suit your preconceived notion about Christians.

The truth is, it is you who is the liar. I merely speak the truth. I show you the path to finding out you...

You see, now; you calling it "changing the subject" doesn't make it so. You've been given your answer; it's not my fault you aren't satisfied with it. Maybe if you had asked God yourself, rather than trying to get your answers through an intermediary, then you might have been more satisfied in the answer.

But seriously, melodramatic much? You really think the knowledge of the original names of Jesus' disciples are going to save mankind? You're being ridiculous, bordering on hysterical in your mania of trying to twist what I say to make it suit your preconceived notion about Christians.

The truth is, it is you who is the liar. I merely speak the truth. I show you the path to finding out your own answers and you berate me for daring to tell you to do things for yourself. I'm not a seer; the truths that the Holy Spirit reveals to me are relevant to me and only me. If you have other needs (like this irrational need to know the true names of the disciples), then you need to present those to God and the Holy Spirit yourself. You can't duck your way about this and pretend that it's somehow my fault. I'm just the enabler.

The lying that you're seeing is you lying to yourself.

I'm not trying to berate you. I have much more respect for you than that.

I'm trying to show that what you claim is fact not only cannot be demonstrated as such, but is actually no more than a wish to believe. It's called faith.

It's important because those that cannot distinguish the difference between the two are prone to making grave errors of judgment or being led by others to do harmful or hateful things in the name of said faith; (children dying at the hands of prayerful parents when a simple doctors visit will do, or flying planes into buildings to kill the infidel, etc.).

[ These parents are trying to demonstrate their faith, like you, as if its fact. And when the truth of their...

I'm not trying to berate you. I have much more respect for you than that.

I'm trying to show that what you claim is fact not only cannot be demonstrated as such, but is actually no more than a wish to believe. It's called faith.

It's important because those that cannot distinguish the difference between the two are prone to making grave errors of judgment or being led by others to do harmful or hateful things in the name of said faith; (children dying at the hands of prayerful parents when a simple doctors visit will do, or flying planes into buildings to kill the infidel, etc.).

[ These parents are trying to demonstrate their faith, like you, as if its fact. And when the truth of their error prevails (the non performance of a divine agent) they make excuses or change the subject to why it didn't work -- God wanted to call my child home, etc. ]

If honesty were important to their moral code, they would simply say, "I have faith it is true," or "I believe it is true," but they would not say "I know it is true." Because that would be lying.

If they "know" it to be true, it wouldn't require faith! And it wouldn't so consistently fail, requiring excuse after excuse after excuse. It would simply work.

Living is knowing. You're deluded into thinking that just because you didn't have confidence in your faith, that faith is not worth putting your confidence in. You're showing the typical signs of a backslider; believe me, you are not the first. It can be quite predictable. But the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that other people cannot.

Have you ever heard the fable of Sour Grapes? A fox saw some delicious-looking grapes high up on a vine, and tried everything he could to get them, but failed at every attempt. Finally, he just gave up, and turned his nose up at them, declaring to himself that they were probably sour, anyway. That is how you are treat...

Living is knowing. You're deluded into thinking that just because you didn't have confidence in your faith, that faith is not worth putting your confidence in. You're showing the typical signs of a backslider; believe me, you are not the first. It can be quite predictable. But the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that other people cannot.

Have you ever heard the fable of Sour Grapes? A fox saw some delicious-looking grapes high up on a vine, and tried everything he could to get them, but failed at every attempt. Finally, he just gave up, and turned his nose up at them, declaring to himself that they were probably sour, anyway. That is how you are treating faith. You think that just because you were unable to maintain your faith, that having confidence in one's faith isn't worthwhile.

It's a fallacious construct that you've created for yourself, and you're hardly the first to have done so.

But the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that other people cannot.

In what way does the "strength" of one's conviction make such a conviction true?

How does faith or stamina of faith or confidence in faith or strength of conviction -- make it true?

Is it possible to have faith in something that is false?

If so, then how would you describe the dogged conviction of a falsehood believed to be true?

---
"Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed.

Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing."

"Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline...

But the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that other people cannot.

In what way does the "strength" of one's conviction make such a conviction true?

How does faith or stamina of faith or confidence in faith or strength of conviction -- make it true?

Is it possible to have faith in something that is false?

If so, then how would you describe the dogged conviction of a falsehood believed to be true?

---
"Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed.

Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing."

"Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes."

"Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said."

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
---

Darkeforce, the death of Madeline, (and many others like her), proves you wrong about conviction of faith.

A profound and dogged conviction of faith -- in a falsehood -- will not make it true.

The degree of one's faith is thus irrelevant to what is true. What is relevant, is what is TRUE!

I put truth above faith, for the simple reason that if it's not true, it's false. And faith in a falsehood -- is still false.

Anyone can point to the actions of extreme situations and try to pass those off as typical of the type. That's just what the Right Wing is doing now, in pulling out rare (or false) cases of "bad healthcare" in Canada and trying to say those are typical.

A person can have faith in something false, but a person is expected to keep an open mind. Having the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that you're closed off to all other things. It's just the case of when things get tough, or you feel discouraged or disillusioned, you don't bail entirely from your convictions, as you have admittedly done. You look for answers, and consider them with prayer and meditation, and see where the new info...

Anyone can point to the actions of extreme situations and try to pass those off as typical of the type. That's just what the Right Wing is doing now, in pulling out rare (or false) cases of "bad healthcare" in Canada and trying to say those are typical.

A person can have faith in something false, but a person is expected to keep an open mind. Having the strength of your convictions doesn't mean that you're closed off to all other things. It's just the case of when things get tough, or you feel discouraged or disillusioned, you don't bail entirely from your convictions, as you have admittedly done. You look for answers, and consider them with prayer and meditation, and see where the new information coincides with your faith. In the end, I just end up with stronger faith.

Moreso, my faith affects no one other than myself. Faith is a personal thing, and it should only apply to yourself. People who are trying to apply the principles of their faith to other people are not acting appropriately. That's imposing on people's free will, and that is not something a Christian should ever do. So, your example is quite meaningless when it comes to true faith. That wasn't faith; that was oppression.

You have not proven it to be false. You're operating on a false premise; that faith is automatically false.

No. I'm operating on the premise that one cannot know until the point where it fails to be true.

But darkeforce, isn't it just as intellectually dishonest to operate on the false premise that faith is automatically true?

By what method or attribute has faith to determine a true from a false proposition?

(Thus my previous answer: "When it fails at being true." Because to wait for its demonstration as a falsehood is to disprove a negative. The wait will be for eternity.)

Example: A person has faith that 2+2=5. But it continues to produce 4 over and over and over ag...

You have not proven it to be false. You're operating on a false premise; that faith is automatically false.

No. I'm operating on the premise that one cannot know until the point where it fails to be true.

But darkeforce, isn't it just as intellectually dishonest to operate on the false premise that faith is automatically true?

By what method or attribute has faith to determine a true from a false proposition?

(Thus my previous answer: "When it fails at being true." Because to wait for its demonstration as a falsehood is to disprove a negative. The wait will be for eternity.)

Example: A person has faith that 2+2=5. But it continues to produce 4 over and over and over again. But through faith, this person is not satisfied that every 2+2 will equal 4 because every 2+2 has not been exhausted. And to give up means they didn't have enough faith. That they were "quitters". 'Just didn't give it enough time.

At what point is that person expected to change their faith?

Example: A child is tricked into believing that a missing tooth brings money if put under the pillow. And for a few years has uncompromising faith that there is a tooth fairy. At what point is that person expected to change their faith?

It has nothing to do with "disproving God" or "Atheist Religion" or "Holier than thou" irrelevant to the question subject changers.

It has to do with at what point a person is expected to stop believing a faith that continues to be false. The "proof" that it's false will never come, except by a consistent failure of it to be true.

At what point did faith healing for Madeline fail? At what point did a promise made in the bible fail? At what point did the bible become "the actual word of God" fail?

No, because the issue is that I am operating from the premise that I am the only one who needs to believe what I believe, while you are operating on the premise that I must believe what you believe or I am wrong.

If that's what you got then you have understood nothing that I have said. And I cannot see that you know the difference between a fact and a belief.

Facts do not change to conform to your beliefs. But an intelligent person will change their beliefs to conform to the facts.

This is the problem of faith, and the bane of religion. Some people substitute faith, their beliefs, for facts. And then they represent them as facts, and rely on them as facts. The way the Neum...

No, because the issue is that I am operating from the premise that I am the only one who needs to believe what I believe, while you are operating on the premise that I must believe what you believe or I am wrong.

If that's what you got then you have understood nothing that I have said. And I cannot see that you know the difference between a fact and a belief.

Facts do not change to conform to your beliefs. But an intelligent person will change their beliefs to conform to the facts.

This is the problem of faith, and the bane of religion. Some people substitute faith, their beliefs, for facts. And then they represent them as facts, and rely on them as facts. The way the Neumanns did.

It makes for gross errors of judgment.

I know the difference between a fact and a belief, thank-you very much.

When you said you've "learned to separate the humanism from the actual word of God..." you clearly misrepresented a belief as a fact.

That's what this entire conversation has been about! I constantly asked for demonstrations (remember the Holy Spirit?) and got nothing but excuses -- no demonstration of fact, as was predicted.

Sorry. Sometimes we do not know what the facts are, and sometimes we think we know. But to claim that something is a fact when there is no way to know it true is simply wrong. It is stating a belief is a fact, and that's lying.
---

The truth of the matter is that Atheists ...

read more»

I know the difference between a fact and a belief, thank-you very much.

When you said you've "learned to separate the humanism from the actual word of God..." you clearly misrepresented a belief as a fact.

That's what this entire conversation has been about! I constantly asked for demonstrations (remember the Holy Spirit?) and got nothing but excuses -- no demonstration of fact, as was predicted.

Sorry. Sometimes we do not know what the facts are, and sometimes we think we know. But to claim that something is a fact when there is no way to know it true is simply wrong. It is stating a belief is a fact, and that's lying.
---

The truth of the matter is that Atheists believe that God doesn't exist, and they want you to take that belief as a fact. So the question is, do you know the difference between facts and beliefs?

This conversation hasn't been about what Atheists believe, it's been about facts vs. faith being represented and acted upon as facts, and the consequences.

It has nothing to do with rhetoric from either side trying to sway your judgment; it has to do with belief being so staunch that no amount of evidence or facts is going to change that belief. It's called faith.

Sometimes people cannot separate faith from real world facts, as has been demonstrated, and the results can be gross errors of judgment typically at the expense of someone else's life.

The fact that you refuse to admit it's a fact is beside the point. Both sides that attack me on my beliefs have facts that they refuse to believe. It's no skin off my back, and their loss, not mine. As I said; my beliefs need not convince anyone but me, because a connection with God is NOT an objective thing. It is very subjective.

If you see something totally unique that no one else will ever see the same way in the history of the universe, it doesn't mean that event isn't a fact. But you are trying to pretend that it isn't. That assertion is simply untrue. It's junk logic.

The discussion has been about faith, and I merely pointed out that faith isn't exclusive just to those...

The fact that you refuse to admit it's a fact is beside the point. Both sides that attack me on my beliefs have facts that they refuse to believe. It's no skin off my back, and their loss, not mine. As I said; my beliefs need not convince anyone but me, because a connection with God is NOT an objective thing. It is very subjective.

If you see something totally unique that no one else will ever see the same way in the history of the universe, it doesn't mean that event isn't a fact. But you are trying to pretend that it isn't. That assertion is simply untrue. It's junk logic.

The discussion has been about faith, and I merely pointed out that faith isn't exclusive just to those who consider themselves to be faithful. Atheists are just as dependent on faith as people of faith. They're just scared to admit that their faith is, indeed faith. They deny it as a knee-jerk reaction without even thinking about it. Now that's indoctrination!

As I said; my beliefs need not convince anyone but me, because a connection with God is NOT an objective thing. It is very subjective.

On this I would agree.

If you see something totally unique that no one else will ever see the same way in the history of the universe, it doesn't mean that event isn't a fact. But you are trying to pretend that it isn't. That assertion is simply untrue. It's junk logic.

I agree wholeheartedly. (Except for the "you are trying to pretend that it isn't" part. I made no such claim.)

The discussion has been about faith..

The discussion has been about faith being misrepresented as fact. Would you take a moment to def...

As I said; my beliefs need not convince anyone but me, because a connection with God is NOT an objective thing. It is very subjective.

On this I would agree.

If you see something totally unique that no one else will ever see the same way in the history of the universe, it doesn't mean that event isn't a fact. But you are trying to pretend that it isn't. That assertion is simply untrue. It's junk logic.

I agree wholeheartedly. (Except for the "you are trying to pretend that it isn't" part. I made no such claim.)

The discussion has been about faith..

The discussion has been about faith being misrepresented as fact. Would you take a moment to define the difference between the two according to how YOU use the terms? That would be most helpful in allowing me to understand where you're coming from. Because as you see, I agree with most of what you said above.

PS: I consider myself agnostic. I do not, and have not ever asserted "there is no god." I do not know. To state "I do not know." is not a statement of faith.

However to state "there is no god" is an assertion of faith, unless and until one can prove such an assertion (Objectively!).

Same with "I know there is a god" is an assertion of faith, unless and until one can prove such an assertion (Objectively!).

And so, I follow the path of truth, which is why I subscribe to honesty. To assert a faith as truth, unless and until it can be objectively proved, is dishonest.

Thank you.

I think that part of our problem in communication is that the terms you use to describe certain concepts do not agree with the common definition of those terms.

And some of those self-defined terms help to shape some of your beliefs.

For example you defined "faith is truth that..."

To define "faith" as a truth, is so far removed from the actual meaning of the term that it's no wonder why so much of what you say appears to be nothing more than running around a bush.

I can point out contradiction after contradiction and you still wont see it (or pretend not to). You create your own set of definitions and then ignore the fact. On top of that you constantly change the subject w...

Thank you.

I think that part of our problem in communication is that the terms you use to describe certain concepts do not agree with the common definition of those terms.

And some of those self-defined terms help to shape some of your beliefs.

For example you defined "faith is truth that..."

To define "faith" as a truth, is so far removed from the actual meaning of the term that it's no wonder why so much of what you say appears to be nothing more than running around a bush.

I can point out contradiction after contradiction and you still wont see it (or pretend not to). You create your own set of definitions and then ignore the fact. On top of that you constantly change the subject whenever I force you to look at those contradictions.

Clearly, if faith is a truth, then whatever we have faith "in", would be (according to your understanding), true.

If you really can't see the error in that, you will never know if, or when, you are simply wallowing in a labyrinth of self made delusions.