Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:47 am

SEG wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:50 am
So do you think that the content of the Bible is perfect and without contradictions?
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Yes, I do. God and His word are reliable and I trust them.
The how do you reconcile all the contradictions that this short video points out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns
So do you accept evolution as a fact, only that God did it?
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
I can't answer this question. My view of evolution and yours are quite different. I believe in an intimate, interested, personal, loving Creator, you do not, therefore our use of terminology is always going to be on completely different wavelengths.
I was asking you whether you accept evolution as a fact. It only requires a yes or no answer.
No it doesn't have to be Australia, it could be the US. Both countries aren't founded on Christianity.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
The people who founded the US were strongly influenced by their faith and Christian ideals.
They were mainly Deists and believed strongly about a separation of church and state.
They don't. This has been proven numerous times. See: https://valerietarico.com/2016/11/20/wh ... s-reality/
Prayer works. I have experienced it. Anecdote is where human beings live, it trumps every thing, even you have the gut feeling that the article you linked to above is true, you didn't believe the article was true because another scientific study told you to believe the article. The whole article goes out the window the second you experience God.
No matter how much you want to believe that prayer works, it has been proven several times that it doesn't. If the evidence went your way and science confirmed that prayer was a powerful force that had incredible healing properties, all doctors would recommend it as a duty of care and there wouldn't be any need for hospitals.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Makes me think of a video I just watched on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xXIOBJYMc8
Yet another Christian claiming that he used to be an atheist. I don't know of any educated atheists recanting. That guy is either lying his arse off or a looney.
Homosexuality is natural in the animal world. Loads of species other than humans experience it.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Animals also eat their children, I do not see how it automatically follows we take our cues from animals.
You said, "Homosexuality is unnatural insofar as it is not God's desire for us." We are animals, yes? It is natural in the animal world and how would you know what your god is thinking about our sexual habits? Why would a creator of the universe be in any way concerned about what happens in our beds when the lights go off?
Just because you think that a supreme creator is interested in what animals do with their "naughty bits", doesn't mean that it is wrong. If it says it is wrong in your holy book, it may be that your book needs to be corrected.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Why shouldn't I be interested in what the Supreme Creator thinks?! If God thinks something is wrong then it is worth looking into! Should I pay more attention to your opinion or the Supreme Creator?
My opinion is worth a lot more as I can prove I exist. Why do you think that your god is interested in what we do with our genitals?
The concept of owning another person is wrong and should be condemned in your holy book as a human rights concern. It's not and comes with rules on how to abuse your slaves.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Just because you think you should be able to have control over whether a person can sell themselves doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact you're more like a slave owner than anyone.
Oh I'm not worried at all about people want to sell themselves. Prostitutes have that right and I support it. What I don't support is the biblical concepts that it is ok to sell other people as chattel.
The big difference between Christians and Pagans in this regard is that the Pagan concepts came first. They celebrated Easter and Xmas hundreds and even thousands of years before Christianity came into being.
Aaron wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:25 pm
Okay, if that's your view you still should change the name of the title to Why Some Pagans and Christians Need to Lie, because they still believe the same things according to you.
Oh yes, pagans lie about invisible gods, devils, angels, gremlins and fairies. I agree. But most pagan cults dissolved once people became more educated on how our world really works. Christianity tends to hide from science and is immovable on it's doctrines, even after they are shown to be bunk. That's where the lying sets in.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm

SEG wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:47 am
The how do you reconcile all the contradictions that this short video points out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns
Very simple. Your man got it wrong. He continued to claim Jesus' ministry began after John the Baptist was arrested. That is not the case at all. Jesus' ministry was in full swing during the time John the Baptist's ministry was going. Here's the evidence: John 3:22-26 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
No matter how much you want to believe that prayer works, it has been proven several times that it doesn't. If the evidence went your way and science confirmed that prayer was a powerful force that had incredible healing properties, all doctors would recommend it as a duty of care and there wouldn't be any need for hospitals.
:lol: It has been proven the prayer doesn't work? You need to lay off the Kool-aid. Prayer cannot be proven because prayer is supernatural. If prayer could be proven of disproven it would no longer be supernatural. Some doctors do recommend prayer: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/ ... d-doctors/
You said, "Homosexuality is unnatural insofar as it is not God's desire for us." We are animals, yes? It is natural in the animal world and how would you know what your god is thinking about our sexual habits? Why would a creator of the universe be in any way concerned about what happens in our beds when the lights go off?
How do we know what God thinks about our sexual habits? Because God told us. He has explained it very plainly that His intent is for one man to be married to one woman and anything outside of that is sinful. As to your second question as to why God would be concerned about what happens in our lives is also very simple to explain: Because He loves us. As any good father is concerned about what his child is doing, God is concerned about our habits because He loves us so much.
Oh yes, pagans lie about invisible gods, devils, angels, gremlins and fairies. I agree. But most pagan cults dissolved once people became more educated on how our world really works. Christianity tends to hide from science and is immovable on it's doctrines, even after they are shown to be bunk. That's where the lying sets in.
And after over 2,000 years of attacks, Christianity is still here. We are still seeing people saved and born again. Christianity does not hide from science. Over and over science has been proven wrong on its conclusions. The Bible does not change because God got it right the first time.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:57 am

SEG wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:47 am
The how do you reconcile all the contradictions that this short video points out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns
Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
Very simple. Your man got it wrong. He continued to claim Jesus' ministry began after John the Baptist was arrested. That is not the case at all. Jesus' ministry was in full swing during the time John the Baptist's ministry was going. Here's the evidence: John 3:22-26 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Nice try, but he said Synoptic Gospels made that claim which contradicts the Gospel of John. Where did JTB pop up from anyway? All of a sudden he just materialises in the wilderness with his disciples. He must have had poor self image probs, as he just stood aside and let his disciples follow Jesus. He wasn't won over fully with Jeebus, as he never wanted to follow him himself. Maybe he was making too much moolah dunking suckers into the drink himself?
No matter how much you want to believe that prayer works, it has been proven several times that it doesn't. If the evidence went your way and science confirmed that prayer was a powerful force that had incredible healing properties, all doctors would recommend it as a duty of care and there wouldn't be any need for hospitals.
Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
:lol: It has been proven the prayer doesn't work? You need to lay off the Kool-aid. Prayer cannot be proven because prayer is supernatural. If prayer could be proven of disproven it would no longer be supernatural. Some doctors do recommend prayer: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/ ... d-doctors/
Comments are no longer being accepted.
Hahahar! No wonder they are not being accepted, most comments below that article were saying it's ridiculous! Did you read them at all?
Liz March 24, 2008 · 8:53 am
As a medical student and an atheist, I’d like to hear from the readers here on whether you’d like a promise from me that I’ll pray for you if my prayers would be without belief. I could see my self “sending good thoughts” out, but I would not feel comfortable promising to pray to a particular deity in whom I have no personal faith. Does it matter?

Chet M March 24, 2008 · 8:57 am
Deep down inside I am a very pessimistic agnostic, and yet the closest to religious I ever become is when I pray with my patients, which I do whenever requested. I have seen it work very well in the sense of enhancing a patients well being and morale, and once or twice I would attest that it has kept someone off of mechanical ventilation.
When I have a pateint who is ill, I will take help from any source – seen or unseen – to make him or her better, or at least comfort them in their remaining time.

Elizabeth March 24, 2008 · 9:16 am
I completely disagree with this article. It is too easy to alienate patients, rather than uplift them, when using religion. For example, what if the patient is an agnostic, or atheist? What if the patient believes in a different God?

Also, studies have not shown a benefit to prayer, and physicians need to concentrate on evidence-based medicine. Where is your evidence that this helps patients? What study are you using to form this opinion?

Emily March 24, 2008 · 9:20 am
I’m a hospital chaplain and seminary student, and I always wonder what doctors and nurses think when I introduce myself to a patient, talk with them, sometimes pray with them. I’m glad to hear that some doctors recognize the necessity of spiritual care for their patients, but this is a reminder that it doesn’t have to be the doctor who offers to pray if they are uncomfortable doing so – there is a chaplain in nearly every hospital, one who is comfortable with patients of all faith backgrounds. This chaplain is also available for doctors and nurses too, if they need spiritual support.

funlola o March 24, 2008 · 9:33 am
It may also help doctors if they realise that some ailments have spiritual or demonic roots which science may not readily have an answer for.

Gustavo March 24, 2008 · 9:35 am
In response to Liz’s query to readers, and as a believing (but often struggling & challenged Catholic), I would like to let her know that I would not want an insincere offer of prayer — from her, an athiest — merely to identify and attempt to bond with me. I would probably see through that; and even an unconscious perception of insincerity and doubt in her would prevail to impact my relationship with my physician.

Instead, I would a prefer sincere, “I wish you a speedy and complete recovery” or, “I wish you strength and fortitude.” “May your faith heal you and give you courage,” would likely well suffice.

Lopez March 24, 2008 · 9:38 am
Prayer does send out positive waves which according to different researches does heal patients.Religion doesn’t really matter. I guess it is the faith that counts. Numerous studies suggest that persistent repetition combined with faith works miracles. So personally, I would prefer a doctor who can reorganize my thoughts and pray with utmost sincerity for me ( Though it is awfully difficult to find one)

Dan March 24, 2008 · 9:47 am
Re #3: Studies show that prayer does not help in a double blind test. As far as I’m concerned, that shows that ‘God’ isn’t doing anything. However, the placebo effect is well documented and can be used to treat patients, at least on one level. That said, I agree that offering prayer to every patient would alienate many people (including myself), but I see no harm in accepting a request to pray for someone. Though I do not believe in a God (I am a rather staunch atheist), a doctor’s first duty is to heal.

Rick March 24, 2008 · 9:55 am
This patient would like to reply to Liz #1 and Elizabeth #3.
Liz, yes, send your “good thoughts” – this is your form of prayer. You don’t need to tell your patients who your God is or that you’re an atheist and don’t have one. It’s your care and faith in your patient that matters most.
Elizabeth, I’m sorry for your closed and hardened heart. First of all, what the article said was that the request should come from the patient. This should be obvious. Second, I read an article here in NYTimes a few months ago about gratitude. It mentioned studies, if I recall correctly, that showed how those who frequently feel or express gratitude are healthier and happier in thier lives (I’m paraphrasing). I read that article and thought to myself, “what they’re talking about here used to be called prayer,” the kind of prayer that thanks your God for the blessings in your life, such as saying grace at meals, praising God in church, praying with your family, etc. Third, among my closest friends and mentors are a Hindu, two Muslims and several Jews. In times of grave illness, pain or crisis, several of these friends have told me, a Catholic, that they would pray for me and they have. Obviously, they would not be praying to my God but to their own. For me, their prayers were a profound gift, perhaps even more so because their care and their prayers crossed the boundaries between religions to reach me, and I was deeply touched and grateful. It is a tremendous gift from a friend of one faith to a friend of another faith, do not doubt it for a moment.

jack March 24, 2008 · 9:56 am
Considering that there is absolutely no evidence that a god exists, much less that the supposed god cares for individual human beings, I would question the exepertise of a physician who brought up prayer in any way connected with my treatment. I would want a thinking physician, one who examines carefully all available information in a given case and makes rational decisions. There is no reason to eliminate hope from treatment, but I prefer to face the facts of a case.

adventa March 24, 2008 · 10:00 am
It certainly cannot harm to have positive, compassionate thoughts/prayers going from one human being to another. On the contrary, look at what the overwhelming consequences are of NEGATIVE, hate-filled thoughts . . . war and devastation, for example. Perhaps if we would spend more of our time on the one than the other, our world would be a remarkably different place.

David March 24, 2008 · 10:07 am
Although I cannot recall the details, there was a recent study of prayer and medical outcomes for heart patients. It turned out that the patients who were told that someone would be praying for them had worse outcomes than those who were told nothing. One possible explanation given was that the patient might perceive that their condition was worse than it actually was because, that medicine was inadequate to treat it and that prayer was all that was left.

Just as a minister would not practice medicine, I would not expect a physician to be a spiritual practitioner. Personally, I would prefer that physicians left religion out of their medical practice.

Suzanne Kacmarcik March 24, 2008 · 10:11 am
If a person (clinician) cannot “pray” for someone in earnest and with their heart in it, they would be lying to their pt & they are being unethical. If the pt believes he/she will be relieved, then they must find a clinician who support that method of treatment.

Suzanne

PC March 24, 2008 · 10:16 am
Although I think most patients would see through an insincere offer to pray, and an atheist or agnostic might be put off by such an offer, what is important here is for the doctor to create some kind of relationship with the patient. It doesn’t have to be deep, binding, and lifelong, but it would make a huge difference to most patients to realize that their doctors SEE them as individuals, not just as “Patient X in Bed B in Room 531.” The personal touch of noticing whether the patient is religious would matter to that person; it’s a question of being somewhat sensitive to who they are and what they are about. It’s really just an extension of a good bedside manner.

I’m an agnostic myself, but it would matter enormously to me to have people I like say they would pray for me, or even that they would be thinking about me. There is something in that mental connection and emotional support that provides strength, and I really believe that helps to heal. Is it a medication or a procedure? No, but I think it does have a place in a good doctor’s arsenal of remedies. My first choice would always be to have a doctor who cared enough to notice my personality at least to the extent of knowing whether I was religious or not. A doctor who is cool and detached might be extremely proficient in the science, but a caring human being can be a powerful instiller of confidence.

And I think there HAVE been studies done that reveal better results for patients for whom others have prayed, or even practiced some variation of healing thought. Don’t write it off too quickly.

Jim March 24, 2008 · 10:17 am
Religion profoundly affects how people choose to eat, sleep, have sex and work. Knowing the religion of one’s patients helps immensely in understanding how they get sick and get well, as part of their lifestyle.

In the end, no doctor can heal anyone, all he or she can do is help them recover – based on percentages in drug trials – from a temporary illness before they die. Medicine is the fine art of the bell curve, never able to know which one will be cured and which one killed. Sharing in someone’s journey (if one does pray) is part of the bigger picture. Doctors are the shamans who offer relief and temporary recovery throughout short, unpredictable lives. It is priests and shamans who force us to confront questions of ultimate reality.

David March 24, 2008 · 10:20 am
Well said, Rick (Comment #9). Despite being atheist, I completely agree with your sentiments. The point of this act isn’t necessarily a belief in prayer or miracles, but a reassurance to a patient. Especially in a mental health situation, if a theist psychiatrist believes that a patient will find comfort in knowing that her doctor will pray on her behalf, then it’s most definitely both ethical and professionally responsible to pursue that means.

tamar March 24, 2008 · 10:22 am
#9, RIck — Jews, Christians, and Muslims pray to the same one God (as the three monotheistic faith traditions). So your comment that your Jewish and Muslim friends (you, a Catholic) “would not be praying to my God but to their own” puzzled me.

Mark March 24, 2008 · 10:22 am
If a doctor offered me prayers, I would find another doctor. I need medical science to cure my ills (and I had a rather large tumor removed from my pituitary about 6 years ago), not the platitudes applied from man’s greatest self-delusion. I got through my situation not with prayer, but with determination and a sense of humor. Keep your religion out of my medical care.


Even if I did believe there is some all-powerful creative force, and even if they did “keep their eye on the sparrow”, why would I want to bother that force with pleading for my life? I live, or I don’t. That’s all there is to it. If there is something after this life, then great, wonderful. If not, then that’s fine too. Let the theologians wrangle amongst themselves who will see paradise and who will see eternal torment based on some proscribed set of guidelines and rituals. I am more concerned with this life, and living it to the best that I can. Enjoy your religion, but please keep it out of my face.

Star March 24, 2008 · 10:23 am
I was once told wrongly that I might have metastatic cancer…The doctor offered to pray with me. I said, couldn’t we do more tests? It turned out to be a cyst. I really don’t credit the prayer for this, but who knows. They come by in the hospital and say prayers for you, too. What are you supposed to say–“NO! Dont’ pray for me”? I am also kind of irritated by doctors and their staffs who keep saying, “Stay positive. Hope for the best.” It’s just not how my mind works. And if I don’t find myself doing it, I don’t want to think I am hurting myself.

Asa March 24, 2008 · 10:25 am
Ok, I have a question, or two I wish to ask the folks who believe in the power of prayer and have a conception of God as an entity that potentially could intervene in such matters…I ask this out of earnest curiosity.

First, If God has a divine plan (I’m taking this as a view that many prayers must have as I recall hearing people say things like, “Everything happens for a reason” or “It is all God’s will”), and he knows everything and what will happen, then why pray at all? Will prayer alter God’s plan? There seems to be a contradiction within the belief system there, and I would love to understand how that is worked out for those who ascribe to these views.

Second, does God care more for a person who is prayed for than a person who is not? Is that fair? Is it the fault of a person if no one is praying for them specifically? It seems to me that if God is what some say he is then he should care equally for all suffering people. Something about this prayer business is going over my head.

Last I just would like to observe the study done a year or two ago where they looked at the outcome of patients who were prayed for and patients who were not prayed for. Stunningly, the study found that patients who received no prayer did better than patients who were prayed for. They had expected to find no difference, or perhaps, that the prayer receiving group would do better, but this turned out not to be the case. So, wouldn’t it be better then to not pray for anyone?

Scott March 24, 2008 · 10:28 am
As a physician I come across situations where we do not have a remedy for a disease. Advanced cancer is a good example.
Patients look for whatever remedy is available that might help. Remember Laetril and Steve McQueen.
To me religion is a delusion. Sometimes to some people being deluded is a good thing if somehow it makes them feel better. But is it the physician’s place to maintain or promote delusion? I will leave that to the shamans/priests/rabbis to maintain and promote delusion and try to keep on the side of the rational as a physician.

Rowan March 24, 2008 · 10:29 am
I think that you should have more than a passing acquaintance with someone before you make the offer of prayer. If I go to an Urgent Care clinic with the flu, and the harried doctor who’s seen eight patients in the last hour tells me he’ll pray for my recovery, how can he possibly offer anything sincere or personal as a prayer? “God, please bless the people I saw today,” is impersonal enough that I wouldn’t call it praying for *me*, taking home a list of patients and conditions to remember in his prayers would violate my expectation of privacy, and time spent stopping between appointments to pray would be better spent with the patients.

However, if my regular doctor with whom I have an established relationship, or a doctor treating me for an ongoing or serious condition, offered to pray for me than I would accept those prayers gratefully.

To poster #1: Please don’t pray insincerely. It’s far better to simply say, “I will be thinking positively for you.”

I’m non-Christian, but I don’t reject well-wishes or prayers or good energy from any faith. So long as faith isn’t taking the place of care, it can’t possibly hurt me if, in addition to surgery or medicine, my doctor employs faith. Not enough is really known about faith to say whether prayer works, but I don’t think it will hurt.

Eli Rector March 24, 2008 · 10:35 am
#7 No studies have ever shown that prayer works. Feeling good, thinking positive, and remaining hopeful works. And if your are religious prayer can help cultivate these feelings. But prayer on it’s own does absolutely nothing. Studies HAVE shown that.
As an atheist, I’m always a little creeped out when people tell me they’ll “pray for me”. I wonder if this might involve dancing, incense, or chickens.
But I’m glad their keeping me in their thoughts.
Yep, it doesn't work. Your god should be doing a lot better. See https://valerietarico.com/2016/11/20/wh ... s-reality/
A God Should Do Better. So Should We.

God the Almighty shouldn’t operate at the margins of statistical significance. He shouldn’t be most evident when the evidence itself is of the poorest quality, fading into invisibility as the light of scientific rigor becomes brighter. He shouldn’t need defenders who are willing to tie their reputations to expensive research that they then dismiss as irrelevant when results are disappointing. God shouldn’t need defenders who engage in rabbit hole reasoning, who insist that he moves in our world and in our lives, but only as long as we aren’t looking; or who insist that despite all evidence to the contrary bad is actually good because it must be good, because by definition God is good and he’s in charge.

Since the year 2000, the U.S. government has spent over two million dollars on prayer studies without producing any result that is remotely congruent with the bold claims made by the authors of the New Testament. And yet those bold claims are a reasonable set of assertions to make about an all-powerful and all-loving, interventionist deity.

Our ancestors put forward their best set of hypotheses about how the world works, who is in charge, and how we can get what we need. They did so without the benefits of enlightenment philosophy or the methods and discoveries of science, without the global flow of information and the freedom to debate ideas. They had no way of knowing that their hypotheses would fail when examined in the light of modern knowledge and analytic capacity. But at least they knew not to simply accept and repeat whatever their ancestors had said two thousand years earlier. Maybe we could try living up to that bar.

This article is Part 1 of a 4-part series adapted from the chapter, “If Prayer Fails, Why Do People Keep at It?” by Valerie Tarico in Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World’s Largest Religion, edited by John Loftus.
You said, "Homosexuality is unnatural insofar as it is not God's desire for us." We are animals, yes? It is natural in the animal world and how would you know what your god is thinking about our sexual habits? Why would a creator of the universe be in any way concerned about what happens in our beds when the lights go off?
Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
How do we know what God thinks about our sexual habits? Because God told us. He has explained it very plainly that His intent is for one man to be married to one woman and anything outside of that is sinful. As to your second question as to why God would be concerned about what happens in our lives is also very simple to explain: Because He loves us. As any good father is concerned about what his child is doing, God is concerned about our habits because He loves us so much.
Yeah? If he loves us so much why did he wipe out 99.999% of the population, including innocent animals? A loving father would be able to correct his children without harming them! How did he go so wrong?
Oh yes, pagans lie about invisible gods, devils, angels, gremlins and fairies. I agree. But most pagan cults dissolved once people became more educated on how our world really works. Christianity tends to hide from science and is immovable on it's doctrines, even after they are shown to be bunk. That's where the lying sets in.
Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
And after over 2,000 years of attacks, Christianity is still here. We are still seeing people saved and born again. Christianity does not hide from science. Over and over science has been proven wrong on its conclusions. The Bible does not change because God got it right the first time.
So is Hinduism. Christianity needs to hide from science. The internet is giving it a slow death. If "God got it right the first time", why are there so many mistakes and contradictions? Why couldn't he make it absolutely clear, instead of the mess that it is? Why put all his theology in writing, where it can get picked to pieces by someone like me?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:22 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:57 am
Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
Very simple. Your man got it wrong. He continued to claim Jesus' ministry began after John the Baptist was arrested. That is not the case at all. Jesus' ministry was in full swing during the time John the Baptist's ministry was going. Here's the evidence: John 3:22-26 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Nice try, but he said Synoptic Gospels made that claim which contradicts the Gospel of John. Where did JTB pop up from anyway? All of a sudden he just materialises in the wilderness with his disciples. He must have had poor self image probs, as he just stood aside and let his disciples follow Jesus. He wasn't won over fully with Jeebus, as he never wanted to follow him himself. Maybe he was making too much moolah dunking suckers into the drink himself?
You are ignorant of both the video you posted as well as the Bible. You need to go back and watch/listen to the clip again. John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth who was the cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus. So that makes Jesus and John Baptist cousins. John's sole purpose was to point people to Jesus. In fact he said, He must increase, but I must decrease.
Yeah? If he loves us so much why did he wipe out 99.999% of the population, including innocent animals? A loving father would be able to correct his children without harming them! How did he go so wrong?
He didn't go wrong. God has warned mankind from the beginning of human existence that disobedience to His commands would result in death. God loves me, but because of my sin I will die one day. That isn't God's fault. The day of my death is in God's hand. When God flooded the earth, it was because man had become so evil and disobedient to His commands. If God hadn't flooded the earth, every one of those people would have died anyway.
So is Hinduism. Christianity needs to hide from science. The internet is giving it a slow death. If "God got it right the first time", why are there so many mistakes and contradictions? Why couldn't he make it absolutely clear, instead of the mess that it is? Why put all his theology in writing, where it can get picked to pieces by someone like me?
:lol: :lol: You flatter yourself too much. You can't pick the Bible to pieces. You can come up with fantasies and false narratives, but I have shown time and again there are no contradictions, errors or mistakes in the Bible. Every supposed contradiction presented I have refuted and debunked. God has made salvation perfectly clear, but you are blind. You are spiritually dead and dead men can't see or hear. You pick it to pieces...that's a good one Seg :lol: :lol:

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:10 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 pm
Very simple. Your man got it wrong. He continued to claim Jesus' ministry began after John the Baptist was arrested. That is not the case at all. Jesus' ministry was in full swing during the time John the Baptist's ministry was going. Here's the evidence: John 3:22-26 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
SEG wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:57 am
Nice try, but he said Synoptic Gospels made that claim which contradicts the Gospel of John. Where did JTB pop up from anyway? All of a sudden he just materialises in the wilderness with his disciples. He must have had poor self image probs, as he just stood aside and let his disciples follow Jesus. He wasn't won over fully with Jeebus, as he never wanted to follow him himself. Maybe he was making too much moolah dunking suckers into the drink himself?
Chapabel wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:22 pm
You are ignorant of both the video you posted as well as the Bible. You need to go back and watch/listen to the clip again. John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth who was the cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus. So that makes Jesus and John Baptist cousins. John's sole purpose was to point people to Jesus. In fact he said, He must increase, but I must decrease.

You missed my point yet again. JTB went from the womb to popping into the wilderness. Why do the synoptic Gospels contradict the Gospel of John?
Yeah? If he loves us so much why did he wipe out 99.999% of the population, including innocent animals? A loving father would be able to correct his children without harming them! How did he go so wrong?
He didn't go wrong. God has warned mankind from the beginning of human existence that disobedience to His commands would result in death.
So he cruelly killed pregnant women, innocent children and babies by drowning them with his great love? Is that how it works? What dark thrill would he gotten out of mercilessly drowning them instead of instantly correcting their behaviour? He could have put them tenderly to sleep, but he wanted to hear them shriek as they faced the waters - for what purpose?
God loves me, but because of my sin I will die one day. That isn't God's fault. The day of my death is in God's hand. When God flooded the earth, it was because man had become so evil and disobedient to His commands. If God hadn't flooded the earth, every one of those people would have died anyway.
But he chose cruelty according to you and that's ok because he is god?
So is Hinduism. Christianity needs to hide from science. The internet is giving it a slow death. If "God got it right the first time", why are there so many mistakes and contradictions? Why couldn't he make it absolutely clear, instead of the mess that it is? Why put all his theology in writing, where it can get picked to pieces by someone like me?
:lol: :lol:
You flatter yourself too much. You can't pick the Bible to pieces. You can come up with fantasies and false narratives, but I have shown time and again there are no contradictions, errors or mistakes in the Bible. Every supposed contradiction presented I have refuted and debunked.
What's the name of this thread again? Go and beat yourself up over these ones:
When did Ahaziah son of Jehoram begin his reign in Judah?
"In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah." 2Ki 9:29
"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign." 2Ki 8:25

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign." 2Ch 36:9
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign." 2Ki 24:8

How long did Jotham reign in Jerusalem?
Sixteen years. 2Ki 15:33
At least twenty years. 2Ki 15:30

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Twenty two years old. 2Ki 8:26
Forty two years old. 2Ch 22:2

How long did Omri reign?
From the 31st to the 38th year of Asa's reign, Omri is said to have reigned twelve years. An impossibility. 1Ki 16:23,28-29

How much gold was brought to Solomon from Ophir?
420 talents of gold. 1Ki 9:28
450 talents of gold. 2Ch 8:18

How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
4,000 stalls. 2Ch 9:25
40,000 stalls. 1Ki 4:26

How long did Gad tell David he was to suffer famine?
Three years. 1Ch 21:11-12
Seven years. 2Sa 24:13

How many horsemen did David take with him from Hadadezer?
700 horsemen. 2Sa 8:4
7,000 horsemen. 1Ch 18:4

According to Genesis, Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem (5:32). Noah was 600 years old when the Flood waters were on the earth (7:6). Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood (11:10). This is a mistake. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, then he should have been 102 years old.
God has made salvation perfectly clear, but you are blind.

Well, even that he couldn't get right. Go and beat yourself up some more: http://home.earthlink.net/~writetdrange ... tions.html
You are spiritually dead and dead men can't see or hear. You pick it to pieces...that's a good one Seg :lol: :lol:
It is dead easy Chappy 8-) 8-) 8-)
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:12 pm

Oh, and why wasn't Methuselah on the ark?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:34 pm

I’m on call right now so I’ll respond tomorrow

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:51 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:34 pm
I’m on call right now so I’ll respond tomorrow
Cheers, you need to do some research for this one, take all the time you want.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:59 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:10 pm
What's the name of this thread again? Go and beat yourself up over these ones:
When did Ahaziah son of Jehoram begin his reign in Judah?
"In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah." 2Ki 9:29
"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign." 2Ki 8:25

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign." 2Ch 36:9
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign." 2Ki 24:8

How long did Jotham reign in Jerusalem?
Sixteen years. 2Ki 15:33
At least twenty years. 2Ki 15:30

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Twenty two years old. 2Ki 8:26
Forty two years old. 2Ch 22:2

How long did Omri reign?
From the 31st to the 38th year of Asa's reign, Omri is said to have reigned twelve years. An impossibility. 1Ki 16:23,28-29

How much gold was brought to Solomon from Ophir?
420 talents of gold. 1Ki 9:28
450 talents of gold. 2Ch 8:18

How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
4,000 stalls. 2Ch 9:25
40,000 stalls. 1Ki 4:26

How long did Gad tell David he was to suffer famine?
Three years. 1Ch 21:11-12
Seven years. 2Sa 24:13

How many horsemen did David take with him from Hadadezer?
700 horsemen. 2Sa 8:4
7,000 horsemen. 1Ch 18:4

According to Genesis, Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem (5:32). Noah was 600 years old when the Flood waters were on the earth (7:6). Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood (11:10). This is a mistake. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, then he should have been 102 years old.
There's no beating on my end. Did you notice every supposed contradiction you posted above involved numbers? The problem is a total lack of investigation of the context. For instance, King David was anointed king three times, but in three different locations: (1 Samuel 16:13, 2 Samuel 2:4,2 Samuel 5:3). So the nay-sayers will claim there is a blatant contradiction about when and where David was anointed king. There is no contradiction because he was indeed anointed three different times.

Lets take one of the supposed contradictions you posted and see how there is no contradiction, just a snap conclusion based on sloppy study. How many stalls did Solomon have? He had 4,000. 2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. But here's where the lazy Bible student claims there is a contradiction by citing I Kings 4:26. Look at what I Kings 4:26 says: 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, but he had 40,000 horses in those stalls. Ten horses per stall. John Gill further explains this in his commentary:
In 2Ch 9:25; it is only four thousand; and therefore some think that here is a mistake of the copier, of "arbaim", forty, for "arbah", four; which it is thought might be through divine permission, in such lesser matters, without any prejudice to the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice; but without supposing this, a reconciliation may be made, by observing, that here the writer, as Ben Gersom notes, gives the number of the horses that were in the stables, which were forty thousand, there the stables themselves, which were four thousand, ten horses in a stable; or here he numbers the stalls, which were forty thousand, and there the stables, which were four thousand, there being ten stalls in each; and the word there has the letter "yod" in it more than here, which is the numerical letter for "ten", and may point thereunto; or here the writer speaks of all the stalls for horses Solomon had throughout the kingdom, there of those only he had in Jerusalem. Benjamin of Tudela1 affirms, that these stalls, or stables, which Solomon built very strong of large stones, are still in being in Jerusalem, and that there is no building to be seen like it any where; but no other writer speaks of them; nor is it at all probable that they should remain:
Now, if you want to address each supposed contradiction one at a time, I'm game. But if all you want to do is cut and paste all these supposed contradictions from some atheist website and you're not willing to take the time to research each one yourself, I will not take the time to address each one either.
Go and beat yourself up some more: http://home.earthlink.net/~writetdrange ... tions.html
As far as the other site you linked, it is a complete fraud. Some hack threw out some made up contradictions and then tagged some Bible verses to support his fictional idea. One quick example from this putz is Are unsaved sinners eternally tormented? He attaches verses that indicated, yes, sinners are tormented eternally (Isa 33:14; Mt 13:40-42, 25:41,46; Mk 9:43-48; Jude 6-7; Re 14:10-11). Then he provides verses that would suggest, no, sinners are not tormented forever (Eze 18:4; Mt 7:13, 10:28;Lu 13:3,5; John 3:15-16; Ac 3:23; 1Co 15:18; 2Th 2:10; Heb 10:39; 2Pe 3:7,9). The problem is he just pulled out some verses apparently hoping no one would take the time to research his findings. His verses that suggest there is no eternal torment do not suggest that at all. See for yourself:
Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
John 3:15-16 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
1 Corinthians 15:17-18 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. This is a hypothetical question Paul posed that your he-hack totally took out of context.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

What an absolute joke. Not only did this phony take verses out of context, many of the verses he posted had nothing to do with eternal torment at all. I invite you to research this for yourself. If this is your evidence of Biblical contradictions, you failed miserably.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:37 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:59 pm
Lets take one of the supposed contradictions you posted and see how there is no contradiction, just a snap conclusion based on sloppy study. How many stalls did Solomon have? He had 4,000. 2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. But here's where the lazy Bible student claims there is a contradiction by citing I Kings 4:26. Look at what I Kings 4:26 says: 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, but he had 40,000 horses in those stalls. Ten horses per stall.
That's a stretch! Ten horses per stall? Pfft! Show me the evidence for that!
Now, if you want to address each supposed contradiction one at a time, I'm game. But if all you want to do is cut and paste all these supposed contradictions from some atheist website and you're not willing to take the time to research each one yourself, I will not take the time to address each one either.
They are all well known contradictions and all are valid. Yes, let's discuss one at a time. First of all, what about this:
According to Genesis, Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem (5:32). Noah was 600 years old when the Flood waters were on the earth (7:6). Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood (11:10). This is a mistake. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, then he should have been 102 years old.
...and why wasn't Methuselah on the ark?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Post Reply