thehomer:

And my point is that the judge who wasn't harmed, who cannot even be harmed is in no position to forgive. If a person steals from someone, the person who forgives is the victim and not the person passing the sentence.

If you say that someone who is executed for committing mass murder is a good person because of this declaration while someone whose only crime was stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself and his hungry sister before being killed is a bad person, then the problem lies with your conception of what it means to be a good or bad person. Your conception of being good or bad is divorced from what people actually do.

plaetton: ^^^^
As an anology, just imagine Gani Fawemini.
There was justice and the rule of law long before he was born. But he studied and dedicated his life to the enthronement of justice and the rule of law for everyone. And for that he suffered greatly in the hands of authorities of the day.

Now that Gani is dead, should we just focus on him and worship him as the god of justice, before whom there was no justice, or should we carry on and strenghten the institutions of justice just like Gani wanted to?

Deep Sight:
Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

plaetton: ^^^^^
I dare to say that this issue of moral ambiguity is probably the main reasons early christians were persecuted in Rome.

Rome was mishmash of different religions, so the introduction of a new one would have attracted little attention.
The problem with the nascent christianity at that time, was, the fact that the christians were seen as a group that sought to pervert the strict moral and ethic codes of the society, especially with the forgiveness and slate-wiping allure of Jesus.

The fact that they welcomed into their midst sinners and criminals of all sorts was very discomforting to the roman authorities.
Whereas existing religions,schools of philosophy and brotherhoods opened their memberships to people of high virtue and moral standing, these new interlopers, called christians, were doing the opposite by inviting among their fold,people of low virtue and moral standing.

In time, no, this provoked the ire of the Roman authorities who vowed to stamp out what seemed then, like a bad virus.

rhymz: blame Mr Paul who came up with the claptrap of faith abi na grace without work.
In most of his epistles, the guy was always talking about salvation through believing in the crucifixion and ressurection of christ whose teaching he described as elementary.
“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
In other words, Jesus Christ was yarning opkata all along, he Paul was going to teach christians a higer level of Knowledge about thesame Christ whose teachings he described as elementary.
He described the observance of Judaic Law as dead work i.e actively observing the commandments passed to Moses like Muslims do is irrelevant. Thats the difference between Muslims and Christians. Muslims believe in work and christians damn the work but rather concentrate on believong in the fairytale of Jesus' death story as a way to get salvation. And you wonder why christians know little or nothing about their own religion besides the hogwash their bible wielding show men called pastor spew to them.
See Paul again giving christian the false belief of faith without work:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10 “For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20 “For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
Today's Christianity solely rely on this ideology, that is why truthislite and the other Christian robots can tell others that unless you believe in Jesus saving fron some sin you don't know about, you are condemned for life. They keep defiling every boundary of logic just to make accommodation for their "fairy tale faith based belief system". Imagine somebody trying so hard to convince me that some Jesus died for Me for sins some stranger commited. I send am messege ni?
Whoever the writers of the Pauline epistles is, he was obviously was a gnostic christian, his version of christ was not the version in the narratives of the gospels of Mathew, mark, luke and John. Paul was always talking about a Jesus similar to the god-men of his time. Yet the bible is a book that contains the inerrant words of God.. .bullshit.
What Paul's teaching brought was the excuse for all manner of behaviour to be condoled by merely believing in Christ. You do not have to live or observe any set of moral codes, all you need to do is to believe in Jesus and your slate is clean. Even if you killed somebody before, you dont have to serve any jail term, your sins are forgiven so long as you believe in the christian God.
Take another verse from thesame Pauline epistles and tell me why anyone should be bothered about observing any law or improving one's self:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5

truthislight:
^^^^
if any religious group hold on to this your opinion then it them and not base on the bible.

What the sacrifice of jesus did was to make it possible for God not to look at human from the consideration of Adam sin, making it possible for individual to start on a clean slate and not base on what Adam had done.

Infact, the bible says that "unrighteose people (christian and none christians) will not inherit God's kingdom"

rhymz: unfortunately today's Christians base their entire dogma and worship system on the gnostic or heretic teachings of Paul.

plaetton: ^^^^^
I dare to say that this issue of moral ambiguity is probably the main reasons early christians were persecuted in Rome.

Rome was mishmash of different religions, so the introduction of a new one would have attracted little attention.
The problem with the nascent christianity at that time, was, the fact that the christians were seen as a group that sought to pervert the strict moral and ethic codes of the society, especially with the forgiveness and slate-wiping allure of Jesus.

The fact that they welcomed into their midst sinners and criminals of all sorts was very discomforting to the roman authorities.
Whereas existing religions,schools of philosophy and brotherhoods opened their memberships to people of high virtue and moral standing, these new interlopers, called christians, were doing the opposite by inviting among their fold,people of low virtue and moral standing.

In time, no, this provoked the ire of the Roman authorities who vowed to stamp out what seemed then, like a bad virus.

truthislight:

There is no smoke without fire.

Ignore the fire, then you will end up with all sort of explanation/reason as being responsible for the smoke.

Can such assumptions be correct?

truthislight:

on the context of what is being discuss does this your analogy follow?

Your father Adam committed a crime (disobedience) that made him unclean as such Yahweh that is clean(holy, holy, holy) abandon him and the source of indefinit life was Yahweh as such Adam died since he has been disconnected from the source of life due to the abandonment(Disconection) from Yahweh.

An undeserved kindness is extended to all of Adam's children so that they can be reconnected back to Yahweh and start living forever.
and we are still on the remaining short period of grace befor an end to all evil or time to terminate all evil comes.

Psalm 37:9-11 and Rev 19:11-18 and 2peter 3:5-9 etc. Leading to Revelation 21:3,4.

truthislight:
^^^
another wrong understanding.

Read Romans 6:1 to end of chapter

what paul said about forgiveness of sin is Adamic sin. That the Animal sacrifice in the jewish temple was cleansing on a Yearly basis.

But Jesus christ cleared it once for all time such that there was no more need for the law requirement for a yearly animal sacrifice or Jesus coming to die yearly.

When that provision for clearing Adamic sin is made then all man on their own can draw close to God without the consideration of Adam sin.

thehomer:

Being offended doesn't mean you have a say in forgiving someone.

Well I'm not dead yet.

Then based on your conception, there is no point in trying to group people into good or bad.

Deep Sight:
Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

Mr_Anony:
Wow! Really?

Mr_Anony:
More sins then?

Mr_Anony:
yeah, All have sinned there a no good people of themselves, only the righteous(the justified) and the unrighteous(the unjust)
....and it is not my conception, it is truth.

Deep Sight:
Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

thehomer:

[s]Rubbish. Go back to that thread and see the demonstration of your ineptitude in trying to debate.



Actually, you have shown no such thing. We have a debate on the nature of God but for some reason, you never actually said what his nature was instead you threw up weak analogies and irrelevant statements. Sorry but your responses only show you to be either dimwitted or just a common liar. Your conclusions were meant to be insulting so don't act surprised when you're insulted in return. Such sham outrage is just dumb.



Did you actually say what God's nature was? You started by introducing spirit but when I asked you for clarification, you developed cold feet and started pushing your response to a future location. If you think I circled back, the sensible thing to do would be to demonstrate this by my own posts on this very thread. Go up the thread and see who started hurling insults first. If you can dish it, don't whine when you're on the receiving end.



If your explanation is unclear or irrelevant, the onus is on you to explain it. Or don't you know what debates are about? Whenever I find your explanation to be useless or unclear, I say so. I can show you evidence of this too with my own posts. You would have done much better in conveying information with this paragraph by actually presenting my post as evidence rather than confusing yourself with these abstractions.



You actually are a weak to very poor debater. You're in no position to attempt to adjudicate my debating behaviour because you're too incompetent to know what a good debate behaviour actually looks like. If you're referring to the issue of the micro-organisms and such, they clearly demonstrate that God actually can create a world without sapient creatures and that directly contradicts your claim that he cannot. Were you too dense to see this? Or were you to cowardly to admit you were wrong again?



Boo hoo. Run away when you've had your rear handed to you on a platter.



Oh I definitely will make of it what I wish.



Once again, it appears that you've realized when you've been shown to be wrong and rather than honourably accepting that you were wrong, you choose to throw a hissy fit and run away with your tail between your legs. Remember that you asked for those links and I provided them. When I asked you for yours what did you do? You claimed the article was unavailable. You're quite the joker.



It must have taken you quite a while to type up this response but I guess it is easier for you to do than to actually defend your claims and present evidence for your accusations against me. That to me is the hallmark of one who is incompetent and deceitful.

Run along now[/s]........BLA BLA BLA......REGRESS AD INFINITUM......DIGRESS AD INFINITUM.......AD HOMINEM AD INFINITUM

rhymz: My friend, it is you who obviously does not understand what you are blabbing about.
I am not arguing that Paul was preaching about Adamic sin, in fact, that's the crust of the Pauline faith. My argument is that he is the originator of such a belief system. The whole belief system of atonement through death and ressurection was introduced by Paul.
Why do you think he was in constant disagreement with the leaders of the church of Jerusalem, James the brother Jesus and Peter one of the disciples Jesus was promised that he will be the rock on which he will build his church.
Paul's own version of Jesus Christ was a far cry from the prophesied Jewish Messiah, who was considered to be a human with devine powers, a nationalistic hero that will come and save the Jews from foreign(Roman) oppression and establish a strong kingdom that will rule the earth. Paul corrupted the whole interpretations of the Tora and turned Jesus to a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life, a doctrine he learnt from the mystery religious practices when he was in Tarsus. His corrupted version were all themes drawn from pagan myths such as how the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates or adherents.

The biggest advantage of Paul's new religion over other salvation-cults was its attachment to the hebrew scriptures.
Paul reinterpreted the messiah prophesy of the Tora as forecasting the salvation- death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority and advantage that proved attractive to Gentiles( non-Jews who were not born into the convenant) thirsting for salvation. However, his gnostic teachings met with disapproval from the Jewish- Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism.
Paul continued to preach his corrupted version at the chagrin of the Jerudalem church elders- James, Peter and John.
He was surmoned to the Jerusalem church and was asked to explain his new theology. At the meeting, Paul hid his true intentions and belief, instead he lied that he was only taking the gospel of Christ to Non-Jews, the Gentiles. He argued that these Gentiles did not need to observe or use the Tora to be part of the Jewish messianic movement. What the Jerusalem church elders did not know was that Paul actually wanted to do away with the Tora even with Jewish Christians.
He was then confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
However, It was when Peter visited him in Antioch that he became aware of the full extent of Paul's views, a serious rift ensdued between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.
Another meeting was called again and in it, James accused Paul of teaching Jews
"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Paul ahain denied it and attempted evaded the charge by suggesting that he undergoes a tesdt that shows his observance of the Tora, all in an effort to conceal his main views.
However, his deception was exposed by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching and had seen him outside Jerusalem preaching against the Tora. This led to a protest and Paul fled fearing for his life. That was the last time again he visited the Jerusalem church again.

In conclusion, the fact still remains that Pauline Christianity is actually a paganised distortion of Judaism, as the Christ described in the New testament gospels was plagiarized from pre-Christian pagan cultures of the Middle East and that's where lies all these fairytale of grace and faith in Jesus' death as a salvation pre-requisite you keep blabbing about. I could post you chapters and verses to support my explanation and the fact that he and the Jerusalem Church elders preached different things but apparently, Paul's version seemed to have won the supremecy battle with the help of Rome anyway.

truthislight:

your father/mother gave birth to you in the cage and padlocked it.

The padlock keys were with satan the devil.

plaetton:

yeah.
They forget that Paul was scorned by early followers of Jesus because Paul had perverted the teachings of jesus.

Deep Sight:
This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

cyrexx:

i thought it was just me.

do you know that some of Paul's esoteric/gnostic teachings clearly contradict what Jesus teaches, such that theologians organise Jesus vs Paul discussions.

if anybody like Paul can write something and convince humans that its god's word, you can never imagine the length at which humans will go to defend and justify that word even in the face of glaring absurdities and contradictions.

human mind is so creative. whats more, we created our imaginary gods in our image in our minds to explain the complexities of our world. so what else do we expect from these god believers.

cyrexx:

i thought it was just me.

do you know that some of Paul's esoteric/gnostic teachings clearly contradict what Jesus teaches, such that theologians organise Jesus vs Paul discussions.

if anybody like Paul can write something and convince humans that its god's word, you can never imagine the length at which humans will go to defend and justify that word even in the face of glaring absurdities and contradictions.

human mind is so creative. whats more, we created our imaginary gods in our image in our minds to explain the complexities of our world. so what else do we expect from these god believers.