Do Christians accept the Old Testament as the word of God?

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as the New
Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this issue?

Probably. After all, biblethumpers will believe anything.

What Me Worry?

2007-12-21 02:25:25 UTC

Christians pick and choose what they want to believe, as it suits them.

Even the "fundamentalists," who claim the Bible is a literal history,
selectively ignore the parts they don't want to believe.

Not that it matters what a bunch of violent, bigoted wackos think about a
work of fiction.

Henry Von Sweitzenheimer

2007-12-21 17:30:08 UTC

Christians pick and choose what they want to believe, as it suits them.
Even the "fundamentalists," who claim the Bible is a literal history,
selectively ignore the parts they don't want to believe.
Not that it matters what a bunch of violent, bigoted wackos think about a
work of fiction.

SOUNDS LIKE THE KRAPAN, DOESN'T IT?

Feng

2007-12-21 03:25:16 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

What Me Worry?

2007-12-21 04:01:21 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

Feng

2007-12-21 04:30:05 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

No problem.

According to the judgment of common sense in life, anyone who asks you
to kill your own son for his pleasure is evil. When a god asks you to
kill your own son for his pleasure, it should be obvious to you that
such god is the Devil instead of God.

Now, if you can reach such conclusion while reading the Old Testament,
you will have graduated from the class of Old Testament to be ready to
receive higher understandings of the truth.

What Me Worry?

2007-12-21 04:42:59 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

Post by Feng
Now, if you can reach such conclusion while reading the Old Testament,
you will have graduated from the class of Old Testament to be ready to
receive higher understandings of the truth.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

Feng

2007-12-21 05:15:02 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.

I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

I think so.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

Denis Loubet

2007-12-21 06:03:24 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your nature is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Feng

2007-12-21 07:21:29 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your nature is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible. The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

Denis Loubet

2007-12-21 08:51:58 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

How can you tell, since I presume you would use it to determine whether it's
corrupted or not. If the love in your heart is corrupted, it might very well
tell you that it's not. Then where would you be?

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your nature is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

But the search is carried out by a corruptable nature, which I assume would
result in falsehoods being mistaken for truth. And how did you determine
that your inner soul is accurate? Is there some objective test that can be
performed?

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature. You've just
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Feng

2007-12-21 15:37:14 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Post by Denis Loubet
How can you tell, since I presume you would use it to determine whether it's
corrupted or not. If the love in your heart is corrupted, it might very well
tell you that it's not. Then where would you be?

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your nature is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense. If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Yes. The objective test is the truth itself. The searcher does not
determine the truth. The truth will open up the searcher's eyes
instead. That is the reason why it is often called the enlightenment
instead of the discovery.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.

You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make. I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself. The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

Simpson

2007-12-21 17:09:31 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true, then Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?

Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your nature is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense. If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.
You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make. I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself. The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

Feng

2007-12-21 17:19:05 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

Christopher A.Lee

2007-12-21 18:09:00 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

Idiot.

Simpson

2007-12-22 04:35:32 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

How do you know that?

Feng

2007-12-22 05:05:51 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

How do you know that?

Personal experience.

Simpson

2007-12-23 01:47:37 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

How do you know that?

Personal experience.

But you're corruptible and your experience is not infallible.

Better to say "I believe" or "I have faith in" rather than "I know".

Saying "I know" smacks of arrogance, not conviction.

Feng

2007-12-23 02:42:48 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

How do you know that?

Personal experience.

But you're corruptible and your experience is not infallible.

I don't know what it means. How can my experience be fallible? You are
not suggesting I dreamed about living my life, are you?

Post by Simpson
Better to say "I believe" or "I have faith in" rather than "I know".
Saying "I know" smacks of arrogance, not conviction.

Sorry, I can not deny what I have already learned.

Simpson

2007-12-23 04:22:38 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

Is the part of you that "knows" corruptible? Are their two parts to your
nature, the corruptible and the incorruptible?
Doesn't that smack of schizophrenia?

Not likely. Everything that I know is corruptible. The thing that I
have no choice but to rely on is not corruptible.

How do you know that?

Personal experience.

But you're corruptible and your experience is not infallible.

I don't know what it means. How can my experience be fallible? You are
not suggesting I dreamed about living my life, are you?

Post by Simpson
Better to say "I believe" or "I have faith in" rather than "I know".
Saying "I know" smacks of arrogance, not conviction.

Sorry, I can not deny what I have already learned.

Well then... you're an arrogant fool.

Denis Loubet

2007-12-22 09:16:06 UTC

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as
the
New
Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true,
then
Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

How do you know? You can't use the love in your heart to determine if the
love in your heart is not corruptable, because if it was corrupted, it would
tell you it wasn't.

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

How do you know that? Did the love in your heart tell you that? If it's
corrupted, wouldn't you expect it to tell you that?

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your
nature
is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense.

You can say that again.

Post by Feng
If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

How do you know? If Christ were evil, then that's what you'd expect Christ
to say.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

How do you know? If you're using corrupted knowledge of truth to determine
that your knowledge of truth is not corrupted, you're hosed. Circular tests
like that mean exactly nothing.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Yes. The objective test is the truth itself.

How do you know? How do you determine you know the truth so you can tell if
you know the truth or not?

Do you know what objective means?

Post by Feng
The searcher does not
determine the truth.

Granted. So why are you assuming you know the truth?

Post by Feng
The truth will open up the searcher's eyes
instead.

How does the searcher know that what he's experiencing as eye-opening is the
truth?

Post by Feng
That is the reason why it is often called the enlightenment
instead of the discovery.

Many people who have believed themselves to be enlightened have been wrong.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.

How do you know the help you receive is from the divine? Wouldn't an evil
entity pretend to be divine to fool you into doing evil?

Post by Feng
You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make.

Nonsense. You have made many bland assertions concerning the accuracy and
incorruptability of the love in your heart, your knowledge of truth, what
the truth will do, etc. These seem to be nothing more than arbitrary
assumptions on your part, things that you have simply decided are true.

Post by Feng
I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself.

And you assume you cannot be fooled.

Post by Feng
The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

So you simply state you are infallible, and cannot be wrong.

I don't believe you.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Feng

2007-12-22 17:46:23 UTC

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as
the
New
Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of correct moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true,
then
Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we started. How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which you use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

How do you know? You can't use the love in your heart to determine if the
love in your heart is not corruptable, because if it was corrupted, it would
tell you it wasn't.

I know it is true by experience. So far it goes, love has never failed
me.

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

How do you know that? Did the love in your heart tell you that? If it's
corrupted, wouldn't you expect it to tell you that?

I don't need to be told by anyone. I know it is true by simple
comparison. I know love in everyone's heart is one and the same.

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your
nature
is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense.

You can say that again.

No, you trick me to it. Let me rephrase. The teaching of Christ is a
lot more than simple common sense. Common sense deals with personal
aspect of the truth. The teaching of Christ reveals the whole truth.

Post by Feng
If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

How do you know? If Christ were evil, then that's what you'd expect Christ
to say.

I know because that's what I have learned by experience.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we listen to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

How do you know? If you're using corrupted knowledge of truth to determine
that your knowledge of truth is not corrupted, you're hosed. Circular tests
like that mean exactly nothing.

There is no need to do that. Logic always fails the truth because
logic always depends on the truth to begin with in the first place.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Yes. The objective test is the truth itself.

How do you know? How do you determine you know the truth so you can tell if
you know the truth or not?

I don't have to determine anything. I simply open my mind allowing the
truth to reveal itself.

Post by Denis Loubet
Do you know what objective means?

Yes. Objective means giving up the subjective thinking which is what
you are doing.

Post by Feng
The searcher does not
determine the truth.

Granted. So why are you assuming you know the truth?

I'm not. I know what I have learned. That is not an assumption.

Post by Feng
The truth will open up the searcher's eyes
instead.

How does the searcher know that what he's experiencing as eye-opening is the
truth?

There is no how. The searcher simply knows.

Post by Feng
That is the reason why it is often called the enlightenment
instead of the discovery.

Many people who have believed themselves to be enlightened have been wrong.

That's unfortunate. Enlightenment does need to be tested by real life
experiences.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.

How do you know the help you receive is from the divine? Wouldn't an evil
entity pretend to be divine to fool you into doing evil?

Because it is not evil, in fact, it helps me to stay away from evil.
That is how I understood the word "Savior".

Post by Feng
You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make.

By experience they are things I have simply decided to be true, yes.

Do you have a problem with that?

Post by Feng
I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself.

And you assume you cannot be fooled.

I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

Post by Feng
The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

So you simply state you are infallible, and cannot be wrong.

No, that is not what I said. The self-evident truth is infallible. I
can only be a follower of the truth.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't believe you.

You don't have to. It's the love in your own heart that you have to
believe.

George Walker

2007-12-22 17:56:34 UTC

Post by Feng
I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

I wonder? If Christ was executed by the noose, instead of the crusifix, would
Christians be wearing little ropes around their necks instead of crosses?

If Christ was snuffed by the electric chair, would one of them replace the
Crusifix?

Feng

2007-12-22 19:26:26 UTC

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:56:34 -0500, George Walker

Post by George Walker

Post by Feng
I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

I wonder? If Christ was executed by the noose, instead of the crusifix, would
Christians be wearing little ropes around their necks instead of crosses?
If Christ was snuffed by the electric chair, would one of them replace the
Crusifix?

I wouldn't know. I'm not into symbolism.

Christopher A.Lee

2007-12-23 00:43:12 UTC

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:56:34 -0500, George Walker

Post by George Walker

Post by Feng
I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

I wonder? If Christ was executed by the noose, instead of the crusifix, would
Christians be wearing little ropes around their necks instead of crosses?
If Christ was snuffed by the electric chair, would one of them replace the
Crusifix?

He was impaled - why do you think his followers are such a pain in the
ass?

Denis Loubet

2007-12-23 08:52:09 UTC

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as
the
New
Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of
correct
moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true,
then
Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we
started.
How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which
you
use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

How do you know? You can't use the love in your heart to determine if the
love in your heart is not corruptable, because if it was corrupted, it would
tell you it wasn't.

I know it is true by experience. So far it goes, love has never failed
me.

How do you know it was the love? I mean, things do happen without love,
don't they? How do you know love accounts for your experiences? I know you
couldn't have worked up a double-blind test, but did you at least establish
a baseline, and include a control group?

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

How do you know that? Did the love in your heart tell you that? If it's
corrupted, wouldn't you expect it to tell you that?

I don't need to be told by anyone.

Anyone? I'm talking about your heart. Do you consider your heart a separate
entity?

Post by Feng
I know it is true by simple
comparison. I know love in everyone's heart is one and the same.

How do you compare the love in everyone's heart? What do you compare it to?
The love in your heart?

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your
nature
is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense.

You can say that again.

No, you trick me to it.

Yes, it was a cheap-shot on my part.

Post by Feng
Let me rephrase. The teaching of Christ is a
lot more than simple common sense. Common sense deals with personal
aspect of the truth. The teaching of Christ reveals the whole truth.

How do you know your personal aspect of the truth is accurate? How do you
know what you believe to be the teachings of Christ are actually the
teachings of Christ?

Post by Feng
If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

How do you know? If Christ were evil, then that's what you'd expect Christ
to say.

I know because that's what I have learned by experience.

But if the Christ is evil, you're saying you know the truth because that's
what evil has taught you.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we
listen
to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

How do you know? If you're using corrupted knowledge of truth to determine
that your knowledge of truth is not corrupted, you're hosed. Circular tests
like that mean exactly nothing.

There is no need to do that. Logic always fails the truth because
logic always depends on the truth to begin with in the first place.

If you abandon logic, that leaves you irrational.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Yes. The objective test is the truth itself.

How do you know? How do you determine you know the truth so you can tell if
you know the truth or not?

I don't have to determine anything. I simply open my mind allowing the
truth to reveal itself.

But how do you know what reveals itself is truth? You don't. You just
arbitrarily decide it is, just like you arbitrarily decided that opening
your mind would result in truth revealing itself.

Post by Denis Loubet
Do you know what objective means?

Yes. Objective means giving up the subjective thinking which is what
you are doing.

No. I have plenty of subjective thoughts and feelings. I just don't claim
that all my thoughts and feelings reflect reality.

Objective does not mean giving up subjective thinking.

Post by Feng
The searcher does not
determine the truth.

Granted. So why are you assuming you know the truth?

I'm not. I know what I have learned. That is not an assumption.

It is if you make assumptions like "I simply open my mind allowing the truth
to reveal itself."

You don't know that it's true, you're simply assuming that it is.

Post by Feng
The truth will open up the searcher's eyes
instead.

How does the searcher know that what he's experiencing as eye-opening is the
truth?

There is no how. The searcher simply knows.

He assumes.

I understand.

Post by Feng
That is the reason why it is often called the enlightenment
instead of the discovery.

Many people who have believed themselves to be enlightened have been wrong.

That's unfortunate. Enlightenment does need to be tested by real life
experiences.

You just got finished saying that the searcher simply knows that his
eye-opening experience is the thruth.

Now you say it needs to be tested by real life.

Which is it?

Post by Feng
Now, if you can reach such conclusion while reading the Old Testament,
you will have graduated from the class of Old Testament to be
ready
to
receive higher understandings of the truth.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.

How do you know the help you receive is from the divine? Wouldn't an evil
entity pretend to be divine to fool you into doing evil?

Because it is not evil, in fact, it helps me to stay away from evil.

How do you know? Perhaps you are being fooled into thinking that what you
are doing is good, when it's actually evil.

Post by Feng
That is how I understood the word "Savior".

I think that evil pretending to be a savior would be a good way to fool
people into following evil. Don't you?

Post by Feng
You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make.

By experience they are things I have simply decided to be true, yes.

Does this "experience" consist of "simply knowing"? How have you determined
that the accuracy and incorruptability of the love in your heart, your
knowledge of truth, what the truth will do, etc, is responsible for your
experiences?

Post by Feng
Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with your whole approach. You have admitted to being
deliberately irrational, so don't blame me for looking suspiciously at your
claims of experience. If you don't approve of logic, then I cannot trust
your inferrences, and there's really nothing anyone can say to you that's
not a waste of breath.

By abandoning logic, you immunize yourself from all other ideas. You have
chosen a path that closes your mind.

Post by Feng
I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself.

And you assume you cannot be fooled.

I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

Faith only means that if you're wrong, you're determined to remain wrong.

Faith means you've closed your mind to the possibility that you can be
wrong.

Post by Feng
The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

So you simply state you are infallible, and cannot be wrong.

No, that is not what I said.

Yes it is. That is the inevitable implication of your statement.

Post by Feng
The self-evident truth is infallible. I
can only be a follower of the truth.

No, the self-evident truth is often completely wrong. And faith merely
enshrines the wrongness.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't believe you.

You don't have to. It's the love in your own heart that you have to
believe.

My experiences tell me not to trust it. That is why I use tools like logic.
They work.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Feng

2007-12-23 21:24:27 UTC

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as
the
New
Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this
issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Can you translate that for non-wackos?

This assertion presumes that flawed, sinning Man is capable of
correct
moral
judgement in the absence of a divinely-inspired standard. If true,
then
Man
would have no need for divine guidance.

That statement presumes the divinely-inspired standard is absent in
the human nature which is supposed to be a creation of God.
I will agree that sin does corrupt the human nature, but it should
also be obvious that the human nature does survive the corruption and
destruction of sin throughout the human history.

So, if common sense can be corrupted, then we're back where we
started.
How
do you determine what's "the light of truth" if common sense, which
you
use
as your yardstick, is corruptable?

The love in my heart and everyone's heart. That is the yardstick my
common sense is based on.

So the love in your heart is absolutely not corruptable?

As far as I know, that is true so far.

How do you know? You can't use the love in your heart to determine if the
love in your heart is not corruptable, because if it was corrupted, it would
tell you it wasn't.

I know it is true by experience. So far it goes, love has never failed
me.

I know I'm talking about the experience of my life, but what are you
talking about?

I know the love in my heart is the Rock I can bet my life on, because
it is also the love in everyone's heart.

How do you know that? Did the love in your heart tell you that? If it's
corrupted, wouldn't you expect it to tell you that?

I don't need to be told by anyone.

Anyone? I'm talking about your heart. Do you consider your heart a separate
entity?

No, I don't. By anyone, I mean I don't need to be told by people like
you or anyone else. I know my heart and that's it. The heart does not
lie.

Post by Feng
I know it is true by simple
comparison. I know love in everyone's heart is one and the same.

How do you compare the love in everyone's heart? What do you compare it to?
The love in your heart?

Yes. The love in everyone's heart is always the same. All you need is
to look.

Post by Feng
Could it be because the human nature does possess certain innate
knowledge about the truth?

Irrelevant, even if it were true. You can't know the truth if your
nature
is
corruptable. If you had the truth, it would only be by accident.

Thanks to Jesus Christ, that problem has already been solved. Anyone
who follows the teaching of Christ can always find the truth thorough
his Love.

But that's according to your common sense, which you admit is corruptable.
Why would you believe it?

No, the teaching of Christ has nothing to do with my common sense.

You can say that again.

No, you trick me to it.

Yes, it was a cheap-shot on my part.

Glad you admit it.

Post by Feng
Let me rephrase. The teaching of Christ is a
lot more than simple common sense. Common sense deals with personal
aspect of the truth. The teaching of Christ reveals the whole truth.

How do you know your personal aspect of the truth is accurate? How do you
know what you believe to be the teachings of Christ are actually the
teachings of Christ?

By experience. I know it is true because I have the actual experience
of my life as the proof.

Post by Feng
If
you follow the teaching of Christ, you will know his Love. Through his
Love, you will find the truth.

How do you know? If Christ were evil, then that's what you'd expect Christ
to say.

I know because that's what I have learned by experience.

But if the Christ is evil, you're saying you know the truth because that's
what evil has taught you.

Christ is never evil. If you see evil, you are not seeing Christ. In
fact, you are seeing the enemy of Christ.

Post by Feng
I think so.

But, as you insist, your nature is corruptable. So why should we
listen
to
anything you have to say?

Just because the human nature is corruptible, doesn't mean the innate
knowledge of truth in our human nature is corruptible.

Since your "innate knowledge of truth" is part of your human nature, which
you admit is corruptable, then clearly it can be corrupted just like the
rest of your human nature.

Not really. The knowledge of truth can be hidden and forgotten, but it
can never be corrupted to be something else even in the most evil
person on earth. It will always remain true.

How do you know? If you're using corrupted knowledge of truth to determine
that your knowledge of truth is not corrupted, you're hosed. Circular tests
like that mean exactly nothing.

There is no need to do that. Logic always fails the truth because
logic always depends on the truth to begin with in the first place.

If you abandon logic, that leaves you irrational.

I'm not abandoning logic. I recognize the limitation of logic.

Post by Feng
The truth can
always be realized by searching and inquiring into our inner soul.

Yes. The objective test is the truth itself.

How do you know? How do you determine you know the truth so you can tell if
you know the truth or not?

I don't have to determine anything. I simply open my mind allowing the
truth to reveal itself.

But how do you know what reveals itself is truth? You don't. You just
arbitrarily decide it is, just like you arbitrarily decided that opening
your mind would result in truth revealing itself.

No. I don't need to decide it is the truth. I only need to recognize
it is the truth. Can you see the difference?

Post by Denis Loubet
Do you know what objective means?

Yes. Objective means giving up the subjective thinking which is what
you are doing.

No. I have plenty of subjective thoughts and feelings. I just don't claim
that all my thoughts and feelings reflect reality.
Objective does not mean giving up subjective thinking.

Objective does mean giving up the subjective thinking that is trying
to determine the truth. The truth is not determined by intellectual
thinking. The truth is only realized by giving up the intellectual
thoughts.

Post by Feng
The searcher does not
determine the truth.

Granted. So why are you assuming you know the truth?

I'm not. I know what I have learned. That is not an assumption.

It is if you make assumptions like "I simply open my mind allowing the truth
to reveal itself."
You don't know that it's true, you're simply assuming that it is.

That's because you assume I have never experienced the truth. You are
wrong.

Post by Feng
The truth will open up the searcher's eyes
instead.

How does the searcher know that what he's experiencing as eye-opening is the
truth?

There is no how. The searcher simply knows.

He assumes.
I understand.

No, you don't.

Post by Feng
That is the reason why it is often called the enlightenment
instead of the discovery.

Many people who have believed themselves to be enlightened have been wrong.

That's unfortunate. Enlightenment does need to be tested by real life
experiences.

You just got finished saying that the searcher simply knows that his
eye-opening experience is the thruth.
Now you say it needs to be tested by real life.
Which is it?

Both. The experience of truth does not happen without real life
experience. It only happens in real life.

Post by Feng
Now, if you can reach such conclusion while reading the Old Testament,
you will have graduated from the class of Old Testament to be
ready
to
receive higher understandings of the truth.

Do you mean "the truth" or "the Truth?"

I don't make that distinction since the human mind can not understand
the Truth without the truth.

How convenient.

No, it's simply a matter of fact according to what I have learned.

But you've learned it all through a corruptable human nature.

Not without the help from the divine.

How do you know the help you receive is from the divine? Wouldn't an evil
entity pretend to be divine to fool you into doing evil?

Because it is not evil, in fact, it helps me to stay away from evil.

How do you know? Perhaps you are being fooled into thinking that what you
are doing is good, when it's actually evil.

That is impossible according to the experience of my life.

Post by Feng
That is how I understood the word "Savior".

I think that evil pretending to be a savior would be a good way to fool
people into following evil. Don't you?

Absolutely, except my Savior is never evil.

Post by Feng
You've just

Post by Denis Loubet
arbitrarily decided that it's true.

That is never a decision for me to make.

By experience they are things I have simply decided to be true, yes.

I don't have to determine anything. I simply live my life and realize
the truth.

Post by Feng
Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with your whole approach. You have admitted to being
deliberately irrational, so don't blame me for looking suspiciously at your
claims of experience. If you don't approve of logic, then I cannot trust
your inferrences, and there's really nothing anyone can say to you that's
not a waste of breath.
By abandoning logic, you immunize yourself from all other ideas. You have
chosen a path that closes your mind.

That's your misunderstanding. I'm not abandoning logic. I simply
recognize the limitation of logic.

Post by Feng
I can only manage to
recognize the truth when truth reveals itself.

And you assume you cannot be fooled.

I don't have to assume anything. I have my faith with me.

Faith only means that if you're wrong, you're determined to remain wrong.
Faith means you've closed your mind to the possibility that you can be
wrong.

Not at all. You are describing the blind faith. My faith is not blind
because it is based on the love of Jesus Christ.

Post by Feng
The truth is always
self-evident. I have no choice but to obey the truth.

So you simply state you are infallible, and cannot be wrong.

No, that is not what I said.

Yes it is. That is the inevitable implication of your statement.

The truth I have learned is infallible. That does not mean I'm
infallible.

Post by Feng
The self-evident truth is infallible. I
can only be a follower of the truth.

No, the self-evident truth is often completely wrong. And faith merely
enshrines the wrongness.

If truth can be wrong, then it can't be truth in the first place, not
to mention being self-evident.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't believe you.

You don't have to. It's the love in your own heart that you have to
believe.

My experiences tell me not to trust it. That is why I use tools like logic.
They work.

Logic only works within the truth. It will always fail without the
truth.

Simpson

2007-12-21 17:01:40 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

Post by Feng
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

John Manning

2007-12-21 18:10:25 UTC

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight as the
New Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

Post by Feng
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Here's a lovely, inspirational Old Testament story about that sweet man,
Moses:

- Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill
all the adult males, but take the women and children captive.

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you
saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive
for yourselves."

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
virgins -- Wow!

Bible: Numbers 31:1-54

Zeno

2007-12-21 17:12:23 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

"Authority" ?

Is the "self righteous" condition exclusive to religious extremist?

Post by Feng
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Al Smith

2007-12-21 18:30:47 UTC

Post by Feng
There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

The Brothers Grimm ... who are both dead.

-Al-

Feng

2007-12-22 00:10:30 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Post by Feng
Under the light of truth, according to the judgment of good and evil
based on the truth, there can be very good understandings about the
Old Testament.

Dwayne Hoobler

2007-12-22 01:06:39 UTC

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?

I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Feng

2007-12-22 01:37:19 UTC

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

You are correct, and they are not entirely wrong either. The threat of
hellish existence is both real and present, but it is not to keep
morality. Quite the opposite, its purpose is to destroy morality to
bring humanity to that hellish existence. The only mistake they made
is to believe the threat is from God, when in fact it is from the
Devil.

Dwayne Hoobler

2007-12-22 01:55:24 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

I concur with you, but the Hellish existence is one of the present; not of one
beyond the grave. It's easier to believe in Ying / Yang than that gibberish!

Why do these freaks make fun of Islamic fundamentalists and the legend of the
72 virgins as a reward, when they are preached about and often believe in
superstitious nonsense of another kind?

Sure, The Exorcist movie was pretty impressive when Max von Sydow (as Father
Lankester Merrin) and Jason Miller (as Father Damien Karras) were shouting at
the top of their lungs "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!" repeatedly.

That's entertainment. But that's all it is.

Feng

2007-12-22 04:48:03 UTC

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:55:24 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

I concur with you, but the Hellish existence is one of the present; not of one
beyond the grave. It's easier to believe in Ying / Yang than that gibberish!
Why do these freaks make fun of Islamic fundamentalists and the legend of the
72 virgins as a reward, when they are preached about and often believe in
superstitious nonsense of another kind?
Sure, The Exorcist movie was pretty impressive when Max von Sydow (as Father
Lankester Merrin) and Jason Miller (as Father Damien Karras) were shouting at
the top of their lungs "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!" repeatedly.
That's entertainment. But that's all it is.

I agree with you that here on earth is a living hell right at this
moment, but I would not consider the so called afterlife nothing but
superstitious nonsense just yet. Granted, the thing about 72 virgins
is an obvious lie, but the hell of bottomless pit as well as the
eternal fire are things I do believe to exist.

Simpson

2007-12-22 04:37:30 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

Feng

2007-12-22 05:22:20 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

Dwayne Hoobler

2007-12-22 05:37:43 UTC

Post by Feng
God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

Acting as a human is always good. I don't rely on superstitious threats from
an imaginary ghost in the sky to reform my notions.

Feng

2007-12-22 17:15:41 UTC

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:37:43 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Feng
God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

Acting as a human is always good. I don't rely on superstitious threats from
an imaginary ghost in the sky to reform my notions.

Don't worry, there is no such thing.

Dwayne Hoobler

2007-12-22 17:24:11 UTC

Post by Feng
n Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:37:43 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Feng
God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

Acting as a human is always good. I don't rely on superstitious threats from
an imaginary ghost in the sky to reform my notions.

Don't worry, there is no such thing.

I've never worried about superstition.

Out! Demon Spirits! Out! I Say!

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Al Smith

2007-12-22 05:47:10 UTC

Post by Simpson
Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

But maybe the sex is really, really good.

-Al-

Feng

2007-12-22 17:18:20 UTC

Post by Al Smith

Post by Simpson
Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

But maybe the sex is really, really good.
-Al-

How do you know? Talking from experience or imagination?

Dwayne Hoobler

2007-12-22 17:33:56 UTC

Post by Simpson
Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

But maybe the sex is really, really good.
-Al-

How do you know? Talking from experience or imagination?

God is an invisible ghost in the sky who is built in my image (49 years-old,
clean shaven, 6' 4', white, good ice skater, brown hair, one kid, brown eyes,
8" penis) , so sayeth The Bible.

It's a matter of record!

Feng

2007-12-22 18:06:39 UTC

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:33:56 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Al Smith

Post by Simpson
Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss. In fact, it can not be compared. The
difference is between heaven and hell.

But maybe the sex is really, really good.
-Al-

How do you know? Talking from experience or imagination?

God is an invisible ghost in the sky who is built in my image (49 years-old,
clean shaven, 6' 4', white, good ice skater, brown hair, one kid, brown eyes,
8" penis) , so sayeth The Bible.

That is why you are wrong.

Post by Dwayne Hoobler
It's a matter of record!

I thought you knew it was superstition. What's up? Why do you believe
the superstition now?

Simpson

2007-12-23 01:37:26 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.

You've never been to heaven.

In fact, it can not be compared. The

Post by Feng
difference is between heaven and hell.

Feng

2007-12-23 02:47:08 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Post by Simpson
In fact, it can not be compared. The

Post by Feng
difference is between heaven and hell.

Michael Gray

2007-12-23 03:19:18 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Oh, the tired old logical fallacy.
Ho hum.
I hope that your ward nurse gives you some extra thorazine for
christams.

Feng

2007-12-23 05:14:11 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:49:18 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Oh, the tired old logical fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy? Because heaven is nothing you can imagine?

Post by Michael Gray
Ho hum.
I hope that your ward nurse gives you some extra thorazine for
christams.

Don't worry. My mental condition is completely normal.

Michael Gray

2007-12-23 06:27:45 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:49:18 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Oh, the tired old logical fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy? Because heaven is nothing you can imagine?

The logical fallacy of the straw man.
And that of tu quoque.
And that of ad baculum.
And that of the false dichotomy.

Post by Michael Gray
Ho hum.
I hope that your ward nurse gives you some extra thorazine for
christams.

Don't worry. My mental condition is completely normal.

In your ward of the insane asylum, I can understand that.

You need professional help for your profound mental disturbances.

Feng

2007-12-23 08:20:04 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:57:45 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:49:18 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Oh, the tired old logical fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy? Because heaven is nothing you can imagine?

The logical fallacy of the straw man.
And that of tu quoque.
And that of ad baculum.
And that of the false dichotomy.

Sorry, none of them applies since I have not prejudged the guy. Not
like him, I only asked a question, and I'm still waiting for him to
answer. If his answer condemns himself, that can not be my fallacy.

Post by Michael Gray
Ho hum.
I hope that your ward nurse gives you some extra thorazine for
christams.

Don't worry. My mental condition is completely normal.

In your ward of the insane asylum, I can understand that.
You need professional help for your profound mental disturbances.

Sounds serious enough. What is your proof about my profound mental
disturbances?

Michael Gray

2007-12-23 09:02:05 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:57:45 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:49:18 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

Oh, the tired old logical fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy? Because heaven is nothing you can imagine?

The logical fallacy of the straw man.
And that of tu quoque.
And that of ad baculum.
And that of the false dichotomy.

Sorry, none of them applies since I have not prejudged the guy.

Bullshit!
All of them apply, irrespective of your "professed" intent.
(Which I don't believe for a minute)

Post by Feng
Not
like him, I only asked a question, and I'm still waiting for him to
answer.

How utterly dishonest!
You plainly the asked a banal question in order to evade the burden of
providing a coherent reply:!
(Which you seem utterly incapable of providing)

Post by Feng
If his answer condemns himself, that can not be my fallacy.

Anoither "Straw Man" Fallacy!!
Just how much straw do you have in your closet of deception?

Post by Michael Gray
Ho hum.
I hope that your ward nurse gives you some extra thorazine for
christams.

Don't worry. My mental condition is completely normal.

In your ward of the insane asylum, I can understand that.
You need professional help for your profound mental disturbances.

Sounds serious enough.

Yes, it does, and is.

Post by Feng
What is your proof about my profound mental
disturbances?

Get a competant psychologist to review your posts, and you shall have
evidence enough.

Simpson

2007-12-23 04:25:46 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Are you an exception?

Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Post by Simpson
In fact, it can not be compared. The

Post by Feng
difference is between heaven and hell.

Feng

2007-12-23 05:04:09 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

Post by Simpson
In fact, it can not be compared. The

Post by Feng
difference is between heaven and hell.

Michael Gray

2007-12-23 06:28:49 UTC

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

Feng

2007-12-23 08:28:01 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

Darrell Stec

2007-12-23 08:59:29 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight
as the New Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding
this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the
Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who
claim that morality cannot exist without the religious valued
threat of a Hellish existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

You are correct, and they are not entirely wrong either. The
threat of hellish existence is both real and present, but it is
not to keep morality. Quite the opposite, its purpose is to
destroy morality to bring humanity to that hellish existence. The
only mistake they made is to believe the threat is from God, when
in fact it is from the Devil.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

Then I take it you will not having any trouble proving this god of yours
exists and anything you credit to him is not in fact the work of Isis?
Take all the space you need. We eagerly await your evidence. Note that it
must be testable and attributed to only one source.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec ***@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Feng

2007-12-23 21:28:04 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:59:29 -0500, Darrell Stec

Post by Darrell Stec

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much weight
as the New Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding
this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the
Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who
claim that morality cannot exist without the religious valued
threat of a Hellish existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

You are correct, and they are not entirely wrong either. The
threat of hellish existence is both real and present, but it is
not to keep morality. Quite the opposite, its purpose is to
destroy morality to bring humanity to that hellish existence. The
only mistake they made is to believe the threat is from God, when
in fact it is from the Devil.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

Sorry, request denied.

Darrell Stec

2007-12-23 22:17:24 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:59:29 -0500, Darrell Stec

Post by Darrell Stec

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:44:52 -0800, Simpson

Post by Simpson
Do Christians accept the teachings of the Old Testament?
Do Christians give the Old Testament every bit as much
weight as the New Testament?
Is there a variety of opinions amongst Christians regarding
this issue?

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the
Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For
the ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in
life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people
who claim that morality cannot exist without the religious
valued threat of a Hellish existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

You are correct, and they are not entirely wrong either. The
threat of hellish existence is both real and present, but it is
not to keep morality. Quite the opposite, its purpose is to
destroy morality to bring humanity to that hellish existence.
The only mistake they made is to believe the threat is from God,
when in fact it is from the Devil.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing
when compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

Then I take it you will not having any trouble proving this god of yours
exists and anything you credit to him is not in fact the work of Isis?
Take all the space you need. We eagerly await your evidence. Note that
it must be testable and attributed to only one source.

Sorry, request denied.

That was not unexpected. Those who have no proof, provide none. The only
person you are fooling is yourself.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec ***@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Michael Gray

2007-12-23 09:05:19 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

If that puerile response is what you consider "proof", then you are
more mentally incoherent than I had first thought.

Where (precisely) is this proof of this (singular) fantasitical
imaginary god of yours?

Who's hallucinating now?

Feng

2007-12-23 21:33:12 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:35:19 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

If that puerile response is what you consider "proof", then you are
more mentally incoherent than I had first thought.
Where (precisely) is this proof of this (singular) fantasitical
imaginary god of yours?

The proof is all around you in your own life. All you need is to look.

Post by Michael Gray
Who's hallucinating now?

DanielSan

2007-12-23 21:35:12 UTC

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:35:19 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

If that puerile response is what you consider "proof", then you are
more mentally incoherent than I had first thought.
Where (precisely) is this proof of this (singular) fantasitical
imaginary god of yours?

The proof is all around you in your own life. All you need is to look.

It is thundering right now. Proof enough for me to admit that Thor is
the one true god.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************

Feng

2007-12-23 22:11:35 UTC

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:35:12 -0800, DanielSan

Post by DanielSan

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:35:19 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:49 +1030, Michael Gray

Post by Feng
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:06:39 -0500, Dwayne Hoobler

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament, except how we
understand it.

Then who is the authority on the correct understanding of the Old Testament?

In my opinion, for the learned scholars, it's the truth. For the
ordinary people like myself, it's the common sense in life.

Agreed, but aren't you dubious about the intentions of people who claim that
morality cannot exist without the religious valued threat of a Hellish
existence in "the Afterlife"?
I don't need imaginary threats like that to live a moral existence.

Then the promise of 72 virgins must come from God.

God's promise is far greater than that. Carnal lust is nothing when
compared with the heavenly bliss.

How in the hell do *you* know.
You've never been to heaven.

How in the hell do *you* know?

When I was exposed to Christianity in my youth I was taught that only
the dead get into heaven... except for Jesus of course. But Jesus was God.

Do you always believe what you are told?

Post by Simpson
Are you an exception?
Or are you arrogant enough to consider yourself God, too?

Not at all. I'm just an ordinary human being who is lucky enough to
have learned a thing or two regarding the truth of God.

What: That this bullshit "god" of yours is a juvenile unprovable
fantasy?

I think you really should cut back on using drugs. You are
hallucinating.

If that puerile response is what you consider "proof", then you are
more mentally incoherent than I had first thought.
Where (precisely) is this proof of this (singular) fantasitical
imaginary god of yours?

The proof is all around you in your own life. All you need is to look.

It is thundering right now. Proof enough for me to admit that Thor is
the one true god.

In other word, by power you recognize your god. Sorry, my God is love.
I recognize my God through love instead.

DanielSan

2007-12-23 22:20:57 UTC