It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Christianity, Why is Satan Evil, and God Good? What is Evil?

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Please define a mystic for me, and I might consider answering your questions.



A scorpion and a dog met on a dry spot during a flood. Between them and safety was a stream of water. The dog jumped into the water as the waters were rising, and wanted to swim accross. The scorpion at the shrinking island begged for the dog to take him accrosss on his back, but the dog said "If I take you, you'll just kill me", the scorpion answered "Why would I, we would both die". the dog going by logics thinks "what the heck" and allows the scorpion onto his back and starts swimming. Halfway over, the scorpion stings the dog and while they are sinking the dog asks "Why did you do that? Now we'll both die?" And the scorpion says: "Hell if I know, I can't fight my nature"

The dog is the Christian, the scorpion is Satan, and the mystic just told you this story....

[edit on 21/10/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


If that's the kind of raw sewage that floats your boat, then all the more power to ya. My NT tells me that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. OT...same God.

Scholars....Many...Here are a few:
Thomas a Kempis
Lord James Arthur Balfour
David Baron
John Darby
M.R. De Haan
Albert Einstein- Not A Bible Teacher But spoke of God in Interesting Ways
John Gill
James Robinson Graves
James Martin Gray
Hippolytus
Henry Allan Ironside
Johann Friedrich Karl Keil
Samuel H. Kellogg
Origen
William Bell Riley
C.I. Scofield
J.F. Strombeck
Dr. John F. Walvoord
Dr. John A. Witmer
William Law
Martin Luther
Andrew Murray
Mathew Henry
John Calvin
Dr. Gene Scott(Los Angeles University Cathedral).
John F. MacArthur Jr.
Jack Van Impe(the only man to have memorized the NT with a total of nearly 15,000 bible verses memorised)





[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Jack Van Impe(the only man to have memorized the NT with a total of nearly 15,000 bible verses memorised)


Wow! Then we have atleast one against hundreds of thousands of Muslims who knows the Koran letter by letter, syllable by syllable, word by word, sentance by sentance, sura by sura. You must be easilly amased! Especially since there is only 7,957 verses in the KJV NT. Chheck your sources before you copy and paste....

[edit on 21/10/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I did ask you a question @ the last post of page 6 and the first on page 7. Could you please answer those.

Thank you.


Hmm, still waiting on you ...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


If that's the kind of raw sewage that floats your boat, then all the more power to ya. My NT tells me that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. OT...same God.

[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]


Okay that's two fairly negative things you've said during what I was hoping would be a civil discussion. Someone who proclaims himself a scholar probably shouldn't call other points of view 'raw sewage' if they want to be taken seriously.

You just insulted everyone who believed enough in Catharism to die as martyrs for their faith. All because it disagrees with what you think.

Wow.

I guess it's too much expect much else from someone who thinks Jack Van Impe is 'a scholar'.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


I did check my sources....the list of memorized vs. is for NT plus OT.

Want to snark about anything else pal?

[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Your second mistake is mistating that I consider myself a scholar....where did I say that?

And, Jesus used even stronger language against fools...so suck it up....all I did was attack your argument....not you. Jesus attacked arguments and people directly....so he would probably get kicked off ATS if he was here.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Are you ignoring my requests on purpose? Just asking ...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Your second mistake is mistating that I consider myself a scholar....where did I say that?

And, Jesus used even stronger language against fools...so suck it up....all I did was attack your argument....not you. Jesus attacked arguments and people directly....so he would probably get kicked off ATS if he was here.



Wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of foolery. Won't be the last either! Wheeeee!



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Are you ignoring my requests on purpose? Just asking ...


No...sorry not ignoring you.
I have been busy as you can see.
But I will drop the bible bashers like a bag of dirt, since I have given them plenty of food for thought and they don't appear to care or listen.
I'll go check now...so don't go away.
I hope you are nicer.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by John Matrix
 


What about a one-minute-old baby that was drowned by god in the flood. Already corrupted? Give me a break. Your logic is deeply flawed ...


Read all of my posts.

BTW: It's not my logic. It's just the way it is. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The OP brought up the flood and I gave an opinion with some supporting exegesis on the pre-flood era and what was going on.

Again, it is clear from the scriptures concerning Sodom and Gamorrah that God would save all the righteous.

You assume an innocent baby would be born one minute prior to the flood....I think that's a bit much...don't you?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Well then....you are in good company, since JM gets accused of it all the time.... by the Bible bashers, anti-Christian bigots, anti-Christs, atheists, evolutionists, and God haters.


So welcome aboard friend.

Sorry if I offeneded you.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Well then....you are in good company, since JM gets accused of it all the time.... by the Bible bashers, anti-Christian bigots, anti-Christs, atheists, evolutionists, and God haters.


So welcome aboard friend.

Sorry if I offeneded you.


Not at all! I love a good debate.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Looking back at what you said:


Many Christians believe the Bible to be the infallible non-negotiable word of God. That belief unfortunately just can't hold up to scrutiny when held up to the documented tradition of editing, revision, and removal of entire books and points of view.

One the one hand, you could say the bible is a changing document over the years and, as a result, come to take what you read in the context in which it was written...to me this is a necessity to understanding.

On the other hand, you could argue that since much of what early Christians believed is no longer accepted as true Christianity, that what we currently understand as the infallible word of God has in fact been filtered, interpreted, and warped to suit human needs.

In both cases, and I truly believe this to be true, being a Christian requires thought, interpretation, and a questing heart.

IMO too many people who profess themselves to be true Christians are quite diametrically opposed to the idea of challenging their beliefs.


Your statements above are very loaded my friend, and quite frankly would be offensive to many Christians...especially those who have spent years studying and teaching the Faith.

If you don't like how I responded to you, then don't come off like a know it all about what is or isn't a Christian, or whether the Bible is a true translation.

I don't think the Bible is the infallible word of God....I know there have been many translations and revisions. But the basic Gospel message has been retained in all of the well known and accepted versions from King James to the present.

Don't get lost in the details.

Sorry for offending you, but really, your presumptuous comments above are a little offensive to me.

[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Great post, and great discussion, not to mention the great point. I only hope questions will not lead me to hell, but to the truth.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability

I guess it's too much expect much else from someone who thinks Jack Van Impe is 'a scholar'.



Jack Van Impe has a Phd. That means he is recognized as a scholar in his field.

Why do you knock the guy...and me?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Are you ignoring my requests on purpose? Just asking ...


No...sorry not ignoring you.
I have been busy as you can see.
But I will drop the bible bashers like a bag of dirt, since I have given them plenty of food for thought and they don't appear to care or listen.
I'll go check now...so don't go away.
I hope you are nicer.


Thank you for responding to my question on this thread. When you have a minute please visit my other thread about Genesis. It is linked on top of page 7.

What I'm trying to say is that the flood was a world-wide event. That being the case it's highly plausible that women were giving birth when it happened, (or maybe the day before.) Why, in your opinion, did god not spare those innocent babies?

Best,

N



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Ahhh....there wasn't any innocent babies.
Possibly the babies were being aborted, sacrificed to gods, or even eaten by the evil inhabitants of earth?

If you knew God, then you would know there had to be a reason.

Then again, you don't know if any babies had been born during that 100 year period.....right? For all we know, everyone might well have been over 100 years old.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Either way, what about all the animals?!? Were they deserving of death? Why is it that, even if they supposedly don't have souls or such, they deserved to die?

And I still don't believe you answered whether God is so merciful and Just to have punished and continuing to punish people for what others did "in the beginning"... right?

And if someone wants to imply the snake was something BUT an ordinary snake, why must all the other snakes still move along the ground, I mean then God would be illogically wanting to punish one creature for what another being entirely did, right?

And you also refused to answer that if God condemns murder which is killing without a cause, and I put forward I could consider all christians as corrupt, kill them and still be in God's good book on that one, which I'm betting you see as incorrect because God only was for killing the corrupt who would bring harm to the people... correct? What about homosexuals (and bisexuals who slept with the same gender, even once)? He advocated having them die. How technically were they corrupt? How technically could they harm the society? I'd think having them dead would make them worse off, cause of course it's not like once they are dead they can work to help the society, be muscle to protect the society in case of intruders, or to breed if they are infact bisexual and give up the ways God is against. wouldn't it?

Even if you say that's Old Testament and we live in the New Testament time... hold up, but God still advocated it, so that still counts. You can't say because it's was back then when we needed breeding to keep the species alive then it was a justifiable rule cause the matter still is that dead they are worth LESS then they were alive, and still God advocated having them die. For what good would that do?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Ha...ha..funny story.
I have one for you.

There were Two cats swiming across a river.
One cat was named "one two three" and
the other cat was named "un deux trois"
Only one cat made it.....do you know why?

You never answered my question, I will ask you again.....please define what a mystic is?




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join