Did God create evil?
Barry OGrady
God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
together, is He accountable for evil as well?
Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
God is not almighty.
Jeanne Douglas
> Did God create evil?
>
>
> God is the Creator of the world.
> Not only that, He's the Creator of
> the cosmos and all reality.
> He is not confined to the reality humans
> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> all things together.
<boring navel gazing snipped>
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Don Martin
>Did God create evil?
until some credible evidence is furnished for the guy's existence. Without
evidence, the thing is nothing more that a wet dream shared by bronze-age goat
herders.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Syd M.
> Did God create evil?
>
> God is the Creator of the world.
That is not proven at all. We are not about to take your word for it,
either.
So, the rest of your dribble is deleted.
PDW
Bill
> >Did God create evil?
>
> According to the Bible, he claims to have done, but that claim is irrelevant
> until some credible evidence is furnished for the guy's existence. Without
> evidence, the thing is nothing more that a wet dream shared by bronze-age goat
> herders.
>
> --
>
claim He did? Is this another way of saying that modern conceptions of
reality are true simply by virtue of being modern? Since that's
exactly what you're saying, what becomes of our "Truth" when it's no
longer modern, say 100 years from now? Since your whole "argument" is
based on nothing more than generational chauvinism (nonsense), it has
no bearing on the existence of God(s); just unsupported bias.
Bill
Andy W
stand up to scrutiny. Evil is not merely the absence of good. That
would be indifference. Doing evil is obviously not the same thing as
not doing good.
Andy
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Andy W
that way is usually glossed over in a hurry. Mr OGrady evidently has a
different take on it but as I know nothing else about him I am simply
testing the waters at the moment.
Andy
Bill
stupidity. Someone knows that some behavior is evil yet does it
anyway. For something to be evil there has to be intent and that
requires malice aforethought; one has to know what he (she) is doing.
That's what makes sadists and serial killers evil.
The run of the mill brutality of mobs and soldiers and police is not
believed to be evil or even excessive. Those things are just anomalies
where "good" people do bad things so their acts are not really evil. I
also believe that only humans can do evil since they know better. In
fact the attraction seems to be that those who do evil do it because
it's evil. They revel in it. That's what makes it so scary.
Bill
Smiler
> On Sep 17, 7:46 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady
>> <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> >Did God create evil?
>>
>> According to the Bible, he claims to have done, but that claim is
>> irrelevant until some credible evidence is furnished for the guy's
>> existence. Without evidence, the thing is nothing more that a wet
>> dream shared by bronze-age goat herders.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
> So God doesn't exist because bronze-age goat herders were the first to
> claim He did?
before them. They may have been the first to claim *your* particular god
character, but their unevidenced claims (and the unevidenced claims of
others) may be rejected without evidence.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Free Lunch
they are preaching that God and Satan are equals, or that God is
indifferent to what is going on and just going to fix it 'later'.
A Moose in Love
nothing created God, then how did God arrive on the scene? Or was God
always here?
Christopher A. Lee
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:31:43 -0700, Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 7:46 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady
>>> <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> >Did God create evil?
>>>
>>> According to the Bible, he claims to have done, but that claim is
>>> irrelevant until some credible evidence is furnished for the guy's
>>> existence. Without evidence, the thing is nothing more that a wet
>>> dream shared by bronze-age goat herders.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> So God doesn't exist because bronze-age goat herders were the first to
>> claim He did?
>They weren't the first to claim gods. Gods had been claimed for millenia
>before them. They may have been the first to claim *your* particular god
>character, but their unevidenced claims (and the unevidenced claims of
>others) may be rejected without evidence.
Barry OGrady
God look good.
>Andy
Barry OGrady
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>Andy
Barry OGrady
Barry OGrady
Christopher A. Lee
rudely and stupidly presuming it where they know it is irrelevant and
neither wanted nor needed.
Rowland Croucher
news:61g8775lsc1p98653...@4ax.com:
> Did God create evil?
Man created God in his own image.
--
Rev. Dr. Rowland Croucher
Australia's leading Christian and Freemason
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
duke
>Did God create evil?
>
>
>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>God created all things, He must have created evil.
The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Did God create evil?
>>
>>
>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
Bill
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:50:12 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
It must follow, then, that the existence of evil proves the existence
of God, surely not what you meant.
Bill
Gladys Swager
consequences to those
on whom the evil has been perpetuated and also on the perpetrators .
> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
> God is not almighty.
And you know all that from your own experiences, Barry?
What brought you to those convictions?
What about those who knowingly do evil to other humans?
http://creation.com/pseudo-history
Gladys Swager
Smiler
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
No, evil does not prove that any gods exist, what it does show is that
Christianity as described by these silly people does not exist.
Smiler
This may help.
Colostomy 19:98
Stop posting religious shit to alt.atheism where it's off topic and
neither needed nor wanted.
Bill
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:28:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill <freo...@gmail.com> wrote
But Christianity does exist, why pretend otherwise? Problem is, you
make careless remarks and then, when someone notices, you call them
silly people. Atheism requires that all events and behaviors are
wholly natural and nature is wholly amoral. There can be neither good
nor evil except as a measure of personal preference.
The way the concept is being used here, atheists are claiming that
evil exists independently as a thing in itself. To be consistent, an
atheist has to deny both good and evil since neither are natural. The
only possible value is, therefore, whatever the individual says it is.
Bill
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Absolutely Christianity exists, but what does not exist is any valid
support for it.
>Problem is, you
>make careless remarks and then, when someone notices, you call them
>silly people. Atheism requires that all events and behaviors are
>wholly natural and nature is wholly amoral. There can be neither good
>nor evil except as a measure of personal preference.
Nonsense. Morality, ethics, exists without religions. The fact that some
religions claim to get their ethics from a god does not actually mean
that they do.
>The way the concept is being used here, atheists are claiming that
>evil exists independently as a thing in itself.
That's questionable, but hardly worth fighting over. Evil things are
done. Evil exists, as it were. Gods do not keep it in check.
>To be consistent, an
>atheist has to deny both good and evil since neither are natural. The
>only possible value is, therefore, whatever the individual says it is.
Why would you assert that neither good nor evil are natural? What does
that mean? Humans are part of nature and we manage to be both.
Gladys Swager
> Did God create evil?
> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>
> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
> God is not almighty.
you know
everything apart from any revelations taht have been made known in the
past.
Can you explain how you have come to those revelations from your own
experiences?
Can it be stated that evil is 'just the absence' of good, but rather
it should be expressed as
all the hurtful acts that can be perpetualed against another person/s
with the full intent of being aware of the absolute harm they will
bring to the other person/s.
Biblically. Satan is shown to be the adversary of God, in his attempts
to undermine
all the good God desired and still desires for His creation.
See Genesis 3 : 1 - 5
Is it that you make up your theology as you go along to suit
yourself?
Gladys Swager
walksalone
e14ca2...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 17, 4:41�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
snip
>> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>> God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
>> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
>> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
>> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>>
>> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
>> God is not almighty.
>
> You are typing from your own persepctive, in the belief of yours that
> you know
> everything apart from any revelations taht have been made known in the
> past.
Why yes you aere. So nice of you to comment on others doing as you do.
> Can you explain how you have come to those revelations from your own
> experiences?
Revalations, or just deductions? From your POV there is a major
difference.
> Can it be stated that evil is 'just the absence' of good, but rather
> it should be expressed as
No, evil is not the absence of god. It is a eligious concept & can be
summed up rather easily. Though your definition is close enough for a B-52
strike or Naval barrage.
> all the hurtful acts that can be perpetualed against another person/s
> with the full intent of being aware of the absolute harm they will
> bring to the other person/s.
How about bad shit happens to good people. Do you have room in your
definition for that? You should.
> Biblically. Satan is shown to be the adversary of God, in his attempts
> to undermine
Actualy, until the babylonian vacation, no. He was a minion of god, & it
was an office. Hasatan never has an individual name. But they don't teach
that in Sunday Scool. Theyt can't. They use the Greek version.
> all the good God desired and still desires for His creation.
> See Genesis 3 : 1 - 5
Why read uinoriginal text when others have done the research for us?
That's right, you aren't encouraged to consider any other source of
information.
Hint, the snake in the garden, that was not Satan or hasatan. Two
different offices.
The likelyhood is, given the revulsion the mid-easterners held for snakes
was the source. & yes, there was a snake god. Chechk out moses & his
bronze serpents. Seemed worshiping in front of them kept you from dieng
from snake bite. How good did they work, good enough to be included in the
temple in downtown Jerusalem.
Satan dialetic marks indicated by a ?.
No matter how you look at this particular god, you're probably in error
according to somebody. the proper name Satan is in the English translation
of the Hebrew common noun satan. The word itself has been etymologically
related to a mish mash of geminate [A doubled or long consonant], as well
as third weak in hollow verbs not only in Hebrew but in the cognate
languages. The verbs can mean anything from to stray, Arabic �TT, Hebrew
STH, Ethiopian �TY, Akkadian s�tu and Syrian ST, to revolt/fall away Aramic
SWT, Mandaean SWT and Hebrew SWT, to be unjust Arabic �TT), to burn Syrian
SWT and Arabic �YT and to seduce Ethiopian �TY and Hebrew STH .
As with most pat answers, there are serious problems that have to be
overcame. These proposals require discounting n?n [dialetric mark does not
translate to text at all]of the noun Satan as part of the root, and then at
the attributing it to a -an suffix. At least two reasons stand in
opposition to this concept, the first being that when the -an suffix is
appended to a noun word base, it will normally result in an abstract noun,
an adjective, or a diminutive. The noun Satan has none of these
characteristics.
In Hebrew, -an is normally realized as -on. granted, there are exceptions
but among the standard conditions proposed to explain the a typical
retention of -an, are not applied to this particular noun.
[is it getting boring yet?]
The workaround is to accept the noun as part of the root and analyze the
word in context. This does not find favor with current Christian
apologetics.
That the geminate, third, weak, and hollow verbs listed above can have
meanings that are considered appropriate to the noun Satan are viewed as
resulting from interactions between the popular use of the word &
developing traditions about Satan. The root stn is not found in any of the
cognate languages that are prior to or contemporary with the occurrences of
the Hebrew Bible. There is one situation where the Akkadian satanu is
conflated with that particular word root, but the majority opinion polls
that that particular word is related to etemu/etenu (AHW, 260). This
leaves the sole means of interpretation with accuracy up to context. In
the Hebrew Bible, there are nine occurrences, nine contexts. Five refer
strictly to humans, and four are divine beings. Bel dababi, bel dim and
akil karsi
are the terms they can refer to either a human legal opponent, or to a god
acting as an accuser in some legal contact. Which of course causes
confusion because the noun Satan now has a celestial as well as a human
parallel. But the concept is not unique in the Middle East, the deities
Nanay and Mar Biti are charged with enforcing a treaty that was sworn in
their names. (en mes di ni-su) the Hebrew Bible reflects this concept with
the divine council of �l & then yahweh.
The most well-known Satan is found in Numbers 22:22-35 where Baalam busted
his ass. The other three, ????v and ????v?? (cf Kgs 11 14 23, Sir 21 27,
are transliterations meaning adversary. So far, this seems to be the only
common characteristic of the name.
When referring to humans, it is never a proper name but a common noun that
means adversary, either in a political or legal context.
When referring to a celestial being, the Greeks by way of the [this is one
I have never heard of] 8HevXIIgr and a more familiar LXX is always
translated as Diabolos <>Devil. Here it means the slander Ho Satanas & is
rarely used without the article. This designates an opponent of god & in
the New Testament, Satanas and Diabolos can refer to the same supernatural
individual. Therefore they can be interchanged. cf Rev 20:2. This
supreme evil being can also be referred to as ho poneros, the evil one� (cf
Matt 13:19) and ho peirazon, the tempter (cf Matt 43: 1 Thess 3:5)
It is a bit odd that in the Hebrew Bible, in the Garden of Eden episode,
Satan is not named and yet xian's claim he was there.
The story of baalam, is the one of two usages of the noun as a proper
divine name.
In Numbers 22:22-35 a strange story is told. Gather round children, and
let your imagination run free.
It starts out with a seer, which strangely enough is not a Judaean, merrily
making his way to Jerusalem town on his ass. Of course, that was the
common mode of travel in those days. For some reason this managed to
irritate the Judaic god yahweh, who decided to send him a not so friendly
warning. To do this he appointed a divine celestial messenger, commonly
referred to as a mal'ak yhwh who has the additional duty of being the Satan
of the day. The Satan decide to occupy the road upon which this particular
prophet is traveling, & just to make things interesting he elects to play
hide and seek so that our hero of the story cannot see him. This does not
prevent the ass from seeing the Satan. Just to impress the ass, the Satan
has a sword, and the ass not being totally foolish says hell no I won't go
& lays down. A good move on its part, this happens twice & our hero is
beginning to be more than a bit irritated. He therefore commences to
beating his ass.
To make a long story short, the ass asked why she had been beaten, the
Satan un-cloaks, the message of yahweh is delivered. Our hero continues on
his journey a changed man, so to speak. In so far as I'm aware, this is
the only direct intervention in human affairs other than the story of Job
that involves a Satan.
With the saga of baalam, & the attending satan out of the way, we get to
some of the less vile parts regarding the satan.
Here we start in Job, where a divine council is in session. Here we
encounter h�s?atan, which creates problems for those that demand satan is
real. It's that pesky definitive article, which means that this will not be
a person's name. It means that an office or appointment to an office is
about to begin. It still translates as the accuser. It is noted that
nowhere does this position exidts in the legal system of ancient Judea. Nor
is this office to be found in the surrounding councils of the gods. It is a
unique term.
What is important about this, is that it removes the satan from being
anything but a deity under the direct control of the current senior god
with the hairy chest. It has been argued that during the Persian period,
there were professional accusers/informers, but thus has never been
ascertained to date. This leaves the satan directly under the command of
the senior god. A point that various apologetic writers try & gloss over.
Now, what we have here is grounds to absolve the satan from any guilt or
wrong doing, for he is acting directly at the explicit commands of the
senior god. This one is thought to be yahweh.
Here we have a god [didn't expect a goddess did you] that has been
appointed to a position that requires it to ask questions. In this case,
the question raised was, are people [Job in this case] pious for the
rewards & blessings received by being pious. A very foundational question.
the author then proceeds to do a dog & pony show that is ethically
bankrupt, but drives home the point, some people will be pious whether they
are rewarded or not.
Again, the title satan is not what is important, it is what that job
requires, not the person that holds it, that makes it important in Jewish
mythology. with the introduction of satan into the story, we have
something that makes more sense for such legal parallels [an appointed
accuser] can be found in some Judaic legal proceedings.
It is sad to note, in the context of the story, that when Job bent his
knee to yahweh, it proved the satan wrong.
There are no historical references in the book of job, so accurate dating
is not available. A majority of scholars read it as a response to the
theological problems [dualism, who or what created evil, eternal life, etc]
caused by the Babylonian vacation. Due to that, it gets dated to the later
half of the -sixth century, Gregorian.
To continue the demonization of the satan office, we can read of the
prophet Zechariah (Zech 3), wherein the high priest, one Joshua is
attending a tribunal of the divine council, & is standing in front of
yahweh's fetch daemon. H�s?atan is standing on his right, in order to
accuse him. The fetch daemon is less than thrilled about Joshua's dirty
attire, & rebukes the satan for it. He demands clean clothes for joshua, &
gets them. No one notices that it is the daemon that apparently brought
Joshua, for that would not have the effect that was being worked towards.
This is a rather powerful daemon, for it promises that as long as Joshua is
faithful [does he have a choice?] he will have direct access to yahweh.
It gets rather detailed here, much past the scope of these notes on usenet.
It is about this time that Satan becomes an independent agent & yahweh
becomes a nice guy. You can find this in the Chronicles. It starts with the
accusation of the Census that yahweh ordered being blamed on Satan. Yet,
we know the Judeans had no problem with a census, for it's found in their
legends.
Given that the Chronicler used the Deuteronomistic History as a source
text, it is clear that the Chronicler has altered his source in such a
way as to take the burden of responsibility for the sinful census
away from Yahweh Some scholars interpret this to mean that the
Chronicler was striving to distance Yahweh from any causal relationship to
sin, or to rid Yahweh of malevolent behaviour in general. However, this
explanation cannot account for passages such as 2 Chr 10 15 and 18 18-
22, where Yahweh is clearly portrayed as sanctioning lies and
instigating behaviour that was designed to cause harm. Another
explanation notes that, in comparison to the Deuteronomistic History, the
Chronicler presents an idealized portrait of David's reign In general,
the Chronicler deletes accounts that cast David in a dubious light.
Contrary to this general tendency, the Chronicler was obliged to
retain the story of the census plague because it culminated in the
erection of what the Chronicler understood to be the altar of the
Solomonic Temple, and David's relationship to the Jerusalem Temple is
another theme of crucial concern to the Chronicler Given that the incident
could not, therefore, be deleted, the Chronicler modified his source text
so that the incident no longer compromised Yahweh's relationship with
David, the ideal king The Chronicler also shifts blame for the sinfulness
of the census from David to Joab by stating that the census was not sinful
per se, but was sinful because Joab did not take a complete census (1 Chr
21 6-7, 27 24). It is important to establish why the Chronicler
changed his source text because his motivation has implications for how we
understand satan in this passage If the Chronicler was trying to
generally distance Yahweh from malevolent behaviour and accomplished this
by attributing such be haviour to another divine being, then we can see in
this passage the beginnings of a moral dichotomy in the celestial sphere.
If Yahweh is no longer thought to be responsible for malevolent behaviour
toward humankind, and another divine being capable of acting
efficaciously, independent of Yahweh, is, then it would be quite
appropriate to translate satan with the proper name Satan. However, if
the introduction of satan into the census story has the more
circumscribed objective of portraying the relationship between Yahweh and
David favourably, and not of ridding Yahweh of malevolent intent more
generally, then even if satan in this passage is a proper name, the term
is still a long way from connoting Satan, God's evil archenemy
Although there is no consensus position regarding the dating of
Chronicles, the most persuasive arguments favour dating the first edition
of the Chronicler's history to ca 520 bce If this is correct, then there
are two additional reasons against translating satan as a proper name
Firstly, Zechariah, a contemporary, does not use satan as a proper name
Secondly, the earliest texts that indisputably contain the proper name
Satan date to the second century bce (Ass Mos 10 1, Jub 23 29, possibly
Sir 21 27), which would mean that more than 300 years separate the
Chroniclers text fiom the first certain references to Satan In summary,
the four Hebrew Bible texts that mention a celestial satan are most
probably dateable to the sixth century bce or later, and it is clear that
the satan envisaged in Zech 3 is not the same divine being who acts as a
satan in Num 22 Moreover, in none of the four texts is satan
indisputably used as a proper name Given these data, it is difficult to
maintain, as many scholars have, that we can see in the Hebrew Bible a
developing notion of Satan First of all, if Satan is not mentioned in
the Hebiew Bible, then the statement that the Hebrew Bible evidences a
developing notion of Satan is obviously anachronistic Secondly, the
statement is difficult to maintain because at least two of the texts
clearly refer to different divme beings And thirdly, if the texts are
relatively closely clustered in terms of date, then there is less
likelihood that they would evidence conceptual development
References:
O. Bocher, EWNT 3 (1983) 558-559
Bocher, Das NT und die d?monischen Mdchte (Stuttgart 1972)
H. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament
and Ancient Near East (Minneapolis 1980)
A. Brock-Unte, "Der Feind": Die alttestamentliche Satansgestalt im Licht
der sozialen Verhaltnisse des nahen Orients, Klio 28 (1935) 219-227
F. M. Cross, A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, JBL 94 (1975) 3-
18 [& lit]
P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: s?t?n in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta
1988) [& lit]
H. Duhm, Die bosen Geister im Alien Testament (Tubingen 1904)
W. Foerster, TWNT 7 (1964) 151-164
N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton 1987)
W. Gross, Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in
Num 22-24 (M?nchen 1974)
V. P. Hamilton, Satan, ABD 5 (1992) 985-998
P. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia 1979); H. Kaupel,
Die Ddmonen in Alten Testament (Augsberg 1930)
R. S. Kluger, Satan in the Old Testament (Evanston 1967; original
German version: Zurich 1948)
A. Lods, Les origines de la figure de satan, ses fonctions a la cour
celeste, Melanges syriens offerts a Monsieur Rene Dussaud vol. 2 (Paris
1939) 649-660)
K. Marti, Zwei Studien zu Sacharja: I. Der Ursprung des Satans, TSK
65 (1892) 207-245
E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite
andEarly Hebrew Literature, (HSM 24; Chico 1980)
J. D. Newsome, Towards a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his
Purpose, JBL 94 (1975) 201-217
L. Oppenheim, The Eyes of the Lord, JAOS 88 (1968) 173-180
E. Pagels, The Social History of Satan, The 'Intimate Enemy': A
Preliminary Sketch, HTR 84 (1991) 105-128
P. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston 1967)
G. Roskoff, Geschichte des Teufels (Leipzig 1869)
J. S. Russel, The Devil. Perceptions from Antiquity to Primitive
Christianity (Ithaca 1977)
Russel, Satan. The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca 1981).
C. Breyenbach (I, IV)
& P. L. Day (I-III)
> Is it that you make up your theology as you go along to suit
> yourself?
That would be very xian of him, but why would an atheist have a theology?
walksalone who has to wonder, are xians always ignorant of the makeing of
their myth. I doubt the ability of people Like Gladys to fake it.
Archbishop: A Christian Eccalastic of a rank superior to that attained by
Christ. H.L. Mencken
Yap
> Did God create evil?
Why do you assume there is a sky pixie?
>
> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>
> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
> God is not almighty.
But if you do assert there is a sky pixie which created human with
sins, why has it not being responsible for evil?
You mean you need imagine another satan which is also a pixie to be
responsible for evil?
What kind of human you think you can con in this 21st century?
Yap
> On Sep 17, 7:46 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >Did God create evil?
>
> > until some credible evidence is furnished for the guy's existence. Without
> > evidence, the thing is nothing more that a wet dream shared by bronze-age goat
> > herders.
>
> > --
>
> So God doesn't exist because bronze-age goat herders were the first to
> reality are true simply by virtue of being modern? Since that's
> exactly what you're saying, what becomes of our "Truth" when it's no
> longer modern, say 100 years from now? Since your whole "argument" is
> based on nothing more than generational chauvinism (nonsense), it has
> no bearing on the existence of God(s); just unsupported bias.
Why can't you accept that you have been conned by ancient goat
herders?
Or, you think you are no smarter than them?
>
> Bill
Yap
My contention is that they know there is no sky pixie to punish them.
BionicMan
happen to good people in the world. An all-loving all-powerful does
not coincide with so many people suffering. So either God is not all-
powerful or is not all-loving.
Christians will usually try to refute the problem of evil by saying
all sorts of crazy things, like that God gave humans free will.
But is it really human fault that there are mass starvations
worldwide, earthquakes, rockslides, tornados, tsunamis, volcanos
errupting and hundreds of diseases and mental disorders?
While I'm not trying to advertise for atheism, I think the church is
definitely cherry-picking God's work. If something good happens then
it must be God's work but if bad things happen, then it just must be
one of those things.
Why not just accept the fact that events are the result of chance,
cause and effect and random factors?
If you do believe God is responsible for the way the world is then as
well as praising Him for the good things you would also have to blame
Him for the bad things that happen to people as well. There is no
other way around.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Are%20all%20religions%20false.htm
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 4:41 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> Did God create evil?
>>
>> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>>
>> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>> God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
>> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
>> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
>> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>>
>Evil is more than just the absence of good. Evil has severe
>consequences to those
>on whom the evil has been perpetuated and also on the perpetrators .
>> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
>> God is not almighty.
>
>And you know all that from your own experiences, Barry?
>What brought you to those convictions?
>What about those who knowingly do evil to other humans?
what you seem to be about.
They say God did not create evil but you say he did.
>Gladys Swager
NojObama
M.I. Wakefield
news:4e7790e1$0$3801$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...
Yep. He's not real either.
The PHANTOM
simply taken it to a new level.
duke
duke
duke
Andy W
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:19 -0700 (PDT), Andy W
>
>
>
>
>
> <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 18, 12:30 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com>
>
> >> >On Sep 17, 7:41 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> Did God create evil?
>
> >> >> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >> >> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >> >> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >> >> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >> >> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >> >> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >> >> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> >> >> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >> >> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
> >> >> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
> >> >> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>
> >> >> God is not almighty.
>
> >> >stand up to scrutiny. Evil is not merely the absence of good. That
> >> >would be indifference. Doing evil is obviously not the same thing as
> >> >not doing good.
>
>
> >Apparently it's all Satan's fault. The question of how Satan got to be
> >that way is usually glossed over in a hurry. Mr OGrady evidently has a
> >different take on it but as I know nothing else about him I am simply
> >testing the waters at the moment.
>
> This may help.
>
> Colossians 1:16-17
> For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
> in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
> dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
> him, and for him:
> And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>
Mmm... not so much, really, no. Are you actually religious, or not?
Most of your posts suggest you are, but then you seem to reverse
course from time to time so I'm not sure whether you are arguing in
favour of God or against.
Gladys Swager
one of the created angels disbobeyed God and when humans chose
to listen to him and to obey him. Genesis Chapter 3.
http://creation.com/atheism
http://creation.com/why-is-the-problem-of-evil
Gladys Swager
>
Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
the myths and legends of a long gone bronze age tribe.
For some reason a lot of deluded idiots take it seriously and stupidly
talk about it outside their circle as it were real.
NojObama
Christopher A. Lee
his religion.
Smiler
Harold Burton
> Did God create evil?
>
>
> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good.
snicker
Harold Burton
<aaf8c2bb-7a4d-4fce...@k29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:15 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Did God create evil?
> >
> > > God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> > > the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> > > have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> > > Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> > > all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> > > and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> > > together, is He accountable for evil as well?
> >
> > > Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> > > God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
> > > not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
> > > was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
> >
> > > God is not almighty.
> >
> > stand up to scrutiny. Evil is not merely the absence of good. That
> > would be indifference. Doing evil is obviously not the same thing as
> > not doing good.
> >
>
> I've always thought that evil is fundamentally a manifestation of
> stupidity.
stupidity.
snicker
Harold Burton
<2e8b020c-0939-455a...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> There probably can't be an all-loving God when so many bad things
> happen to good people in the world. An all-loving all-powerful does
> not coincide with so many people suffering. So either God is not all-
> powerful or is not all-loving.
snicker
Harold Burton
NojObama <noj...@wh.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, he was created by "God". Why was that?
snicker
Yap
You mean there are other gods such as satan, devil, and....?
For all you know, these imaginative gods may be much better than
jesus.
They have never spew a bad word about jesus, to start with.
Yap
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:15:54 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>Did God create evil?
>
> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>
> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
Apostate
in alt.atheism:
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 SOBWAG #1
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"A psychiatrist will be tolerant of your foibles, but a
plastic surgeon will help you pick your nose."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
duke
all eternity.
Zadok_007
sees man as good.
I would suggest you read Romans 3 beginning at vese 10 and begin
again.
God causes calamity (evil) to come upon man to wake him to his dire
condition of being dead in trespasses and sins and needing a savior.
Without the intervention of God man would go on into death without
redemption provided as a free gift from God for repentant sinners
And YES .........God is sovereign and man is accountable.
Smiler
exists.
I would suggest that you provide evidence that this supposed being exists
outside your deluded mind. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT
evidence.
Gladys Swager
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 duke wrote in alt.atheism:
> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >>>Did God create evil?
>
> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>
> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
>
http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
>
Hope the website is correct this time
Gladys Swager
walksalone
news:a601bcc1-9fa6-43da...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Afraid to live their lives & take responsablity for their actions.
Have been brain washed by their parants & their friends.
Needed to change their current addiction for another one.
& if one is not a believer, the evience is plain there can be no historical
jesus as claimed by the Greek Testaments. Which includes the
pseudoepigraphic gospels aas well as the epistles[sp?].
It means many people crave security & everlasting life, that they are
promised providing you kiss their gods ass.
A rather long list if one wishes to consider it.
But then the Greek Testaments are but an abberation of the Hebrew Bible
which prove the old addage, Like father, Like Son.
Or were you under the impression that the Satans trained your bubba?
& if one is not a believer, the evience is plain there can be no historical
jesus as claimed by tghe Greek Testaments. Which includes the
pseudoepigraphic gospels aas well as the epistles[sp?].
> http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
Now why would anyone want to be lied to?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/historical_jesus.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/historicaljesus1/Historical_Jesus.htm
About.com, yes about.com
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_search.html
For those that need their hand held.
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-jesus.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm
http://historical-jesus.info/
walksalone whose kids never had nightmares, but his sister did.
For truly it is to be noted, that children's plays are not sports, and
should be deemed as their most serious actions. -Michel de Montaigne,
essayist (1533-1592)
Christopher A. Lee
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:a601bcc1-9fa6-43da...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 20, 6:41 am, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 duke wrote in alt.atheism:
>>> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>Did God create evil?
>>>
>>> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator
>>> >>>of the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality
>>> >>>humans have access to, but He did design it and speak it into
>>> >>>being. Everything humans experience is in existence because God's
>>> >>>power holds all things together. If this is so, what is
>>> >>>responsible for the origin and continuation of evil? If God made
>>> >>>everything and holds everything together, is He accountable for
>>> >>>evil as well?
>>>
>>> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense.
>>> >>>If God created all things, He must have created evil.
>>>
>>> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>>>
>>> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>>>
>>> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
>>>
>> Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
>
>It means many of the worlds populatrion are:
different god beliefs out there and who talk at everybody else as if
theirs were real instead of keeping it where it belongs inside their
religion.
duke
wrote:
in the world. The Father than relented and allowed man to achieve the kingdom
of heaven by successfully following in the steps of his son.
walks...@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:47:20 GMT, walksalone
><spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:a601bcc1-9fa6-43da...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sep 20, 6:41 am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 duke wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>Did God create evil?
>>>>
>>>> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator
>>> Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
>>
>>It means many of the worlds populatrion are:
>Stupid people who don't understand that there are hundreds of different
>god beliefs out there and who talk at everybody else as if theirs were
>real instead of keeping it where it belongs inside their religion.
be sure, but children are easily frightened & will seek comfort wherever
they can. Scorn for those that should know better, pity for those that
can't.
walksalone who knows fear, but cowardace is not the answer.
Christopher A. Lee
obnoxious they don't deserve any.
Gladys Swager
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >On Sep 20, 6:41 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 duke wrote in alt.atheism:
> >> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> >>>Did God create evil?
> >> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >> >>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >> >>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >> >>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >> >>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >> >>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >> >>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
> >> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >> >>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
> >> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>
> >> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> >> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
> >Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
> >http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
>
> It means that Jesus, thru the cross, appeased the Father for the presence of sin
> in the world. The Father then relented and allowed man to achieve the kingdom
> of heaven by successfully following in the steps of his son.
>
Then how do you reconcile the teachings of Paul in Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
'For by grace (God's mercy unmerited by us) are (we) saved through
faith
(not of unselves ie by the works/deeds that we do): IT IS THE GIFT OF
GOD;
Not of works; lest any (wo)man should boast.
Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
Luther
of 1517. It has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
and
rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
that time
only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relativesz and
friends paying
for those prayers to be offered.
John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
glory of God. . .
It is on these verses and other similar verses
that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
truth to the world.
That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
Christian faith.
It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
did make errors
as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
to the mid-
Twentieth Century.
Gladys Swager
walksalone
Caesar Auguatus. At least Caesar Augustus existed & is a histgorical
fugure..
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
that your missing messiah is the only one that could have that title?
> that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
to be able to live eternally.
> Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
> with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
> by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
> glory of God. . .
How rude, pretending your fantasys are real, & the pabuluum that makes
you happy is wanted by the atheist, & freemason, news groups.
What do we know about saul, as much when you get right down to is, as the
misisng messiah. We don't even know that he wrote his epstles.
Psediographic writings from that era are fairly common.
But then, never let relity get in the way of what makes you feel special
& worthy of life.
> It is on these verses and other similar verses
> that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
> truth to the world.
cannonised at the first Council of Nicea. Not part of the original
writings as far as can be determined. Though the Acts of Paul & Thecla
are in xian writings.
> That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
> reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
> Christian faith.
government of Rome, & with time, the Roman Empire. To be fair, the
Church of Rome was not the only catholic church, just the one with the
political clout.
> It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
> did make errors
> as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
> to the mid-> Twentieth Century.
But when did the truth get between a bleater & their faith?
> Gladys Swager
Oh, that explains the confusion. Let the audience know what you think
about the Gospel of Peter.
walksalone who accepts not all xians are grown ups or considerate of
others & admits, the only course they leave others is to be treated the
same as they reat others. Or as Rodney Dangerfield [US Comedian] would
say, no respect.
Olrik
(If only they'd kill each other like they did in the good ol' days...
For shame...)
Yap
> >On Sep 20, 4:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:15:54 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:50:12 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> >alt.atheism:
>
> >> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >>>Did God create evil?
>
> >> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >> >>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >> >>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >> >>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >> >>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >> >>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >> >>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> >> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >> >>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
> >> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>
> >> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> >> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
>
> >You will also die as a human unworthy of a biological life.
>
> Just like you. But I know that the next life is the important one. It's for
> all eternity.
for the sky pixie.
Next life is just a concept you picked up from the religious bullshit
and when you spend all your life looking towards it, it means that you
have wasted you biological entity for nothing.
So, there is quite a lot of difference between you and me.
Yap
It is not for you to advocate the stupidity of religious bullshits
into human journey.
Yap
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:22 -0700 (PDT), Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 6:41 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 duke wrote in alt.atheism:
> >> >>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> >>>Did God create evil?
>
> >> >>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
> >> >>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
> >> >>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
> >> >>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
> >> >>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
> >> >>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
> >> >>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>
> >> >>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
> >> >>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>
> >> >>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>
> >> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> >> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
> >Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
> >http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
>
> It means that Jesus, thru the cross, appeased the Father for the presence of sin
> in the world. The Father than relented and allowed man to achieve the kingdom
> of heaven by successfully following in the steps of his son.
You con bible said so !
Barry OGrady
>On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:15:54 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:50:12 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:25 +1000, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Did God create evil?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>>>>the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>>>>have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>>>>Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>>>>all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>>>>and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>>>>together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>>>
>>>>Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>>>>God created all things, He must have created evil.
>>>
>>>Not a serious comment. God allows evil in man.
>>
>>Then God is responsible for evil.
>
>He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
Not good enough.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
If so God created evil but not good.
>snicker
Barry OGrady
>Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 3:26 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:41:19 -0700 (PDT), Andy W
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 18, 12:30 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >> >On Sep 17, 7:41 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> Did God create evil?
>>
>> >> >> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>> >> >> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>> >> >> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>> >> >> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>> >> >> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>> >> >> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>> >> >> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>>
>> >> >> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>> >> >> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
>> >> >> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>>
>> >> >> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
>> >> >> God is not almighty.
>>
>> >> >I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here but it doesn't
>> >> >stand up to scrutiny. Evil is not merely the absence of good. That
>> >> >would be indifference. Doing evil is obviously not the same thing as
>> >> >not doing good.
>>
>> >> How does evil exist in Christian doctrine if God did not create it?
>>
>> >Apparently it's all Satan's fault. The question of how Satan got to be
>> >that way is usually glossed over in a hurry. Mr OGrady evidently has a
>> >different take on it but as I know nothing else about him I am simply
>> >testing the waters at the moment.
>>
>> This may help.
>>
>> Colossians 1:16-17
>> For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
>> in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>> dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>> him, and for him:
>> And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>>
>
>Mmm... not so much, really, no. Are you actually religious, or not?
Not. I use the bible against Christians.
>Most of your posts suggest you are, but then you seem to reverse
>course from time to time so I'm not sure whether you are arguing in
>favour of God or against.
Really?
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 4:30 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gladys Swager
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Did God create evil?
>>
>> >> God is the Creator of the world. Not only that, He's the Creator of
>> >> the cosmos and all reality. He is not confined to the reality humans
>> >> have access to, but He did design it and speak it into being.
>> >> Everything humans experience is in existence because God's power holds
>> >> all things together. If this is so, what is responsible for the origin
>> >> and continuation of evil? If God made everything and holds everything
>> >> together, is He accountable for evil as well?
>>
>> >> Looking at things from a human perspective, it would make sense. If
>> >> God created all things, He must have created evil. However, evil is
>> >> not a thing like a rock or a puppy. Just as cold is the absence
>> >> of heat, evil is merely the absence of good. Therefore, creating good
>> >> was all that was necessary for its opposite to come into being.
>>
>> >consequences to those
>> >on whom the evil has been perpetuated and also on the perpetrators .
>>
>> The gotquestions website disagrees with you.
>> >> That means Satan can't be evil, and humans can't be evil, and
>> >> God is not almighty.
>>
>>
>> Isaiah 1:18
>>
>> >What brought you to those convictions?
>> >What about those who knowingly do evil to other humans?
>>
>> Gotquestions is all about making God look good, which is
>> what you seem to be about.
>> They say God did not create evil but you say he did.
>>
>I did not say that God had created evil. Evil occurred when Satan,
>one of the created angels disbobeyed God and when humans chose
>to listen to him and to obey him. Genesis Chapter 3.
Now you are saying God created evil through Satan.
Gotnoanswers is saying evil is not a created thing.
>Gladys Swager
duke
>Next life is just a concept you picked up from the religious bullshit
>and when you spend all your life looking towards it, it means that you
>have wasted you biological entity for nothing.
life, or just the flames.
>So, there is quite a lot of difference between you and me.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 22, 3:27 am, duke wrote:
It fits perfectly in with all other things God revealed. Heb 4:15 well says
that we are all sinners on a regular basis. Veniel sins are simply trespasses
against man and God will forgive us for those in the next life. (See the Our
Father).
Mortal sins, otoh, are very serious sins against God himself and hence destroy
our relationship with him. These are generally referred to as "blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit". Of course, The Holy Spirit is God, the 3rd person.
Jesus taught us how to live in obedience and love of the Father. This is
further reflected in the human/inhuman way we treat other men. Jesus said I
give you a new command: "That you love one another as I have loved you". John
13:34. And it is the Holy Spirit that guides, counsels, teaches us how to live
as God called us to - feed the hungry, give drink to the thirst, clothe the
naked.
By directing our lives otherwise, we're telling God we don't care for his
assessment and that we are his equal and can treat others as we want and not as
he called us.
As Jesus revealed, there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
in the next life. But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
ourselves is such a dangerous position. It's called the sacrament of
Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
>Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
>Luther of 1517.
Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
>It has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
>and rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
>that time only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relativesz and
>friends paying for those prayers to be offered.
>John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
>For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross. Mat
27:51-53.
So we can see that the cross brought some thing that did not exist before. It's
a chance. Those that lived to a new life also are rewarded per that chance
lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
>Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
>with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
>by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
>glory of God. . .
Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
follow him.
>It is on these verses and other similar verses
>that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
>truth to the world.
Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
>reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
>Christian faith.
God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
>It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
>did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
>to the mid- Twentieth Century.
>Gladys Swager
All men make mistakes. The biggest mistake made by mankind may turn out to be
lut.
duke
like you that don't care do, unfortunately, fall into a very dangerous category.
duke
Barry OGrady
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Andy W
Ah! A fine and noble cause.
>
> >Most of your posts suggest you are, but then you seem to reverse
> >course from time to time so I'm not sure whether you are arguing in
> >favour of God or against.
>
> Really?
Yeah, sorry. You opened with an unqualified "God is the creator of the
world", followed up with a Bible quote, both typical theist behaviours
which have seem to have drawn some fire from other quarters. I'll keep
it in mind for when I see any more posts from you in future.
Andy
Barry OGrady
<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
I try to talk to Christians in their own language but I am definitely
a strong atheist. I think Christianity is strictly loony tunes.
>Andy
Gladys Swager
through faith in Jesus Christ.
> By directing our lives otherwise, we're telling God we don't care for his
> assessment and that we are his equal and can treat others as we want and not as
> he called us.
> As Jesus revealed, there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
> in the next life. But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
> ourselves is such a dangerous position. It's called the sacrament of
> Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
>
your church
on the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. The word 'sacrament' does
not even appear
in the KJV Bible. And Peter in his epistle names all Christians as
holy and royal priesthood.
1 Peter 2 : 5, 9)
> >Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
> >Luther of 1517.
>
> Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
> off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
> we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
> those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
hidden in one of the Duke of Wittenbug's castles as the Pope Leo X
would have executed him had he appeared at the Church's court.
> >It has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
> >and rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
> >that time only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relativesz and
> >friends paying for those prayers to be offered.
> >John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> >BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
>
> Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
> life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross.
> Mat 27:51-53.
it.
You know that the term 'purgatory' does not appear in the Bible -
so why do you continue to refer to it?
> So we can see that the cross brought some thing that did not exist before. It's
> a chance. Those that lived to a new life also are rewarded per that chance
> lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
>
> >Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
> >with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
> >by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
> >glory of God. . .
>
> Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
> follow him.
>
> >It is on these verses and other similar verses
> >that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
> >truth to the world.
>
> Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>
> >That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
> >reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
> >Christian faith.
>
> God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
>
we sved and have Everlasting Life. Also John 3 : 16
> >It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
> >did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
> >to the mid- Twentieth Century.
>
> lut.
>
spelling of his name.
And you certainly do not understand his work. If Pope Leo X and Tetzel
had not imposed Indulgences - moneys paid to the R.Catholic Church -
to gain an early release from Purgatory (non-existant) - with the
proceeds going to reconstruct Peter's Bascillica as 'the most
beautiful church in Christendom' there may not have been the
Protestant Reformation.
It is obvious that you have only heard the account of those times from
your mentors in your church. You need to read the Protestant account
of those times.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The sin that God cannot forgive is rejecting His gift of salvation
>through faith in Jesus Christ.
The sin that I cannot forgive is God not using his power and knowledge
to ensure that all creatures are happy and healthy at all times.
>Gladys Swager
Christopher A. Lee
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The sin
Idiot.
> that God
Idiot.
> cannot forgive
Idiot.
> is rejecting
Idiot.
> His gift
Idiot.
> of salvation
Idiot.
>through faith
Idiot.
> in Jesus Christ.
Idiot.
duke
words.
duke
wrote:
Holy Spirit of Jesus is rejecting his teachings.
>> By directing our lives otherwise, we're telling God we don't care for his
>> assessment and that we are his equal and can treat others as we want and not as
>> he called us.
>> As Jesus revealed, there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
>> in the next life. But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
>> ourselves is such a dangerous position. It's called the sacrament of
>> Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
>That is in the formalised, ritualised faith that has been imposed by
>your church
>on the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
decide how well they were keeping God's 10 commandments. When Jesus arrived,
the new way is measured in our hearts. And a heart that wants cleaning uses
the way Jesus gave us.
> The word 'sacrament' does not even appear
>in the KJV Bible. And Peter in his epistle names all Christians as
>holy and royal priesthood.
total failure leading it's followers down the road to perdition.
>> >Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
>> >Luther of 1517.
>> Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
>> off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
>> we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
>> those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
>And Luther translated the Bible into the German language while he was
>hidden in one of the Duke of Wittenbug's castles as the Pope Leo X
>would have executed him had he appeared at the Church's court.
>> >It has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
>> >and rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
>> >that time only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relativesz and
>> >friends paying for those prayers to be offered.
>> >John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
>> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>> >BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
>>
>> Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
>> life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross.
>> Mat 27:51-53.
>You are reading an interpretation into that passage that is not in
>it.
>You know that the term 'purgatory' does not appear in the Bible -
>so why do you continue to refer to it?
>> So we can see that the cross brought some thing that did not exist before. It's
>> a chance. Those that lived to a new life also are rewarded per that chance
>> lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
>>
>> >Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
>> >with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
>> >by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
>> >glory of God. . .
>> Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
>> follow him.
>> >It is on these verses and other similar verses
>> >that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
>> >truth to the world.
>>
>> Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>> >That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
>> >reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
>> >Christian faith.
>> God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
>Luther pointed out that it was by faith, the gift of God to usm that
>we sved and have Everlasting Life. Also John 3 : 16
>> >It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
>> >did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
>> >to the mid- Twentieth Century.
>> All men make mistakes. The biggest mistake made by mankind may turn out to be
>> lut.
>You certainly 'have it in' for Luther. Can't even give him the proper
>spelling of his name.
danger because he caused the weak to think in terms of salvation when the bible
speaks in terms of damnation. And lut definitely convinced the very weak that
what the bible says isn't true.
duke
duke
Nope, to show men the way to the Father.
Barry OGrady
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:43:09 +1000, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Gladys Swager
>><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The sin that God cannot forgive is rejecting His gift of salvation
>>>through faith in Jesus Christ.
>>
>>The sin that I cannot forgive is God not using his power and knowledge
>>to ensure that all creatures are happy and healthy at all times.
>
>We are only passing thru this life. The diversion comes in the next one
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Gladys Swager
> >On Sep 22, 3:27 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >On Sep 20, 6:41 am, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
>
> >> >> >> God allows evil in man.
>
> >> >> >Then God is responsible for evil.
>
> >> >> He allows it in you to be paid off in full at the moment you die.
>
> >> >Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
> >> >http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
>
> >> It means that Jesus, thru the cross, appeased the Father for the presence of sin
> >> in the world. The Father then relented and allowed man to achieve the kingdom
> >> of heaven by successfully following in the steps of his son.
> >Then how do you reconcile the teachings of Paul in Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >'For by grace (God's mercy unmerited by us) are (we) saved through
> >faith (not of unselves ie by the works/deeds that we do): IT IS THE GIFT OF
> >GOD; Not of works; lest any (wo)man should boast.
>
> It fits perfectly in with all other things God revealed. Heb 4:15 well says
> Father).
> Mortal sins, otoh, are very serious sins against God himself and hence destroy
> our relationship with him. These are generally referred to as "blasphemy
> against the Holy Spirit". Of course, The Holy Spirit is God, the 3rd person.
> Jesus taught us how to live in obedience and love of the Father. This is
> further reflected in the human/inhuman way we treat other men. Jesus said I
> give you a new command: "That you love one another as I have loved you". John
> 13:34. And it is the Holy Spirit that guides, counsels, teaches us how to live
> as God called us to - feed the hungry, give drink to the thirst, clothe the
> naked.
> By directing our lives otherwise, we're telling God we don't care for his
> assessment and that we are his equal and can treat others as we want and not as
> he called us.
> As Jesus revealed, there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
> in the next life.
- to speak lightly or carelessly against God is a mortal sin'
Zondervan Bible Dictionary
But all sins can be forgiven. "For all have sinned and have come short
of the glory of God' Romans 3 : 23 "The wages of sin is death, BUT
THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. Romans
6 : 23
Except 'sins againt the Holy Spirit - refusing to accept the salvation
Christ came to provide for us.
>But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
> ourselves is such a dangerous position. It's called the sacrament of
> Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
>
Holies was split from top to bottom (signifying it was not men who had
split it.) That signified that all humans now had direct access with
God through Jesus Christ.
> >Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
> >Luther of 1517.
>
> Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
> off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
> we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
> those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
>
> >John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> >BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
>
> Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
> life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross. Mat
> 27:51-53.
>
salvation.
Salvation is a theme of the Old Testament as it is also a theme of the
New Testament.
> So we can see that the cross brought some thing that did not exist before. It's
> a chance. Those that lived to a new life also are rewarded per that chance
> lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
>
The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, is a statement
that can help as
you consider the various teachings of all the Bible
> >Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
> >with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
> >by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
> >glory of God. . .
>
> Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
> follow him.
>
depend on the teachings of the various denominations within the
Christian church and some teachings are not correct.
> >It is on these verses and other similar verses
> >that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
> >truth to the world.
>
> Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>
> >That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
> >reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
> >Christian faith.
>
> God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
>
8 - 9
The Vatican has never acknowledged that since 1517. perhaps by 2017
the leaders at the Vatican might be prepared to state that Leo X and
Tetzel were the persons who were wrong.
> >It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
> >did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
> >to the mid- Twentieth Century.
> lut.
>
Duke. In faith, one day, you will come to realise your error and that
of the Vatican since 1517 and also before that date and since.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
declare you will do that. It means you see yourself as his equal. God is now
represented on earth by the Holy Spirit of JEsus. So when you reject the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, you are telling God the Father and God the son that
you are their equals.
>Zondervan Bible Dictionary
>But all sins can be forgiven. "For all have sinned and have come short
>of the glory of God' Romans 3 : 23 "The wages of sin is death, BUT
>THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. Romans
>6 : 23
>Except 'sins againt the Holy Spirit - refusing to accept the salvation
>Christ came to provide for us.
very similar to "refusing his salvation." The extremely dangerous thing is that
"no one with any intelligence actually thinks in terms of their actually
refusing God's salvation", but that's exactly what you are doing when you follow
what you declare is right instead of what he said.
Thus when he tells you to do this, and you instead to do that, you are refusing
his salvation.
So when he tells us that works of love are required for faith, you are rejecting
his salvation when you tell him he's wrong.
>>But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
>> ourselves is such a dangerous position. It's called the sacrament of
>> Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
>At the time of the crucification the veil in front of the Holy of
>Holies was split from top to bottom (signifying it was not men who had
>split it.) That signified that all humans now had direct access with
>God through Jesus Christ.
he was in the tabernacle - the Jewish temple.
>> >Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
>> >Luther of 1517.
>> Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
>> off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
>> we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
>> those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
>> >Your church has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
>> >and rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
>> >that time only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relatives and
>> >friends paying for those prayers to be offered.
>> >John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
>> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>> >BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
>> Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
>> life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross. Mat
>> 27:51-53.
>David wrote (Psalm 18 : 35) (God) has given me the shield of (His)
>salvation.
>Salvation is a theme of the Old Testament as it is also a theme of the
>New Testament.
the 10 commandments. There was no "faith in God". All measurement was by the
Levi laws.
>> So we can see that the cross brought some thing that did not exist before. It's
>> a chance. Those that lived to a new life also are rewarded per that chance
>> lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
>The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed
>The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, is a statement
>that can help as you consider the various teachings of all the Bible
The OT fully prophesied the coming of the Messiah one day and as a warrior king
that would deliver the promised land to the Jews.
The NT reveals that Jesus fulfills or certifies the prophesies of the OT. The
Messiah came instead as a man of love.
>> >Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
>> >with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
>> >by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
>> >glory of God. . .
>> Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
>> follow him.
>Faith in God gives us an assurance of forgiveness.
> The following can
>depend on the teachings of the various denominations within the
>Christian church and some teachings are not correct.
the RCC. In light of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit discussed earlier,
Jesus gave us the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments. He told us to love one another as
he has loved us. He told us that we had to feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
give drink to the thirsty.
To reject these is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and those mortal sins will
never be forgiven, and ABSOLVED, within the confessional. John 20:22-23.
>> >It is on these verses and other similar verses
>> >that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
>> >truth to the world.
>>
>> Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>>
>> >That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
>> >reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
>> >Christian faith.
>> God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
>God continues to say that Luther was right as he quoted Ephesians 2 :
>8 - 9
>> >It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
>> >did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
>> >to the mid- Twentieth Century.
>> All men make mistakes. The biggest mistake made by mankind may turn out to be
>> lut.
>I can see that I have still not convinced you.
>Duke. In faith, one day, you will come to realise your error and that
>of the Vatican since 1517 and also before that date and since.
>Gladys Swager
Smiler
> but I am definitely
> a strong atheist. I think Christianity is strictly loony tunes.
>
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Barry OGrady
Gladys Swager
> >On Sep 22, 10:17 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >On Sep 22, 3:27 am, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >> >> >Jesus paid it all. What does this mean?
> >> >> >http://www.alllaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-paid-it-all.htm
>
> >> >> It means that Jesus, thru the cross, appeased the Father for the presence of sin
> >> >> in the world. The Father then relented and allowed man to achieve the kingdom
> >> >> of heaven by successfully following in the steps of his son.
>
> >> >Then how do you reconcile the teachings of Paul in Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >> >'For by grace (God's mercy unmerited by us) are (we) saved through
> >> >faith (not of unselves ie by the works/deeds that we do): IT IS THE GIFT OF
> >> >GOD; Not of works; lest any (wo)man should boast.
>
> >> It fits perfectly in with all other things God revealed. Heb 4:15 well says
> >> that we are all sinners on a regular basis.
KJV - Hebrews 4 : 15 For we have not an high priest who cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points
tempted like as we are. yet without sin.
That verse tells us about Jesus Christ Who was sinless.
> >>Venial sins are simply trespasses against man and God will forgive us for those in the next life. (See the Our Father).
> >> Mortal sins, otoh, are very serious sins against God himself and hence destroy
> >> our relationship with him. These are generally referred to as "blasphemy
> >> against the Holy Spirit". Of course, The Holy Spirit is God, the 3rd person.
> >> Jesus taught us how to live in obedience and love of the Father. This is
> >> further reflected in the human/inhuman way we treat other men. Jesus said I
> >> give you a new command: "That you love one another as I have loved you". John
> >> 13:34. And it is the Holy Spirit that guides, counsels, teaches us how to live
> >> as God called us to - feed the hungry, give drink to the thirst, clothe the
> >> naked.
> >> By directing our lives otherwise, we're telling God we don't care for his
> >> assessment and that we are his equal and can treat others as we want and not as
> >> he called us. As Jesus revealed, there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the
> >> Holy Spirit in the next life.
> >'Blaspemy is to reproach or to bring a railing accusation against God
> >- to speak lightly or carelessly against God is a mortal sin'
>
> It's more than that - it's telling God that, when he says you must do this, you
> declare you will do that. It means you see yourself as his equal. God is now
> you are their equals.
>
Pope.
Popes are human and can make errors as all other humans can do.
> >But all sins can be forgiven. "For all have sinned and have come short
> >of the glory of God' Romans 3 : 23 "The wages of sin is death, BUT
> >THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.
> >Romans 6 : 23
> >Except 'sins againt the Holy Spirit - refusing to accept the salvation
> >Christ came to provide for us.
>
> I believe our wording is close to each other. To tell God you are his equal is
> very similar to "refusing his salvation." The extremely dangerous thing is that
> "no one with any intelligence actually thinks in terms of their actually
> refusing God's salvation", but that's exactly what you are doing when you follow
> what you declare is right instead of what he said.
>
> Thus when he tells you to do this, and you instead to do that, you are refusing
> his salvation.
>
Son that whosoever believes on Him, should not perish, but has
Everlasting Life.
> So when he tells us that works of love are required for faith, you are rejecting
> his salvation when you tell him he's wrong.
>
order ie faith in Jesus first ,
the works of love follow. It is a work of love - true Christian love -
that I spend time with you trying to sort out with you the confusions
you have about the Christian life in that you are following so many
man-made rules of the Vatican that were determined in the years from
early Fourth Century as the Church at Rome took over dominance of all
the Mediterranean churches and began to impose its own teachings on
them. . .
> >>But God still loves us and gives us a way back when we find
> >> Reconciliation. John 20:22-23.
Sacrament is not a word used in the KJV Bible.
Mark 11 : 25 - 26 And when you stand praying, Forgive, if you have
aught against any:
that your Father Who is in Heaven may forgive tou your tresspasses.
But if you do not
forgive neither will your Father Who is in heaven forgive you your
trepasses.
> >At the time of the crucification the veil in front of the Holy of
> >Holies was split from top to bottom (signifying it was not men who had
> >split it.) That signified that all humans now had direct access with
> >God through Jesus Christ.
>
> The splitting of the veil signifies that God is no longer hidden from us as when
> he was in the tabernacle - the Jewish temple.
>
> >> >Your church, Duke, still needs the Protestant Reformation of Martin
> >> >Luther of 1517.
> >> Unfortunately, lut leads the unwise away from the teachings in the bible. Right
> >> off the bat, you can see how lut leads you to believe that God doesn't care if
> >> we follow him. It would appear that lut didn't believe that God would reject
> >> those that didn't follow the path God chooses for us.
>
killed Luther
if they had been able to capture him or persuade to go to Rome to hear
his complaint.
even though teh Bible teaches not to murder
But Luther was right on that issue. Leo X was the one who was wrong.
This week I read that the Vatican had organised a Mass in Germany for
30 000 persons
No doubt to marshall their opposition to the planned celebrations in
Wittenberg and throughout the world in 2017 by Protestants as other
activities have been since 1960 with the formation of the Pontifical
Council for promoting Christian Unity by Pope John XXIII,
But the Vatican wants unity on its terms.
> >> >Your church has a works-based theology of observance of all its rules
> >> >and rituals and even then states that time must be spent in Purgatory with
> >> >that time only lessened by the Indulgences obtained through relatives and
> >> >friends paying for those prayers to be offered.
> >> >John 3 : 16 Jesus said,
> >> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> >> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> >> >BUT HAVE (present tense) EVERLASTING LIFE.
> >> Of course. Before Jesus, there was no salvation of souls. Those that lived
> >> life as God called us to were held over (purgatory?) until the cross. Mat
> >> 27:51-53.
Psalm 20 : 5 We will rejoice in Your salvation.
No salvation, you say, in the Old Testament (??????)
Still no 'purgatory' in those verses.
> >salvation. Salvation is a theme of the Old Testament as it is also a theme of the
> >New Testament.
>
> But it was judged by the Levi laws being used to determine one's adherence to
> the 10 commandments. There was no "faith in God". All measurement was by the
> Levi laws.
>
the Old Testament -
but certainly not with the knowledge that we have since the time of
Jesus Christ.
> >> So we can see that the cross brought some things that did not exist before. It's
> >> lifestyle. They had to wait for the cross. We must act now.
> >The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed
> >The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, is a statement
> >that can help as you consider the various teachings of all the Bible
>
> I would put that another way.
> The OT fully prophesied the coming of the Messiah one day and as a warrior king
> that would deliver the promised land to the Jews.
>
> The NT reveals that Jesus fulfills or certifies the prophesies of the OT. The
> Messiah came instead as a man of love.
>
> >> >Romans 5 : 1 - 2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
> >> >with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access
> >> >by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the
> >> >glory of God. . .
> >> Falls exactly in line with what I said above. Faith in God gives us desire to
> >> follow him.
> >Faith in God gives us an assurance of forgiveness.
>
deeds of love count towards
a rewards as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
> And your faith is dead if it's isn't represented in our action. James 2:14-26.
>
positive action towards others . James was not writing of the
observances that were added to the teachings of the New Testament by
the Church at Rome from the early Fourth Century
> > The following can depend on the teachings of the various denominations within the
> >Christian church and some teachings are not correct.
>
> There is only one that fully and completely follows the teachings of the Lord -
> the RCC. In light of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit discussed earlier,
> Jesus gave us the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments. He told us to love one another as
> he has loved us. He told us that we had to feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
> give drink to the thirsty.
>
are there named
seven sacraments. There is disagreement amongst Christians about the
number of sacraments.
> To reject these is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and those mortal sins will
> never be forgiven, and ABSOLVED, within the confessional. John 20:22-23.
>
> >> >It is on these verses and other similar verses
> >> >that Christians can come to unity in the presentation of the Christian
> >> >truth to the world.
>
> >> Exactly. As long as you understand what the verses coming together say.
>
> >> >That would end the confusion of so many denominations that began as
> >> >reformers realised that the Church at Rome had added teachings to the
> >> >Christian faith.
> >> God is not going to change to satisfy lut.
> >God continues to say that Luther was right as he quoted Ephesians 2 :
> >8 - 9
>
> Yet God went on to CLEARLY state that faith without deeds is dead faith.
>
Christ.
The Vatican bundles it all together to enforce its rules of control
and as a means
to make sure that donations are given regularly to maintain the
balance in its expense
account. .
> >> >It means that the Pope must state that his predecessors in the past
> >> >did make errors as they added to to the Christian faith from the early Fourth Century
> >> >to the mid- Twentieth Century.
> >> All men make mistakes. The biggest mistake made by mankind may turn out to be
> >> lut.
> >I can see that I have still not convinced you.
>
> You can't, gladys. You're wrong.
>
> >Duke. In faith, one day, you will come to realise your error and that
> >of the Vatican since 1517 and also before that date and since.
>
>
But it is still not proven. The Vatican brainwashes the children of
its members in their schools so they live by the Missal. and the
priest's explanations.
You had that teaching as a child...left it and came back to it in
later years.
Now you target those of us who try to show you how the leadership of
the R.Catholic Church
imposed teachings that are not in the New Testament.
The Mass - Jesus does not return in every piece of bread at that Mass
so that as it is stated those participating receive a piece of Jesus
- 30 000 in Germany this last week.
Jesus must be very sore with all the divisions of Him at every Mass
throughout the world.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KJV - Hebrews 4 : 15 For we have not an high priest who cannot be
>touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points
>tempted like as we are. yet without sin.
>That verse tells us about Jesus Christ Who was sinless.
Is Jesus better than us or did he just get lucky?
>John 3 : 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
>Son that whosoever believes on Him, should not perish, but has
>Everlasting Life.
>Mark 11 : 25 - 26 And when you stand praying, Forgive, if you have
>aught against any:
>that your Father Who is in Heaven may forgive tou your tresspasses.
>But if you do not
>forgive neither will your Father Who is in heaven forgive you your
>trepasses.
>Faith in God leads us to accept His salvation and it is then that
>deeds of love count towards
>a rewards as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
If all are 100% happy in heaven how can some be better off?
>Gladys Swager