Those babies and children were wicked?Good question. There are several replies to be made.

1. Jesus treated the flood as an actual historical event as did Peter. It is impossible to imagine why Jesus would not have simply said, "You know guys, that story about a world-wide flood is really a late addition. It should not be taken as genuine." Remember that this is the same Jesus who set aside the dietary regulations and regularly commented on the OT with the expression, "But I say unto you..."
2. There is absolutely no textual reason at all to consider the flood account to be some sort of later addition.
2B. There are many accounts of a great flood found in the ancient historical accounts of cultures worldwide.
3. The years leading up to the flood were not silent years. "And God did not spare the ancient world—except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgment."
4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents. In this case, if those children and infants end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment. Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-flood.
5. The amazing thought is that God saves anyone at all. No one deserves it. We are all unspeakably wicked when compared to the brilliance and perfection of God's holiness. Why should God save anyone?
6. I find it perplexing why people complain about God allowing the children in the flood account to perish when those same people live in comfort in a wealthy country. Why do they not sell everything and do everything possible to save starving children? Why do they not stand outside abortion clinics and intercede for the lives of those children? Is it not gross hypocrisy to be critical of the God who gave up His only Son while doing so little ourselves? Is it not likely that God is pointing His finger at us and saying, "Why do you allow the children to perish?"
7. Even if a person wants to regard the flood as a figurative account, you must still ask, "Figurative of what?" What lesson would be being taught other than God's mercy and judgment?
8. At the end of the day, this is Paul's answer. "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?" That would particularly apply to the issue of point 6.

For me, I am perfectly content to place the blanket of God's goodness over the Genesis flood. I do not understand all of God's acts, but I do understand His great love, completely irrational from our perspective, exhibited in sending His own Son to die for us. When I consider that, I am willing to wait for greater answers to all of these questions. But I will not engage in the fool's errand of going through the Bible and marking out all the accounts with which I do not personally agree or understand. That is working at the issue backwards. The great undertaking is not the changing of the Bible, but the changing of me to suit the Bible. The God exhibited in the OT is a God of both mercy and judgment, just as He is in the NT. There is no difference. If the Bible is true, then a day is coming when all of the nay-sayers will stand with great fear before God the Judge. They will find how little God is disturbed at their accusations of injustice. On that day they will find out who is wicked and who is just.

1. Jesus treated the flood as an actual historical event as did Peter.

No, Jesus treated it as the allegory it was.


2. There is absolutely no textual reason at all to consider the flood account to be some sort of later addition.

The Genesis flood story is first composed around the 5th century BC during the Babylonian Exile, millennia after the supposed flood. The Israelites learned it from the Sumerians who wrote about it in the Epic of Gilgamesh c.2000 BC. The Genesis flood story is almost word-for-word taken from Gilgamesh.


2B. There are many accounts of a great flood found in the ancient historical accounts of cultures worldwide.

Irrelevant. There are many accounts of great floods occurring in modern times. Not one, however, resulted in the annihilation of the entire human race.

3. skipped. Nothing there.


4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents.

Wow - and this explains why every child on the planet was slaughtered?


In this case, if those children and infants end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment.

According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.


Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-flood.

A totally bizarre way of explanation/justification. No comment possible.

5. skipped. Nothing there.

6. skipped. A diversion.


7. Even if a person wants to regard the flood as a figurative account, you must still ask, "Figurative of what?"

Good question.


8. At the end of the day, this is Paul's answer. "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?" That would particularly apply to the issue of point 6.

Paul never made any answer to the topic under discussion. Point #6 was a diversion - also irrelevant to the topic.


For me, I am perfectly content to place the blanket of God's goodness over the Genesis flood

A blanket of goodness over the slaughter of the entire human race? You are VERY confused.


I do not understand all of God's acts

Obviously.


but I do understand His great love

Not if you consider killing children "His great love".


the fool's errand

Lol - nice to see you copying my writing


The God exhibited in the OT is a God of both mercy and judgment, just as He is in the NT. There is no difference.

The God of the OT is a primitive God for a primitive religion. The God of the NT has evolved to manifest himself in the figure of Christ who preaches love, not killing.


If the Bible is true, then a day is coming when all of the nay-sayers will stand with great fear before God

That's a big "IF" - followed by the usual threat for those who don't believe the same way.


they will find out who is wicked and who is just.

We know that now.

4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents. In this case, if those children and infants end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment. Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-flood.
4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents. If aborted babies end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment. Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-abortion.

How did he judge
Because of sin, We are unfit for God's Presence.
Why did he Judge? Because we are guilty and stand Condemned. How did he judge? who cares???
God is in control.



Not if you consider killing children "His great love" What do children have to do with it?
God sent his child to die on a cross...His GREAT love!

From Athos.
How did he judge (babies and children deserving extermination)


Because of sin

Babies are sinners?


What do "children have to do with it?

God murdered every single living child during the Flood.

God murdered every single living child during the Flood. God destroyed every (excluding Noah and fam) living sould.


“God was sorry he made us. Since he made us in his image, what does that say about him?”

Nothing at all, really. He made us in his image, which what that means is its own conversation, but we then decided to use our free will to disobey him. So that's on us, not him. A painting of Everest does not reflect poorly upon Everest, especially not when the painting decides it’d rather pretend Everest didn’t exist.

I will add this final point: does God owe us anything? Who can say to God, “you owe me a life!” or, “you owe me happiness!” Absolutely no one. God owes you and I nothing. In fact, because we’re all sinners, the only thing he ‘owes’ us is instantly throwing us into Hell, to satisfy his justice. Consider that before demonizing him for slaying a generation of unrepentant sinners, because that should be us, every single day.

Babies are sinners?
Original sin. Remember that teaching?

Even Freud had an opinion. During infancy, before the other components of personality begin to form, children are ruled entirely by the id ("self-servingness"). Demanding basic needs for food, drink, and comfort is of the utmost importance.

No, Jesus treated it as the allegory it was.Strictly your own imagining. There is absolutely not one trace of evidence that He regarded it as so. But even at that, if you are correct, then why would Jesus have not simply pointed that out? "Hey guys. You all do realize this is not a real story but an allegory?" He was the great explainer of the OT but He elected to let his listeners believe he regarded an allegorical account to be literal??? You really believe that? It is certainly not treated as an allegory. He simply was comparing the coming of judgment in Noah's day to what His return would be like.

Now if you want to contend the flood is to be taken figuratively, you must still answer the question of it being figurative of what? Mercy and judgment? If so, then you have accomplished nothing.



The Genesis flood story is first composed around the 5th century BC during the Babylonian Exile,And again, there is not a shred of evidence to back up that wild supposition. Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.

https://faithsaves.net/silver-scrolls/#:~:text=The%20Ketef%20Hinnom%20Silver%20Scrolls%3 A%20The%20Earliest%20Hebrew,about%201%2F2%20inch%2 0wide%20by%201%E2%80%931%2F2%20inches%20long%29.


According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.Absolute lie. I've never said that.


Paul never made any answer to the topic under discussionIt was his reply to the question of God's sovereignty and God's judgment which are certainly a part of this topic.

The remainder of your comments amount to a verification of the fact that you don't like God and don't believe the Bible. That has already been settled.

No, Jesus treated it as the allegory it was.
Allegories teach moral lessons. What was the lesson in the Flood story?


[re allegory] Strictly your own imagining. There is absolutely not one trace of evidence that He regarded as so.
And again, there is not a shred of evidence to back up that wild supposition.
Jesus, like any good teacher, often told stories to illustrate the points He wanted to make or lessons He wanted to teach. The Flood story was only one He used effectively.

Quote:
Seems like the twentieth century had spawned ugly twins. Ugly twins: one, mindlessness, and two, meaninglessness. Mindlessness and meaninglessness. I will not bother for the moment with the notion of nihilism and meaninglessness and futility, but let’s think just about mindlessness ( And let’s be honest enough to recognize that it is one of the charges that is leveled against the Christian). The man or the woman who says that they are men and women of faith, and if they’re bold enough to say that they’re actually men and women of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because, of course, it is not unusual—in fact, it is quite common—for faith to be regarded as a kind of illogical belief in the improbable happening, and for people essentially to say, “You know, the real thinking people are those who think along these very rational lines. And therefore, we feel sorry for you that you’ve had to come up with this as a crutch or as a walking stick just to help you navigate your way through life.”

Original sin. Remember that teaching?

You don't really believe that, do you? Augustine taught that the sin is transmitted vie semen during intercourse. He never explained exactly how that works. Such a belief is worse than the "original" belief re the sin. Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad. To believe that babies are born with it is the worst kind of irrational theology.


Even Freud had an opinion. During infancy, before the other components of personality begin to form, children are ruled entirely by the id ("self-servingness"). Demanding basic needs for food, drink, and comfort is of the utmost importance.

Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmost importance to you, too.

Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad.You plainly don't understand the concept.


Jesus, like any good teacher, often told stories to illustrate the points He wanted to make or lessons He wanted to teach. The Flood story was only one He used effectively.And again, there is no evidence at all that Jesus regarded the story of the flood, or any other OT account, to be allegorical. In fact He did not even use it in a way that was allegorical in the Luke 17 passage. To say he did is to reveal either an insane bias or a lack of understanding as to what an allegory is. Jesus was not teaching a moral message there. He was describing what His second coming would be like.

You don't really believe that, do you?
That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed. (I got an A on my original sin essay!)

Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmpst importance to you, too.
No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.

I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!

That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.An idea that can certainly be verified simply by observing human behavior.

God destroyed every (excluding Noah and fam) living sould.

That makes it OK to kill all the children?


“God was sorry he made us. Since he made us in his image, what does that say about him?”

That he's an idiot.


God owes you and I nothing. In fact, because we’re all sinners, the only thing he ‘owes’ us is instantly throwing us into Hell, to satisfy his justice.

You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.


Consider that before demonizing him for slaying a generation of unrepentant sinners, because that should be us, every single day.

A new-born baby is an "unrepentant sinner"? A child? A good adult?

You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you?
No, quite the opposite. Jesus endured Hell so we wouldn't have to. You don't have to be a slave to your unbelief (mind).
You don't know what I am talking about because you haven't experienced the Love of God. You are too smart for your own good. When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes in order that I might then become this person of faith? No, it does not.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

if you are correct, then why would Jesus have not simply pointed that out? "Hey guys. You all do realize this is not a real story but an allegory?"

People that tell stories do not go around saying "Hey, this is an allegory". Good grief.


Now if you want to contend the flood is to be taken figuratively

Do you seriously believe the ENTIRE planet was flooded?


you must still answer the question of it being figurative of what? Mercy and judgment? If so, then you have accomplished nothing.

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.


Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.

Oh, please - that has nothing - NADA - to do with Genesis. Stop lying - you're supposed to be a Christian.


from Athos
According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.


Absolute lie. I've never said that.

You're the absolute liar here. You quoted many Bible verses saying unbelievers go to hell. Are you now denying that you did that? What, then, is your current belief on where unbelievers go after death?


The remainder of your comments amount to a verification of the fact that you don't like God and don't believe the Bible. That has already been settled.

It's only been settled in your mind. We all notice how you prefer to disparage any who believe differently than you. Better you should just argue your point and leave it at that. Disparaging others doesn't make your weak points any less weak.

That makes it OK to kill all the children?
First: You should understand, IT IS ALL DEATH!!! Everything you see, taste, smell, touch, own is going to pass away!
You love this life and this World, it will follow you to your grave. Die to self now, while there is still time.
God gives life. God gave you life, through your own initiative you seek death rather than Life. Don't worry about the wee ones, God has them covered. Keep your focus on the Cross and crucifixion of Jesus the Christ.

You don't know what I am talking about because you haven't experienced the Love of God.

No, the reason I don't know what you're talking about is because you're incoherent. Amazing how you people criticize any who disagree with you as being un-Godlike in one way or another. If you had a little intelligence, you would realize how that detracts from anything you say or promote.


When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes

YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here.

When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes
YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here.The honest answer has to be no, it does not. In many cases, what it does is it causes me to think so deeply that we cannot quite unravel the jigsaw puzzle, that it introduces us to complexities that are metaphysical in their dimensions. And through it there runs a line, and that line is running historically, yes, and rationally.

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?
Jesus knew it was an oft-told story among the Jews. Jesus, being a consumate storyteller, used the idea of a major flood engulfing a id-obsessed humanity and the raining down of fire and brimstone on inhospitable city inhabitants as alerts to change their selfish ways and become more loving toward others.

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?
Love God and each other.

That's the teaching I grew up with,

Yes, we all did.


a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.

Not so solid when really considered. It's a dogma/doctrine/teaching that has as its source a story that never actually happened - an allegory. Adam and Eve didn't really exist. It's part of a creation myth. Every culture has one. Original sin assumes they DID exist.


No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.

Replacing original sin with Freudian stuff? OK.


I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!

If that were true of Freud, who we know had some strange ideas, then he totally missed the human instinct to survive. To call that natural instinct selfish, is to betray an ignorance so great that it makes me wonder just who told you that during your original sin learning.

What you find in the Gospels is historical.  I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…" I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

Same with Noah, and the Ark.

You plainly don't understand the concept.

Explain it to me.


First: You should understand, IT IS ALL DEATH!!! Everything you see, taste, smell, touch, own is going to pass away!
You love this life and this World, it will follow you to your grave. Die to self now, while there is still time.
God gives life. God gave you life, through your own initiative you seek death rather than Life. Don't worry about the wee ones, God has them covered. Keep your focus on the Cross and crucifixion of Jesus the Christ.

waltero, you are one sick puppy.

If you don't mind, I'll worry about the wee ones.


.The honest answer has to be no, it does not. In many cases, what it does is it causes me to think so deeply that we cannot quite unravel the jigsaw puzzle, that it introduces us to complexities that are metaphysical in their dimensions. And through it there runs a line, and that line is running historically, yes, and rationally.

Huh? What?

Do you seriously believe the ENTIRE planet was flooded?

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.-
Noah, the main character in the Flood story, lived in Mesopotamia, an ancient region of West Asia. Mesopotamia can be hot and dry. However, ancient civilizations were able to flourish here because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that overflowed their banks every year, enriching the soil and providing irrigation.

Terrific setting for a story about a flood!

What you find in the Gospels is historical. I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…" I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

Same with Noah, and the Ark.

You're drifting, walter.


Noah, the main character in the Flood story, lived in Mesopotamia, an ancient region of West Asia. Mesopotamia can be hot and dry. However, ancient civilizations were able to flourish here because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that overflowed their banks every year, enriching the soil and providing irrigation.

Terrific setting for a story about a flood!

Yes, indeed. And note that Sumeria (Gilgamesh) was the first civilization to settle in that area - long before the Israelites.

it makes me wonder just who told you that during your original sin learning.
Of course, it was my church's spin to further confirm that original sin is a reality. Bad Adam and Eve for starting the ball rolling!

You're drifting, walter.
Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.

Pointing out the incredible detail in which the building of the Ark has been described.

Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.

Nobody said it was "scrabbled together out of thin air". Now you've revealed that you don't understand what an allegory is. You're reading into these posts what you want to find, but isn't there.

Nobody said it was "scrabbled together out of thin air"
That's exactly what "you're" saying, in reference to the flood.

You're saying it didn't happen; a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.
The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.

Jesus knew it was an oft-told story among the Jews. Jesus, being a consumate storyteller, used the idea of a major flood engulfing a id-obsessed humanity and the raining down of fire and brimstone on inhospitable city inhabitants as alerts to change their selfish ways and become more loving toward others.None of which is indicated in the passage. You're just making it up as you go along. You don't have a clue as to what Jesus knew or believed in that regard.


The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.I'm sorry, but that is completely nonsensical. There was never a thought that the story of the good Samaritan was anything other than a parable. With Noah and Lot, Jesus drew upon OT stories believed by everyone to be true.


You're the absolute liar here. You quoted many Bible verses saying unbelievers go to hell. Are you now denying that you did that? What, then, is your current belief on where unbelievers go after death?Nah. You're lying like a dog. I've never, ever said that children go to hell.

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.
You missed the point. Here I will repost. I would post the account of the flood/Ark but it would take up too much space. The full account, of the insignificant dimensions and pitch, rooms, roof, etc


What you find in the Gospels is historical.—I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. Now, he’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…”I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.Answer to a question that was not asked. The question was, if the great flood is supposed to be an allegory, then what moral meaning was it conveying?



Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.



Oh, please - that has nothing - NADA - to do with Genesis. Stop lying - you're supposed to be a Christian.Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing of those silver scrolls.

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication in that passage do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see in the passage showing that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

You missed the point. Here I will repost. I would post the account of the flood/Ark but it would take up too much space. The full account, of the insignificant dimensions and pitch, rooms, roof, etc
Of course, allegories often have lots of details to give them more substance and believability. (I've read the story of the Flood countless times.)

more substance and believability.
"Believability" in what?

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication in that passage do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see in the passage showing that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

Answer to a question that was not asked. The question was, if the great flood is supposed to be an allegory, then what moral meaning was it conveying?
Love one another. NOW!

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.
I did awreddy. See post #272.

Love one another. NOW!And how do you get that? And if that was his goal, then why didn't He use a story of love such as Ruth and Naomi, or Abraham and Isaac? Why would He appeal to two stories of judgment if His meaning was to love each other? That doesn't make sense.



I did awreddy. See post #272.


No, you did not. You appealed to some supposedly special knowledge you claim to have about what Jesus knew about these stories. But you never appealed to anything in the passages themselves that would indicate Jesus considered them to be purely allegorical.

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.
Yes, and more likely than not, it took place, in real time, with real people.
boggles the mind don't it. You and your "allegories". Maybe we need to take another look at Matthew 13:10?

And how do you get that?
Um, I thought you understood what an allegory is. You've never read a fable or parable or allegorical story to a child? And then asked that child to tell you what that story really is telling us?

No, you did not. You appealed to some supposedly special knowledge you claim to have about what Jesus knew about these stories. But you never appealed to anything in the passages themselves that would indicate Jesus considered them to be purely allegorical.
Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people. In other words, Jesus had the wisdom to simplify the profound spiritual truths He needed to share with humanity and put them in the form of relatable stories that are easy to understand.

Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people
You really need to take another look at Matthew 13:10

If I buy you a Bible will you read it?

Um, I thought you understood what an allegory is. You've never read a fable or parable or allegorical story to a child? And then asked that child to tell you what that story really is telling us?Evasion, your name is Wondergirl.


Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people. In other words, Jesus had the wisdom to simplify the profound spiritual truths He needed to share with humanity and put them in the form of relatable stories that are easy to understand.You are still just rambling on and on about what you think might be true, but you have shown nothing in those two passages that would indicate that Jesus considered the stories to be fictional and thus purely allegorical. So I take that to mean that you are strictly guessing and have gained nothing from the stories that would show them to be fictional.

Now of course Jesus used parables which were fictional accounts, but there is no reason anywhere you can point to to show that He also considered OT stories to be fictional.

Evasion, your name is Wondergirl.
That's because I sometimes wondered about the people I dealt with in the library where I worked. And now on AMHD.

You are still just rambling on and on about what you think might be true, but you have shown nothing in those two passages that would indicate that Jesus considered the stories to be fictional and thus purely allegorical. So I take that to mean that you are strictly guessing and have gained nothing from the stories that would show them to be fictional.

Now of course Jesus used parables which were fictional accounts, but there is no reason anywhere you can point to to show that He also considered OT stories to be fictional.
Not all of them were fiction. Just the allegorical ones are.

"How did you get that?" It's a simple question. You elected not to answer it which is your choice. Jesus rather plainly intended them to be understood in a different manner.

"How did you get that?" It's a simple question. You elected not to answer it which is your choice. Jesus rather plainly intended them to be understood in a different manner.
According to you. And we know how you think.

Jesus is describing His second coming. He picks, in both instances, stories which portray judgment arriving suddenly and unexpectedly for those who are not following Him. And you decide that love is the idea He is promoting, a word, or for that matter an idea, which is found nowhere in either passage???

Well...OK.

Jesus is describing His second coming. He picks, in both instances, stories which portray judgment arriving suddenly and unexpectedly for those who are not following Him. And you decide that love is the idea He is promoting, a word, or for that matter an idea, which is found nowhere in either passage???

Well...OK.
That was Jesus' entire message, the reason He came to live among us -- Love.

You try to place that idea on EVERYTHING Jesus said or did. That is an overreach. Jesus certainly is a God of love, but there is also judgment involved. In fact you can't really understand His love without understanding His judgment. You are as much in error as those who speak of nothing but judgment.

I love this passage from Isaiah 45. If you are a Spurgeon fan, it is the passage that led him to Christ. It is amazing because in it we see God as both judge and savior. Those two aspects can only come together in Christ.

Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the Lord?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,

The same idea is found in Romans 3:26. "...for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

You try to place that idea on EVERYTHING Jesus said or did. That is an overreach. Jesus certainly is a God of love, but there is also judgment involved. In fact you can't really understand His love without understanding His judgment. You are as much in error as those who speak of nothing but judgment.

I love this passage from Isaiah 45. If you are a Spurgeon fan, it is the passage that led him to Christ. It is amazing because in it we see God as both judge and savior. Those two aspects can only come together in Christ.

Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the Lord?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,

The same idea is found in Romans 3:26. "...for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
So we have to fear, not love. "I'm going to hell unless I believe."

Gospel means "good news" not "the big threat".

That was Jesus' entire message, the reason He came to live among us -- Love.
You've missed it WG- Jesus came to die on a cross. He came for us, out of his love for us. He didn't come to love.
Stick with it, you might get it someday. "our" love is as filthy rags! we need to keep our eyes on the Cross. We are to Die (Not Love).


Of course, allegories often have lots of details to give them more substance and believability.
This makes no sense -

What believability? Believability to a lie???


The Good Samaritan is another allegory
Well, It would sound more believable (being an Allegory???) if I knew how tall the Jewish fellow was, and I really think if he was to tell me what color shirt the good samaritan was wearing. What did the dimensions of the Ark tell us, the dimensions of God's love??? You're being silly.

The Gospel according to Wondergirl.

The Gospel according to Wondergirl.
And, like Lazarus, I'll reach down and offer you a bit of water when you get thirsty.


You've missed it WG- Jesus came to die on a cross. He came for us, out of his love for us.
Nope, didn't miss it. Even you said it. Exactly, waltero.


He didn't come to love.

His entire time on earth was loving others.

His entire time on earth was loving others.
How do you figure?

No it was not. That is only true in your biased imagination. He was not loving when He cleansed the temple TWICE. He was not loving when He heavily criticized the Pharisees. His description of Himself in Matthew 25 is not loving. He was hard on His disciples several times. You are letting your preconceived ideas hold too much sway.

How do you figure?
It wasn't love? He was getting paid? He healed the sick, He raised the dead, He suffered the little children to come unto Him, He turned water into wine at a wedding, He cleansed the lepers of their ulcerated skin, He fed hungry thousands with very little food, He gave sight to the blind.

And how do you suppose you're going to simulate that love?
In all sorts of ways -- and, of course, with God's help

That he's an idiotWG, Athos has openly spit in the face of God. Do you really want to join him?
It doesn't matter where you came from or what your background- We are all sinners and we will always be sinners.
The gospel isn't merely a presentation of an Idea, the Gospel is the Power of God.

Deceived Walter. She is simply deceived.

Deceived Walter. She is simply deceived.
About what?


WG, Athos has openly spit in the face of God. Do you really want to join him?
No love for others in your life and words, I see.

About what?about all the bondage and tyranny of Sin.


No love for others in your life and words, I see.
I believe you're looking at Athos, look over here, here I am.

Have you ever looked at Jesus on the Cross, and wondered why we should be so thrilled, seeing a man bleeding, dying on a cross?

Have you ever heard of a Wrathful Lamb? Look in the book. Yeah, it talks about the Lamb's wrath. not too scary eh.

When you make statements like: I was a Sunday school teacher, I am a daughter of a preacher man, I'm an educated woman...yup, you're in like Flynn. God has to accept you now. You have read the Bible many times- so that is why you never quote scripture?


Of course, allegories often have lots of details to give them more substance and believability.
This would only create confusion, if not deceitful. I suppose you felt you had to say something, knowing my reply had just popped your balloon. Did you noticed Athos, he had no clue what I was saying, once I explained to him what an Allegory is, he immediately understood my explanation as a game-changer...he quietly slipped out. Athos is thinking of this world, he doesn't know the God of the Bible. He lacks understand because he is thinking with his flesh. I understand you and him go way back, don't allow him to lead you down that path. When you agree (which is 99.9% of the time) with him, you are making a grave mistake...your grave.

about all the bondage and tyranny of Sin.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Jesus has broken those chains and freed me.

Have you ever looked at Jesus on the Cross
I cannot believe you are saying these things. Have you ever done any mission work?

You have read the Bible many times, so that is why you never quote scripture?
I don't cherrypick.

How does refuting scripture with a silly "no" help? Every time I quote scripture, your only comeback is "No", "Nope"
Not true, etc Especially when you spoke as if Jesus was in error when he was talking about "Unless a seed dies, thing.
You should look up science Friday. It will explain how a seed dies once it is planted.



Have you ever looked at Jesus on the Cross
I think your view has become clouded. We need to suffer the Cross every day. We live Love. we preach Christ Crucified.
When you lose sight of the Cross, then you lose...

Well, it's back to work. Tell Athos Goodby, for me. I will miss him. Take care of yourself WG.
Later JL, Your posts are a big help to me. Athos is my fave though. He is so worldly and has no clue what language the Bible speaks. I enjoy seeking truth while he's around, he presents questions that really hit the spot. The righteous don't make it into heaven, Heaven is for sinners.

How does refuting scripture with a silly "no" help?
Huh?

I think your view has become clouded. We need to suffer the Cross every day. We live Love. we preach Christ Crucified.
When you lose sight of the Cross, then you lose...
You think wrong, my friend.

Well, it's back to work. Tell Athos Goodby, for me. I will miss him. Take care of yourself WG.
Later JL, Your posts are a big help to me. Athos is my fave though. He is so worldly and has no clue what language the Bible speaks. I enjoy seeking truth while he's around, he presents questions that really hit the spot. The righteous don't make it into heaven, Heaven is for sinners.

You seem to be obsessed with me. Your posts include me even when replying to someone else.

Rarely, do I see a coherent reply from you - just more of your condemnation of those who don't go along with your (often incomprehensible) view of Christianity.

When you think you have all the answers, that's a good sign you're on the wrong track, walter. Try to be less narrow and a little more open-minded. It won't hurt you, might even help you.

And be careful about that habit you evangelicals have about threatening anyone who believes differently. It may backfire on you someday.

Showing a lot of fear - not from others - but from your own doubt about your own faith which is evident from your excessive attempt to sermonize and act as though you had a direct line to God when complaining about others here. The Lady doth protest too much, said the great man.

I take it you're leaving us. Go in peace. I trust you've learned something from your brief sojourn with us.

Deceived Walter. She is simply deceived.



About what?You think Jesus, Paul, John, David, and Jonathan were all gay, and you really wonder what you might be deceived about? It's like I've said many times. You make up your mind about what you believe, and then you look for any little scrap of scripture that might in some small way support it. You really have no concern about what the Bible says. You said that everything Jesus did was about love. I pointed out many places where that was not true. Your response is to just breezily move on to something else.


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by waltero https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3870874#post3870874)

WG, Athos has openly spit in the face of God. Do you really want to join him?




No love for others in your life and words, I see.Some more of your selective criticism. Athos says far more outrageous things, but you never "correct" him. Wonder why?


Later JL, Your posts are a big help to me.Hang in there, Walter. One thing you can be sure of here. We discuss endlessly, yet no one's mind ever gets changed. I really wonder what the point is.

He was not loving when He cleansed the temple TWICE. He was not loving when He heavily criticized the Pharisees. His description of Himself in Matthew 25 is not loving. He was hard on His disciples several times. You are letting your preconceived ideas hold too much sway.

You have no idea what love is.

In each of your examples Jesus is correcting others. Loving others is disciplining - like a parent scolds a child. You think love is some weak woosy thing. It's not. Jesus expressed his idea of love saying, "Greater love hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friend". Hardly a sentimental idea.


Athos says far more outrageous things,

What outrageous things have I said? Put up or shut up.

Correcting others? He made a whip, turned over tables, and physically drove out the money changers from the Temple. Some correction! His "woe unto you" passage to the Pharisees also was not corrective but rather condemnatory.

Beyond that, I actually tend to agree with your idea about discipline equating to love, but it's not the syrupy sweet love that WG seems to have in mind. And you neglected to make an observation about His description of Himself in Matthew 25 where He lovingly welcomes those who belong to Him, but condemns those who don't to eternity in hell, a truth repeated several dozen times in the NT, thus ensuring that no thinking person can make a reference to "cherry-picking" when the Mt. 25 passage is mentioned.

(Love) is not the syrupy sweet love that WG seems to have in mind.

You're reading that into her posts. Her obvious point is that Jesus was first and foremost about love.


Himself in Matthew 25 where He lovingly welcomes those who belong to Him, but condemns those who don't to eternity in hell, a truth repeated several dozen times in the NT (My -ATHOS- emphasis)

And just yesterday you denied this very thing when I said it was your belief. So much for honest dialogue on these pages.

You think Jesus, Paul, John, David, and Jonathan were all gay, and you really wonder what you might be deceived about?
You have inside information they weren't?

It's like I've said many times. You make up your mind about what you believe, and then you look for any little scrap of scripture that might in some small way support it.
That's EXACTLY what you do, Mr. Cherrypicker! And that's another reason I don't spout suportive Bible verses on this site (or any other site).

You really have no concern about what the Bible says. You said that everything Jesus did was about love. I pointed out many places where that was not true.
The Bible is not the same book written by the ancient scribes (who were human just like you and me). E.g., the word "homosexual" wasn't in the Bible until 1946 (hmm, wonder how THAT happened??). The word Paul used meant pedophile.

Your response is to just breezily move on to something else.
If you say something worth responding to (incorrect, outrageous, ignorant), I'll respond, and I have done so many times.

You have no idea what love is.

In each of your examples Jesus is correcting others. Loving others is disciplining - like a parent scolds a child. You think love is some weak woosy thing. It's not. Jesus expressed his idea of love saying, "Greater love hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friend". Hardly a sentimental idea.
Terrific response, Athos! For instance, my very loving and Christian materal grandfather whipped his sons with a belt if he heard about or caught them sinning. After each beating, he hugged each son and made sure they understand why he had beaten them and that he still loved them. All of the sons, my uncles, turned out to be faithful husbands, loving fathers, and honest, hard-working employees.

And just yesterday you denied this very thing when I said it was your belief. So much for honest dialogue on these pages.You're lying again. What I denied was a belief about CHILDREN going to hell. Learn to tell the truth.

You have inside information they weren't?I don't have any inside information that you and Athos aren't gay, or Joe Biden, or AOC, or practically anyone you can name. That doesn't mean I'm going to make the stupid and irresponsible accusation that you are gay, or pedophiles, or bank robbers, or communists, or anything else for that matter. That's not how it works.


Terrific response, Athos!
His response was largely absurd. Jesus was not correcting, for instance, the Pharisees. Read it in Mt. 23. You will readily see that He was condemning them. " So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"

But I am glad to find out that you are in favor of corporal punishment for children.


That's EXACTLY what you do, Mr. Cherrypicker!Show me where. You mean like the 24 passages I posted about hell that even a low performing third grader can see is not cherry picking but a tidal wave of evidence? Go to court with 24 reliable witnesses and see how fast you can win your case.


The Bible is not the same book written by the ancient scribes (who were human just like you and me). E.g., the word "homosexual" wasn't in the Bible until 1946 (hmm, wonder how THAT happened??). The word Paul used meant pedophile.The word used prior to 46 was "sodomite", which is a synonym for homosexual. Tell the truth. The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean pedophile. No one outside of you and one supposed scholar believes that. It is EVERYWHERE translated as homosexual, sodomite, or some synonym of those words. No Greek lexicon in existence translates it "pedophile". That's ridiculous.

I noticed that neither of you bothered to address how Jesus clearly described Himself as a judge at the end of time who will send people to an eternal hell.

You're lying again. What I denied was a belief about CHILDREN going to hell. Learn to tell the truth.

You're quick to call others liars when YOU are the liar-in-chief. Either by outright falsehoods or changing what someone said by adding or deleting a word or otherwise changing the meaning to suit your belief.

This is done so often by you that I wonder why you feel no shame doing it when it's so obvious. Then I realize it's part of your admiration and imitation of Trump the master dissembler who lives by the dictum of Roy Cohn - deny or lie until you're blue in the face.

For over two years you have claimed time and again that those who do not believe in Jesus spend all eternity in hell being eternally punished. In fact, you supported the claim by citing many Biblical verses which you claim to be proof of the statement. No matter that I debunked those verses as being misinterpreted by you, that's your right to refuse any claim I may make even in the face of irrefutable logic.

Now you are denying you believe that statement about Jesus and hell, at least when it comes to children.


What I denied was a belief about CHILDREN going to hell.

That's an excellent example of your inability to see the logic involved. It's very simple. If unbelievers go to hell, and some children do not believe (maybe they never heard of Jesus since they lived far away or even before Jesus walked the earth) they would still be condemned to hell by your own logic.

There were other examples - the Chinese peasant woman who lived 10,000 miles away from Jesus and who never heard a single solitary thing about him. She went to hell.

For every example I gave you, you simply quoted another verse from the Bible.

As you got hemmed in by your own logic, you started to backtrack a bit, probably because you began to see the absurdity of your claim. When I asked you yesterday to state your belief in the matter, you failed to do so. Your reply was to call me a liar as I quoted above. And I note there is still NO DENIAL of your claim re unbelievers.

You will probably reply to this post with your usual "blah, blah, blah", indicating no interest on your part. But you've overused that reply too, so don't expect too much credence with that tactic.

Very simple. I have never said children go to hell. You lied when you said I did. End of story.

This is the statement in question where you lied. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I have never stated that...period.

Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.

Very simple. I have never said children go to hell. You lied when you said I did. End of story.

If unbelievers go to hell, and children are unbelievers....................................... ....................????

Your only defense is to charge lying. Pretty weak.

This is the statement in question where you lied. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I have never stated that...period.Nitpick much?

Do you believe that children who are not believers go to hell? Yes or no. No one is holding their breath waiting for your answer.


Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.


You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.

What has WG got to do with it?

I stand by that statement. It's true of many fundamentalists of the stripe who condemn others to hell for believing differently. You yourself do it. Is it about revenge for you?

You…lied…period.

You…lied…period.

Still no answer.

You…lied…period.

You…lied…period.

Repeating something doesn't make it true. Only children do that until they grow out of it.

Against my better judgement, I'll give you a lesson in English sentence construction as to meaning.

The content of my statement is absolutely true.

For years you have been saying unbelievers go to hell. Many times I have asked you does that include people who never heard of Jesus, like babies and children and an old peasant women working in a rice paddy in China. As an answer, you quoted another Bible verse supporting your claim as I described it.

Anybody who has been around here for those years would know immediately what I'm referring to and that the statement is correct. What probably confused you and led you on a tear was that I could have put it in italics or bolded it instead of putting it in quote marks. Quote marks are less preferable, but even so your reaction was over the top, completely ignoring the meat of the sentence.

Classic definition of picking a nit.

All together now - You...lied...period.

But I am glad to find out that you are in favor of corporal punishment for children.
How do you get that out of my story about my grandfather?

How do you get that out of my story about my grandfather?

Jl gets whatever he wants out of stories/posts. He doesn't hold much for facts - they get in the way.

This is the statement in question where you lied. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I have never stated that...period.

Your outrageous statements? How about this, one that WG, as usual, passed on.
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.
Jun 30, 2021, 03:56 PM
jlisenbe
Very simple. I have never said children go to hell.

But you have not explicitly said they don't. Athos has asked you multiple times to just say it out loud, and you seem reluctant to do so.

What is one supposed to conclude under such circumstances?

Romans 1 teaches that everyone is judged by what they do with how much (or little) they know. Children know diddly. So they're judged on their innocence and God welcomes them.

See? That's not so hard. Now you try it.

James 2:
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

But you have not explicitly said they don't. Athos has asked you multiple times to just say it out loud, and you seem reluctant to do so.

What is one supposed to conclude under such circumstances?

Romans 1 teaches that everyone is judged by what they do with how much (or little) they know. Children know diddly. So they're judged on their innocence and God welcomes them.

See? That's not so hard. Now you try it.Already have. I have very explicitly stated in the past that I do not believe children or infants go to hell.

Athos lied when he said this. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I've never said that.

I have not stated my belief about hell and judgment for a simple reason. If he will not accept the words of Jesus, then why should he accept my words?

But you have not explicitly said they don't. Athos has asked you multiple times to just say it out loud, and you seem reluctant to do so.

What is one supposed to conclude under such circumstances?

Romans 1 teaches that everyone is judged by what they do with how much (or little) they know. Children know diddly. So they're judged on their innocence and God welcomes them.

See? That's not so hard. Now you try it.


The problem Jl has with agreeing that children do not go to hell (and saying it out loud) is that it brings down his house of cards which is his false belief that Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment.

If children are not included in his "unbelievers", it is a simple step to others not being included like the millions who lived before Jesus and those who never heard of Jesus like that peasant woman working in a rice paddy in China who lived an exemplary life.

You've left Jl in a conundrum of his own making.

his false belief that Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment.For the fifteenth time, I have not said that. It is the clear teaching of the NT. Should I post the passages again?

No one has live an "exemplary" life but one.

No one has live an "exemplary" life but one.
Exemplary -- serving as a desirable model; representing the best of its kind.

I know lots of people who lived and who are living exemplary lives full of love and a giving spirit.

I know lots of people who lived and who are living exemplary lives full of love and giving.By whose standard? Paul spends an two chapters in Romans 2 and 3 disagreeing with you. He spends eight chapters in Romans showing that good works do not make a person right with God.

Have you ever read the Bible?

By whose standard? Paul spends an two chapters in Romans 2 and 3 disagreeing with you. He spends eight chapters in Romans showing that good works do not make a person right with God.
James 2:
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

You do realize that the founder of your Lutheran faith did not want James included in the NT because he realized that people like you would misuse it?

If you include verse 20, it makes more sense. "20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" James is arguing that an empty, lifeless faith that produces no fruit is really not faith. Verse 26 (which you left out) shows the same thing. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." Verse 14, which introduces the passage, says it clearly. "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? "

You do realize that the founder of your Lutheran faith did not want James included in the NT because he realized that people like you would misuse it?
Oh, but I was cherrypicking like you so love to do.

Luther didn't understand the book of James. Luther taught that the Book of James contradicted the doctrine of sola fide, or justification by faith alone. If he’s right about this, then either the Bible is wrong, or Protestants are wrong.

Hmmm, wonder which one is wrong

Yes, you were cherry-picking. It can easily be shown to be the case by the use of context (which I did) and the use of other texts showing that your approach was wrong which I did earlier by referring to Romans. So you can't just allege cherry-picking. You have to demonstrate it.

See how that works?

I think you are right that Luther did not understand the book of James, but I'm hesitant to become too critical with the man. His contributions to the faith were enormous.

Yes, you were cherry-picking. It can easily be shown to be the case by the use of context (which I did) and the use of other texts showing that your approach was wrong which I did earlier by referring to Romans.
Yes, I know how it works, have watched you for a long time as you've cherrypicked and ignored context.

I think you are right that Luther did not understand the book of James, but I'm hesitant to become too critical with the man. His contributions to the faith were enormous.
Luther had a lot of gastrointestinal problems. Hmm........

Yes, I know how it works, have watched you if a long time as you've cherrypicked and ignored context.You continually allege it, but you are never able to demonstrate it. And the reason is, as I have told you, that 32 separate passages which carry the same message cannot amount to cherry-picking in any known universe.

Have a good day. I'm gonezo.

You continually allege it, but you are never able to demonstrate it. And the reason is, as I have told you, that 32 separate passages which carry the same message cannot amount to cherry-picking in any known universe.

Only 32??? Surely you jest!

I thought we talked about how to correctly use "which" and "that".

Have a good day. I'm gonezo.
Time to think of an idea for a new thread that will intrigue Mr. JL.

Only 32??? Surely you jest.Nope. You have an easy, first grade level task. You simply find all the places in the NT where it says there is no hell and no judgment. So far you haven't found...one. Would four or five be too much to hope for? Two??? Two thirds of a passage?? Two words even??? BTW, I actually have 46 now, and that is by no means exhaustive. Would you care to see them?

I leave you to your task.

Nope. You have an easy, first grade level task. You simply find all the places in the NT where it says there is no hell and no judgment. So far you haven't found...one. Would four or five be too much to hope for? Two??? Two thirds of a passage?? Two words even??? BTW, I actually have 46 now, and that is by no means exhaustive. Would you care to see them?

I leave you to your task.
I'm not the one arguing with you about hell and judgment.

P.S. Proof passages are NOT the way to make your point.

They are certainly not a method you can employ. But I'm glad to hear you have dropped out.

For the fifteenth time, I have not said that. It is the clear teaching of the NT.

Here's the crux of the matter.

Every time I try to get Jl to acknowledge that he believes Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment, he replies, "Jesus said that, not me. Your argument is with Jesus." Yet, he calls it the "clear teaching of the NT".

Since Jesus is not available for comment, Jl refuses to defend what Jesus supposedly said even though he believes it is the clear teaching of the NT.

After two+ years, he finally loosened a bit due to being placed in a logical corner and denied that children go to hell. That was at least a beginning.

He later described Jesus as a "judge who will send people to hell at the end of time." He's backsliding a bit here, by not excluding children under the word "people".

There were other examples - the Chinese peasant woman who lived 10,000 miles away from Jesus and who never heard a single solitary thing about Jesus. She went to hell.

For every example I gave, Jl simply quoted another verse from the Bible. Your loyalty to a false reading of the Bible, JL, is admirable, but misplaced.


from JLisnbe
Athos lied when he said this. "According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus." I've never said that

That's an excellent example of his inability to see the logic involved. It's very simple. If unbelievers go to hell, and some children do not believe (maybe they never heard of Jesus since they lived far away or even before Jesus walked the earth) they would still be condemned to hell by his own logic.


I have not stated my belief about hell and judgment for a simple reason. If he will not accept the words of Jesus, then why should he accept my words?

This is a first - an admission that he has not stated his belief about hell and judgement. The reason? Athos will not accept the words of Jesus, so why should he accept the words of Jl?

Answer: I, Athos, have never said I don't accept the words of Jesus. What I don't accept are the words of the author of Matthew interpreted as saying Jesus condemned unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. Jl believes those words. I don't.

Finally, Jl HAS stated his belief in hell and judgement by saying it is the clear teaching of the NT.

You understand the meaning of what I have posted. I have not said, "I believe xxx," and yet, from the texts I have posted, you understand what the Bible teaches. That's what posting many texts do for a person. The meaning becomes clear. Your argument is indeed with Jesus and the NT, and is exactly why I have not attempted to interpret the scriptures. The meaning is clear and you cannot say, "I don't like what JL thinks," because I haven't posted what I think but what the Bible, in many, many places, clearly teaches. That's why you are aggravated. You realize very clearly your dilemma.

The older I get, the less interested I become in telling people what I think. I speak the Bible and point people to Jesus, and it is to Him I point you.

I speak the Bible and point people to Jesus, and it is to Him I point you.
That's definitely not the Jesus I've known and loved all my life.

Then it's not the Jesus of the Bible. You can't just make up your own Jesus, you know.

I'm amazed sometimes at you guys at how offended you are at what Jesus said about Himself and about us. I have not said these things. It is not my interpretation. It is what He has said.

Then it's not the Jesus of the Bible. You can't just make up your own Jesus, you know.
My Jesus is the living, breathing Jesus who rejoiced with me when I got married, when I had our two beautiful babies, a Jesus who comforted me when our younger son unexpectedly died, again when my dad died between sentences at a congregation meeting, yet again when my mom died of Alzheimer's, and was there for me each time I was diagnosed with a possibly deadly disease -- cancer, cellulitis, aplastic anemia. He's here with me right now as I come to the end of this day.

You understand the meaning of what I have posted. I have not said, "I believe xxx," and yet, from the texts I have posted, you understand what the Bible teaches.

I'm not sure what this even means.


That's what posting many texts do for a person.

Posting many texts in lieu of personal testimony is a fools' way out.


Your argument is indeed with Jesus and the NT

No, my argument is with YOU, Jl.


and is exactly why I have not attempted to interpret the scriptures. The meaning is clear

Every time you say the meaning is clear, you are approving the Bible passage in question. You can't get around it, my friend.


and you cannot say, "I don't like what JL thinks,

Of course I can say it. Watch - "I don't like what Jl thinks"


" because I haven't posted what I think but what the Bible, in many, many places, clearly teaches.

Jl, you're famous for making weak arguments, but this one is over the top. Not a member here doesn't know what you think.


That's why you are aggravated. You realize very clearly your dilemma.

Here's another common tactic of yours. Call your opponent aggravated, weak, liar, angry, hates Christ, and any other malice hiding in that head of yours. Sorry, Jl, that's never the way to win an argument.


The older I get, the less interested I become in telling people what I think.

You sure couldn't prove that by your activity here!


I speak the Bible and point people to Jesus, and it is to Him I point you.

In the end, it all comes down to Bibliolatry for Jl.

My Jesus is the living, breathing Jesus who rejoiced with me when I got married, when I had our two beautiful babies, a Jesus who comforted me when our younger son unexpectedly died, again when my dad died between sentences at a congregation meeting, yet again when my mom died of Alzheimer's, and was there for me each time I was diagnosed with a possibly deadly disease -- cancer, cellulitis, aplastic anemia. He's here with me right now as I come to the end of this day.The Jesus of the Bible is the only Jesus. Not saying you don't know Him, but when you don't accept what He said about Himself, you are engaged in foolishness.

Athos, if you have a belief, then support it with the Bible the way I have done. If you can't, then it's just opinion.

Posting many texts in lieu of personal testimony is a fools' way out.What a absurd argument. Put someone's personal experiences above the Bible? No one who has any knowledge of the Bible would arrive at such a foolish conclusion.

What a absurd argument. Put someone's personal experiences above the Bible? No one who has any knowledge of the Bible would arrive at such a foolish conclusion.
That's the best way to gain converts.

The best way to gain converts is to present the Christ of the Bible. He is loving, powerful, compassionate, and able to radically change lives. How do we know this? Because it's someone's testimony? Well, that helps, but we ultimately know it because it's what the Bible says. But to accept what we like and discard what we don't like is the sure way of accepting false beliefs about God. It's what you are doing, and it results in an acceptance of a Jesus of our own making if we are not careful.

Athos, if you have a belief, then support it with the Bible the way I have done. If you can't, then it's just opinion.

Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your belief?


What a absurd argument. Put someone's personal experiences above the Bible? No one who has any knowledge of the Bible would arrive at such a foolish conclusion.

I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.


The best way to gain converts is to present the Christ of the Bible. He is loving, powerful, compassionate, and able to radically change lives.

Do you also tell them he will send you to hell for eternity in flaming punishment if you don't believe in him? Is that part of your conversion process?

The best way to gain converts is to present the Christ of the Bible. He is loving, powerful, compassionate, and able to radically change lives. How do we know this? Because it's someone's testimony? Well, that helps, but we ultimately know it because it's what the Bible says. But to accept what we like and discard what we don't like is the sure way of accepting false beliefs about God. It's what you are doing, and it results in an acceptance of a Jesus of our own making if we are not careful.
Just smack them on the forehead with that Bible! Works every time! NOT!!!

Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.

Do you also tell them he will send you to hell for eternity in flaming punishment if you don't believe in him? Is that part of your conversion process?
Of course, JL does! If he doesn't scare the pants off them, they'll ignore him.

Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.It is good to have the heart touched WITH THE TRUTH.



Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your beliefs?I have not posted a belief. You have. You have said that unbelievers do not go to hell. When asked to support it (repeatedly), you have shown you are unable to do so. And now you seem to be not man enough to simply admit to it. Pretty sad.


I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.I don't consider myself to be an "evangelical type". At any rate, personal testimony is next to useless in establishing truth. It can illustrate it, but not establish it. For every "personal testimony" WG or anyone else can post, someone else can be found with the opposite "personal testimony".

It is good to have the heart touched WITH THE TRUTH.
Nope. Touch their hearts first spiritually with kindness and love. My speaking and their hearing the Gospel can then follow.

I have not posted a belief.

Your words from above - "If you have a belief then support it with the Bible the way I have done"


I don't consider myself to be an "evangelical type".

Fundamentalist? Born again?

Yes. Put Bible texts on the board. Simple.

Christian. Born again? I'd sure say yes to that.

Define "Fundamentalist".

Christian. Born again? I'd sure say yes to that.

Define "Fundamentalist".

I think of fundamentalist as primarily reading the Bible literally. I like the Catholic approach where they read it literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. I think most mainstream Protestant denominations read it like the Catholics, more or less.

As far as dogma/doctrine/belief, I am opposed to the unbeliever goes to hell business. It requires substituting the Bible for God. I understand that fundies believe the Bible was written by God. I'm not sure how they explain that, but there's too much in the Bible that God couldn't possibly have said or done.

There are fundamentalists in every religion who are similar to the Christians in the sense of being literal.

I think of fundamentalist as primarily reading the Bible literally. I like the Catholic approach where they read it literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically.I certainly agree with reading the Bible literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. The key element is knowing when to employ each one.


As far as dogma/doctrine/belief, I am opposed to the unbeliever goes to hell business. It requires substituting the Bible for God. I understand that fundies believe the Bible was written by God. I'm not sure how they explain that, but there's too much in the Bible that God couldn't possibly have said or done.I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "substituting the Bible for God." Are you saying that you have some utterly dependable means outside of the Bible for knowing what God is like? BTW, fundamentalists do not believe God wrote the Bible. They believe men wrote the Bible, but did so by being moved by the Spirit of God in such a way that it is God's Word.

I certainly agree with reading the Bible literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. The key element is knowing when to employ each one.
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?

BTW, fundamentalists do not believe God wrote the Bible. They believe men wrote the Bible, but did so by being moved by the Spirit of God in such a way that it is God's Word.
We don't have the original text of the Bible. And we know at least some of the translators had an agenda, so tweaked/changed words and phrases.

Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?The general rule of hermeneutics is to take a passage literally unless there is a compelling reason not to. I take them both literally since I see no compelling reason not to, but I have no quarrel with someone who chooses not to.

Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?


And we know at least some of the translators had an agenda, so tweaked/changed words and phrases.Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?

Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?
I was watching - and booing -- Dr. Phil. Hard to boo and speel kerectlee.

Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?
The ones, for example, that changed the translation of the Greek word from "pedophiles" to "homosexuals".

Your example is ludicrous. You are trying to go back to the good old days of Luther when he used a German word which could have the connotation of pedophile. But if Luther kind of, sort of goes one way, and every modern translation, by the dozens, go a different way, then I'm not putting my money on Luther. Besides, the root of the Greek word is the word for "man", so to suggest it is referring to boys and men having sex is really a reach.

Surely you can come up with a Greek lexicon or major translation that uses "pedophile". If you can't, and you can't, and they why make such a preposterous statement? At any rate, if that's all you have, then you have nothing.

At any rate, if that's all you have, then you have nothing.
Paul coined the word arsenokoitai.

First of all, that is not settled as being true by a long shot. With 99.999% of ancient writing lost, then no one can say that. It is thought that Philo might have used it several decades earlier, but can't be certain.

But even at that, what difference would it make? Your approach is a perfect example of eisegesis.

First of all, that is not settled as being true by a long shot. With 99.999% of ancient writing lost, then no one can say that. It is thought that Philo might have used it several decades earlier, but can't be certain.

But even at that, what difference would it make? Your approach is a perfect example of eisegesis.
I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.

I kind of figured that.

I kind of figured that.
As my grandpa would say, "You're full of applesauce."

from WG
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?


I take them both literally since I see no compelling reason not to, but I have no quarrel with someone who chooses not to.

You don't consider the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood that that destroyed all humanity a compelling reason to consider the story not literal? A man living for three days inside the belly of a whale is not a compelling reason to consider the story other than literal?

Like you, I have no problem with how others may see these stories, but to call them literal is bizarre in the extreme.

Before I saw this, I was going to ask you about the creation story in Genesis, and the Adam and Eve story. But I think I know your answer now. Anyway, I will ask it anyway to make sure.


Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?

I can't resist citing the parable of the man who swallowed a camel (took the flood and Jonah as literal) and strained at a gnat (concerned about a spelling typo).

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.

As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways. That's why I don't worry too much about others not taking it literally.

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.
Continually? Wash out your mouth! There aren't enough ours in the dsy to pint out the arrows and tepos on these boreds!

I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.

Then why did you point out mine?

Then why did you point out mine?You mean your spelling of complementarianism? Because I thought then, and still do, that it highlighted the fact that you don't understand the concept and grossly misrepresented it.

Hope you all have a good night. See you tomorrow.

You mean your spelling of complementarianism? Because I thought then, and still do, that it highlighted the fact that you don't understand the concept and grossly misrepresented it.

Hope you all have a good night. See you tomorrow.

Then how do you explain that it was spelled correctly by me otherwise? By your own logic, that would mean that I do understand the concept and accurately represented it.

On the issue of your Bible reading as literal, allegorical, etc., etc. please tell us your take on the Genesis creation story and the Adam and Eve story.

I just saw your response re the flood story. Quote, "As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways." What are the good reasons to believe that a world-wide flood killed all life on earth?


Continually? Wash out your mouth! There aren't enough ours in the dsy to pint out the arrows and tepos on these boreds!

Your mispellings here are outrageous! I have no option but to report you. Stop watching Dr. Phil. His doctorate is in jump-rope.

I had no real problem with your spelling. It was your unfortunate mischaracterization of the idea that revealed your lack of understanding.

Do you want a Pilot?
Signal then to Jesus;
Do you want a Pilot?
Bid Him come on board;
For He will safely guide
Across the oceans wide
Until you reach at last
The Heavenly Harbour.

I had no real problem with your spelling. It was your unfortunate mischaracterization of the idea that revealed your lack of understanding.

What part or parts of the below do you deny?

"Complementarianism" says men and women have separate roles, and men are the ones in charge. Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter. It’s from a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

You only presented one narrow aspect. The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership. You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women. If you had even said, "men and women have separate and yet complementary roles," then it would have been more on target.

But we have discussed this to death. I see no point in pursuing it.

You only presented one narrow aspect


That is true. I was making a point ABOUT the idea, not defining the idea.


The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership.

I believe that is also true. But does it work out that way in practice?


You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women.

You're batting 1.000! That is exactly what I intended. That has been my observation of the idea. I think it is generally true that men dominate women in those (Biblical) relationships. It is also true (generally) that some women accept and like their subservient role, while others prefer an equal partnership. Either way is OK with me, but I must insist on the ongoing practice of excluding women (generally) from leadership roles in (some) churches. Sorry for so many qualifiers, but that's the only way to put it.

I definitely appreciate your idea of sacrifice and a corresponding mutual respect.

Sadly, it oftentimes does not work out that way in practice. I think that doesn’t alter the beauty of the arrangement.