Re: Chez Watt Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution


"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:818ece14-fa5d-4ee8-af9b-526b8abe6f49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Suzanne wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1ipol89.1jsvcbfvnsg48N%j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In the "Evidences? What Evidences?" category:

If they knew who he was,
they would worship him. But even a new Christian is
not born spiritually knowing God. He learns who he is,
as he follows him. But the Christian has an example of
God's sacrificial love for him because of Christ's having
given his life for him.

And yet you can provide not one single scrap of evidence to
support
that claim.

A Christian doesn't need to give evidence. Christ is the
evidence.

John, suppose that a king was told by a poor man that
he didn't care about him. The king then leaves his throne,
and goes to the poor man's house and says to the man,
what can I do for you? The poor man says, "I can't work
this month because I have injured my foot very badly.
The king then asks where the man's job is, and then leaves.
The poor man thinks as the king leaves "he just doesn't
get it."

In a few weeks, the man is a little better, but his foot is
still not well. He hears a knock at the door. It is someone
with a bag of money for him. The poor man says, where
did this money come from? The one who brought the
bag of money said to him, "a man that looked very much
like our king said you were sick and that he wanted to
do your work for you, and that we were to bring the
wages to your house and give them for you." Now the
king was rich enough that he could have paid the man the
money he would be needing when he normally would
have received his wages. But the king wanted to show
that man that he truly cared about him, and also cared
for the position that he held at the company that he worked
for, enough to fill it and get his job done for him.

When I said that the evidence is Christ, this story
illustrates what I was meaning by that. The Lord came
himself, leaving his throne in Heaven, and became one
of us, in order to do for us something that we cannot
do for ourselves. He came, in person.


Suzanne

Actually the myth of Jesus is derived from older practices in which
the king of a tribe is killed if the fortunes of a tribe go down the
tubes. The neolithic throne was a privileged position, but they
didn't always make it to old age. The animal sacrifices of the Jews,
as with most tribes, was likely a replacement for their older
practice of sacrificing humans.

Genesis 12:2 is a verse in which the Lord is talking
to Abraham, about his descendants, the Jews.
"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
blessing:"
Have you ever read this? And this is what the Lord
says about these:
Genesis 12:3:
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him
that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed."
Do you need this interpreted?

It's only on the face of it that your god is a vicious and unjust
god
- punishing Adam and Eve (and all of their descendants!) for
disobedience before they knew right from wrong. A mystical
interpretation of this story might be that when each individual
learns
to discriminate (specifically, begins to learn right from wrong),
then
they have left the garden, the state of childhood in which the
person
is one with the universe (and therefore is now separated from God).

God was not vicious to Adam and Eve or to the human
race. He was merciful. He promised them the Savior,
he clothed them with clothes he made for them, he still
took care of them. The purpose for him making them
leave the garden of Eden is because he did not want them
to eat of the Tree of Life in a fallen state. If they did that,
they would have been forever fallen, and never have a
chance to be redeemed. He set a cherubim to guard the
way of the Tree of Life so that they could not partake of
it's fruit until they were in Heaven. The Bible explains
that they (and everyone) can partake of it in Heaven.


This make s certain psychological sense. Mystics have spent
countless
centuries trying to break the boundaries of the self without going
insane, and sometimes succeeding.

The problem with interpreting these old stories to such an extent is
that they simply become Rorschach inkblots, and the fledgling mystic
may as well just go into the backyard and garden and pay attention
to
how the flowers are doing. It's less misleading, and doesn't annoy
the
neighbors.

It is *clearly a mistake to use personal interpretations of old
translations of older myths to impose a literal structure on the
world, especially in the face of contradictory facts.

Suzanne, you would do better to just be a decent person, and leave
the
science to the scientists. You are doing your best to convince
people
that your god is a lying god, but doing it badly.

No, Kermit, I don't have these motives, and the verses
are very clear and need no interpretation. The things I've
told you above have scriptures to back them up. I can see
that you don't know them, so here some of them are:
Gen. 2:9; 3:22; 3:24;Proverbs 11:30; Rev. 2:7; 22:2; 22:14.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
    ... Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, ... interpretation ... required to fabricate all the evidence for evolution. ... since you claim god prefers them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins
    ... but remember I also come from a tradition that is ... Dr. King preached non-violence. ... before I am convinced of the reality of a personal God." ... King upheld to the very end the Christian system of "absolute moral ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do Jews Control the World?
    ... A Christian is someone who truly believes that Jesus Christ died for ... to live for God alone. ... The theological issue has always been shall there be one valid interpretation of the word of God or should each person have the right to interpret the Bible individually. ... The Catholic Church has consistently taken the position that God's truth is unitary and cannot be fractured or fractionalized, that, in fact, such fractionalization can only be heresy and the work of the devil, as it leads astray those who do not have the mental skills to hold to the true interpretation. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution
    ... But even a new Christian is ... The king then leaves his throne, ... and goes to the poor man's house and says to the man, ... It's only on the face of it that your god is a vicious and unjust god ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT)
    ... Neither were there a Roman Catholic church during Christ's lifetime on earth, though it appears you would like to believe there was. ... Other references, such as Gallatians 5, suggest the larger interpretation is correct because earthly distinctions have been done away with and it is only faith in Christ that matters. ... he always said his "Father" was GOD. ... I believe I've used it once in this post, maybe a few times in other thread branches, and have only used it in setting out Christian theology for you. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)