Its Good news .

John1.12 said:

Expand please?

Click to expand...

Your post translates to, quite literally: "only read the nice bits and ignore all the horrible, unethical, immoral, barbaric, homophobic, mysogynistic nastyness".

In other words, typical apologist cherry picking.

But the way you worded it was quite original.

John1.12 said:

There's no verse in the bible that says in order to recieve Jesus, one has to read the entire bible.

Click to expand...

There's also no verse that says otherwise.

However it may be, it doesn't matter. The bible exists and I don't see what good it does to your argument that you deliberately ignore all the nastyness. By admission even.

If you ignore all the nasty stuff Hitler did and instead only focus on how he was nice to his dog, then you can also say that Hitler was a nice person.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Your post translates to, quite literally: "only read the nice bits and ignore all the horrible, unethical, immoral, barbaric, homophobic, mysogynistic nastyness".

In other words, typical apologist cherry picking.

But the way you worded it was quite original.

Click to expand...

I think your misunderstanding completely. In order for a person to be saved / recieve Jesus, be indwelt by the Holy Spirit he has to follow 1 cor 1.23 . There's no verse that says a person has to read every verse of the entire Bible in order to be saved . This is not the same as saying " i only accept parts of the bible " Thats a separate topic entirely.

John1.12 said:

Can a person be saved today if they dont believe the death ,burial and resurrection?

Click to expand...

What an interesting question ^ above ^.
Think of all the people who have lived and died without ever knowing about Jesus. (John 3:13)
They could have had all different kinds of beliefs.
Because ' death ' is the price people pay for their sins ( Romans 6:23; Romans 6:7) then they are entitled to be resurrected. A future resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Then ' after ' being brought back to life (resurrected) then they will have the opportunity to learn about Jesus.
Apparently the thousand-year reign of Christ over Earth will be ample time for the resurrected to decide.

TagliatelliMonster said:

There's also no verse that says otherwise.

However it may be, it doesn't matter. The bible exists and I don't see what good it does to your argument that you deliberately ignore all the nastyness. By admission even.

If you ignore all the nasty stuff Hitler did and instead only focus on how he was nice to his dog, then you can also say that Hitler was a nice person.

Click to expand...

Its best to stick to what the bible does say , than argue what it doesn't say .
1 cor 1.21

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Believe the Gospel.

Moonjuice said:

I suppose before I did anything, I would make it 100% clear to every human on earth that I exist and I am the only real god to have ever existed. I'd stop hiding immediately. By being hidden, I look identical to every single god that humans have invented that are not real. Since I am real, I would make it absolutely clear so its never open for discussion. I would reveal myself directly to every human from the time they are born until the time they die. Then, since they know I exist, they can decide if they want to follow my rules or not.

Click to expand...

I cannot help you with this part, because God does not want to make it clear to people, He wants people to search and find Him. God is not hiding, and He can be found if you are a true seeker.

Moonjuice said:

Second, I wouldn't set up the rules to require human sacrifice as scapegoat system to offer people who are completely uninvolved in the happenings of the bronze aged middle east to be forgiven for the crimes of their ancestors that reportedly took place thousands of years before any of us were born.

Click to expand...

I can help you with this one since there was no Adam and Eve thus there was never any original sin committed that we need to be forgiven for.

Moonjuice said:

Third, I'd remove suffering from children. I wouldn't allow a single innocent child to suffer from solvable issues like food and clean drinking water. I'm throwing this in only because it would be so easy to do and obviously should be done.

Click to expand...

I cannot help you with this one, because God holds humans responsible for solving these kinds of problems.

Moonjuice said:

Fourth, if I had to have a reward or punishment system, it wouldn't be based on how easily you can be convinced something is true without sufficient evidence. I wouldn't reward people for simply believing, I'd reward them for how they act. I would make it based on how good you were as a person. How much of the time you spent on earth treating people well. Good people get rewarded, bad people don't. I'd never set up a system where bad people (doing the worst things) can get rewarded and good people can get punished.

Click to expand...

That system is already in place. It was put in place by the new Messenger of God, Baha'u'llah.

Moonjuice said:

Next, I would have developed a much better system to explain the rules of human existence and what God actually wants from us, than the bible. This has clearly been an ineffective way to communicate the thoughts of the all-knowing creator of the universe, because even those that are convinced he exists do not agree on how to interpret the text. It's a total failure. If text is my only option, then first off, I would write the entire book and I would make certain everyone knows I wrote it.

Click to expand...

That has already been done, as the Bible has already been superseded by new scriptures written by Baha'u'llah, a Messenger of God who wrote His own scriptures in His own pen, scriptures that are pertinent to this age rather than the bronze age.

Moonjuice said:

Maybe a copy would magically appear in the in the hand of every living human instantly, perfectly written in a language they understand. I would include hundreds of statements that make it perfectly clear that the text could only come from a God and not a human, so everyone on the planet would be on a level playing field.

Click to expand...

The Writings of Baha'u'llah won't 'magically appear' in your living room but they are all free to read or download from the internet. It is up to you to determine if it came from God or not.

The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Moonjuice said:

No hidden meanings. No metaphorical stories. Facts only, simplified for all humans. This way all humans would know they are created equal, regardless of gender, color, race, or geography. Especially women. No humans can every be owned as slaves. Rape and murder is never allowed, (you certainly wont have to marry your rapist). Etc.
If I wasn't bound by text, I would make all the rules 100% imbedded in the minds of all humans from an early age. So everyone, no matter when or where they were born, knows exactly what everyone else knows regarding my existence and what the rules are for existing.

Click to expand...

All of that has been revealed by the new Messenger of God, Baha'u'llah.

Moonjuice said:

Last, if all of this was done correctly, then I would set up a punishment system that fits the crime. No eternal punishment. I would immediately and permanently snuff out those who break the worst rules (murderers and rapists etc.) and give them no chance at all for any sort of eternal bliss with god. I wouldn't wait until they die to punish them, I would remove them from existence right away. Everyone on earth will see what the punishment is for things like murder, rape etc. so only sociopaths or suicidal people would do it. (or maybe I'll just not create any sociopaths, murderers, etc?) For everyone else, rewards would be given to people based on how well they followed the rules with their actions.

Click to expand...

A justice system exactly like that has already been put in place by Baha'u'llah.

URAVIP2ME said:

What an interesting question ^ above ^.
Think of all the people who have lived and died without ever knowing about Jesus. (John 3:13)
They could have had all different kinds of beliefs.
Because ' death ' is the price people pay for their sins ( Romans 6:23; Romans 6:7) then they are entitled to be resurrected. A future resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Then ' after ' being brought back to life (resurrected) then they will have the opportunity to learn about Jesus.
Apparently the thousand-year reign of Christ over Earth will be ample time for the resurrected to decide.

Click to expand...

Every one who has ever lived and died had a chance to seek God and for God to respond.

URAVIP2ME said:

What an interesting question ^ above ^.
Think of all the people who have lived and died without ever knowing about Jesus. (John 3:13)
They could have had all different kinds of beliefs.
Because ' death ' is the price people pay for their sins ( Romans 6:23; Romans 6:7) then they are entitled to be resurrected. A future resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Then ' after ' being brought back to life (resurrected) then they will have the opportunity to learn about Jesus.
Apparently the thousand-year reign of Christ over Earth will be ample time for the resurrected to decide.

Click to expand...

The wages of sin is death Rom 3 . There is no ' second chance ' after death .

John1.12 said:

I think your misunderstanding completely

Click to expand...

No, I understand it quite well.
Another apologist cliché... if one doesn't agree with their apologetics, then one "must not be understanding it".

Let me remind you that I'm not the one here who's asking to ignore 80% of god's supposed word.

In order for a person to be saved / recieve Jesus, be indwelt by the Holy Spirit he has to follow 1 cor 1.23 . There's no verse that says a person has to read every verse of the entire Bible in order to be saved .

Click to expand...

There's also no verse saying otherwise.
And common sense would suggest that the entire thing would be rather important.

This is not the same as saying " i only accept parts of the bible " Thats a separate topic entirely.

Click to expand...

And I'm talking about the entire bible.
It is simply dishonest of you to ask to ignore most of it only to be able to conclude that it is "good news".

Imagine at the Nuremberg trial, the defense lawyers asking to "ignore" everything those Nazi's did during, and leading upto, WW2 and instead only judge them on how nicely they treated their cats.

This is the equivalent of what you are doing here.

When it comes to evaluating christianity in ethical / moral terms, there is NO REASON at all to not take the entire thing into consideration.

You basically said as much: you want us to ignore everything else, only for the purpose of being able to conclude that it is "good".

I'm sure you think that would be a dishonest thing to do when it concerns nazi's on trial. So why wouldn't it be dishonest to do the exact same thing to christianity?

John1.12 said:

Its best to stick to what the bible does say , than argue what it doesn't say .

Click to expand...

Ok. But perhaps you should take your own advice, as it is YOU who told us to NOT stick to what the bible says and quite literally asked us to ignore most of it.

The bible says keeping slaves is ok.
The bible says gay people who have sex should be killed.
The bible is okay with infanticide.
The bible's idea of "perfect justice" is to punish a scapegoat for the crimes of others.
The bible, with the fall of man, says that the guilt of a crime of a person, is inherited by his/her innocent children.

Christians like to bring up the 10 commandments as the epitome of good rules. But the first 4 deal only with god's jealousy, pettiness and vanity. Then they also ignore the other 603 - which includes laws regulating slavery, the point of even detailing how you can beat them to the brink of death.

1 cor 1.21

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Believe the Gospel.

Click to expand...

I have exactly zero reasons to base belief in the gospel on. Zero.
And knowing what the bible says, I'm glad it isn't true because it sounds absolutely horrible.

TagliatelliMonster said:

No, I understand it quite well.
Another apologist cliché... if one doesn't agree with their apologetics, then one "must not be understanding it".

Let me remind you that I'm not the one here who's asking to ignore 80% of god's supposed word.



There's also no verse saying otherwise.
And common sense would suggest that the entire thing would be rather important.



And I'm talking about the entire bible.
It is simply dishonest of you to ask to ignore most of it only to be able to conclude that it is "good news".

Imagine at the Nuremberg trial, the defense lawyers asking to "ignore" everything those Nazi's did during, and leading upto, WW2 and instead only judge them on how nicely they treated their cats.

This is the equivalent of what you are doing here.

When it comes to evaluating christianity in ethical / moral terms, there is NO REASON at all to not take the entire thing into consideration.

You basically said as much: you want us to ignore everything else, only for the purpose of being able to conclude that it is "good".

I'm sure you think that would be a dishonest thing to do when it concerns nazi's on trial. So why wouldn't it be dishonest to do the exact same thing to christianity?

Click to expand...

When the thief on the cross who was next to Jesus was saved by Jesus ,had he just read the entire bible ?

John1.12 said:

What do you think they are preaching in Luke 9.6 ?

Click to expand...

I see Luke 9:6 corresponds to Matthew 11:1 and Mark 6:12.
I think they were preaching as to what is found at Luke 9:2 about God's Kingdom ( thy kingdom come....)
Since Jesus sent them out to preach (Luke 10:1-9) it was about God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 .
About God's Kingdom because that was the theme of Jesus preaching and teaching as found at Luke 4:43.
And the biblical fact that Jesus expanded his kingdom instructions to us at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
As we await his return as found illustrated at Luke 19:11-15.

URAVIP2ME said:

I see Luke 9:6 corresponds to Matthew 11:1 and Mark 6:12.
I think they were preaching as to what is found at Luke 9:2 about God's Kingdom ( thy kingdom come....)
Since Jesus sent them out to preach (Luke 10:1-9) it was about God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 .
About God's Kingdom because that was the theme of Jesus preaching and teaching as found at Luke 4:43.
And the biblical fact that Jesus expanded his kingdom instructions to us at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
As we await his return as found illustrated at Luke 19:11-15.

Click to expand...

And can a person recieve Jesus today, if they reject the death ,burial and resurrection ? Because they did not believe the death ,burial and resurrection in Luke 9.6 nor until after the resurrection.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Ok. But perhaps you should take your own advice, as it is YOU who told us to NOT stick to what the bible says and quite literally asked us to ignore most of it.

The bible says keeping slaves is ok.
The bible says gay people who have sex should be killed.
The bible is okay with infanticide.
The bible's idea of "perfect justice" is to punish a scapegoat for the crimes of others.
The bible, with the fall of man, says that the guilt of a crime of a person, is inherited by his/her innocent children.

Christians like to bring up the 10 commandments as the epitome of good rules. But the first 4 deal only with god's jealousy, pettiness and vanity. Then they also ignore the other 603 - which includes laws regulating slavery, the point of even detailing how you can beat them to the brink of death.



I have exactly zero reasons to base belief in the gospel on. Zero.
And knowing what the bible says, I'm glad it isn't true because it sounds absolutely horrible.

Click to expand...

Wow! I can't believe you are telling me that you believe Star trek is real . That all the episodes are really just actual events caught live on camera. I didn't even know anyone believed this ?
Yes this is how your responding to me . Completely irrelevant to anything im saying ? And slightly nutty .

John1.12 said:

When the thief on the cross who was next to Jesus was saved by Jesus ,had he just read the entire bible ?

Click to expand...

That is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is "good news".

Assuming the story, the thief would be saved regardless of it being good or bad news.

Point remains: if the question is if it is good or bad news, then there is no reason to omit large parts of it. Unless you have an a priori agenda to lead us to your preferred answer, off course.

John1.12 said:

See i have a KJV and I read up to verse 20 just fine .
Mark 16.............................)

Click to expand...

I can't see where the God of the Bible would require carrying out dangerous rituals in order to please him, that Mark 16:18 would be just fine.
How does one explain the dead snake handlers ______________

Eating on the first day of the week (Mark 16:9-15) does Not prove Jesus said at Mark 16:15 that Jesus said preach the gospel to 'every creature' contradicting his instructions as found at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.

Please note: Jesus did Not ascend until the time of Acts of the Apostles 1:9.
Jesus did Not ascend to heaven at Mark 16:19 on that day.
Logically then Mark 16 ends at Mark 16:8

TagliatelliMonster said:

That is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is "good news"

Click to expand...

No it demonstrates that salvation comes from believing what ever the prerequisite God requires . For the thief on the cross, he believed Jesus was Lord .

John1.12 said:

The wages of sin is death Rom 3 . There is no ' second chance ' after death .

Click to expand...

So you know that the Gospel has bad news.... why are you not admitting it then?

John1.12 said:

Wow! I can't believe you are telling me that you believe Star trek is real . That all the episodes are really just actual events caught live on camera. I didn't even know anyone believed this ?
Yes this is how your responding to me . Completely irrelevant to anything im saying ? And slightly nutty .

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about with this star trek nonsense.

I'm guessing it's a rather pathetic attempt to distract from the points made.

John1.12 said:

No it demonstrates that salvation comes from believing what ever the prerequisite God requires . For the thief on the cross, he believed Jesus was Lord .

Click to expand...

Then Hitler's dog good treatment demonstrates that he's a nice guy.