Atheist professor had a brush of hell and change of heart...

[racrguy]

I find it funny that folks struggle with the concept of consequences for choices.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

I don't have an issue with consequences, it's when I don't have the opportunity to plead a case or justify the actions that I take an issue with. Not only that, but only under the most extreme cases do we subject someone to a punishment they will never get out of. That's not even counting the fact that we don't punish people for not liking other people, and as of yet, we don't charge people with thought crimes.

It's funny that a large number of people have a large issue with the government snooping on what they're doing and holding people without a trial, but they're ok their god doing so.

Then again, religions have never existed without a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

[jluv]

Dude, what if Satan is actually a pretty fun guy to be around? What if he's just having a big party with hookers and blow and heavy metal music? What if God just put all that shit in The Bible to scare everyone and try to draw a lot more people to his party instead? "Oooh look, I have golden streets and milk and honey and you get a little set of wings as party favors." Shit, Ol' Satan is barbecuin' all day every day! He gets all the filthy sluts, biker gangs, moonshiners, and drug dealers. God gets the nuns and the prudes and the scaredy-cats.

I'm gonna need to hear Satan's side of the story before I'm all "to hell with Hell".

[racrguy]

Dude, what if Satan is actually a pretty fun guy to be around? What if he's just having a big party with hookers and blow and heavy metal music? What if God just put all that shit in The Bible to scare everyone and try to draw a lot more people to his party instead? "Oooh look, I have golden streets and milk and honey and you get a little set of wings as party favors." Shit, Ol' Satan is barbecuin' all day every day! He gets all the filthy sluts, biker gangs, moonshiners, and drug dealers. God gets the nuns and the prudes and the scaredy-cats.

I'm gonna need to hear Satan's side of the story before I'm all "to hell with Hell".

Fucking this right here! Besides, all the cool people are in hell. Sagan, Hitchens, Twain, Socrates. That's a fuckin' party right there!

We all know Charlie Sheen is going to be there.

[Strychnine]

Oh, ok. So you do gain salvation by your acts, according to your Ephesians quote. Is having faith not an act?

Again I ask, can you stop serving the lord in heaven?

Faith is the mode by which salvation is accepted. Faith is the acceptance of the gift of salvation. No work of yours here on Earth can earn it... it is not something that is to be earned. He did the work and is giving you the result. It is there for the taking. How do you perform an act to earn something when it was already being freely given to begin with?


Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us

So, I can stop serving god in heaven under the threat of eternal torture.

As far as changing your mind once you get to heaven, is that not bordering on a strawman argument? What's your logic? Why would one do that? If you have a relationship w/ Christ while here on Earth and believe and go to Heaven then why, after being "proved right" (or whatever way you want to look at it) would you then change your mind?

So the Christians that have waged war, and forced Christianity upon countless civilizations aren't doing Gods work.

Follow Jesus, not the followers of Jesus.

[jdgregory84]

Wars are acts of men, and mankind simply saying they are doing such acts in the performance of God's work does not make them so. Men lie in case you never noticed.....

..and again, the bible was written by who? Supposedly it's the word of God, but it was still written by men...who you just said lie.

[jdgregory84]

Follow Jesus, not the followers of Jesus.

Regardless of my beliefs, I can appreciate that. Very simple. Well done.

[The King]

..and again, the bible was written by who? Supposedly it's the word of God, but it was still written by men...who you just said lie.

Think of it as having been transcribed by men, and find any verses in the Bible that advocate Christians to wage war on anyone or "force Christianity on countless civilizations."

[jdgregory84]

Quick internet search.

1 Samuel, chapter 15, verse 3: "Go now and put Amalek to the sword, putting to the curse all they have, without mercy: put to death every man and woman, every child and baby at the breast, every ox and sheep, camel and ***."

God orders the destruction of an entire city, including children and even breastfeeding babies.

Hosea, chapter 13, verse 16 (chapter 14, verse 1 in some translations): "Samaria will be made waste, for she has gone against her God: they will be cut down by the sword, their little children will be broken on the rocks, their women who are with child will be cut open."

Numbers, chapter 31, verses 17-18: "So now put every male child to death, and every woman who has had sex relations with a man. But all the female children who have had no sex relations with men, you may keep for yourselves."

Isiah chapter 13, verse 16: "Their young children will be broken up before their eyes; their goods will be taken away, and their wives made the property of others."

[The King]

Your quick internet search shows nothing more than your lack of understanding of the subject about which you posted. You claimed "Christians have waged war and forced Christianity on countless civilizations" did you not, and have now presented us, via your internet search, verses that predate Christianity. At least be accurate, but by all means try again if stubborness is your thing. That's one way to learn.

[jdgregory84]

Your quick internet search shows nothing more than your lack of understanding of the subject about which you posted. You claimed "Christians have waged war and forced Christianity on countless civilizations" did you not, and have now presented us, via your internet search, verses that predate Christianity. At least be accurate, but by all means try again if stubborness is your thing. That's one way to learn.

The picking and choosing which verses of the bible you choose to acknowledge baffles me. If God, the same God of the Christians commands people to wage war and topple cities does that not correspond to what we were talking about? Christianity was forced upon the Native Americans and pretty much every civilaztion in the Western Hemisphere bat least until the natives said "no" then were practically if not entirely wiped out. But I get what you're saying...man wages war. Not God. Except for in the instances I provided which doesn't pertain to christians because it was before Jesus who is also the God that made these commands.

[The King]

Mankind was put in the situation in which he found himself in OT times because of the original sin. Jesus rectified that situation on mankind's behalf, which is the basis of Christianity, and there is no picking and choosing which verses to acknowledge involved whatsoever. That taking and accepting the Bible as a whole, as opposed to googling passages to support a misinformed opinion.

[jdgregory84]

Mankind was put in the situation in which he found himself in OT times because of the original sin. Jesus rectified that situation on mankind's behalf, which is the basis of Christianity, and there is no picking and choosing which verses to acknowledge involved whatsoever. That taking and accepting the Bible as a whole, as opposed to googling passages to support a misinformed opinion.

But Jesus and stuff...again.

[Strychnine]

Quick internet search.

1 Samuel, chapter 15, verse 3: "Go now and put Amalek to the sword, putting to the curse all they have, without mercy: put to death every man and woman, every child and baby at the breast, every ox and sheep, camel and ***."

God orders the destruction of an entire city, including children and even breastfeeding babies.

Hosea, chapter 13, verse 16 (chapter 14, verse 1 in some translations): "Samaria will be made waste, for she has gone against her God: they will be cut down by the sword, their little children will be broken on the rocks, their women who are with child will be cut open."

Numbers, chapter 31, verses 17-18: "So now put every male child to death, and every woman who has had sex relations with a man. But all the female children who have had no sex relations with men, you may keep for yourselves."

Isiah chapter 13, verse 16: "Their young children will be broken up before their eyes; their goods will be taken away, and their wives made the property of others."

The Old Testament, where all of those passages are from, was thousands of years before Christ. God is not changing, but His people are.

No one ever said that the OT was a complete and all encompassing treatise on God's character. If it were then why would he have come back later (giving us the New Testament)? Can his message to man not be a progressive one? One step at a time?

Put all of the cherry-picked passages about violence into context. Think about what the world was actually like back then. What if the OT God knew that His people were not fully prepared to hear and act on His word? Off the top of my head I know that Isaiah was around 700 BC. That's a long time ago - society was nothing like what we know today.

What if God knew that it was necessary to start with small steps to get through people's thick heads, in a way that they could comprehend, that they needed to turn to Him in order to become a strong and mighty people; that they needed to turn to Him by vanquishing their enemies (Earthly at this point - eg. Samaria), turn to Him to be fed, to find prosperity, receive a promised land, etc and that turning away from him would result the bad stuff we read about (being on the other side of the smiting and wrath).

Thousands of years later after people had become somewhat accustomed to living in His way, turning to Him for guidance, living by his Laws, etc He decided that we were ready for the next lesson. With the message of Christ and the New Testament it becomes much more clear that the very literal Earthly conquering of enemies in the OT is applicable to spiritual war also (replace Samarian with Satan) and it becomes very clear that the promised land in the OT (Israel) has a non Earthly counterpart also (Heaven).






Back to the top - the part about society being less civilized and needing that slap on the back of the head and not just footsteps to follow...
When the laws of the OT were handed down that was some progressiveness. Put it in the context of those time and it's actually groundbreaking and pulling society forward to a better place (one step at a time).

Exodus 21:23-25
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Sounds like justification for perpetual violence, but the point was to stop the cycle of escalating revenge. someone just hurt your wife so what's to stop you from taking it a step further to get back at him? Look at the people in that part of the world still living in a primitive lifestyle - some of them haven't quite gotten this part of the message and they are willing to maim a man for stealing or kill a person for some other crime that did not grievously injure anyone.

This "new" law was to create a legal barrier against continuing violence - to meter out a fitting punishment and move on. God met his people at the place they were at and called them to take the next step forward.


Another example:

Deuteronomy 21:01-14
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

It sounds harsh and brutal to us thousands of years later, but what about then? It was customary then that the spoils of war (animals, food, slaves, and even wives) went to the victors and they were free to do with them as they pleased as it was now their property. Look at that woman that is now property of the victor - rather than use her and throw her away (or even kill her) they now:
1. Take her into their home - she would be given shelter, food, clothes, etc.
2. The head shaving and nail trimming was part of the mourning ritual - the "captive" would be allowed the humanity of mourning her loss
3. To make her your wife would mean she was a member of the household, not just a war trophy
4. In those times when a man was not pleased with a woman he was free to send her away (into a culture where she really had no rights, no standing, and no defense against exploitation - usually leading to prostitution). This passage forbids sending a woman without rights and dignity, because you dishonored her.


Shocking and offensive to us - groundbreaking and progressive then. Context, both at the time and in the overall picture, means a lot.

[jdgregory84]

The Old Testament, where all of those passages are from, was thousands of years before Christ. God is not changing, but His people are.

No one ever said that the OT was a complete and all encompassing treatise on God's character. If it were then why would he have come back later (giving us the New Testament)? Can his message to man not be a progressive one? One step at a time?

Put all of the cherry-picked passages about violence into context. Think about what the world was actually like back then. What if the OT God knew that His people were not fully prepared to hear and act on His word? Off the top of my head I know that Isaiah was written in 8000-7000BC. That's a long time ago - society was nothing like what we know today.

What if God knew that it was necessary to start with small steps to get through people's thick heads, in a way that they could comprehend, that they needed to turn to Him in order to become a strong and mighty people; that they needed to turn to Him by vanquishing their enemies (Earthly at this point - eg. Samaria), turn to Him to be fed, to find prosperity, receive a promised land, etc and that turning away from him would result the bad stuff we read about (being on the other side of the smiting and wrath).

Thousands of years later after people had become somewhat accustomed to living in His way, turning to Him for guidance, living by his Laws, etc He decided that we were ready for the next lesson. With the message of Christ and the New Testament it becomes much more clear that the very literal Earthly conquering of enemies in the OT is applicable to spiritual war also (replace Samarian with Satan) and it becomes very clear that the promised land in the OT (Israel) has a non Earthly counterpart also (Heaven).






Back to the top - the part about society being less civilized and needing that slap on the back of the head and not just footsteps to follow...
When the laws of the OT were handed down that was some progressiveness. Put it in the context of those time and it's actually groundbreaking and pulling society forward to a better place (one step at a time).

Exodus 21:23-25
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Sounds like justification for perpetual violence, but the point was to stop the cycle of escalating revenge. someone just hurt your wife so what's to stop you from taking it a step further to get back at him? Look at the people in that part of the world still living in a primitive lifestyle - some of them haven't quite gotten this part of the message and they are willing to maim a man for stealing or kill a person for some other crime that did not grievously injure anyone.

This "new" law was to create a legal barrier against continuing violence - to meter out a fitting punishment and move on. God met his people at the place they were at and called them to take the next step forward.


Another example:

Deuteronomy 21:01-14
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

It sounds harsh and brutal to us thousands of years later, but what about then? It was customary then that the spoils of war (animals, food, slaves, and even wives) went to the victors and they were free to do with them as they pleased as it was now their property. Look at that woman that is now property of the victor - rather than use her and throw her away (or even kill her) they now:
1. Take her into their home - she would be given shelter, food, clothes, etc.
2. The head shaving and nail trimming was part of the mourning ritual - the "captive" would be allowed the humanity of mourning her loss
3. To make her your wife would mean she was a member of the household, not just a war trophy
4. In those times when a man was not pleased with a woman he was free to send her away (into a culture where she really had no rights, no standing, and no defense against exploitation - usually leading to prostitution). This passage forbids sending a woman without rights and dignity, because you dishonored her.


Shocking and offensive to us - groundbreaking and progressive then. Context, both at the time and in the overall picture, means a lot.

Because the men who thought up Christianity and this God who is known to smite needed a way to get more members. What better way to do so than come up with a martyr and say "Hey, look how easy it is to be a Christian now. Now give us your money."

[Strychnine]

Because the men who thought up Christianity and this God who is known to smite needed a way to get more members. What better way to do so than come up with a martyr and say "Hey, look how easy it is to be a Christian now. Now give us your money."

Are we still talking about pre-Christ writings or are we injecting something completely different into the discourse? After all that I wrote the response is, "yeah, but manipulative people still manipulate and want money" ???

Should we just change the subject to "false and lazy Christians are the biggest enemy of Christianity in the modern world" (which I don't disagree with) so you can vent everything in one shot?