1. Total depravity -- the idea that we’re all just awful and that’s why we need God to save us.

2. We are all constantly at risk of going to hell because of something we do or believe or doubt.

3. You get saved by accepting Jesus as your personal savior.

4. There is an “order of creation” ordained by God that establishes gender roles, family structure, etc.

5. The Bible is inerrant.

6. Shun people who believe differently than those in your church.

7. All religions actually lead us on the same path to God.

8. Religions are mutually exclusive.

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude.

10. America was founded as a Christian nation.

Do you agree that any of the above are harmful or corruptions? If so, why? If not, why not?

1. Total depravity -- the idea that we’re all just awful and that’s why we need God to save us. We are sinners in need of a Savior. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 21 (http://biblehub.com/romans/3-21.htm)But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 (http://biblehub.com/romans/3-22.htm)even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [f] (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/romans/3.htm#footnotes)and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 (http://biblehub.com/romans/3-23.htm)for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

2. We are all constantly at risk of going to hell because of something we do or believe or doubt. True for unbelievers because of sin. It's a very plain and clear Biblical truth. John 3:16 for instance.

3. You get saved by accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The most thoroughly Biblical statement a person can make.

4. There is an “order of creation” ordained by God that establishes gender roles, family structure, etc. There are gender roles and family structure in the Bible.

5. The Bible is inerrant. Not sure on that one. I lean in that direction, but still not 100% in.

6. Shun people who believe differently than those in your church. No. Just the opposite.

7. All religions actually lead us on the same path to God. This is a list of harmful and corrupted beliefs, so I would agree that this statement is harmful and a corruption of the truth.

8. Religions are mutually exclusive. The Christian faith is radically different from all other faiths.

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude. No. I've never even heard that one before.

10. America was founded as a Christian nation. No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth.

For the first nine, it's not what we "believe" that makes the difference. The plain and clear teaching of the Bible is what counts. At least it is so long as we consider our beliefs to come from the Bible and not from our own personal inclinations.

Do you agree that any of the above are harmful or corruptions? If so, why? If not, why not?

This reads like a fundamentalist manifesto.

It's a perfect example of a primitive religion stuck in the throes of a strongman "God" and, in this case, by a series of books written by as many authors over several centuries. The Bible is hardly inerrant but it does contain many good things along with many allegories unfortunately taken as literal by too many of its adherents resulting in absurdities.

The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century. The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It may yet be changed again at some point in the future as more and more is learned about how it was written.

Like all religions, Christianity has both good and bad. Your list contains the bad and I would add to that list the existence of hell and the existence of the devil - both notions lifted from other cultures/religions at the time.

A mature Christianity has evolved over the centuries since its founding and the modern version properly understood and interpreted is admirable for its lessons and worthy of imitation.

Tell us where it was changed. Be specific. And please no fake quotes.

You sure got off topic in a hurry.

8. Religions are mutually exclusive. The Christian faith is radically different from all other faiths.
Consider a god impregnating a human female -- a few examples:
***Zeus came to Danae in the form of a golden shower and left her pregnant with the Greek hero, Perseus.
***Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.
***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.
***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.
***Helen of Troy, the rare female offspring of a god-human mating, was produced when Zeus took the form of a swan to get access to Leda.
***The Virgin Mary got pregnant when the spirit of the Lord came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.

Well, you are confirming your status as an anti-Bible, anti-truth sinner. Amazing. Jesus is nothing more to you than Helen of Troy or Zoraster. Nothing in the Bible is to believed in your view. Sad.

Well, you are confirming your status as an anti-Bible, anti-truth sinner. Amazing. Jesus is nothing more to you than Helen of Troy or Zoraster. Nothing in the Bible is to believed in your view. Sad.
Why would the Gospel writers frame the story of Jesus' conception to be so like that of gods in other religions?

Consider a god impregnating a human female -- a few examples:
***Zeus came to Danae in the form of a golden shower and left her pregnant with the Greek hero, Perseus.
***Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.
***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.
***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.
***Helen of Troy, the rare female offspring of a god-human mating, was produced when Zeus took the form of a swan to get access to Leda.
***The Virgin Mary got pregnant when the spirit of the Lord came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.


These are excellent examples of the stories current in the days of writing the Gospels. It made it quite easy for the story of the Virgin birth as "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit to be accepted by the early believers in Jesus.

Get ready to be called a heretic and a lost sinner on the way to eternal hell - another story taken at face value by the early believers and especially the Christian establishment .

Tell us where it was changed. Be specific. And please no fake quotes.

You sure got off topic in a hurry.Still needs an answer.

Still needs an answer.

You can't figure this out for yourself with the huge internet at your fingertips? How lazy can one person be?

During the Protestant Reformation, the following books were dropped or changed:

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Daniel and Esther.

Next time, do your own research.

Why would the Gospel writers frame the story of Jesus' conception to be so like that of gods in other religions?How do you know they did?

You really think the account of the virgin birth parallels these stories??? Were any of those stories prophesied six hundred years before they happened? Do you have eye witness accounts written within seventy years of those occurrences?


Jupiter forcibly overcame Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducted her. He imprisoned her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.Oh yeah. That sounds a LOT like the virgin birth account.

***The earliest accounts of Zoroaster’s birth had him born of a human father and mother, but in later accounts his mother was pierced by a shaft of divine light.Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.

***The Buddha’s mother Maya, in a dream, found herself pregnant after being entered from the side by a god.Not even close.


You can't figure this out for yourself with the huge internet at your fingertips? How lazy can one person be?

During the Protestant Reformation, the following books were dropped or changed:

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Daniel and Esther.

Next time, do your own research.So the New Testament, which was of course the topic of discussion ("The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century."), was not changed. Whew! That's a relief. And notice that I did not have to insert any words into what was actually a quote from you...for real!!

Why should I do research for your outlandish remarks?

Where were Daniel and Esther changed? Specifically. Especially considering that the Masoretic text, which is the basis for our Old Testament, dates from the tenth century, about six centuries PRIOR to the Reformation. Kind of doesn't make sense, does it?

Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.
Mary and her husband Joseph.

Where were Daniel and Esther changed?
Wikipedia has a good article about the Apocrypha.

"The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century."), was not changed.

I wrote "The Bible has been changed etc etc Protestant Reformation". THE BIBLE! Good Lord, there you go, changing the words again to suit yourself.


Why should I do research for your outlandish remarks?

Easy - to get the answer you seek. Then when you get it, come back and tell us if it's still "outlandish". You probably won't, tho'. See how we know your BS?


Where were Daniel and Esther changed?

Look it up. Another simple exercise.


the basis for our Old Testament, dates from the tenth century, about six centuries PRIOR to the Reformation. Kind of doesn't make sense, does it?

That didn't bother you when it came to citing non-existent copies of Gospels in 70 AD - did it?

1, Changed words? No, that's your area. I quoted you exactly. Remember those little quotations mark do-daddies? But if you don't know, then that's fine

2. As usual, you cannot support your own claims and are reduced to the childish effort of trying to get someone else to help you cheat on your homework.

3. Again, you have no clue

4. Who said they were non-existent? Oh wait. That's right, you make a claim, and someone else is supposed to research it. I keep forgetting!

BTW, it was yet another non answer.

See what I mean about people who make grandiose claims but have no ability at all to support them?

1, Changed words? No, that's your area. I quoted you exactly. But if you don't know, then that's fine

Here is what I said, word for word - The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Go away, will you? You really are becoming a pest.

You keep forgetting that AMHD keeps great records. This is what you said. I underlined the part I quoted and you are trying desperately to forget about.


The Bible's New Testamant has been changed and edited until it reached its final form in the 4th century. The Bible was further changed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It may yet be changed again at some point in the future as more and more is learned about how it was written.Remember now?


Except that there are no early accounts that say Jesus was born of a human mother and father.



Mary and her husband Joseph.You know of an early source that says Joseph was the physical father of Jesus? Where? And please don't tell me to google it.


Where were Daniel and Esther changed?


Wikipedia has a good article about the Apocrypha.Thank you for answering a question that was not asked. This was the question. "Where were Daniel and Esther changed?" Those two books are not in the Apocrypha.

You keep forgetting that AMHD keeps great records. This is what you said. I underlined the part I quoted and you are trying desperately to forget about.

Remember now?

Dear God, how dopey can you be? The very statement I made is in your actual quote of mine. You asked for a specific - I gave you one, (actually I gave you several). For additional examples, I told you to look it up on the internet. You refuse to do that because you know what you will find and you don't like it.

You gave me nothing from the NT which is exactly what I said. I will not help you cheat on your homework. Truth is, you have no clue. You made a big, bold statement and then got called on it. That's on you.

Note for the future. I will call you out every time you try that silly strategy. Be prepared.

"Where were Daniel and Esther changed?" Those two books are not in the Apocrypha.
Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it's Labor Day and I'm resting.

That's on you.

No it's on you. It's ALWAYS been on you. Always.


Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it Labor Day and I'm resting.

Plus it's Monday - the traditional day of rest. Rest well, WG.

Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it Labor Day and I'm resting.I wouldn't waste my time doing your bidding. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.

The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?

I wouldn't waste my time doing your bidding. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.

Wow, not very nice.


The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?

Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).

The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?


Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).You are certainly good at nonsense words. Now as to serious answers, well, not so good as your fourth or fifth non-answer illustrates. But here's the question again if it helps any. "The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century?"

Have you guys ever noticed how frequently you are reduced to the plea, "Google it yourself"? I have listened to many serious debates, but I've never heard anyone respond with that advice. Wonder why not?

You are certainly good at nonsense words.
Discombobulation (and its variations) is a word, has been in use since the early 19th century.

9. Priests/ministers/rabbis should be men because Jesus was a dude. No. I've never even heard that one before.

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.

Have you guys ever noticed how frequently you are reduced to the plea, "Google it yourself"? I have listened to many serious debates, but I've never heard anyone respond with that advice. Wonder why not?
Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless. If you research it HONESTLY yourself....

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.
The Lutherans even split in two during the '60s and '70s because of this very thing. Now there's ELCA (women as pastors) and LCMS (only men can be pastors).

You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.Never heard of it being related to Jesus being a man. But I'm not Catholic for a variety of reasons. The only claim I make is that I am able to support my claims without resorting to, "You need to Google it."


Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless.
You posted one source earlier, and then YOU spit on it. Be honest. So like I said after that, if you want me to read your links, then don't post losers.

If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.Not very nice? It's my constant retort to you two. Has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with treating topics seriously and wanting everyone who reads these posts to know that you two cannot support your grandiose, bold claims.

Not very nice? It's my constant retort to you two. Has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with treating topics seriously and wanting everyone who reads these posts to know that you two cannot support your grandiose, bold claims.
We do but you refuse to even consider them. Like you refused to read that terrific blog on what is hell.

It came on the heels of the link that you blew up yourself. If you want someone to take time to read your articles, then provide good ones. EVEN BETTER, just provide the answers yourself. Ever notice how infrequently I suggest you go to this or that article? Why not copy and paste the pertinent sections? Do the work yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. And no, that is not meant to be mean.

10. America was founded as a Christian nation. No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth.
Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.

For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.

1. I am the Lord thy God. No, not that one. The nation purposely left that one out - in fact denied it was a founding principle in the First Amendment.
2. No carved images. Nope. We have lots of carved images.
3. Take God's name in vain. Nah. It's not nice but not a founding principle.
4. Keep holy the sabbath, Nope.
5. Honor Mom and Dad. Good idea, but not a founding principle.
6. Do not murder. Yup. There's one - definitely a founding principle, even a law.
7. Adultery. Never even mentioned as founding principle.
8. Do not steal. Yes, again.
9. Do not lie. Well, maybe - especially in a court of law. Partial credit
10. The coveting business. Actually, the nation's economy is built on coveting. Definitely NOT a founding principle.

There you have it. Two out of ten - a .200 batting average. Pretty weak.

The USA is more founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, the era that prospered after the Church lost influence. Those principles were rooted in thousands of years of human civilization including much trial and error.

Religions certainly helped when they promoted unity and good behavior from the earliest Sumerians to the present day. But they were never the prime mover.

It came on the heels of the link that you blew up yourself. If you want someone to take time to read your articles, then provide good ones. EVEN BETTER, just provide the answers yourself. Ever notice how infrequently I suggest you go to this or that article? Why not copy and paste the pertinent sections? Do the work yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. And no, that is not meant to be mean.
I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down. It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"WG, I'd love to see you answer this one.


Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.

For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.

You brought up the Ten Commandments, not me. I didn't say we were founded on the Ten Commandments, but on Biblical principles. But bear in mind that just because something is not in law does not mean it is not honored. There was a day when adultery, lying, and dishonoring parents were frowned upon.

I'm going to start a list of questions you guys are unable or unwilling to answer. I'll work on that tomorrow. There have been several just tonight.


I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down.


When?


It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.I ask questions and you evade them. You provide links that even you don't agree with. What am I to do with that?

I didn't say we were founded on the Ten Commandments, but on Biblical principles.

Please list the Biblical principles this nation is founded on. Be specific.

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

That's a good start.

Some more material of interest. "The body of the Constitution makes no reference to God. The Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath. The President was given 10 days to sign a bill into law. The counting of the 10 days does not include the Sabbath. This is found in Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2 which in part follows:“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”

When the Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, it was signed by the delegates then to be ratified by the states. The delegates signed the Constitution in the “Year of our Lord.” This is a direct reference to Christianity. This is found in Article 7 which in part follows:"

http://www.internationalcopsforchrist.com/proof-that-america-was-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

That's a good start.
Why don't the citizens respect those principles?

Because we are no longer a nation with respect for the Bible. Frankly, we have become like you. We like the parts that agree with us. And again, not mean, but truthful.

This question so illustrates that. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.

Because we are no longer a nation with respect for the Bible. Frankly, we have become like you. We like the parts that agree with us. And again, not mean, but truthful.

The parts that I like and agree with? So, if I don't believe all of it literally, every word is true, I don't respect the Bible?

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.Worth repeating.

Worth repeating.
Agape, God's love, unconditional. Even our Greek scholar who has been fascinated by that language since he was a kid and learned it and Hebrew in college, agreed with that.

Yeah. Of course all of those OTHER Greek experts don't. Too bad. No lexicon, dictionary, or English translation supported that translation of agape. Or at least none of the ones I referenced did. No one else bothered to check.

But this is of much greater importance. You didn't like what Jesus said about hell, so you came up with the objection that we had no recording of Him saying that. But you don't raise that objection when He mentions agape love. Why not? Why do you accept Him saying words about agape love, but not about hell? It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love. So I asked the question below which you have steadfastly refused to answer.

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"
Please simplify your question.

It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love
So all the Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and even Christians who don't believe exactly correctly (like you do) and even people who lived before Jesus are all going to hell?

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. That being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? There are no recordings at all.

Simple enough?


You didn't like what Jesus said about hell, so you came up with the objection that we had no recording of Him saying that. But you don't raise that objection when He mentions agape love. Why not? Why do you accept Him saying words about agape love, but not about hell? It certainly appears it's simply because you don't like the teaching about hell, but you do like the teaching about love.This is something I sincerely hope you seriously think about. You have a religion of your own making. The parts of the Bible that don't agree with you, you claim they are not to be taken literally or we don't have a "recording somewhere" of those statements. I think you are in a perilous situation.


So all the Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and even Christians who don't believe exactly correctly (like you do) and even people who lived before Jesus are all going to hell?Sounds like you are trying to change the subject. I would tell anyone to listen to what Jesus said and pay no attention to what JL or WG say.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sorry, but no recording of that one.

Sorry, but no recording of that one.
I can't believe you're making such an issue of my comment about recording. Yes, you're definitely a literalist!

Oh well. You are clearly not going to answer or take anything seriously. I wish you would. I sincerely do.

Tomorrow.

Oh well. You are clearly not going to answer or take anything seriously. I wish you would. I sincerely do.
Huh??? You're the one with the reading problem.

A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.

A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law

This is laughable. You attribute everything you can think of to the Bible. Notably absent is slavery - a definite founding principle taken directly from the Bible. I could cite mass slaughter, also from the Bible - a justification for exterminating Native Americans, or trying to.

How do you explain those principles being found in other nations? The Bible is 2,500 years old. Human civilization is at least 40,000 years old. Don't you think the species was working out those ways to run a society long before the Bible was ever thought of?

The Bible, like all cultural artifacts, inherited what went before it. Each culture added or refined its understanding, but no one culture did it all.

I'll comment on one - The need for church to be free from govt. interference. It is more likely that the government needed to be free from religious interference. Remember the mass movements from Europe to the New World were to ESCAPE religious influence.

Your two anecdotes are pathetic in their unimportance. Sabbath and the year of the Lord. That's the meaning of Anno Domini. AD. When atheists use AD does that mean they're Christian? When stores close on Sunday (or the actual Sabbath day - Saturday) does that mean they're Christian? You tend to make weak arguments, but this may be your weakest.

Your link is typical - something from a police organization, yet you reject information from a Biblical scholar who has been studying ancient and modern Greek for decades.

If you want to debate treaties as proof of the nation being founded on Christian principles, put this one in your pipe and smoke it.

From the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796.

"...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".

Huh??? You're the one with the reading problem.Perfect illustration of your lack of seriousness. BTW, do you have an answer yet? I went to the trouble to "simplify" the question, and yet you have passed on it again. "You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. That being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? There are no recordings at all." Put another way, the evidence for the accuracy of the remarks of Jesus in Mt. 25 is the same as for the rest of the NT, so if you reject Mt. 25 for that reason, then aren't you really rejecting the whole of the NT?

As to Athos' rant disguised as a reply, you did not actually address any of the points except for one, and with that one you simply went off in a different direction. The church being independent of the government is very clear from the NT.


yet you reject information from a Biblical scholar who has been studying ancient and modern Greek for decades.The truth is I accepted information from dozens of Greek scholars who work on lexicons and Bible translations. None of them agreed with WG's definition of agape, a truth which none of you has bothered to follow up on. DW did not attempt to defend his position so that's a dead issue.

I think the fact that Sunday was recognized in the Constitution to NOT be just another day of work is pretty significant.

Some more food for thought.


1. "The Declaration of Independence has many references to God throughout the document. The most famous one is that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Here are more references to God found in the document:
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”
With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”

2. The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "


http://www.internationalcopsforchrist.com/proof-that-america-was-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation, but it certainly does indicate that they took seriously the teachings of the Bible.

you did not actually address any of the points except for one,

Stand by - I'll address some more as time allows.


The truth is I accepted information from dozens of Greek scholars

Dozens? Yeah, right. Name them.


DW did not attempt to defend his position so that's a dead issue.

No, not dead. Very much alive. I'll go with DW instead of your "dozens" of un-named "scholars".


I think the fact that Sunday was recognized in the Constitution to NOT be just another day of work is pretty significant.

That's ridiculous.


"The Declaration of Independence has many references to God throughout the document. The most famous one is that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Here are more references to God found in the document:
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”
With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”



Every reference is a generic God that every religion and/or deists and theists could claim.


2. The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

Good grief. You'll say anything to suit your case. The United States became a nation on July 4, 1776 when it declared itself to be independent. Read a history book.


When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”

Total, unmitigated BS! Why do you insist on showing yourself to be so goofy?


The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.”

Then explain how the Treaty of Tripoli which corrected the Treaty of Paris 13 years later says as its first line, ""...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".


The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith.

It means nothing of the sort. You're so far out in left field, I hope as many as possible read your nonsense. It fits right in with your other bizarre beliefs.



Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation

You don't agree? After just saying you DO agree? Why am I honoring your craziness by replying? I should know better.


but it certainly does indicate that they took seriously the teachings of the Bible.



That's a far cry from the topic being discussed. Typical.

Dozens? Yeah, right. Name them.Easy. Here are the translators of the NIV New Testament. You will see fifteen of so of them. They did not render "agape" as "unconditional love". There will be similar lists for the ESV, NASB, and many other major translations which followed the same practice. I tried to post the ESV list, but it is so long that AMHD seems not to allow it to be posted, so I just tried the first dozen names. Look below. I also posted lexicon and dictionary entries earlier in the discussion.

https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/meet-the-translators/
http://bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html

See how easy that was? You should try it sometime. You should know by now that I don't make claims I can't support. That's the domain of you and WG.


Good grief. You'll say anything to suit your case. The United States became a nation on July 4, 1776 when it declared itself to be independent. Read a history book.I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to. Notice the link I provided so that I would not be plagiarizing like you have done?


Total, unmitigated BS! Why do you insist on showing yourself to be so goofy?
See the comment above. Same situation. His comment, by the way, had a good point.


Then explain how the Treaty of Tripoli which corrected the Treaty of Paris 13 years later says as its first line, ""...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".That's a good question. I would say for you to Google it, but instead I'll look at it tomorrow. The first thing that stands out to me is that it is very much an outlier. We'll see. Might have a lot to do with what "founded on the Christian religion" means.



The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith.


It means nothing of the sort. You're so far out in left field, I hope as many as possible read your nonsense. It fits right in with your other bizarre beliefs.I've already stated I don't agree with his conclusion. Still, the material is interesting. It certainly means they formally acknowledged the Christian faith in that treaty.


You don't agree? After just saying you DO agree? Why am I honoring your craziness by replying? I should know better.Where did I say I agreed? Actually, from the very beginning when WG asked, "10. America was founded as a Christian nation," I responded by saying, "No. To say we were founded on Biblical principles would be closer to the truth." So are you making things up again?

You sure are wound up tonight. Have a tough day?

Dr. Clifford John Collins, OT Chairman. Associate Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary; S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.Div., Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary; Ph.D., University of Liverpool.
Dr. Lane T. Dennis, Publishing Chairman. President, Good News Publishers-Crossway Books; B.S., Northern Illinois University; M.Div., McCormick Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Northwestern University.
Dr. Wayne A. Grudem. Professor and Chairman, Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; B.A., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Cambridge.
Dr. Paul R. House, OT Associate Chairman. Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry; B.A., Southwest Baptist University; M.A., University of Missouri-Columbia; M.Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. R. Kent Hughes. Senior Pastor, College Church in Wheaton; B.A., Whittier College; M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary; D.Min., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Dr. Robert H. Mounce, NT Associate Chairman. President Emeritus, Whitworth College; B.A., University of Washington; B.D., Fuller Theological Seminary; Th.M., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
Dr. William D. Mounce, NT Chairman. Professor of New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; B.A., Bethel College; M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
Dr. J. I. Packer, ESV General Editor. Board of Governors and Professor of Theology, Regent College (Vancouver, BC); B.A., Oxford University; M.A., Oxford University; D.Phil., Oxford University.
Dr. Leland Ryken, Literary Chairman. Professor of English, Wheaton College; B.A., Central College; Ph.D., University of Oregon.
Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress. Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.S., California Institute of Technology; Ph.D., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Litt., University of Cambridge; D.Th., University of Stellenbosch.
Dr. Gordon Wenham, OT Associate Chairman. Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, The College of St. Paul and St. Mary (Cheltenham, England); B.A., Cambridge University; M.A., Cambridge University; Ph.D., King's College, London University.
Dr. Bruce Winter. Warden, Tyndale House (Cambridge, England); B. A., University of Queensland; M.Theo., SEA Graduate School; Ph.D., Macquarie University.

Agape is a Greek noun that means selfless or unconditional love.

I'll let you pursue that with those dozens of Greek scholars I just listed who don't agree with you. That's really the amazing part of this to me, that it doesn't bother you that no one of importance agrees with your definition, nor can you find a single major translation that renders "agape" as "unconditional love". If I was in your shoes it would bother me a great deal. And it's not that I completely disagree with your conclusion. I think that God's love for sinners is unconditional in some sense of it, but to say that "agape" equates to unconditional love just takes it much too far, and especially in your view that it actually leads to unconditional acceptance.

I also don't understand why you would care. You've made it clear that, in your view, we can never be sure of what anyone in the New Testament actually said to begin with. For all anyone can know, they might have been saying the word "hate". We can never be sure of anything.

None of this, by the way, is mean spirited or a "put down". Just trying to inspire some thinking.

You have a son. You love him unconditionally? Or only if he toes your line?

I love him at all times. That is unconditional. However, his acceptance in my house in conditional. He cannot come in and cuss his mother, steal our money, tear the place up, sell drugs, live here without our permission, move in with his girlfriend, set fires, sell the furniture, or other unacceptable acts. We would still love him, but not accept him in our house. Besides, it is only through Jesus that we become a child of God. Or at least that's what the unreliable text (in your view?) of the Gospel of John says.

You really, for your own sake, need to think about this comment. "You've made it clear that, in your view, we can never be sure of what anyone in the New Testament actually said to begin with. For all anyone can know, they might have been saying the word "hate". We can never be sure of anything."

I love him at all times. That is unconditional. However, his acceptance in my house in conditional.
He is found guilty of assault and is sentenced to six years in the state pen. Do you continue to love him unconditionally?

Easy. Here are the translators of the NIV New Testament. You will see fifteen of so of them. They did not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

Complete nonsense. All you did was go to the Bibles in question and posted the names of the translators. What you need to do is post the discussions each one had re the term "unconditional love". But you can't do that, can you? Why? Because such discussions never occurred. You're fooling no one, except embarrassing yourself again.


You should know by now that I don't make claims I can't support.

HAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLHAHHALOLO. OH GOD, THANK YOU FOR THAT.


I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to.

Of course, you did - go back and read it.


That's a good question. I would say for you to Google it, but instead I'll look at it tomorrow. The first thing that stands out to me is that it is very much an outlier.

Yeah, like your citation wasn't an outlier.


It certainly means they formally acknowledged the Christian faith in that treaty.

Maybe, maybe not. Hinduism has a trinity of gods. Even so, one citation does not a foundation make. You're stretching again. Btw, did you know other religions don't consider Christianity as monotheistic? They consider it polytheistic because of the three persons/gods in the Trinity.


Where did I say I agreed? So are you making things up again?

Right here, O You, who cannot read his own posts.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "

and this in the very same post:

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation,

it doesn't bother you that no one of importance agrees with your definition,

If DW who has studied ancient Greek for decades has no importance in your twisted view, then anything you say is complete and utter hogwash in comparison.


nor can you find a single major translation that renders "agape" as "unconditional love".

Can you exercise your own judgment, or are you simply a slave to what others have written? Did you ever consider that maybe the term is modern and not within the purview of your translators? Huh? Did you? That's more to put in your pipe.


I think that God's love for sinners is unconditional in some sense of it, but to say that "agape" equates to unconditional love just takes it much too far

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you fundies believe that being "born again" is total and forever acceptance by God?

He is found guilty of assault and is sentenced to six years in the state pen. Do you continue to love him unconditionally?Of course. Would I go about insisting that what he was guilty of was, in fact, wonderful and good behavior? No.


Complete nonsense. All you did was go to the Bibles in question and posted the names of the translators. What you need to do is post the discussions each one had re the term "unconditional love".Don't be ridiculous. They translated the NT and rendered agape simply as love. Case closed. There are hundreds of these scholars. It is absurd to think that the "discussions" they had are accessible, but we do know what they produced. You are just trying to squeeze out of that box you are in. And in addition, do you have the "discussion" that took place where DW decided the word meant unconditional love? Huh? Do you have that "discussion"? Please don't tell us to google it.


HAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLHAHHALOLO. OH GOD, THANK YOU FOR THAT.The usual well-reasoned, logical response.



I didn't "say" the comment you were referring to.



Of course, you did - go back and read it.And the usual, "Go back and look it up." Any honest person would note that I already did and included the quote in my response. You remember about quotes??


Maybe, maybe not. Hinduism has a trinity of gods.If you want to believe the founders were referring to the Hindu gods, then go for it. You will, however, be alone in that belief. Beside, Hinduism has millions of gods. Might add that the Christian trinity does not put forward the idea of three Gods.


When the United States became a nation, it was done in the “name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. "

and this in the very same post:

Now I don't agree with this site that we were founded as a Christian nation,Anyone accustomed to being even the least bit careful with their reading would note that the first passage is not from me. It was a quote (Remember those??) from someone else. And that quote was what I said I did not agree with. Pay closer attention and stop making things up. That has become a bad habit of yours. Perhaps WG can give you some counseling on that.


If DW who has studied ancient Greek for decades has no importance in your twisted view, then anything you say is complete and utter hogwash in comparison.Already answered repeatedly. The count is several hundred to one. You can have your one, and I'll stick with the several hundred.




Can you exercise your own judgment, or are you simply a slave to what others have written? Did you ever consider that maybe the term is modern and not within the purview of your translators? Huh? Did you? That's more to put in your pipe.Yeah. I do tend to pay attention to how hundreds of Greek scholars render a Greek word. The term is modern and not within the purview of the translators? I laughed out loud at that one. "Hey dude! Don't you realize that the Greek term you are translating, written two thousand years ago, is 'modern' and not within your 'purview'." Oh brother. Desperation, thy name is Athos.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you fundies believe that being "born again" is total and forever acceptance by God? I'm not a "fundie".

Of course. Would I go about insisting that what he was guilty of was, in fact, wonderful and good behavior? No.
You will visit him, send him upbeat cards and letters, make sure he gets any needed counseling, be in touch with his lawyer(s), right?

I'm not a "fundie".
Of course you are. And a literalist.

You will visit him, send him upbeat cards and letters, make sure he gets any needed counseling, be in touch with his lawyer(s), right?Yes, but I would not approve of his conduct or justify it. God did the same thing with Israel in the OT by sending prophet after prophet with the same message. "Repent and turn to God." When they repeatedly refused to do so, He sent judgment.


I'm not a "fundie".



Of course you are. And a literalist.A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?

A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.
Aren't you proud of me for the cherrypicking I've been doing?! And so on target! (Yes, she really knows her Bible.)

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?
Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!

(Yes, she really knows her Bible.)Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.


Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!
OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.
I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?
Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?


Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".

Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?

The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".
Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?
You have shown us that you have no idea what hell is. Or unconditional love.

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?
You have shown us. No judging was necessary.

You have shown us.And there you go, judging again. Amazing how many of your standards are for every one but you. Why is that?

And even this, "No judging was necessary," is itself a judgment. I think you have painted yourself into a corner. But there is a way out, if you can see it.

My most favoritest verse: "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Why are you changing the subject?

I like that scripture as well. There are many good ones.

And this was another VERY judgmental remark, not to mention being pretty prideful.


I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.How could you know that? Do you know how much instruction I've had during my also very long lifetime? And being a preacher myself would give me, I think, and advantage, would it not?

I hope you know I'm just trying to illustrate how unworkable your understanding of Mt. 7:2 is. You judge, I judge, and everyone on this site judges. You can't live without making judgments concerning right and wrong. I don't think Jesus meant it the way you think He did.

They translated the NT and rendered agape simply as love. Case closed.

Only in your closed mind is the case closed.


It is absurd to think that the "discussions" they had are accessible

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.


The usual well-reasoned, logical response.

Your ridiculous invites my ridicule. Get used to it. It ain't going away.


I already did and included the quote in my response.

WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.


Might add that the Christian trinity does not put forward the idea of three Gods.

Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.


the first passage is not from me. It was a quote from someone else. And that quote was what I said I did not agree with.

Then why did you post it? What was your point? Are you retracting your belief that the nation was founded on Christianity? We all await your answer.


I do tend to pay attention to how hundreds of Greek scholars render a Greek word. The term is modern and not within the purview of the translators? I laughed out loud at that one

Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible. Still laughing?


. "Hey dude! Don't you realize that the Greek term you are translating, written two thousand years ago, is 'modern' and not within your 'purview'." Oh brother. Desperation, thy name is Athos.

You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.


I'm not a "fundie".

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck........................(It's probably a fundie).


Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

ha ha - good one!

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?


WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.It's what I've said from the beginning.


Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.


Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible.How do you know they never considered it? Besides, the ESV is VERY recent, and it also did not render agape as "unconditional love". The NASB was updated in 1995. Pretty sure the term "unconditional love" was around then, but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.


You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.No I didn't. I never attributed the quote to anyone, so would that make you the "idiot"? This business of "quotes" just gives you fits. Did you fail fourth grade?


If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duckOh? So I can call you an atheist now? Well, that makes life a little easier and certainly clearer.

I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?
It's what I've said from the beginning.

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.


But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.

Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.


How do you know they never considered it?

How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.


but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.

They did not use it because they did not consider it. Sorry, but you're batting ZERO.


Did you skip fourth grade?

Don't try to be funny. You're not equipped. Witty from you is even worse.


Oh? So I can call you an atheist now?

It matters not what you call me. What matters is the truth - a quality that gives you fits.

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.I never quoted them in any way. You are making it up again as you go. That's a bad habit you have.


Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.No, they don't.


How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.I didn't comment either way. You did, so it's up to you to support your hilariously foolish comment which you promptly, right on cue, repeat below.


They did not use it because they did not consider it.And again, how do you know that? Pretty sure you weren't there.


It matters not what you call me.Good. From now on, you are the site atheist. Come to think of it, "athos" and "atheist" sure do look a lot alike, don't they? Freudian slip?

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.
Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?

Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?You mean like when you called me a "fundie"??? That kind of judging? So again, why is it OK when you do it? Now I know you won't answer that since you never do, but it is quite a mark against you.

You mean the Athos of the Three Musketeers? There is also a Mount Athos. I'd be amazed if there was not a city or village named "Athos". And then, of course, there is the famous Athos of Persian mythology who was bedeviled by a strange inability to understand direct quotations! (For the humor impaired, that was a joke.)

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"???
Aren't you? I used to be one and know what they look and sound like.

Yet another unanswered question. Don't you find that to be a bit embarrassing?

For the record, I am not a fundamentalist. I don't claim allegiance to any group other than Christians. I find differences with all of them, and I don't like being pigeon-holed.

Yet another unanswered question. Don't you find that to be a bit embarrassing?

For the record, I am not a fundamentalist. I don't claim allegiance to any group other than Christians. I find differences with all of them, and I don't like being pigeon-holed.
Right. A fundamentalist Christian. It's not a group; it's how one understands the Scriptures and interprets them.

Wow. It's hard to know how to respond to something like this. I say, "I am not a fundamentalist." "Don't be judgmental." "I don't like being pigeon-holed."

Only to see as a response, "Right. A fundamentalist Christian." It's just unbelievable. I thought I was beyond being surprised, but I guess not. So I should, I suppose, congratulate you on yet another incredible (not credible) statement. It is, at least, a good laugh for the evening.

And no, it's not a put down. Just an honest expression of absolute amazement.

Wow. It's hard to know how to respond to something like this.
Feel free to tell me what I am now that I'm no longer a Christian fundimentalist. :-)

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"??? That kind of judging?
It's not a judgment at all. A judgment would be saying that's bad or good. I'm categorizing you, not judging you.

Like my paternal grandpa used to say, "Call me anything you want; just don't call me late for dinner."

A judgment would be saying that's bad or goodWonderful. So calling someone an atheist is allowable now? Great!

To suggest you don't consider a fundamentalist to be bad is to get as close to lying as a person should ever get. In fact, I would even say...oh well. Forget it.

Wonderful. So calling someone an atheist is allowable now? Great!
Nope. There's nothing wrong with calling someone an atheist unless you're calling the person that as a putdown. It's a category, like Catholic or Baptist or agnostic or Boy Scout. All of those can be used as putdowns, but they aren't in themselves, are just categories (classes or divisions of people that have shared characteristics). Call me a PK or a Mensan or a librarian. I won't be offended. If you add a pejorative adjective, then you're judging me.

To suggest you don't consider a fundamentalist to be bad is to get as close to lying as a person should ever get. In fact, I would even say...oh well. Forget it.
I've been there. There are fundamentalist Christians and fundamenalist Muslims. There are also progressive (liberal) ones.

Nope. There's nothing wrong with calling someone an atheist unless you're calling the person that as a putdown.Well great. So I can call you an atheist so long as it's not a putdown? Wonderful!! You've opened up a brave new world. And you, of course, will have no way of knowing my intention unless you claim to be able to look into a person's heart. And guess what that amounts to?

You have made my day. I never thought you'd agree to it, but here we are.

Well great. So I can call you an atheist so long as it's not a putdown?
And then I will disagree with you, sit you down at my dining room table, serve you coffee or tea and an assortment of cookies, and tell you why I'm not an atheist.

Won’t help. Remember…quack like a duck? And remember how I’ve told you repeatedly I am not a fundamentalist and you listen not at all?

What’s it like, being an atheist?

Won’t help. Remember…quack like a duck? And remember how I’ve told you repeatedly I am not a fundamentalist and you listen not at all?

What’s it like, being an atheist?
What are you then? Where do you fit into the huge puzzle that is Christianity? (You want root beer schnapps instead of coffee or tea?)

I’ve already told you. I’m a Christian.

I’ve already told you. I’m a Christian.
You don't attend any church. Or choose a church of the week to go to.

Do you like very solemn services or energetic singing with arms raised and waving, altar calls, faith healing, speaking in tongues?

I pastor the church at the rehab center.

I am happy in a variety of settings so long as there is a genuine love of Jesus, a high regard for the word of God, and a genuine faith.

I despise inconsistency in belief, dishonesty, and evasiveness by those afraid of having their beliefs explored by answering probing questions.

How about you?

You don't attend any church. Or choose a church of the week to go to.

Do you like very solemn services or energetic singing with arms raised and waving, altar calls, faith healing, speaking in tongues?

I pastor the church at the rehab center.
You have a master's in theology?

I am happy in a variety of settings so long as there is a genuine love of Jesus, a high regard for the word of God, and a genuine faith. despise inconsistency in belief, dishonesty, and evasiveness by those afraid of having their beliefs explored by answering probing questions.
I know what you mean! (I'm still waiting on the beverage question. Maybe a glass of milk or a Black Russian? Maybe I could get you to giggle.)

How about you?
ELCA all the way.

You don't attend any church. Or choose a church of the week to go to.
I'm homebound, wheelchair bound. I go only to my hematologist every six months. Getting out to that and back home again is a journey rife with problems.

Do you like very solemn services or energetic singing with arms raised and waving, altar calls, faith healing, speaking in tongues?
I was born and raised LCMS, very solemn.

I have two years of Bible College and 40 years of Bible reading and study. My Master's Degree is in school administration. My Bachelor's is in Animal Science.


I know what you mean!I think you have no idea. I've never met anyone anymore reluctant to have his/her beliefs honestly examined than you are.


I'm homebound, wheelchair bound.I'm aware of that. It's very unfortunate, but happily God can bless and use anyone willing to trust Him and be obedient.

I'm aware of that. It's very unfortunate, but happily God can bless and use anyone willing to trust Him and be obedient.
He does, every day!

Obedient?

Of course.

Of course.
Please elaborate.

On what?

On what?

You had said, God can bless and use anyone willing to trust Him and be obedient.
Please elaborate.

Trust and obedience in the Bible are close to synonymous. Does “trust and disobey” sound right?

Trust and obedience in the Bible are close to synonymous. Does “trust and disobey” sound right?
A non answer. What's your definition of obedience? (No, trust and obedience aren't synonymous, even in the Bible.) So...I must obey the Ten Commandments or God will punish me somehow?

Of course it's an answer. You asked me to elaborate on my concept of obedience. We cannot say we trust God if we are then disobedient. They are vitally connected.

You really want a definition of "obedience"? You don't know what it means?

I would say it means to comply, or to obey. To do what one is told to do. Is that somehow revolutionary?


(No, trust and obedience aren't synonymous, even in the Bible.)I did not say they were synonymous. I said they were close to it. Obedience follows trust.


So...I must obey the Ten Commandments or God will punish me somehow?He will punish the Christian in the same way that a parent punishes a disobedient child.

If we love one another, obdience isn't an issue.

To love one another is to obey what God said to do. Obedience is at the very core of it. And then we must consider that God sets out what it means to genuinely love someone.

To love one another is to obey what God said to do. Obedience is at the very core of it. And then we must consider that God sets out what it means to genuinely love someone.
You're making loving each other too difficult and unwieldy.

For the record, I am not a fundamentalist.

For the record, fundie Jl believes in talking snakes and a monstrous god who slaughters all humanity and then sends the majority of new humans to his private torture chamber to burn without ceasing in a fiery pit for all eternity.

Pray tell, exactly what flavor of Christianity is that?

You're making loving each other too difficult and unwieldy.Love is oftentimes sweet and pleasant, but it is at times difficult. Was the cross easy or difficult? It's really selfishness that comes easily.

Love is far more than a feeling. In the story of the Good Samaritan, did the actions of the Samaritan man look easy? I spoke on that just a few weeks ago. The priest and Levite took the very much easier path of doing nothing. The Samaritan man's actions were, for him, difficult and inconvenient, and largely unrelated to his feelings. There is oftentimes a sweetness in love, to be sure, but that can come and go. The unselfish actions of love are the constant.

How about loving your enemies? That is typically difficult. When Corie Ten Boom went back to Germany to preach the Gospel, she said that was difficult for her.


Will be on the sidewalk advocating for life today. Catch up with you guys later. Have a good day.

To love because we are told to do so becomes "I must" and "I have to". Or we can thumb our noses at God and say, "No, thanks, am not willing to love [this person] or [that one]". After all, we have free will, right? But if we don't love, how are we punished? Hellfire? After all, disobedience demands punishment.

No, obedience and love do not work well together. We do not love God and other people in an attempt to avoid punishment. God loves us, and His love shines through us and is reflected off us onto others. We love others, not from our own efforts, but because He loved us first and has shown us what agape is.

No, obedience and love do not work well together. We do not love God and other people in an attempt to avoid punishment.No one said we did. I certainly haven't.


God loves us, and His love shines through us and is reflected off us onto others. We love others, not from our own efforts, but because He loved us first and has shown us what agape is.That sounds very noble and lovely. The problem is, it does not always work that way in the real world. Was it God's love shining through you and reflecting off you when you took such great delight in calling Donald Trump fat, stupid, and no doubt other pejoratives which you used? Or when you have said "non-loving" things about me, or stood by silently and approvingly while others did? Is that how it works for you?

No, there are times when your description is accurate, but there are other times when love is difficult and inconvenient. That's why Jesus said it was a "commandment" to love God and to love your neighbor. Commandments are clearly there to be obeyed. When it's pleasant, then that's wonderful, but when it's not, and sometimes it's not, then we do it because our Father tells us to and in trusting Him, we accept His commandment. To pretend that love always just "shines through us" effortlessly is to live in a fantasy world.