Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599163 Oct 7, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
I came naked from my mother's womb.
and I will be stripped of everything when I die.
The Lord gave me everything I had,
and the Lord will take it away.
Praise the Name of the Lord.
To understand is to Love.
I'm taking it all with me. <smile>

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#599164 Oct 7, 2013
Then God answered Job from the whirlwind.

Brace yourself because I have some questions for you and you must answer them.

Are you going to discredit my justice and condemn me so you can say you are right?

Are you strong as God and can you thunder with a voice like his?

All right then put on your robes of state, your majesty and splendor.

Give vent to anger let it overflow against the proud.

Humiliate the proud with a glance; walk on the wicked where they stand.

Bury them in the dust, Imprison them in the world of the dead.

Then I would even praise you for your own strength would save you.

Take a look at the mighty hippopotamus. I made it just as I made you. It eats grass like a ox.

See how its powerful loins and the muscles of the belly.

Its tail as straight as a cedar. The sinews of it thighs are tightly knit together.

Its bones are tubes of bronze. It limbs are bars of iron.

It is a prime example of God's amazing handiwork.

Only its creator can threaten it.

The mountains offer it their best foods. where all the wild animals play.

It lays down under the lotus plants, hidden by the reeds. The lotus plants give it shade among the willows beside the stream.

It is not disturbed by raging rivers not even when the swelling Jordan rushes down upon it.

No one can catch it off guard or put a ring in its nose and lead it away.

Judged:

16

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#599165 Oct 7, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm taking it all with me. <smile>


The only way I knew how to say it all.

Judged:

15

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599166 Oct 7, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's his job. If the prosecution can't show that a guilty man is guilty, whether it is because he is innocent, because his guilt cannot be demonstrated, or because the prosecutor is incompetent, the defendant is to be set free.
<quoted text>
The ones with perfect consciences and impeccable ethics will do the same. That's they're job. Your comment implies that a defense attorney giving a guilty defendant a zealous defense is unethical if the defendant is not convicted. That's simply not true.
<quoted text>
He doesn't need to be any particular type of lawyer. Why would he choose to be a defense attorney? Why not?
Again, I am not suggesting any lawyer throw a case. SO how could my comment "implies that a defense attorney giving a guilty defendant a zealous defense is unethical"?

I have already stated numerous times that once a lawyer takes a case he is bound by his ethical code and at risk of his license to do his best

My point and has always been that there are some cases lawyers with conscious wouldn't take unless forced upon them. At the top of the list is a child rapist they believe to be guilty, knowing the recidivism rates will all but guarantee future rapes.

Yes there will always be a lawyer that will do it. And yes it is perfectly legal. That doesn't make it right. And I would think a lawyer would sleep better at night knowing he turned down the chance to try to get a child molester back on the street, as is his right, then agreed to help him for a fee and potentially helped free him to abuse more kids.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599167 Oct 7, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That wouldn't be an advantage over the system. That would be a professional advantage - a competitive advantage.
<quoted text>
The right thing for the defense attorney to do is to try to win an acquittal for his client. Period. If the attorney plays jury by judging his client guilty and helping the prosecution, he is unethical. Why even have a trial if your lawyer has already tried you in his head? I think you would understand that if your lawyer did that to you.
<quoted text>
If I were a defense attorney, yes, I would, just as I would try to cure his pneumonia if I were his doctor. The opposite is unthinkable.
You have a legitimate concern if the justice system that doesn't protect the public or damages the innocent. But I think your criticism is misdirected. If Catcher's only sin is being a better attorney than the prosecutor, I say blame the prosecutor, or the system that let him/her prosecute.
Again, I have said repeatedly if a lawyer takes a case he has to do his best for the client

And yes, there would be plenty of blame to go around

I find in unconscionable that this discussion is even taking place. Of course a lawyer with a conscious doesn't volunteer to try to get a child rapist back on the street to abuse more kids. OF course he doesn't.

That's the kind of case that even when forced to do it by the court and someone could face disbarment that a lawyer with a conscious probably still has to struggle with a little and then tries to shake it off and goes and does his job because he has no choice.

That it wouldn't give someone one pause that was not forced to do it and would voluntarily try to get an abuser back on the street to abuse again is extremely disturbing to me. Not surprising, but disturbing

To me, legality has never been equally on par with morality. And because something can be done isn't a reason to do it. And if i was an attorney, I wouldn't be the one who put my training and skill to work to free a child rapist to rape again. I just wouldn't be. If other people have no problem with that then that is what their conscious dictates to them

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599168 Oct 7, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I see five quality authors with professional reputations to uphold. the notion that if they write about this or a related subject, they can't be trusted is nonsense.
5 of them picked a title on purpose because of its marketability despite how little the actual book has to do with it

Of course they will have a bias

If it is debunked their book is worthless since they titled it after the 'hook' they thought would draw in sales. it is being used as a sideshow attraction. The secret or hidden or ancient or other gospels of Mark. Oooh, how provocative! Authors generally don't use titles that have little to do with their overall content.

And the guy's thesis is garbage is his gamble on writing about a secret gospel that has been discovered is debunked

So these guys have plenty on the line to want to believe in its authenticity. If you can't see that then I will leave it at it is just a wild coincidence 5 authors choose the same subject that all their books were barely about as their title.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#599169 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
5 of them picked a title on purpose because of its marketability despite how little the actual book has to do with it
Of course they will have a bias
If it is debunked their book is worthless since they titled it after the 'hook' they thought would draw in sales. it is being used as a sideshow attraction. The secret or hidden or ancient or other gospels of Mark. Oooh, how provocative! Authors generally don't use titles that have little to do with their overall content.
And the guy's thesis is garbage is his gamble on writing about a secret gospel that has been discovered is debunked
So these guys have plenty on the line to want to believe in its authenticity. If you can't see that then I will leave it at it is just a wild coincidence 5 authors choose the same subject that all their books were barely about as their title.
Total nonsense.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599170 Oct 7, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
No, silly, I did not make it up. You quoted Brown and linked to a webpage that provided the ultimate source for that quote. The ultimate source is Brown's article.*Your* source provides the citation to Brown -- the ultimate source of his quote. I pointed out that I felt the partial quote did not accurately reflect what Brown wrote. A reprint of that footnote from Brown is here:
http://books.google.com/books...
Yes silly you did make that up

Nowhere are the words "ultimate source" used except in your post. And at no time did I say anything to give the impression that a quote from one out of the ten scholars I quoted was some sort of ultimate proof. You merely showed one of the ten quotes was out of context and he really wasn't given an opinion at all.

That still would leave the other nine

At no point was this a big deal until for some reason you refused repeatedly to give the link. I guess only you will know why you decided to act like that when presented with a reasonable request

Thank you for finally linking your quote. I don't know why it took four requests for you to do so

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#599171 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
It might not be considered punishment to someone who doesn't believe in God to not spend an eternity with Him. Although if hell was eternal suffering I would think they would definitely consider that punishment
<quoted text>
The saved and unsaved have still both committed sins for which the penalty is death
The difference for the saved is God has forgiven us and took the punishment meant for us. Someone taking our punishment doesn't make us any less guilty for the sin. But His mercy towards us for trusting in Him for salvation allows us to avoid that fate
<quoted text>
If faith is given by God, then why would not believing be worthy of punishment? I think it just makes them unable to be saved
<quoted text>
Actually it will be the same
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
<quoted text>
i just don't see how that can't be the interpretation when looking at these three verses
Matthew 10:28
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
Psalms 146:4
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.
<quoted text>
I believe life is a gift
Notice in Ecclesiastes is describes death as no further reward
That is how i see it too
Those that don't accept Christ or die in their sins will receive no further reward

Skombolis wrote:
It might not be considered punishment to someone who doesn't believe in God to not spend an eternity with Him. Although if hell was eternal suffering I would think they would definitely consider that punishment.
OK. That sentence what you write there Skombolis should make you rethink you position.

Because if someone not believe it is punishment spending eternity with God---then what would be the punishment for unbelievers that reject Jesus Christ and lives this life by basically the lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life? murderers, rapists, thiefs, child molestors, etc.?

You gave the answers Skombolis. You said "Although if hell was eternal suffering I would think they would definitely consider that punishment"

darn tootin they would. Because that is the truth.

I can give you as much verses or more like I did before that shows a soul will be aware of their eternal punishment in hell. So your verses and my verses can cancel each other out.

A soul not being aware of the eternal punishment of hell, is a soul that is not being punished.

And you write this:
"If faith is given by God, then why would not believing be worthy of punishment? I think it just makes them unable to be saved"
???

So Skombolis are you saying a person is >>not<< responsible for rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the Gospel is either preached to them or they hear it or read it somewhere?

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Roger Viklund

Umeå, Sweden

#599172 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen four possible theories. At best some believe it may be valid except claim it would not contain the Carpocration additions
Nobody has proved it is valid
Many don't believe it is
Just some other scholars comments
Patrick Skehan: "...a morbid concatenation of fancies..."[17]
Joseph Fitzmyer: "...venal popularization..."[18] "...replete with innuendos and eisegesis..."[19]
Paul J. Achtemeier: "Characteristically, his arguments are awash in speculation."[20] "...an a priori principle of selective credulity..."[21]
William Beardslee: "...ill-founded..."[ 22]
Pierson Parker: "...the alleged parallels are far-fetched..."[23]
Hans Conzelmann: "...science fiction..."[24] "...does not belong to scholarly, nor even...discussable, literature..."[25]
Raymond Brown: "...debunking attitude towards Christianity..."[26]
Frederick Danker: "...in the same niche with Allegro's mushroom fantasies and Eisler's salmagundi."[27]
Helmut Merkel: "Once again total warfare has been declared on New Testament scholarship."[28]
http://gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm
Can you show me any scholars or experts that put their reputation on the line stating with any degree of certainty this is valid?
Well, it is a bit difficult to prove that it is valid, since we do not have the actual text and therefore cannot make a scientific examination of the writing, the ink, the paper, and so on.

But frankly, name rattling proves absolutely nothing.

There is really nothing substantially to question the letter’s authenticity. And if you believe there is, please provide us with some evidence or at least some valid arguments apart from wishful thinking which show that it probably is a forgery.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599173 Oct 7, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she said she isn't on FB....Since you are part of the old Topix posters on Facebook you can go over and see she isn't part of it.....FYI
She is on FB

Just not our group

I never said she was though

That's more detail than I wanted to get into though so I will just leave it at that.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599174 Oct 7, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text> OK. That sentence what you write there Skombolis should make you rethink you position.
Because if someone not believe it is punishment spending eternity with God---then what would be the punishment for unbelievers that reject Jesus Christ and lives this life by basically the lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life? murderers, rapists, thiefs, child molestors, etc.?
You gave the answers Skombolis. You said "Although if hell was eternal suffering I would think they would definitely consider that punishment"
darn tootin they would. Because that is the truth.
I can give you as much verses or more like I did before that shows a soul will be aware of their eternal punishment in hell. So your verses and my verses can cancel each other out.
A soul not being aware of the eternal punishment of hell, is a soul that is not being punished.
And you write this:
"If faith is given by God, then why would not believing be worthy of punishment? I think it just makes them unable to be saved"
???
So Skombolis are you saying a person is >>not<< responsible for rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the Gospel is either preached to them or they hear it or read it somewhere?
It is an interesting question which I tried to get into a little more detail lat you might see as far as where does the responsibility lie for faith?

Is faith the gift or salvation the gift as a result of faith?

There are plenty of verses that show even though faith is given by hearing the word that some of it depends on us. Choose who you will serve, trust in God not man, seek and you will find, etc. And on the flip side the Pharaoh's heart was hardened even more by God when his already hard heart caused him not to believe

I concluded the inability to have faith may stem from the inability to trust in a power higher than themselves

But how much does that clear up? Is it pride? Or are some people just wired that way? Why do some people believe and others don't? I really can't say for sure. Can you? So to say I think unbelief is worthy of eternal punishment would not be something I would agree with

But that's not why I believe in annihilation. Although it did make me happier to discover it. It is the dozens of verses that say the soul is destroyed, our thoughts perish, the soul dies, no more reward is given, etc.

What verses show eternal punishment? One verse in a parable in Matthew 25 where the goat and sheep are separated and it could mean they go to a place of eternal suffering? That is all I could really find that shows hell is eternal for man. If you have more I am always interested in seeing it because my search has left me basically where I am at now.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#599175 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes silly you did make that up
....
If you need to be dishonest, you've got nothing.

And your being dishonest.

And you have nothing.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#599176 Oct 7, 2013
Roger Viklund wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is a bit difficult to prove that it is valid, since we do not have the actual text and therefore cannot make a scientific examination of the writing, the ink, the paper, and so on.
But frankly, name rattling proves absolutely nothing.
There is really nothing substantially to question the letter’s authenticity. And if you believe there is, please provide us with some evidence or at least some valid arguments apart from wishful thinking which show that it probably is a forgery.
Thank you, Rodger.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#599177 Oct 7, 2013
Woooooooooooooooooooooo such pretty decorations this am.

But I wonder could you ever command the morning to appear and cause the dawn to rise in the east

Have you ever told the daylight to spread to the end of the earth to bring an end to the night.

Do you know where the gates of death are located.

Where is the home of the east wind?

Don't worry you too obsessed with judgment

God is exalted beyond what you could understand.
His years are without number.

Your decorations hold no importance to anyone but you.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599178 Oct 7, 2013
Roger Viklund wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is a bit difficult to prove that it is valid, since we do not have the actual text and therefore cannot make a scientific examination of the writing, the ink, the paper, and so on.
But frankly, name rattling proves absolutely nothing.
There is really nothing substantially to question the letter’s authenticity. And if you believe there is, please provide us with some evidence or at least some valid arguments apart from wishful thinking which show that it probably is a forgery.
You don't understand how the burden of proof works

The onus is on someone to prove it is authentic, not the other way around

And it has been a highly debated subject where it has basically boiled down to four different theories that may be possible and only complete hubris would lead someone to state with a certainty they know it to be true

When something can not be authenticated it has to be assumed to be illegitimate until proven otherwise

If I found a bunch of writings in a floor rug I bought at a garage sale titled "the secret diary of Thomas Jefferson" where he explains he hates black people and is being blackmailed into doing the Emancipation Proclamation should we just assume it is legit because someone can't prove it isn't? Even though it has been through no scientific process to prove its authenticity? It would be absurd

But it didn't stop half a dozen guys from naming their books about it (despite their book having little to do with it) and claiming it is true

Totally irresponsible and self-serving IMO

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599179 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
If you need to be dishonest, you've got nothing.
And your being dishonest.
And you have nothing.
NO you are

Show me where I or the source used the words "ultimate source"

How can you even deny you made that up?

You did it to make it seem like you showing the quote was out of context did more than it really did and because for some strange reason you seemed to be trying to pride me out of asking you for the link that completed a quote found on a page i sourced

Whatever game you were playing was your game

Please copy and link anywhere that the phrase "ultimate source" came from other than your post

Therefore, you made it up

This is simple stuff CJ.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599180 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Total nonsense.
Good rebuttal

But like i said, I will leave it to you then

If you believe it is simply a coincidence that 5 authors chose a title based on its provocative nature that their book had very little to do with it then that is your opinion

If you don't see using it as a title for a boor subject where sales would rely on it being true or for a thesis to get a doctorate are things that create a bias for them to want it to be true then that is your opinion

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#599181 Oct 7, 2013
Yes I mean Immortality.

I don't agree Death is a good thing. It's not a bad thing either. It's just necessary. My issue is that Death can be ethical or unethical. moral or immoral. sacrifice or murder. A Terminal ill person racked with pain may see euthanasia as a moral and ethical death. A soldier going to die for their country or for their family may see death as a good sacrifice.
[QUOTE who="It aint necessarily so"]<quoted text>
Yes, I find immorality undesirable, although I suspect that you meant "immortality."
Regarding the latter, you should probably find out what "perturbed" means. What I said was that "Death is not a bad thing. Immortality would be intolerable." Allow me to help you understand what that means. It means that immortality would be intolerable, therefore death is a good thing. I couldn't be less perturbed if I were discussing the weather.
This inventing reality thing of yours - assigning an agitated state to a simple, unemotional statement of philosophy - makes conversation with you useless.
Buddhism is a atheistic belief. There is no way I could continue to feel comfortable admiring buddhism, even with all the attributes, knowing the scientific realities about how this universe and people came about. Thing is I was very uncomfortable.

A second look at Christianity---the religion of my youth to see if I missed something was in order.

And what I missed was Jesus Christ. When I take my eyes off religion and how people represented Christianity in life and stop judge them looking for an excuse to reject Christianity that all I was doing---

---and just look at Jesus Christ and personal walk with him--my comfort and peace at serving the one true God is now overwhelming.

You may say well that is selfish. No it's not. When is self-preservation selfish?

To me each person acknowledging that they are responsible for themselves only when time come to meet they creator--is not selfish, but rather prudent.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599182 Oct 7, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I see five quality authors with professional reputations to uphold. the notion that if they write about this or a related subject, they can't be trusted is nonsense.
Yet you discredited many of the 10 scholars as being shills and gave no reason and still refuse to

Next to your standards mine are more than reasonable

At least mine calls into question the biases when someone has money or a doctorate to gain or all 5 follow a pattern of naming a book off of something that most their book isn't even about

Is the reason you had for dismissing so many scholars anything more than you disagreed? Because calling them shills would seem to be the nonsense part

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 30 min ImPeach 25,612
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 37 min Frank 301
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr River Tam 985,633
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 4 hr Doctor REALITY 17
Truth About The Term: "White Nationalists" 4 hr Johnny 6
Satan is the white man's god (Jul '08) 5 hr juliakk 185
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 5 hr juliakk 6,444
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 hr PadMark 685,654
More from around the web