For Whom Did Christ Die? - 2

[b***@gmail.com]

The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring.

I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Whoa there!!! Judaism makes that choice, not I.

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring.

Whoa, there! Judaism tells us we are the masters of our own soul. We are totally responsible for everything we do.
Nobody can assume my guilt, especially if I don't consent to it.

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You are the stupid one, Hoss, if you don't know that each religion and each denomination of each religion has different beliefs on many subjects.
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew, every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3 of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

I just researched it.
That's the Calvinist view, but Calvinists are only a small group within Christianity. Most Christians believe he died for the whole world.

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Whoa there!!! Judaism makes that choice, not I.

But you have chosen to be a Jew, and/or to agree with Judaism.

No one forced you into doing that.

Really, I thought you were smarter than that.

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring..

Whoa, there! Judaism tells us we are the masters of our own soul. We are totally responsible for everything we do.
Nobody can assume my guilt, especially if I don't consent to it.

For humans that's true.
But God can do anything He wants to do, anytime, anywhere, and He
doesn't have
to get anyone's consent before He does it.

Or, ....maybe your god is too small....

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You are the stupid one, Hoss, if you don't know that each religion and each
denomination of each religion has different beliefs on many subjects.

You're missing the whole point here, Kemosabe.

I don't care who you are, or what religion you voluntarily subscribe to
(and you voluntarily are a Jew), everybody obeys certain rules of logic,
which say that you don't have to do something that some other human
has told you to do, unless you have first agreed to obey and follow what
that human says that you must do.

It's just that simple, Kemo.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Whoa there!!! Judaism makes that choice, not I.

But you have chosen to be a Jew, and/or to agree with Judaism.
No one forced you into doing that.
Really, I thought you were smarter than that.

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring..

Whoa, there! Judaism tells us we are the masters of our own soul. We are totally responsible for everything we do.
Nobody can assume my guilt, especially if I don't consent to it.

For humans that's true.
But God can do anything He wants to do, anytime, anywhere, and He
doesn't have
to get anyone's consent before He does it.

The God of Israel gave Jews the Torah. One of the Torah laws is just what I said about guilt and responsibility.If He were not a just God, we would not
worship Him.

Post by Bob
Or, ....maybe your god is too small....

He killed thousands when they disobeyed Him.

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You are the stupid one, Hoss, if you don't know that each religion and each
denomination of each religion has different beliefs on many subjects.

You're missing the whole point here, Kemosabe.
I don't care who you are, or what religion you voluntarily subscribe to
(and you voluntarily are a Jew),

WRONG. I was born to a Jewish mother, which automatically makes me one.
Following Judaism is my choice. Why? I have done much research on different religions. Judaism is the only one that makes sense to me. Christianity is so
complicated it gives me a headache. Islam is too arbitrary and unjust.

everybody obeys certain rules of logic,

Post by Bob
which say that you don't have to do something that some other human
has told you to do, unless you have first agreed to obey and follow what
that human says that you must do.

God gave us the Torah. That tells us what to do. Matter of fact, it also tells Christians what to do.It's in your bible. Unfortunately, you folks have abandoned much of it. I suspect you will pay dearly for that when the time comes.

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob
You're missing the whole point here, Kemosabe.
I don't care who you are, or what religion you voluntarily subscribe to
(and you voluntarily are a Jew),

WRONG. I was born to a Jewish mother, which automatically makes me one.

Up to a certain age. Bar Mitzvah maybe?

Post by v***@gmail.com
Following Judaism is my choice.

That's what I said. You're a Jew by choice.

Post by v***@gmail.com
everybody obeys certain rules of logic,

Post by Bob
which say that you don't have to do something that some other human
has told you to do, unless you have first agreed to obey and follow what
that human says that you must do.

God gave us the Torah.

You're missing the whole point again.

God is not a human.

Try keeping up with what's being said, Kemo.

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

If He were not a just God, we would not worship Him.

Was your alleged god's command to kill non-virgin girls justice?

That's your problem; you Jews worship an unjust god.

[Your Founding Fathers Erred]

Post by v***@gmail.com
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew, every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3 of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

For your information here is what the Qur'an says about JESUS' Messiahship:

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the MESSIAH(CHRIST), Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God.” (Quran 3:45-48)


It's dishonest to talk on behalf of the Muslims If you never read the Qur'an as you once said..... I recall you said that your Judaism was so weak that there were books you were not permitted to read and this included the Qur'an,so you should not what the content of the Muslims FAITH is As for the Hindus no one care If they believe Jesus is the Messiah or not since they are polytheists and cow worshipers, but the Muslims are not. So consider this and apologize to every Muslim for misinterpreting their book.

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH IN ISLAM this is why the Arabs has the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem. Of course it should not take that much brain to understand that what you see actually with the Arabs in the SUNNAH of the Prophet is not Islam but a counterfeit to the original one centered around JESUS being the Messiah in fulfillment of the prediction about the Messiah, prediction found in the Torah of Moses which goes like this:

A New Prophet Like Moses

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them, the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

Deut. 18:15-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

Post by v***@gmail.com
I just researched it.
That's the Calvinist view, but Calvinists are only a small group within Christianity. Most Christians believe he died for the whole world.

[Ted]

Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred

Post by v***@gmail.com
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew,
every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3
of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a
word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the MESSIAH(CHRIST),
Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter,
and of those nearest to God.” (Quran 3:45-48)
It's dishonest to talk on behalf of the Muslims If you never read the
Qur'an as you once said..... I recall you said that your Judaism was so
weak that there were books you were not permitted to read and this
included the Qur'an,so you should not what the content of the Muslims
FAITH is As for the Hindus no one care If they believe Jesus is the
Messiah or not since they are polytheists and cow worshipers, but the
Muslims are not. So consider this and apologize to every Muslim for
misinterpreting their book.
JESUS IS THE MESSIAH IN ISLAM this is why the Arabs has the Dome of the
Rock Mosque in Jerusalem. Of course it should not take that much brain to
understand that what you see actually with the Arabs in the SUNNAH of the
Prophet is not Islam but a counterfeit to the original one centered
around JESUS being the Messiah in fulfillment of the prediction about the
A New Prophet Like Moses
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you the MESSIAH(Christ), a
Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,
16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day
of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my
God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’
17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will
raise up for them, the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like you from among
their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to
them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not
hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.
Deut. 18:15-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

Post by v***@gmail.com
I just researched it.
That's the Calvinist view, but Calvinists are only a small group within
Christianity. Most Christians believe he died for the whole world.

Limited followers aren't up to the churches and peak productivity,
regardless of what Trump or anybody might claim.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred

Post by v***@gmail.com
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew, every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3 of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the MESSIAH(CHRIST), Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God.” (Quran 3:45-48)
It's dishonest to talk on behalf of the Muslims If you never read the Qur'an as you once said..... I recall you said that your Judaism was so weak that there were books you were not permitted to read and this included the Qur'an,so you should not what the content of the Muslims FAITH is As for the Hindus no one care If they believe Jesus is the Messiah or not since they are polytheists and cow worshipers, but the Muslims are not. So consider this and apologize to every Muslim for misinterpreting their book.
A New Prophet Like Moses
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’
17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them, the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.
Deut. 18:15-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

Garbage. I have read parts of the Koran and the related commentary.
The Moslems call Jesus a prophet, not a messiah.

Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred

Post by v***@gmail.com
I just researched it.
That's the Calvinist view, but Calvinists are only a small group within Christianity. Most Christians believe he died for the whole world.

[Ted]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred

Post by v***@gmail.com
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew,
every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3
of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a
word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the MESSIAH(CHRIST),
Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter,
and of those nearest to God.” (Quran 3:45-48)
It's dishonest to talk on behalf of the Muslims If you never read the
Qur'an as you once said..... I recall you said that your Judaism was so
weak that there were books you were not permitted to read and this
included the Qur'an,so you should not what the content of the Muslims
FAITH is As for the Hindus no one care If they believe Jesus is the
Messiah or not since they are polytheists and cow worshipers, but the
Muslims are not. So consider this and apologize to every Muslim for
misinterpreting their book.
JESUS IS THE MESSIAH IN ISLAM this is why the Arabs has the Dome of the
Rock Mosque in Jerusalem. Of course it should not take that much brain
to understand that what you see actually with the Arabs in the SUNNAH of
the Prophet is not Islam but a counterfeit to the original one centered
around JESUS being the Messiah in fulfillment of the prediction about
A New Prophet Like Moses
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you the MESSIAH(Christ), a
Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,
16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day
of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my
God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’
17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will
raise up for them, the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like you from among
their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak
to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not
hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.
Deut. 18:15-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

Garbage. I have read parts of the Koran and the related commentary.
The Moslems call Jesus a prophet, not a messiah.

Exactly.

[Olrik]

Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred

Post by v***@gmail.com
You might believe that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God, but every Jew, every Moslem, and every Hindu will deny it. Christians make up only 1/3 of the Earth's population, so 2/3 of the world says you are wrong.

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the MESSIAH(CHRIST), Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God.” (Quran 3:45-48)
It's dishonest to talk on behalf of the Muslims If you never read the Qur'an as you once said..... I recall you said that your Judaism was so weak that there were books you were not permitted to read and this included the Qur'an,so you should not what the content of the Muslims FAITH is As for the Hindus no one care If they believe Jesus is the Messiah or not since they are polytheists and cow worshipers, but the Muslims are not. So consider this and apologize to every Muslim for misinterpreting their book.
A New Prophet Like Moses
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’
17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them, the MESSIAH(Christ), a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.
Deut. 18:15-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

Nobody cares, freak.

[hypatiab7]

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring.

I wonder what other Christians have to say about that.

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You aren't helping yourself, Bobert.

[%]

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring.

I wonder what other Christians have to say about that.

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You aren't helping yourself, Bobert.

does it help yapatiab7

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.

Okay. But actually, you don't get to make that choice.

Neither does any one accept such stupid claim...your great grandparents and their forefathers did not even make that kind of claim which is 1000000000% more legitimate!!!!

You must be an idiot, incapable to know what is what....

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

Oh, well there's your problem. You see, Christ only died for Christians.
Born again Christians at that. And it's not you who does the transferring.

Your president when dead can have more legit reason to make such a claim!!!!

Post by Bob
I thought you knew that. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

You are not only stupid, but also a willing sucker.....

[Andrew]

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my sins. I'll do that myself.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

.> > As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
.> > sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
.> > of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.
.> Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

I'm sure Andrew is talking about the "scapegoat", as described
in Leviticus 16.

"But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive
before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat
into the wilderness."

Not unlike the concept of the "sin-eater". And of course Christians regard the sacrifice of Jesus
as accomplishing the same thing.


AA

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my sins. I'll do that myself.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

.> > As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
.> > sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
.> > of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.
.> Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.
I'm sure Andrew is talking about the "scapegoat", as described
in Leviticus 16.
"But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive
before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat
into the wilderness."
Not unlike the concept of the "sin-eater". And of course Christians regard the sacrifice of Jesus
as accomplishing the same thing.

Animal sacrifices are gifts to the deity. They have nothing to do with sin or guilt. How do I know? Those same sacrifices were made by the ancient Romans, the Vikings and other ancient religions, always as gifts. Judaism merely inherited them.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

.> > As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
.> > sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
.> > of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.
.> Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

.> > I'm sure Andrew is talking about the "scapegoat", as described
.> > in Leviticus 16.
.> > "But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive
.> > before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat
.> > into the wilderness."
.> > Not unlike the concept of the "sin-eater". And of course Christians regard the sacrifice of Jesus
.> > as accomplishing the same thing.
.> Animal sacrifices are gifts to the deity. They have nothing to do with sin or guilt. How do I know? Those same sacrifices were made by the ancient Romans, the Vikings and other ancient religions, always as gifts. Judaism merely inherited them.


Oddly enough,
-- https://www.britannica.com/topic/scapegoat

not everyone
-- http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1846869/jewish/The-Scapegoat-Atonement-and-Purification.htm

seems to agree
-- http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Acharei_Mot/Scapegoat/scapegoat.html

with you.
-- http://www.jewishtreats.org/2010/04/scapegoat.html


AA

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com
Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.

Right. In hopes of appeasing that deity's wrath.

"All its fat he is to remove, as the fat of a lamb is removed from the
sacrifice for peace offerings; and the cohen is to make it go up in
smoke on the altar on top of the offerings for Adonai made by fire.
Thus the cohen will make atonement for him in regard to the sin
he committed, and he will be forgiven."
(Leviticus 4:35 Complete Jewish Bible)

But I am glad you admitted that you don't believe what hundreds
of millions of other Jews around the world believe, and what it
says in the Jewish Bible.

I can safely say that you are not a practicing Jew. You may
call yourself one, you may celebrate Jewish festivals and holidays.

But that doesn't mean you're a Jew.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my sins. I'll do that myself.

Starting when?

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my sins. I'll do that myself.

Starting when?

Read this very carefully: J U D G E M E N T D A Y

I wrote it in large letters in the hope that you won't misread me again.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by v***@gmail.com
Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my sins. I'll do that myself.
Starting when?

Read this very carefully: J U D G E M E N T D A Y

I wrote it in large letters in the hope that you won't misread me again.
___________________

Yom Kippur is just another day for you then?

Like Sunday is for atheists.

Good to know.

[Andrew]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an
ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient
Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

They were perversions from the system that God
established.

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated
Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my
sins. I'll do that myself.

Ever hear of Yom Kippur? The Day of Atonement.

Does the day mean anything to you personally?

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an
ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient
Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

They were perversions from the system that God
established.

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew
In Christian theology this was an objet lesson that
pointed forward to the One who was worthy to be
a sacrifice for our sins.

Tell ya what. I must have been born a very dedicated
Jew. I don't want anybody or anything paying for my
sins. I'll do that myself.

Ever hear of Yom Kippur? The Day of Atonement.

It's the day Jews atone for their sins.We do that ourselves, each Jew on his own.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew

He didn't die for me. Judaism forbids us to
transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

As I recall, in ancient Israel, the system of animal
sacrifices was a system for *transferring the guilt*
of sin to the animal that was sacrificed.

Nyet. Animal sacrifice was a gift to a deity.It's an
ancient ritual, practiced by the Vikings, ancient
Romans, and some of the Mayas and Aztecs.

They were perversions from the system that God
established.

Baloney. The vikings and Mayas never heard of God.The Romans had their own religion of many gods and none of those were ours.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

He didn't die for me.Judaism forbids us to transfer our guilt for our sins to anyone else.

A statement like that is suppose to collect debt, and Judaism is correct in that sense. The fucking Christianity which was inherited from Judaism and paganism had to be bold to make empty claims, in order to suck money from the believers......

[a322x1n]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in
the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into
the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered?
Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the
obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance
to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of
his own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter
question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents.
It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting
life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It
must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from
the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it
had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the
death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family,
which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the
gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels.
It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of
men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was,
of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died
to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ
produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages
been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died
“sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a
sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in
which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the
death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other
men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given
to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely
incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

Oh, gee, Bob, what a load of nonsense! No matter how hard you try, Bob,
the bible will never make sense. Give it up, Bob.

[Andrew]

Post by a322x1n
Oh, gee, Bob, what a load of nonsense! No matter how
hard you try, Bob, the bible will never make sense. Give
it up, Bob.

"None of the wicked shall understand,
but the wise shall understand."
~ Daniel 12:10

[hypatiab7]

Post by Andrew

Post by a322x1n
Oh, gee, Bob, what a load of nonsense! No matter how
hard you try, Bob, the bible will never make sense. Give
it up, Bob.

"None of the wicked shall understand,
but the wise shall understand."
~ Daniel 12:10

Common religious copout.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by a322x1n

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in
the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into
the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered?
Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the
obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance
to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of
his own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter
question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents.
It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting
life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It
must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from
the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it
had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the
death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family,
which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the
gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels.
It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of
men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was,
of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died
to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ
produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages
been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died
“sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a
sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in
which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the
death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other
men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given
to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely
incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

Oh, gee, Bob, what a load of nonsense! No matter how hard you try, Bob,
the bible will never make sense. Give it up, Bob.

What Bob tells us is not all from the bible. I know the Old Testament a bit and much of what he says about it is BS. Many of the things he says would infuriate an Orthodox Jew. They take their religion as a very serious matter.
They dedicate their entire lives to it.

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com
What Bob tells us is not all from the bible.

Like what, for instance?

Now you're pretending to be another duke.

Don't make accusations without showing some evidence for the accusation.

Any 3 year old can do that.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
What Bob tells us is not all from the bible.

Like what, for instance?

Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is Son of God. You won't find that in the Old Testament. Matter of fact, one of the commandments reads "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." That means there is only ONE divine being-God Himself.
Jesus does not fit the description of the messiah foretold in the OT.

The OT forbids the making of images of God, but you do that, too.
The OT forbids using God's name in vain. That means "Goddamn" is forbidden.

The truth is told in your Book of Matthew. Jesus said:"I come not to destroy the laws of Moses and the prophets, but to fulfill them." He never abandoned Judaism, but you have. You include the OT in your bible, but you don't follow it. You have abandoned the Kasruth dietary laws and circumcision.
You don't cover your heads in prayer. We still do.

You moved the Sabbath from Friday night to Sunday. You work on the Sabbath, which is forbidden.Sabbath is a day of rest dedicated to prayer.

[Bob]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Bob

Post by v***@gmail.com
What Bob tells us is not all from the bible.

Like what, for instance?

Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is Son of God. You won't find that in the Old Testament.

Well, how about that. You really are that stupid. For us Christians, the
New Testament
is as much, if not more, a part of the Bible as the Old Testament.

Post by v***@gmail.com
The OT forbids the making of images of God, but you do that, too.

Don't make accusations without showing evidence the accusation is true.

Post by v***@gmail.com
The OT forbids using God's name in vain. That means "Goddamn" is forbidden.

Where have you seen me using that term?

So far you've told three lies in three sentences.

Post by v***@gmail.com
The truth is told in your Book of Matthew. Jesus said:"I come not to
destroy the laws of Moses and the prophets, but to fulfill them." He
never abandoned Judaism, but you have. You include the OT in your
bible, but you don't follow it. You have abandoned the Kasruth
dietary laws and circumcision.

Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, or Jewish traditions.

Post by v***@gmail.com
You don't cover your heads in prayer. We still do.

So what? That doesn't mean you're a Jew.

Post by v***@gmail.com
You moved the Sabbath from Friday night to Sunday.

No I didn't. There's Lie #4.

Post by v***@gmail.com
You work on the Sabbath, which is forbidden.

No I don't. There's Lie # 5.

Why stop now?

Keep going,
idiot-who-is-not-really-a-Jew-but-want's-everyone-to-believe-he-is-one.

[Tim]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by a322x1n

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in
the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into
the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered?
Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the
obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance
to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of
his own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter
question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents.
It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting
life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It
must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from
the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it
had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the
death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family,
which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the
gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels.
It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of
men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was,
of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died
to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ
produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages
been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died
“sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a
sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in
which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the
death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other
men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given
to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely
incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

Oh, gee, Bob, what a load of nonsense! No matter how hard you try, Bob,
the bible will never make sense. Give it up, Bob.

What Bob tells us is not all from the bible. I know the Old Testament a bit and much of what he says about it is BS.

Where's your evidence?

Post by v***@gmail.com
Many of the things he says would infuriate an Orthodox Jew.

A Roman farting into a crowd infuriated Orthodox Jews.

Post by v***@gmail.com
They take their religion as a very serious matter.
They dedicate their entire lives to it.

See what religion does to people?

[John Ritson]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?

Charles Hodge continues with his circular arguments designed to 'prove'
his predestinationist doctrines.

"It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore,
He died to secure them."

[hypatiab7]

Post by John Ritson

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?

Charles Hodge continues with his circular arguments designed to 'prove'
his predestinationist doctrines.
"It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore,
He died to secure them."

Wow! That doesn't help Bobert at all. He's one of the Johnnie-Come-Lately
Calvinists who adopted the old school beliefs of a 19th century Calvinist Presbyterian minister during the 20th century. Do ALL current Calvinists
agree with Hodge?

[duke]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Teresita]

Post by duke

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

If you're no longer a slave to sin why do you pile on the pork chops,
lie on the newsgroup, and spread rumors that people are gay?

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

If you're no longer a slave to sin why do you pile on the pork chops,
lie on the newsgroup, and spread rumors that people are gay?

A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Teresita]

Post by duke

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

If you're no longer a slave to sin why do you pile on the pork chops,
lie on the newsgroup, and spread rumors that people are gay?

A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.

I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God we'll
see what he says about gluttons and liars. I'll mention that I quit his
church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying about the
wine turning to blood with their actions with alcoholic Fr. Bryan.
Anything to hang onto a priest during the ongoing priest shortage, eh?

[Bob]

When we stand before God we'll see what he says about gluttons
and liars. I'll mention that I quit his church because the archdiocese
let it slip they were lying about the wine turning to blood with their
actions with alcoholic Fr. Bryan.

I'll keep saying it as long as I have breath enough to say it.

You did not "quit his church". You quit a Satanic cult, where
it's leader, the Pope, is considered equal with God.

That's a cult, not a Church.
--
Duke continually refuses to address the message found in each video.

Using ad hominem, he merely attacks the messenger and ignores the message.

But I have no problem with that. For by not attempting to refute the
message, he indirectly is admitting he believes the message must be true.

If he could refute the message, he would.

But you'll notice he doesn't even try to refute it.


He doesn't even try defending his belief system while it's being attacked
with substantial evidence proving it to be a false Satanic cult.

That's all anyone needs to know about Duke, and why nearly everything out
of his mouth is a lie.

That type of person is universally known as a coward and a fraud.


Christianity is a faith-based religion.

Roman Catholicism is a works-based cult.

This is the reason why Catholics are not Christians.


"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

If you're no longer a slave to sin why do you pile on the pork chops,
lie on the newsgroup, and spread rumors that people are gay?

A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.

I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God we'll
see what he says about gluttons and liars.

Christians already know.

Post by Teresita
:I'll mention that I quit his
church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying about the
wine turning to blood with their actions with alcoholic Fr. Bryan.

Jesus said it at the last supper. At Mass, the priest, as he crosses his hands
over the bread and wine, says "LET THEM BECOME the Body and Blood of
Jesus..........".

The simple truth of Mass says that the "substance of the bread and wine" become
the "substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus" all the while remaining under the
visual, taste and texture of the substance of bread and wine.

I don't know what happened at your church, but it's my understanding is that the
"wine" must consist of some *minimal* level of fermenting. I understand the
term is "mustum".

Statement by the National Conference of Catholic bishops on the use of low
gluten hosts at Mass

In the November 2003
BCL Newsletter...
The Use of Mustum and Low-Gluten Hosts at Mass
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass. Over the last
twenty years, both the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have frequently
addressed the special needs of such people in their reception of Holy Communion.
As recently as June 19,1995 (Prot.N. 89/78) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all presidents of
Episcopal Conferences regarding the use of mustum and low-gluten hosts for
priests, deacons and the faithful in the celebration of Mass.

Post by Teresita
Anything to hang onto a priest during the ongoing priest shortage, eh?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Teresita]

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.

A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.
--
Duke continually refuses to address the message found in each video.

Using ad hominem, he merely attacks the messenger and ignores the message.

But I have no problem with that. For by not attempting to refute the
message, he indirectly is admitting he believes the message must be true.

If he could refute the message, he would.

But you'll notice he doesn't even try to refute it.


He doesn't even try defending his belief system while it's being attacked
with substantial evidence proving it to be a Satanic cult.

That's all anyone needs to know about Duke, and that explains why nearly
everything out of his mouth is a lie.

That type of person is universally thought of as a fraud and a coward.


Christianity is a faith-based religion.

Roman Catholicism is a works-based cult.

This is the reason why Catholics are not Christians.


"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]

[Teresita]

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Says the fellow who told the newsgroup that I was Kevin R.

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Says the fellow who told the newsgroup that I was Kevin R.

No I didn't. Now you're lying.

Taking something someone else said way out of context.

That's something Kev does all the time.

How about that. What a coincidence.

[Kevrob]

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Says the fellow who told the newsgroup that I was Kevin R.

No I didn't. Now you're lying.
Taking something someone else said way out of context.
That's something Kev does all the time.
How about that. What a coincidence.

Bobbo is engaging in his "No True Scotsman" version
of Joshism. Catholics have a tradition of being
The True Church, dating bac to the possibly spurious
appointment of Pope Rocky I, by Josh hisself. The
non-Catholic eastern Orthodox claim that too, and both
branches of the pre-schism church point fingers at each
other, mumbling "schismatic!" and "heresiarch!" under
their breaths as they blow the filioque controversy up
to immense proportions, when we all know it was about
the still solvent, still defensible Eastern empire's
imperator wanting the church headquarters in his backyard,
without any kibitzing by a pope still living in Italy, and
being obligated to protect his holy seat from whatever the
next group to threaten the Papal States. In the 11th century
that would have been the Normans, who defeated an alliance of
Byzantines and local forces loyal to the Pope and the German
("Holy Roman") emperor at Civitate in June 1053 CE.

Long after the E-W schism, Duncan's beloved "reformers"
denounced the Pope and the church hierarchy in favor of
some kind of return to the "primitive church" of the
first couple of hundred years of the movement, though
not every Protestant church shed itself of "Popish"
trappings like ornate sanctuaries, vestments, bishops,
etc. Some even went so far as to downplay the early church's
eschewing of accumulated wealth and embrace of the poor, in
favor of the idea that worldly prosperity was an outward sign
of election by their ghod, denoting the elect who would be
saved! (Following Beza, if not Calvin.)

Millions clung to the Whore of Babylon, though. They think
they are Christians. When I was one of them, I thought so.
I'm neither a "cult member" nor a Christian, now, but I well
remember the self-satisfied jerks on both sides of this cosmic
quibble: the Anglicans in the Protestant Ascendancy and their
Scottish Kirk allies who thought that a Papal bull declared
by the only English pope authorized them to steal Ireland, or
at least what they thought were the best bits from the Irish;
the Ulster Scots who, having had some bad years on their
stolen land, moved to America to become the "Scots-Irish,"
with the additional impulse of continuing in Presbyterianism
when under pressure to conform to Anglicanism; the Calvinist
descendants of the Puritans who were the new England WASP
bluestockings determined to outlaw fun. On the other side,
the ultramontanist "no salvation outside the RCC" Catholics
of the pre-Vatican II mindset (there are still a few around)
who expected grown people to hand the moral car-keys to
church authorities. The history of Protestant anti-Catholicism
in the US, from the actual outlawry of priests in some of the
colonies to the Know-Nothing movement to the KKK and down to
the mistrust of Al Smith and Jack Kennedy when they ran for
President, when Protestants who backed the same policies
would have been unremarkable explains some of the Catholic
"circle the wagons' attitude. But Duncan's theological
forebears really did want immigration by Catholics quashed,
and considered allegiance to Rome tantamount to treason.

This is where Bobbo's "Jack chick tract" level of anti-Catholic
ranting comes from.

I'd say "a plague upon both or all of your houses," myself,
but I don't want to persecute anyone, or hurl anyone into
a lake of fire. I just want the state to be neutral among
religions, and between religion and non-religion. Fire-eaters
like Duncan may choose to run around with bigotry disguised
as theological purity installed in their craniums like malware
on a PC, but, man!, what wasted energy in maintaining oneself
as a little ball of hate!

I don't believe in a ghod, but if a loving one as described by
many sects actually existed, what would it do with these assholes
so committed to the version they have dreamed up for themselves
who supposedly created souls inherently unworthy of being saved,
"just because?"

Both Catholicism and Calvinism are weird. One finds oneself
hoping that, when Great Cthulhu does rise from his slumber, that
he eats the "elect" last. :) *

As for incredulity about transubstantiation leading to
atheism, rather than church-shopping for a sect with
less ridiculous claims, blame the various dogmawallas
who push the "you have to believe all of it" attitude
on people who would otherwise be "Caeteria Catholics"
or selective believers in other faiths. Once doubt
about omething significant pops up, it isn't a far
journey to examine the whole house of cards. For me,
it wasn't any of those "mysteries" of the liturgy or
sacraments, it was the problem of evil, and the inadequacy
of theodicy.

I did toy with the idea that there might have been a creator
that was less than omnipotent, and due to his being "underpowered"
made a hash of building his universe. In that case "evil" is a
bug that tech support hasn't got a fix for yet. Occam's razor
sent that theory to the bit-bucket, though it has resonance in
various works of science fiction and fantasy.

Oh, and if he ever existed, Josh didn't die for anybody.
He may have been anointed at some time in his life, but
so have many others, including myself. I'm no "christ,"
or I'm as much of one as he would have been. it's just oil
people. You heat it in a pan and saute food.

Kevin R

* for the benefit of the hard-core TULIP aficionados and
the sedevacantists reading the group, this is a "joke."
I don't ACTUALLY think "the elder ghodz" as described by
H P Lovecraft in his fiction are real entities.

[Bob]

On 1/13/2018 6:20 AM, Kevrob wrote:

<Teri is engaging in feeding the alleged "trolls" again>

U.O.N.D.D.
W.K.Y.D.T.J.T.G.S.A.

[Teresita]

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Says the fellow who told the newsgroup that I was Kevin R.

No I didn't. Now you're lying.

Such lies. From a Christian yet.
---------------------------------------------------------
Path: news4.newsguy.com!extra.newsguy.com!not-for-mail
From: Bob <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Charles Bukowski
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 10:47:39 -0500
Organization: solani.org
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <p2tfeg$n82$***@solani.org>

[snippage]
[snippage]

Post by Bob
You're the one crashed our party. We're here to talk to other atheists
about how Christians try to teach Genesis as science in public
schools, and things of that nature.

Think about it, Kev. If you atheist have nothing, which is what you
wrote above, then your words are still meaningless, because everyone
would have a different interpretation of those words.
----------------------------------------------------

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from
bishops
and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Says the fellow who told the newsgroup that I was Kevin R.

No I didn't. Now you're lying.

Such lies. From a Christian yet.

Post by Bob
You're the one crashed our party. We're here to talk to other atheists
about how Christians try to teach Genesis as science in public
schools, and things of that nature.

Think about it, Kev. If you atheist have nothing, which is what you
wrote above, then your words are still meaningless, because everyone
would have a different interpretation of those words.

I don't see your point.

Please explain yourself more clearly.

[duke]

Post by Bob

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

No, you were not lied to by the Church.
A member of the Satanic Roman Catholic cult told you a lie, just like they
tell everybody who joins their cult.

Go play in the tulips, non Christian.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by duke
The Secretariat for the Liturgy has increasingly received from bishops and
pastors inquiries regarding priests, deacons and the faithful who are unable to
consume consecrated wheat hosts or consecrated wine at Mass.

Why are they unable to consume such things? Because it doesn't change
into the Blood of Christ. I was lied to by the Church. So I quit.

It's a spiritual consecration.

John 6:54-56New International Version (NIV)
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real
drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in
them.

Your sheer ignorance did you in.

I gather you never connected the dots between the "passover lamb fully consumed"
and the "New Lamb of God" in Jesus. I gather you also never connected with the
Eucharist prayers where the priest says "and so Father, we bring you these
gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your spirit that they
become the body and blood of your Son, Jesus, at whose command we celebrate this
eucharist."

You see, we are Christians in something you never had - our Faith.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Teresita]

Post by duke
I gather you never connected the dots between the "passover lamb fully consumed"
and the "New Lamb of God" in Jesus.

The Bible says don't worship graven images, and the churches and
cathedrals all have a statue of a "lamb" over the altar that everyone is
expected to bow down to every time they enter and leave or cross from
one side to the other.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by Teresita

Post by duke

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

Redemption form slavery to sin.

If you're no longer a slave to sin why do you pile on the pork chops,
lie on the newsgroup, and spread rumors that people are gay?

A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.

I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God we'll
see what he says about gluttons and liars. I'll mention that I quit his
church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying about the
wine turning to blood with their actions with alcoholic Fr. Bryan.
Anything to hang onto a priest during the ongoing priest shortage, eh?

You quit the RCC because they lied to you about wine turning to blood?
None of the other lies were enough? I'm genuinely curious, because I
grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because nobody
had a good answer for the problem of evil.

[Teresita]

Post by Dreamer In Colore
You quit the RCC because they lied to you about wine turning to blood?
None of the other lies were enough? I'm genuinely curious, because I
grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because nobody
had a good answer for the problem of evil.

The Eucharist thing came on top of the boy butt scandal and a case of
reading the Bible straight through rather than cherry-picking it, which
will make an atheist out of anybody.

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by Dreamer In Colore
You quit the RCC because they lied to you about wine turning to blood?
None of the other lies were enough? I'm genuinely curious, because I
grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because nobody
had a good answer for the problem of evil.

The Eucharist thing came on top of the boy butt scandal and a case of
reading the Bible straight through rather than cherry-picking it, which
will make an atheist out of anybody.....

.....unless, of course, you're one of the chosen elect. Then absolutely
nothing
can keep you from being a born again Christian.

I completed your unfinished sentence above so that now it makes perfect
sense.

You're welcome.

[Andrew]

Post by Teresita

Post by Dreamer In Colore
You quit the RCC because they lied to you about wine turning to blood?
None of the other lies were enough? I'm genuinely curious, because I
grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because nobody
had a good answer for the problem of evil.

The Eucharist thing came on top of the boy butt scandal and a case of
reading the Bible straight through rather than cherry-picking it, which
will make an atheist out of anybody.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

[Teresita]

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
neither created nor destroyed.

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
neither created nor destroyed.

IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
a bbq - fuel for fire..

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

.> >It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
.> >universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
.> >neither created nor destroyed.
.> IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
.> destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
.> a bbq - fuel for fire..

I nominate that for Whoosh of the Year, to date.

Now go back and try to understand what she actually said.
Then, if you can get your head around it, then try for a reply that
doesn't make you look like the poster child for reading problems.


AA

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:31:14 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

.> >It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
.> >universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
.> >neither created nor destroyed.
.> IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
.> destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
.> a bbq - fuel for fire..
I nominate that for Whoosh of the Year, to date.

Ok, so you don't know the changes matter into energy.

Not surprising for a toxic type of guy.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now go back and try to understand what she actually said.
Then, if you can get your head around it, then try for a reply that
doesn't make you look like the poster child for reading problems.

I rest my case, toxic. I'm sure you don't understand.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Ted]

Post by duke
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:31:14 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

.> >It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
.> >universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
.> >neither created nor destroyed.
.> IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
.> destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
.> a bbq - fuel for fire..
I nominate that for Whoosh of the Year, to date.

Ok, so you don't know the changes matter into energy.

How does matter change into energy?

[Andrew]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

.> >It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
.> >universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
.> >neither created nor destroyed.
.> IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
.> destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
.> a bbq - fuel for fire..
I nominate that for Whoosh of the Year, to date.

Ok, so you don't know the changes matter into energy.

How does matter change into energy?

Like this -->

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by duke
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:31:14 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

.> >It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
.> >universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
.> >neither created nor destroyed.
.> IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, DUMMY. The law actually say the can neither be created or
.> destroyed, but they can be change one into the other. Maybe you never heard of
.> a bbq - fuel for fire..
I nominate that for Whoosh of the Year, to date.

Ok, so you don't know the changes matter into energy.

How does matter change into energy?

Light a fire, dummy.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
neither created nor destroyed.

Except there's a proposal that says that the net energy of the
universe, positive and negative combined, is zero.

I've posted this to Andrew, and to Earl (silly me, thinking that
Earl would actually read it). Footnotes by Hawking et. al. are
illuminating.

-- https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

AA

Post by Teresita
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

[Teresita]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was no
Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created itself.

It would be foolishness to assume there was a time when there was no
universe when the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy is
neither created nor destroyed.

Except there's a proposal that says that the net energy of the
universe, positive and negative combined, is zero.

Yes, it's a concept that made Albert Einstein stop in the middle of an
intersection that he was crossing when he first heard it.

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by Dreamer In Colore
You quit the RCC because they lied to you about wine turning to blood?
None of the other lies were enough? I'm genuinely curious, because I
grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because nobody
had a good answer for the problem of evil.

The Eucharist thing came on top of the boy butt scandal and a case of
reading the Bible straight through rather than cherry-picking it, which
will make an atheist out of anybody.

You're really stupid.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Andrew]

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:45:30 -0500, "Andrew"

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

Very well.

If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.

Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

[Andrew]

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

I am also interested as to why some others
are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, then evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Not necessarily.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.

Even if your straw-man argument were true, it doesn't
therefore mean that the Universe and the life therein
created itself..contrary to established laws of science,
as well as to basic common sense.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Now, take all the space you need to justify following
an entity that allows evil to happen....

See above.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:09:13 -0500, "Andrew"

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others
are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, then evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.

Your sky pixie would? And you continue to worship it? Interesting.
Says a lot about your character.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Not necessarily.

Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"? In what case
would allowing evil to happen be any kind of good?

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.

Even if your straw-man argument were true, it doesn't
therefore mean that the Universe and the life therein
created itself..contrary to established laws of science,
as well as to basic common sense.

My irony meter just broke at the thought that I'm the one bringing up
a strawman argument about a fictional entity.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Now, take all the space you need to justify following
an entity that allows evil to happen....

See above.

You did nothing to justify following an entity that allows evil to
happen.

Kindly try again.

[Andrew]

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others
are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, then evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.

If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Your sky pixie would? And you continue to worship it?
Interesting. Says a lot about your character.

It says a lot about your character that you would be
a tyrant if you were in charge. Good thing you aren't!

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Not necessarily.

Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"?
In what case would allowing evil to happen be any kind of
good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.

Since God is omnibenevolent, He *must allow* disobedience and
rebellion. Otherwise He would be a tyrant. So that's what is being
played out here now. It is permitted only on a -temporary- basis.

The rebellion started long ago, in Heaven. You may read about it
in the Holy Bible. Again, it is permitted only on a temporary basis.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others
are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, then evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

.> > Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
.> > omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.
.> If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
.> be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.

After all, why should we be arbitrarily and tyrannically denied our right
to, say, die in events like the Boxing Day Tsunami?

Or of influenza?

Or in a nuclear holocaust?


AA

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Your sky pixie would? And you continue to worship it?
Interesting. Says a lot about your character.

It says a lot about your character that you would be
a tyrant if you were in charge. Good thing you aren't!

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Not necessarily.

Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"?
In what case would allowing evil to happen be any kind of
good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.
Since God is omnibenevolent, He *must allow* disobedience and
rebellion. Otherwise He would be a tyrant. So that's what is being
played out here now. It is permitted only on a -temporary- basis.
The rebellion started long ago, in Heaven. You may read about it
in the Holy Bible. Again, it is permitted only on a temporary basis.

[Andrew]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7
because nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others
are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, then evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

.> > Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
.> > omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.
.> If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
.> be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.
After all, why should we be arbitrarily and tyrannically denied our right
to, say, die in events like the Boxing Day Tsunami?
Or of influenza?
Or in a nuclear holocaust?

In this world everyone dies.

It is natural.

Why complain?

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Your sky pixie would? And you continue to worship it?
Interesting. Says a lot about your character.

It says a lot about your character that you would be
a tyrant if you were in charge. Good thing you aren't!

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.

Not necessarily.

Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"?
In what case would allowing evil to happen be any kind of
good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.
Since God is omnibenevolent, He *must allow* disobedience and
rebellion. Otherwise He would be a tyrant. So that's what is being
played out here now. It is permitted only on a -temporary- basis.
The rebellion started long ago, in Heaven. You may read about it
in the Holy Bible. Again, it is permitted only on a temporary basis.

[Alex W.]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because
nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then
evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.

If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.

*Human* tyrants are not omnibenevolent because they are human and
therefore fallible.

Your god is supposed to be all-knowing and infallible. He does not make
mistakes. He CANNOT make mistakes. Therefore he does not have this
excuse.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"? In what case
would allowing evil to happen be any kind of good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.

Scant comfort for those who are victims today. When Hutus in Rwanda
were burned alive in their churches, do you really think they died happy
in the thought that "in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace"?

You are as monstrous as your god.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because
nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then
evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.

If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.

*Human* tyrants are not omnibenevolent because they are human and
therefore fallible.
Your god is supposed to be all-knowing and infallible. He does not make
mistakes. He CANNOT make mistakes. Therefore he does not have this
excuse.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"? In what case
would allowing evil to happen be any kind of good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.

Scant comfort for those who are victims today. When Hutus in Rwanda
were burned alive in their churches, do you really think they died happy
in the thought that "in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace"?
You are as monstrous as your god.

That is the opinion of anyone who lives with no hope for a future
everlasting life, where there is no evil.

We Christians will never believe that monstrous lie of yours.

[Andrew]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by Andrew

I grew up in the Church of England, and quit when I was 7 because
nobody had a good answer for the problem of evil.

It would be foolishness to therefore conclude that there was
no Creator, and that the Universe and the life therein created
itself, contrary to established laws of science as well as basic
common sense.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you...

No, but I really am interested in the truth.

Sadly, your posts in this newsgroup lead me to believe otherwise.

Post by Andrew
I am also interested as to why some others are not.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Very well.

Yes.

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then
evil wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily.

Oh? I can assure you that if I were omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, I wouldn't allow evil to happen.

If you wouldn't *allow* evil to happen then you would
be a tyrant, and tyrants are -not- omnibenevolent.

*Human* tyrants are not omnibenevolent because they are human and
therefore fallible.
Your god is supposed to be all-knowing and infallible. He does not make
mistakes. He CANNOT make mistakes. Therefore he does not have this
excuse.

Since He CANNOT make mistakes (as you say),
then perhaps ~you~are the one who is mistaken.

The only other option.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Andrew

Post by Dreamer In Colore
Do you know the meaning of the word "omnibenevolent"? In what case
would allowing evil to happen be any kind of good?

That is a good question. The problem many have in understanding
this issue is that they have a very narrow and limited vision. They
don't understand that in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace.

Scant comfort for those who are victims today.

In this world it is natural to die, Everyone does it.

Why complain?

Post by Alex W.
When Hutus in Rwanda
were burned alive in their churches, do you really think they died happy
in the thought that "in the big picture evil will be a thing of the
past, and that in all future ages there will be harmony and peace"?

God did not light the fire. Get real!

Post by Alex W.
You are as monstrous as your god.

If you want to know what is the true character of
God, then look at the life and character of Jesus.

[Bob]

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.
Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.

God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.

If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.

But that's not what God wanted.

And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

[Andrew]

Post by Bob

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.
Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.
God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.
If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.
But that's not what God wanted.

And why is that?

Because God ~is~ omnibenevolent.

Post by Bob
And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

Hope not.

[!! Atheist ------------------------------]

Post by Bob

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.
Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.
God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.
If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.
But that's not what God wanted.
And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

Your problem, Bob, is whether it was Eve eating an apple or Eve and Adam fucking each
other's brains out, it does not warrant sending the vast majority of humans to
eteranl torture. i.e. your alleged god is far worse than just an asshole.

We atheists prefer good guys as our heroes in fiction.

[Bob]

Post by Bob
Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.
God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.
If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.
But that's not what God wanted.
And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

Your problem, Bob, is it does not warrant sending the
vast majority of humans to eternal torture.

Well, Steve, your problem is yes it does. You just don't realize how big
of a "problem" sin is.

But let's just leave that problem for the theologians to figure out, and
let you get back to your recreational use of marijuana. Okay, Steve?

[TT Liams]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 05:48:33 -0800, !! Atheist

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

Post by Bob

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.
Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.
God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.
If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.
But that's not what God wanted.
And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

Your problem, Bob, is whether it was Eve eating an apple or Eve and Adam fucking each
other's brains out, it does not warrant sending the vast majority of humans to
eteranl torture. i.e. your alleged god is far worse than just an asshole.
We atheists prefer good guys as our heroes in fiction.

If your atheist & good your gone to heaven & if your bad your gone to hell.
Some ppl don't know that.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Post by Bob

Post by Dreamer In Colore
If the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil
wouldn't happen. Allowing evil to happen at all is not omnibenevolent.
Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff.
Now, take all the space you need to justify following an entity that
allows evil to happen....

Evil "happened" when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.
God allowed man the choice to either obey or disobey Him.
If God had not given man the free will to either obey or disobey Him,
we would all be like mindless robots, unable to love or to respond to
being loved.
But that's not what God wanted.
And I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, would you?

*sigh.

So let's get this straight. God's omniscient, so it already knew the
outcome ahead of time. Knew it all along, and allowed it all to
happen.

And you're ok with that.

Says absolutely everything I need to know about your character.

Would have been absolutely trivial to design people incapable of evil;
heck would have been absolutely trivial to design systems where
hurricanes don't wipe out millions of people, and yet we have these
things happening.

If I were omniscient and omnipotent, I would have foreseen all these
things and designed otherwise... you know, because that would be the
right thing to do.

If you were omniscient and omnipotent, and you didn't... what would
that say about you?

Honestly, think more before you post.

[Andrew]

When we stand before God we'll see..

Yes, but it will be too late then.

"Behold, now is the accepted time;
behold now is the day of salvation."

Oh, and I note you are not an atheist
anymore. In light of the evidence to
the contrary.

[Teresita]

Post by Andrew

When we stand before God we'll see..

Yes, but it will be too late then.

Such a childish impulse that demonstrates theology is bottom up, not top
down. "I'm making a list of everyone who said I was a liar, and when my
invisible friend Jesus comes back to kick everyone's butt, I'll give him
my list!"

[Andrew]

Post by Teresita
I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God we'll
see what he says about gluttons and liars. I'll mention that I quit his
church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying about the
wine turning to blood

Teresita thinks she is going to be talking back to God
on *the Day* when she is called to stand before Him.

"For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ, that each one may receive the
things done in the body, according to what
he has done, whether good or bad." ~~~~~

[Teresita]

Post by Andrew

Post by Teresita
I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God
we'll see what he says about gluttons and liars. I'll mention that I
quit his church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying
about the wine turning to blood

Teresita thinks she is going to be talking back to God
on *the Day* when she is called to stand before Him.

You're goddamned right I'll talk back to him. I'll start with the
injustice of having two people only a few days old who wanted to be more
like their parent (what child doesn't?) eating a fruit they were told
was wrong to eat before they even knew what the word "wrong" meant,
because that knowledge was conferred by the fruit, and then attributing
their consequent "sin" to every one of their descendants, such that all
the pre-Columbian native Americans who died before receiving baptism and
the Eucharist are now burning in hell.

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew

Post by Teresita
I'm 115 lbs and don't lie on newsgroups. When we stand before God
we'll see what he says about gluttons and liars. I'll mention that I
quit his church because the archdiocese let it slip they were lying
about the wine turning to blood

Teresita thinks she is going to be talking back to God
on *the Day* when she is called to stand before Him.

You're goddamned right I'll talk back to him. I'll start with the
injustice of having two people only a few days old who wanted to be more
like their parent (what child doesn't?) eating a fruit they were told
was wrong to eat

That's not what they were told. That's just your watered-down version
of the story, and that's where your entire train of thought derails.

Post by Teresita
before they even knew what the word "wrong" meant, because that
knowledge was conferred by the fruit...

They had been instructed by God not to eat that particular fruit. So they
somehow would have known it would be wrong of them to disobey God,
before they ate the fruit.

[Teresita]

Post by Bob
They had been instructed by God not to eat that particular fruit. So they
somehow would have known it would be wrong of them to disobey God,
before they ate the fruit.

But they wouldn't have knowledge that wrong is evil, because the fruit
was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For all they knew,
wrong was good, or neutral.

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." -- God,
talking to one of this other personalities.

[Bob]

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob
They had been instructed by God not to eat that particular fruit. So they
somehow would have known it would be wrong of them to disobey God,
before they ate the fruit.

But they wouldn't have knowledge that wrong is evil, because the fruit
was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For all they knew,
wrong was good, or neutral.

Eve herself admitted to the serpent that disobeying God would be wrong.

"And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees
in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree
that
is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

Eve obviously understood the command not to eat the fruit, and the
negative consequences there would be if she ate it.

[Don Martin]

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob
They had been instructed by God not to eat that particular fruit. So they
somehow would have known it would be wrong of them to disobey God,
before they ate the fruit.

But they wouldn't have knowledge that wrong is evil, because the fruit
was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For all they knew,
wrong was good, or neutral.
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." -- God,
talking to one of this other personalities.

For him "the Voices" were always a chorus of agreement with his baser
impulses.

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by Bob
They had been instructed by God not to eat that particular fruit. So they
somehow would have known it would be wrong of them to disobey God,
before they ate the fruit.

But they wouldn't have knowledge that wrong is evil

The order was "DO NOT".

, because the fruit

Post by Teresita
was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For all they knew,
wrong was good, or neutral.
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." -- God,
talking to one of this other personalities.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Cloud Hobbit]

A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.

the dukester, American-Simpleton

Atheists make the only logical choice we can with the information available.

If your beliefs seem logical to you then go for it.

Nobody here is buying what you're selling.

There's no need for you to be here nor any reason.

All you do is help show the world how bad your flavor of theism actually is.

[duke]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:45:01 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit

Post by duke
A slave has no choice. Atheists have a choice but make a bad one.
the dukester, American-Simpleton
Atheists make the only logical choice we can with the information available.
If your beliefs seem logical to you then go for it.
Nobody here is buying what you're selling.
There's no need for you to be here nor any reason.

YEs there is. Our call is to at least help you to be saved

Post by duke
All you do is help show the world how bad your flavor of theism actually is.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

[Yap Honghor]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world,
and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was
it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there
be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no
special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind.
But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference
to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily
admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human
family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which
salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel;
but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover
secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable
blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to
produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of
the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind
to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that
Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;”
sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense,
therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died
for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a
reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the
world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that
the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the
attainment of that object?
--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning, along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it."
--Retro

Idiot....every one who dies in this world can also ask: for whom I die for!!!!

Then when you believe, you are suppose to worship him, pray to him or what>???

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

First, you have to prove God exists and then that Jesus existed.

If Jesus never existed, he can't have died for anyone or at all.

[Bob]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by b***@gmail.com
The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
mission of his Son.

First, you have to prove God exists and then that Jesus existed.
If Jesus never existed, he can't have died for anyone or at all.

You're two thousand years too late for that.

And W.K.Y.D.T.J.T.G.S.A.