ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians - Latest Comments in Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:05:00 -0000

while i work on the milk thing i take it you ask such a question because you accept the 10 commandments aesops fable has relevance for us today and the good news would be good news if it were true

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:26:00 -0000

concerning the goats milk i will look into it. milk comes up a fairly good amount in the bible but i cant say i have thought about it before. i will get back to you.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Passerby — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:11:00 -0000

One_lost_person said, "blah, blah, blah....and wisdom like that is timeless just as the 10 commandments apply today and the good news is still good news today."

Tell me, one_lost_person, what commandment is this:

"You shall not boil a goat in its mother's milk"

Just wondering where you see the wisdom it that commandment, and how it applies today?

Cheers

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:34:00 -0000

In that case, buy Writing Skills Made Fun: Capitalization, Punctuation & Spelling

It's easy to understand, and if you apply yourself to learning the information between its covers, you just might even stumble into a better paying job one day.

Just a suggestion.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:41:00 -0000

i cant afford a secetary :-) you are stuck with illiterate

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:19:00 -0000

one_lost_coin said: "my wife is a secretary who transmits other people thought regulary and accurately even when she has to tidy up the grammar it never alters the message."

You might want to have her proof your posts.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:03:00 -0000

Christianity is different than many cults because it is the truth it seeks. i can study aesop socratise plato for the things that they say that are true aesop had alot of good practicle wisdom and wisdom like that is timeless just as the 10 commandments apply today and the good news is still good news today.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:01:00 -0000

the hume test seems flawed but i will reserve comment till have had time to understand how if i dont believe what someone says then i can believe them but then i cant because the things they say arent true. again their situation is only desperate because they refused to deny their belief. pliny who was some kind of roman authority writes that when christians were brought to court all they had to do was worship a statue of ceaser and they would be let go. some did worship ceasar. some died because they didnt. again its only proof of a commitment. which is why i brought it up to start like the writters of the gospels this wasnt some kind of split second decission or glimpse but lifelong many saw jesus for years and had time to think about Him. some even tried to trick Him. thats alot difrent then an eyewitness to a bank robbery.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:52:00 -0000

a miracle is an event whose only adequate explaination is the extrordinary and direct intervention of God. strange occurances without a religous context are not miracles. if frogs fell from the sky it wouldnt be a mircle but if a holy man said as a sign of God judgement upon our sinfullness frogs are going to fall from the sky well that would be. miracles require context and i think the context is the point and the miracle may help make it. if Jesus heals a mans hand on the sabboth the point would be He is God and wishes to do so. those that were there werent impressed and even began to plan to kill him. whether the miracle is believed or not may or may not help us believe the point He claimed to be God. i do believe people who have told me a miracle they saw helped them believe the difference believing has made in their life tells me their witness is credible.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:49:00 -0000

concerning using mark as a source i read that like backup singers in a band they color the melody by echoing, adding more information to, even by contrasting the words of to better bring out the lyrics. they sell something called a parrellel bible that places similar narratives side by side to take advantage of similarities and differenes to better understand the meaning. you seem sympathetic to john i imagine because you share a similar visual way of processing the world but i could be wrong anyway john points out i think the reason why a entire account isnt given of Jesus life John (20:30) Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. (20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. they had very different motivations that we can all agree.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:47:00 -0000

J.C. Samuelson, as far as reliability of transmission for thousands of years it was being spoken written and copied with a consistancy that astonishes everyone. studies have been done with cultures that transmit there history through story and the results are impressive. there culture was not like ours we seem to have given up that ability and rely more on written memory im told its possible to redevelope it. my wife is a secretary who transmits other people thought regulary and accurately even when she has to tidy up the grammar it never alters the message. it must work she keeps her job.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

steamboat_willey — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:07:00 -0000

Anony (if you're still around; and please use a name):

Re: Your question about Hume's argument

Hume's argument cuts right through the quarrel over whether the apostles died willingly or martyred themselves as Islamic radicals do. Using his criterion, you look at the supernatural claim itself and decide between:

a) an error or lie by the storyteller is more miraculous than what happens in the story; or
b) an error or lie by the storyteller is less miraculous than what happens in the story

Is there anybody you have ever known whose credibility is so great that you'd believe his/her story of a supernatural event? Does martyrdom really alter the criteria?

A desperate person will say just about anything, and Christians were desperate until Emperor Constantine realized they were literate and could help his government function.

It's doubtful that Jesus even had a tomb, let alone that he came walking out of it three days after dying from blood loss and shock. Stories told to that effect by desperate outsiders from society are utterly dismissable using Hume's criterion of accepting the lesser miracle (someone was wrong -- unintentionally or deliberately, it doesn't matter which).

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

newcult111 — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:47:00 -0000

j.c...

It seems to me like you are taking this way to seriously...

The bible is a book compiled by men, and written by ancients who did not write the stories at the time of Jesus, but afterward, when legends had been made. Most of the miracles and events that happened were put in there to reflect on the stories of the times. Do you study the works of Homer, Hesiod, Alcaeus, Sappho, Solon, Stesichorus, Vergil, Ovid, and Aesop? You appear to have all the answers, explaining to us what all these holes mean, but the truth is staring you in the face. Religion is nothing more than a cult, created around the time of the Roman Empire and remains today. This holy book is a collection of old jewish folk tales that belong in the halls of history with Homer and Vergil.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

one_lost_coin — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:17:00 -0000

j.c. wow what a response a lot of good comments and questions. let me organize my thoughts and try to give a worthy reply. im going to change my posting name from anonymous to one_lost_coin to avoid confusion with others posting as anonymous.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

muttmutt1978 — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:35:00 -0000

Spare me youre self righetous garbage, you think you are better than everyone else because youre christian, Ive got news for you, there is more than meets the eye here, and not everyone that comes here is a human, lets just say christianity will come to a complete halt one day and I will be the cause of it, dont try and stop me or you will be run over!

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:32:00 -0000

'Nony & Lynn,

"...Writing in someones elses name was a common practice in ancient times as a way of honoring someone not decieving others."

Granted. However, even first-hand witness testimony is widely considered unreliable at best. Second and third-hand is even worse. It's not necessary that there be intent to deceive; hearsay evidence is very rarely accurate because people tend to interpret things differently, sometimes placing emphasis on certain elements that have little relevance. In order to fill in gaps, it's not unusual for a witness to speculate.

This one factor is enough for what we commonly call, reasonable doubt.

"Regardless there were real diciples Peter was one."

And never wrote a thing. Mark was his companion and interpreter, and wrote that gospel. According to the early church father Eusebius, quoting Papias, wrote the following (commonly - and incompletely - quoted in many apologetics works, to include Josh McDowell's NETDAV):

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." [Emphasis added]

Mark may have had the best of intentions; he may have been exceedingly careful to write down everything he could remember, but it was neither a regular nor a complete narrative. If Eusebius is quoting Papias accurately, then neither did Peter give an account or narrative of Jesus' life; he taught was he felt was important. Add Mark's potential - and I'll even grant unintended - interpretation of what Peter said, along with the possibility he forgot something, and you have great potential for error.

Again, there is reasonable doubt. That's all that's required.

Since most scholars also agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources...well, you see where I'm going with that.

"Paul did write in that first generation of believers who had many eyewitnesses in their presence."

Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh, and disagreed vociferously with the other apostles in such a way that they wanted him gone. Since Paul's only witness to Jesus was said to be in a vision, his "witness," such as it can be called such, is very weak.

"Luke set out to proclaim an orderly account..."

And Luke was a companion of Paul. You can guess where I might go with this.

"John wrote of just some of the things that happened in order that we might believe."

Yes, John really believed. He was something of a mystic. His gospel is the spiritual, the God-man gospel. His isn't usually considered to be an historical gospel due to his agenda.

"...much of what was written has been substaintiated by many todays scholarly methods."

Even if that were true, which is debatable, there is no way to verify any of the magical elements of any of the gospels. I've said before in different ways that we could verify every historical element of Jesus' life down to the dirt between his toes, the hair on his back, and the smell of his breath, and it would not in one way validate anything about his alleged magical healing powers or his resurrection.

"I would disagree that matthew showed a lack of knowledge of hebrew scriptures quit the contrary shows an exellent understanding of them."

What I meant by Matthew's lack of knowledge of Hebrew scripture is that he used the LXX as his source (the Septuagint - the Greek translation). Unfortunately, the Jews themselves even feel the Septuagint is a poor translation. The key word I remember Matthew misusing was "almah" (Is. 7:14). In the Septuagint, this was translated as "virgin," when the Hebrew meant simply "young woman." This is given additional weight when Jewish scholars point out that Hebrew contains another word that explicitly means virgin - "bethulah."

Of course, the controversy is that the Jews who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that formed the Septuagint translated "almah" as "parthenos," which does explicitly mean virgin. Really, the argument is between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, and we may never be 100% certain either way. The point is that there is - once again - reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, it's widely acknowledged that the author of Matthew wrote his gospel for the Jews, and works very hard to insert those things that he felt would convince them of Jesus as the promised messiah. But he tries too hard. His geneology, for example, traces the line back to David through Joseph. If Joseph was Jesus' father by blood, then Jesus was not born of a virgin, was he? So the author appears to contradict himself by trying to paint a picture of a virgin birth while giving Jesus a birthright that he could not have had according to Jewish tradition.

"You will have to explain what you mean by that and also about Johns gospel being gnostic."

Sorry. What I meant by that was that his was the most mystical, the most spiritually-oriented of all the gospels, to the point that as an historical document is has dubious value.

"The Bible says that all Christians will be persecuted for their faith."

And so they were in the early days of the Roman Empire. Not only that, but Christians persecuted Christians in the days when the Pope sought to crush any rebellion and heresy. To this day, Christians seek to crush, marginalize, even eliminate other branches of their faith that are deemed to be apostate. Northern Ireland, anyone?

Many Christians today in the U.S. have almost a "persecution complex," wherein anything that seems to challenge their faith is considered to be persecution. It's really ridiculous, but we get them all the time here.

"The fact that other religions are going unnoticed is kinda proof that they are not true."

Pardon me, but what geological age are you living in? Sorry to be sarcastic, but I don't see other religions going "unnoticed" these days. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims kill each other all the time on the India/Pakistan border. Jews, secular Jews, and Muslims are killing each other in Gaza and the West Bank. Muslims are killing other Muslims and Christians just about anywhere there's an opportunity. Christians kill Muslims in Iraq. Whether any of these people deserve it or not is beside the point - the fact is that other religions are rather in the spotlight right now, wouldn't you say?

In any case, how does popularity determine truth? At one time, the majority of earth's population believed the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it (and was a god itself). These ideas among many others have been very, very popular - and very, very wrong.

"...tolerance is a way for Satan to penetrate into people's lives by telling them they must be politically correct."

Ok, I'm gonna have to rip you to shreds for that. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the pertinent definitions of tolerance are:

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. 2a. Leeway for variation from a standard.

See, for most things in life we can be quite tolerant. SO what if Henrietta makes macaroni & cheese with Velveeta instead of real cheddar like my mom does? However, when it comes to religion it gets dicier. I see no problem tolerating the beliefs of say, deists, who feel that God is real but not really very interested in our daily affairs. Nor do I see a problem tolerating the pantheism of many Wiccans. What I don't have tolerance for is monotheistic, Abrahamic religions that are constantly warring with each other, threaten liberty, or seek to impose their version of God and twisted morality on everyone else, based on the ridiculous notion that their favorite invisible buddy became a writer.

So, in my opinion it's OK to be intolerant of some things, particularly when they threaten human survival and liberty. Otherwise, there's no reason not to be tolerant.

Satan has nothing to do with it. After all, Satan doesn't exist.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

newcult111 — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:23:00 -0000

"The fact that misguided people such as yourselves are "dogging" Christianity proves the truth of the Bible."

I fail to see the reasoning in your logic...based off of Aristotelian's model of logic, your argument is flawed. Your argument consists of the fallacies of Shifting the burden of truth, Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam") and several forms of Straw man, and Red Herring. I'm seriously unconvinced that you know at all what you are talking about.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:37:00 -0000

In response to the original post:

The Bible says that all Christians will be persecuted for their faith. The fact that other religions are going unnoticed is kinda proof that they are not true.

As far as the evolution statement,well, we don't see those things evolving because they are man made and nothing that man creates is living.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. I am a Southern Baptist. That is what I choose to believe. In my opinion, Jesus Christ is the son of God and he died to save me from eternal seperation from God (which is hell). No one can decide for anyone else what they should believe and no matter what you say you can never change someone's mind if they are not open to the gospel. Only God can do that.

In my opinion (so don't rip me to shreds), tolerance is a way for Satan to penetrate into people's lives by telling them they must be politically correct. Personally, I don't make jokes, insults, etc. against anyone else's decisions. If I don't agree, I don't allow them in my life but I don't try to insult their way of life.

I am grateful that this site exists b/c even though Christianity and Jesus Christ is being ridiculed and torn, the discussion and awareness is alive.

To boomslang:

The Pope is NOT the final authority on any religion. And if he accepted evolution that is his belief. Everyone says that it was impossible for the world to be created in 6 days. However, if the metaphysical realm cannot be measured then God's time and our time may be completely different. 6 days could mean 6 years, 6 centuries, or 600 million years. we don't know.

To Jt(former Christian):

do you think that there could be a possible reason other than anger for your sensitivity to the Christian ways? If you believed once in God/Jesus Christ, then what is stopping you know from that faith?

This post was not meant to disrespect anyone. However, I will not apologize for my personal opinion that I have stated. Please be aware that Christians are not supposed to be perfect.

Yours truly,

lynn

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:27:00 -0000

Steamboat, As for the credibility test suggested by Hume I dont understand what is meant by b)the human story teller said something untrue. did you mean "did not say something untrue"?

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:14:00 -0000

...continued from previous post. Gnosticism proposed a very complicated pantheon on gods and semigods a hatred of matter in it being sinful a going to be destroyed and even for gender. Every one of these tenents of gnosticism is rejected by Johns gospel the Trinitarian God is One (i know its a difrent discussion) there are no others, women are celebrated as heroes and God is redeeming His creation. I find it hard to understand how brining up gnosticism can have any bearing on the message of Johns gospel.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:10:00 -0000

continued from previous... There is enough evidence to resonably believe that the latest epistle was written no latter than the year 122 and even though noone in ancient times recorded history using the same methods we do now much of what was written has been substaintiated by many todays scholarly methods. Even some things that were once thought to disprove the accuracy of the gospels latter discoveries revealed that the gospels were correct after all. I would disagree that matthew showed a lack of knowledge of hebrew scriptures quit the contrary shows an exellent understanding of them. You will have to explain what you mean by that and also about Johns gospel being gnostic. continued in next

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:07:00 -0000

J.C. Samuelson, It is common knowledge that probably the gospels were written by communities most likely founded by the diciples. Writing in someones elses name was a common practice in ancient times as a way of honoring someone not decieving others. Regardless there were real diciples Peter was one. Paul did write in that first generation of believers who had many eyewitnesses in their presence. Luke set out to proclaim an orderly account John wrote of just some of the things that happened in order that we might believe. continued in next post...

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:50:00 -0000

contiued from preceding post. In the case of the early church the numbers are not exactly known but it was at least in the thousands attested to by sources outside the church here is one link www.bible-researcher.com/pe... but the persecution in the early church was widespread very brutal though off and on and usually in specific communities. Maybe origen was writting about a specific communty when he said there wasnt that many or maybe a couple thousand isnt that many but it is still going on it is estimated that there have been more martyrs in the last 50 years than the in early church. Most likely today someone will be martyred and even more made slaves for being a Christian.

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:47:00 -0000

In response to some of the above. I made sure to mention that it was not proof both times i wrote on martyrs. I was responding to the idea that Jesus diciples lived with and worked with Him for years had ample time to find any frued in His life or teaching. Found none and testified to it with beatings that are recorded and martyrdom that in their case is based largely on tradition. I still think that was fairly good evidence they did not flipantly start up a new religion. continued...

Re: Satan is blinding you to the truth - Letters to the Webmaster

Astreja — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:59:00 -0000

Using the rather dubious standard of "They chose to die for their beliefs, therefore those beliefs must have been true", I could easily validate the beliefs of my ancestors' neighbours. Many of them were murdered when they refused to convert to Christianity. A similar thing happened in the homeland of my partner.

Because we're both here today, our own ancestors must have gone into hiding, pretended to convert, or actually converted.

The only lesson I've managed to draw from this is that beliefs held too tightly tend to be rather lethal. Doesn't say one flipping thing as to who's right and who's wrong.