My worst fears have come to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
My worst fears have come to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Life can sure be tough.Quote:
My worst fears have come to pass.
and apparently in the opinion of some, made tougher
Now what can you really have on the test? The names of the three falls, the fact that one of them was dry at one time, and what makes the Canadian Falls different from the American Falls. What else could you have?Quote:
My worst fears have come to pass.
Have you read all the material I passed out to the class? If so, you'll be okay. Or maybe not. There may be a few surprise questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Now I'm worried.Quote:
There may be a few surprise questions.
Have a wonderful Easter. Celebrate and honor the risen Lord.
Here's a brief lesson on textual criticism. It's the study of various versions of the Gospels (Scripture). There are many translations and revised versions of the Bible. For example the KJV was written a few centuries before the earliest Greek scriptures were discovered. The earliest complete Gospels date from the 3rd-4th century. That is time enough for slight omissions or errors to be made. Copies were generally made by scribes - not scholars. Many of the scholars (Protestant and Catholic) had biases and pressure to conform to certain doctrines.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Even the autograph gospels had differences in Jesus' words and actions, but none to threaten his essential core message. Extend the copying over 2,000 years and it's easy to accept some differences. That can easily explain the heaven/hell wording.
Yes, it has me very confused. When I brought up people who never heard of Jesus - babies and Buddhists - you seemed to backtrack and left out the belief in Jesus part because, of course, they would be unable to believe if they had never heard of him. Can you now make a clear statement about who goes to hell for eternal punishment? Not just Sinners - that's far too vague.Quote:
I have never left Jesus out of the equation. You can't read Rev. 20 and get that idea. Sinners go to hell because of their sins. It is judgement for sin. Jesus is our deliverance from that fate. Jesus himself said, “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” That is the part that has you confused.
You asked the question about purgatory and I gave you the best way to get your question answered. Now you refuse to do what I recommended because you don't play google games. Google is an excellent way to find out, and in this instance, by far the best way. Yet, you refuse.Quote:
If it's there, then post it. I'm not going to play the "google it" game. To be clear, I am looking for that "smoking gun" scripture that tells us about someone getting out of hell and going to heaven since he had suffered enough for his sins.
No argument there.Quote:
The controversy concerns the resurrection, not His existence.
I don't remember ever saying I didn't believe in the Bible. What I don't believe in is your erroneous and literal understanding of the Bible.Quote:
The strange thing to me is this. Why do you bother with any of this if you don't believe in the authority of the Bible? Why would you care?
What is strange to me about this discussion is that you generally don't respond to the things I present other than hurling insults and nastiness - to which I am happy to return in kind.
You left out some things such as the fact that scribes were generally highly dedicated, professional individuals who employed safeguards to keep their work accurate. You also failed to mention that the manuscript evidence for the NT is abundant, especially in relationship to other ancient texts. It is nonsense to contend that scribes made wholesale changes to the manuscripts in such a way that could not have been detected. Still, you were generally accurate, but you said nothing to defend your position that you are right and hundreds of scholars have been essentially duped. It is just a ridiculous position, so much so that I'm surprised you insist on continuing with it.Quote:
Here's a brief lesson on textual criticism. It's the study of various versions of the Gospels (Scripture). There are many translations and revised versions of the Bible. For example the KJV was written a few centuries before the earliest Greek scriptures were discovered. The earliest complete Gospels date from the 3rd-4th century. That is time enough for slight omissions or errors to be made. Copies were generally made by scribes - not scholars. Many of the scholars (Protestant and Catholic) had biases and pressure to conform to certain doctrines.
Even the autograph gospels had differences in Jesus' words and actions, but none to threaten his essential core message. Extend the copying over 2,000 years and it's easy to accept some differences. That can easily explain the heaven/hell wording.
Already very adequately answered. No, I don't play the "google it" game. If you know, then respond. If you don't know, then simply say you don't know. The "google it" response is usually a cheap way of trying to hide a lack of knowledge. That's why I don't play that game.Quote:
You asked the question about purgatory and I gave you the best way to get your question answered. Now you refuse to do what I recommended because you don't play google games. Google is an excellent way to find out, and in this instance, by far the best way. Yet, you refuse.
I have not said sinners go to hell. I have said, and it is in complete agreement with the words of Christ, that people go to hell for their sins. It is only in Christ that sins are forgiven. Do you agree with the words of Christ from John 8? "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
If you find a comment of mine to be "nasty", then point it out and we can discuss it. As to your questions, they are being, and have been, answered. I have already made a clear statement about who goes to hell, but I'll make an agreement with you. I will again state my belief if you will guarantee us all that you will follow it with a clear statement of your belief.Quote:
What is strange to me about this discussion is that you generally don't respond to the things I present other than hurling insults and nastiness - to which I am happy to return in kind.
None of the things you stated are facts I'd be interested in knowing those safeguards for accuracy were as opposed to consensus to appeal to an agreeable position as did other writers of the day on the same subject.Quote:
You left out some things such as the fact that scribes were generally highly dedicated, professional individuals who employed safeguards to keep their work accurate. You also failed to mention that the manuscript evidence for the NT is abundant, especially in relationship to other ancient texts. It is nonsense to contend that scribes made wholesale changes to the manuscripts in such a way that could not have been detected. Still, you were generally accurate, but you said nothing to defend your position that you are right and hundreds of scholars have been essentially duped. It is just a ridiculous position, so much so that I'm surprised you insist on continuing with it.
The bible and any other works of man ever recorded is subject to the authority of the day and whatever they deemed important or relevant. The ancient Christian movement had many sects and off shoots that produced many bibles, and writings until almost by consensus and popularity, mostly regional/local one version was adapted and promoted, and that's the product we have now and worth noting is the various version that exist. It's actually fascinating to observe and study the evolution of culture and society as it grows and consolidates and hones its dogma, traditions and customs into one dominant clear message for it's followers, and unless you are an "independent" religions outside the affiliations of the mainstream, then you are at least a local part of a national and international body of some religious agreement.
So those ancient men didn't just tune into God to come up with a finished product, they reached a consensus, to make that finished product we call the bible (Or any other final product man makes for public consumption), as the goal was to out compete the competition for public attention and support. Now if any one thinks that a lot of liberal license was not taken to that end, in language use and meanings, then think again, because that's what people to rise above the other voices. To even think there was no competition between the original disciples of Christ after the crucifixion, would be ignoring the basic human nature of just surviving, while spreading the word of Jesus in a break from the Jewish traditions of the day which they and Jesus were a part of. Yes Jesus was a Jew, NOT a Christian, and if there is a historical record of him leaving the Jewish faith please share that with me.
No religion can survive without followers, or at least curry interest enough to make people stop and listen, and then as now you still have to have enough sponsorship to keep it going. So in todays world least we forget the simple message of the one who's tribulations sparked this huge holiday shared by many, share love not hate.
Leave it to other humans to making a simple thing into a big mess.
That is far removed from the Christian faith. God sent His Son to reveal the truth to us, not to ask us for our opinions. He has no interest at all in any human consensus from the perspective of establishing truth. Our job is to agree with His word and will. Jesus leaves no room whatsoever for any appeal to consensus. He never adjusted His message in order to gain the approval of man.Quote:
So those ancient men didn't just tune into God to come up with a finished product, they reached a consensus, to make that finished product we call the bible (Or any other final product man makes for public consumption), as the goal was to out compete the competition for public attention and support.
As the author of Hebrews puts it, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." The greatness of Christ demands our worship and obedience.
What about the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, those with Down's syndrome (and other genetic disorders), the tribes living in remote places, the unborn (miscarriages and abortions), the babies before the age of reason? What about anyone who doesn't -- or can't -- believe because of extenuating circumstances over which they have no control?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You don't answer my questions. Why should I answer yours?
I wasn't asking you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
According to your statement, they're going to hell.
I guess the question mark at the end made it seem like a question. But since you're not asking me, then there is no need for an answer.
Your conclusion.Quote:
According to your statement, they're going to hell.
Well, then, feel free to explain!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I feel very free.
Please put your clothes back on!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Watch yourself!
Scribes, vis-a-vis the New Testament (Gospels), were generally monastics skilled in the art of writing/printing but not scholars. In fact, they usually did not know the language they were copying from unless the source was their own language. They were allowed one mistake per page and completed 3-4 pages during daylight. The Scriptorium Master checked their work and corrected any mistakes they may have made. However, not all mistakes were caught by the Masters. This is easily seen when comparing copied manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The abundance of manuscripts, I would have thought, is obvious, not worth mentioning. The relation of Bible manuscripts to other ancient writings is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.Quote:
You also failed to mention that the manuscript evidence for the NT is abundant, especially in relationship to other ancient texts.
I made NO such contention! In fact, I said the errors were infrequent and minor not changing the core essence of the Gospels. Please don't attribute words to me that I didn't make.Quote:
It is nonsense to contend that scribes made wholesale changes to the manuscripts in such a way that could not have been detected.
Again, your words, not mine. I never said they were "duped". Over 2,000 years and several thousand manuscripts, it is simply common sense that the latest copies are not exact copies of the autographs. Add to this that the English translations aren't even in the same original language, and in English itself, words change their meanings over time. The word "gay" does not have the same meaning today as it had as recently as 50 years ago.Quote:
but you said nothing to defend your position that you are right and hundreds of scholars have been essentially duped. It is just a ridiculous position,
In fact, no autographs have ever been found to exist. Other than fragments of a verse or two, the sources date from the 3rd century and later. More than enough time for the earliest manuscripts to reflect the thinking and development of the religion as it evolved since the time of Jesus. Hence, the many disputes and arguments of the nature of Christ and of theology in general until the Church canonized the books of the Bible in the 4th century.
That's too bad. You could have gotten the information you asked about had you "played the game" by checking the internet. I note here that, of the many times I asked you to explain something, you usually referred me to the internet to verses from a book (the Bible) and rarely put your point in your own words.Quote:
No, I don't play the "google it" game.
That is complete nonsense. You are letting your prejudices run your knowledge seeking. The question of Purgatory is not something like "Jesus said - I declare Purgatory is after heaven' Period. Full stop". You need to read the references in the Old and New Testaments to understand how the Catholic Church understands it. Now you'll say you don't care. Well, you cared enough to ask in the first place.Quote:
If you know, then respond. If you don't know, then simply say you don't know. The "google it" response is usually a cheap way of trying to hide a lack of knowledge. That's why I don't play that game.
Ok, good. Then my question remains what about those who never heard of Jesus? Since the beginning of time to the present day. And are they punished for all eternity?Quote:
I have not said sinners go to hell. I have said, and it is in complete agreement with the words of Christ, that people go to hell for their sins. It is only in Christ that sins are forgiven.
I have never had a problem with believing that people die in their sins. The discussion is being hijacked again by you, going off on a tangent.Quote:
Do you agree with the words of Christ from John 8? "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
Fine. But haven't you already stated your belief right above quoting John 8? However, I will state my belief on the issue right after you state yours.Quote:
I'll make an agreement with you. I will again state my belief if you will guarantee us all that you will follow it with a clear statement of your belief.
You never used the word "duped", but you have contended that they have, unwittingly I suppose, just continued the translation of a Greek word that you claim is blatantly and wildly incorrect. So you place yourself against the hundreds of scholars in claiming that "eternal" actually means something else. In essence you are claiming they have been duped into simply accepting something false, and a "something" that is of critical importance. It just strikes me that they would have to be incredibly unprofessional to have done such a thing.Quote:
Again, your words, not mine. I never said they were "duped". Over 2,000 years and several thousand manuscripts, it is simply common sense that the latest copies are not exact copies of the autographs. Add to this that the English translations aren't even in the same original language, and in English itself, words change their meanings over time. The word "gay" does not have the same meaning today as it had as recently as 50 years ago.
In fact, no autographs have ever been found to exist. Other than fragments of a verse or two, the sources date from the 3rd century and later. More than enough time for the earliest manuscripts to reflect the thinking and development of the religion as it evolved since the time of Jesus. Hence, the many disputes and arguments of the nature of Christ and of theology in general until the Church canonized the books of the Bible in the 4th century.
You still have not answered why hell is temporary, but heaven is eternal. The same word is used to describe both. You also have not found a scripture that describes a person going from hell to heaven after having paid the penalty of his sins.
According to Daniel Wallace, 43% of the NT is contained in manuscripts from the second century. That hardly amounts to "a verse or two". Surely you were exaggerating. https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallac...first-century/
I don't agree with your statement about the canon. The canon was likely largely settled by informal agreement some time during the second century. By the time the church formalized it, there was very little disagreement over what to accept.
The autographs do not exist? Name the work of antiquity for which the autographs are still in existence. It is the most common thing in the world for that to be the case. There is also no evidence that the text of the NT has been changed in any substantial way since the autographs, and certainly in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content.
We'll see how this goes. Yes, unsurprisingly I would agree with the words of Jesus in John 8, or in many other passages including the Matt. 25 passage, Rev. 20, and John 3. "The wages of sin is death." When Jesus came at first, He came to bring the message of salvation and to pay the penalty for our sins. He will come again for the purpose of judgment. It is going to be such a terrible event that the "heavens and earth" will flee away. Those who die in their sins will be sent to hell. Those whose sins have been forgiven through faith in Christ will spend eternity in the presence of God. It is the consistent message of the New Testament. Now the punishment will be proportional in a way I don't understand, and yet recognize as being stated in several places.Quote:
I'll make an agreement with you. I will again state my belief if you will guarantee us all that you will follow it with a clear statement of your belief.
Fine. But haven't you already stated your belief right above quoting John 8? However, I will state my belief on the issue right after you state yours.
For further reference you can look at Psalm 21:8-9, Matthew 3:12; 13:49,50; 10:28; 18:8, Hebrews 10:31, Mt. 5:22, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10.
Your turn.
Wonder who was on that canon "committee"? Can't see anyone putting a bible together including bad stuff, or anything that called the message they wanted to convey into dispute, or contradicted the orthodoxy of the time. Don't you think the ancient kings, popes, politicians, and conquerors corrupted the bible for their own use just as they do today?
I claimed ?? - "Blatantly and wildly incorrect" ???? You're doing it again - even after I asked you to stop. Putting words into my posts that were never there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're still missing the point. Maybe this will help.Quote:
So you place yourself against the hundreds of scholars in claiming that "eternal" actually means something else. In essence you are claiming they have been duped into simply accepting something false, and a "something" that is of critical importance. It just strikes me that they would have to be incredibly unprofessional to have done such a thing.
The method used by scholars is flawed. As we know, if one tells something to someone who then tells someone, and so forth, by the time the telling gets very far down the line, it has been changed, either accidentally or to meet the agenda of the teller. Scholars should not take any such ‘preponderance’ of information over an earlier writing. The closer to the source, the more accurate the writing should be considered. In the oldest manuscript of Mark, the disciples do not find out that Jesus is risen. We have no written evidence that the disciples ever find out since all references to such are found in much later documents. In fact, since Mary is told and the disciples are not, some feel the later manuscripts were changed in order to give the disciples power to control the early church, a political agenda. Given the history of politics in Church history throughout its existence, such a theory is not far fetched. Especially if you agree with many who have read the earliest Mark that the disciples are portrayed as unbelieving, demanding of truth, and the true believers were Mary and Martha. Also, when asked the way to the kingdom of God in the earliest Mark, Jesus replied that one had to give up all of their worldly goods, forsake their families, and follow him. It is no wonder this was later changed to introduce faith as a means to salvation. Only a very, very few could even come close to this criteria. Certainly, the fragile early Church could not have survived with the criteria Jesus laid out.
I explained why. As to the purgatory reference, I gave you all you needed to know and you refused to look at it. You can lead a horse to water, but ..................................Quote:
You still have not answered why hell is temporary, but heaven is eternal. The same word is used to describe both. You also have not found a scripture that describes a person going from hell to heaven after having paid the penalty of his sins.
The is hardly accepted by the majority of scholars. The first complete Gospel is from the 4th century. Prior to that are fragments only.Quote:
According to Daniel Wallace, 43% of the NT is contained in manuscripts from the second century.
Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea).Quote:
I don't agree with your statement about the canon. The canon was likely largely settled by informal agreement some time during the second century.
At the time, there were over 50 gospels and over 100 epistles being used in churches. The Book of Revelation was initially omitted. It is unclear to this day how it finally did get included. Even Luther thought it so wild, he relegated it to an appendix. To this day, the Orthodox Church does not accept it.Quote:
By the time the church formalized it, there was very little disagreement over what to accept.
This argument is irrelevant.Quote:
The autographs do not exist? Name the work of antiquity for which the autographs are still in existence.
70 books, almost one million words, 40-50 different authors, composed over millenia, passed down by hand-written copies until the printing press, etc. Do you seriously maintain no changes have occurred?Quote:
There is also no evidence that the text of the NT has been changed in any substantial way since the autographs, and certainly in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content.
My position is - I do not believe people go to hell for eternal punishment because they do not believe in Jesus. You claim that you don't understand about the punishment. I claim that I do understand, and it is not eternal. I believe that faith in Christ has nothing to do with it since babies and the mentally impaired and those who never heard of Christ cannot be liable for something they have no knowledge of. I do not believe that those who "die in their sins" go to hell since the statement is far too vague. What exactly do you mean by sin? Murder? A white lie? I do not believe sins need to be forgiven through faith in Christ. For example, a Hindu may atone for his sins by apology, recompense, or good works.Quote:
We'll see how this goes. Yes, unsurprisingly I would agree with the words of Jesus in John 8, or in many other passages including the Matt. 25 passage, Rev. 20, and John 3. "The wages of sin is death." When Jesus came at first, He came to bring the message of salvation and to pay the penalty for our sins. He will come again for the purpose of judgment. It is going to be such a terrible event that the "heavens and earth" will flee away. Those who die in their sins will be sent to hell. Those whose sins have been forgiven through faith in Christ will spend eternity in the presence of God. It is the consistent message of the New Testament. Now the punishment will be proportional in a way I don't understand, and yet recognize as being stated in several places.
Let me get this straight. You refuse to look at what I provide for further reference, yet you expect me to look at what YOU provide for further reference!Quote:
For further reference you can look at Psalm 21:8-9, Matthew 3:12; 13:49,50; 10:28; 18:8, Hebrews 10:31, Mt. 5:22, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10.
You are doing nothing more than telling us what you believe. That's fine, but it's only your opinion with no appeal to any authority. You give no scriptures. Not only that, but you then seem upset that I have refused "to look at what I (you) provide for further reference." Well, what would I look at? There is no scripture, so I am left to believe Jesus or you. I'm going with Jesus.Quote:
My position is - I do not believe people go to hell for eternal punishment because they do not believe in Jesus. You claim that you don't understand about the punishment. I claim that I do understand, and it is not eternal. I believe that faith in Christ has nothing to do with it since babies and the mentally impaired and those who never heard of Christ cannot be liable for something they have no knowledge of. I do not believe that those who "die in their sins" go to hell since the statement is far too vague. What exactly do you mean by sin? Murder? A white lie? I do not believe sins need to be forgiven through faith in Christ. For example, a Hindu may atone for his sins by apology, recompense, or good works.
You are mixing two thing together. The method used to copy manuscripts hardly amounts to, "...one tells something to someone who then tells someone and so forth." There is no "telling" going on, and it is scarcely the casual, careless method described. It was a careful, well-scrutinized system, and the result is clear.Quote:
The method used by scholars is flawed. As we know, if one tells something to someone who then tells someone, and so forth, by the time the telling gets very far down the line, it has been changed, either accidentally or to meet the agenda of the teller.
Irenaeus in the second century mentions 21 books as being accepted in the churches, all 21 of which ended up in the 4th century canon. At about the same time the Muratorian fragment mentions a very similar set of accepted books. To suggest that it was not settled until the 4th century is inaccurate.Quote:
Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea).
Where is your evidence that 50 gospels and 100 epistles were being used in the early churches?
Matthew and Luke are "much later" than Mark? What?Quote:
We have no written evidence that the disciples ever find out since all references to such are found in much later documents.
I think I see why you don't refer to scripture. In your mind, the Bible is such a jumbled, unreliable fairy tale that there is no point in putting any confidence in it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I believed what you believe about the Bible, I would never read it again. You stated a few days ago that you resented my supposed distorting of the image of a gentle and loving Jesus. How can you have any confidence in that? How would you know it's true that Jesus was "gentle and loving"? I honestly believe that is the greatest difference between the two of us. I regard the Bible as authoritative. You seem to regard it as a collection of nice stories but of no real historical significance, and certainly not a book one would base his life on. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is sure how it seems.
Jesus didn't write the bible and all his words and accounts are from hearsay sources, many unknown, and unverifiable. Its up to you what you believe, and that's fine with me. If what others believe is not fine with you...so what? Wars have bee fought over ones beliefs before, and we can have a war of words all you want, but who here voted for the sinner who has not repented? I guess he knows he is going to hell, and taking the country and all his fake evangelical family values true believers with him.
What a fine example you have set on how to get to heaven. Good luck with that. Your hatred of HC has served you well. Yeah lets get back to the politics of NOW, because the evidence of your own faith betrays you and you are not very repentant yourself. You have lied about wanting an HONEST discussion.
Repent sinner or burn in the eternal flames of hell! Please God open this sinners mind that he may see the path of salvation ain't through the dufus!
I agree completely with that. Never indicated otherwise.Quote:
If what others believe is not fine with you...so what?
As to your opening statement, Matthew and John gave first-hand accounts. Both were with Jesus and could scarcely be called "unknown" or "unverifiable". Luke stated this at the very beginning of his gospel. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Mark wrote his gospel from the account given to him by Peter. So your assumption that, "his words and accounts are from hearsay sources, many unknown, and unverifiable," is not accurate. In fact it is a mile away from being accurate. It is simply untrue.
I don't hate HC.
How have I lied? In what way have I conducted a discussion that was less than honest?
What about this angers you so easily? This discussion, fairly civil, was with Athos. What got you so fired up?
Not mad at all JL except when a thread is hijacked yet again by true believers justifying their faith and proselytizing for it. I get it, but at least tell the whole story of the blood, corruption, conquering and domination that spread the word as much as the preaching. I suppose they all (religions) have gone through the same thing from their ancient beginnings until now, but who believes that pure as the driven snow and innocent as lambs stuff when history says otherwise?
Can you keep it in its own thread though?
I will work on it!Quote:
Can you keep it in its own thread though?
Trump's news briefing today was so far the most bizarre. It turned into a pseudo-ish campaign rally (unethical and illegal), trumpeting (ha ha) about his achievements (but reporters refused to take the bait, which infuriated him). Pence jumped over to the mic to praise Trump with high praise for how well he has handled the pandemic. Trump assured everyone that we'll be open and back to normal very soon.
Yes but define normal, the world will take a long time to recover and there will be a much more nationalistic attitude, buy local will become normal as people support local industries, the cheap knockoffs from China won't have the same appealQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Recovery is a long way off here I think, and we probably should skip the dufus bluster pressers for a while, just to avoid false hope and false information he tries to feed the public, as we get to tornado season and all those folks with nowhere to run and hide. I think the challenge is the food supply not Chinese knock offs with so many idled workers and more to follow.
Yes food supply will be challenging all over, after years of drought harvests here are way down, particularly rice with only a 10% crop and the sheep and cattle herds are low. Finding workers will be a problem too, not many will take to the road in the great tradition of the swaggie
The virus is going to end up being great big problem #2. Great big problem #1 is going to be figuring out how to pay for all of this. As we say in Mississippi, the chickens are going to come home to roost sooner or later.
That's exactly what you asked me for - a statement of my belief. That's precisely what I gave you! Now you criticize me for "telling what I believe". That's why you have so little credibility. You have a habit of confusing yourself, like you did here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good grief! I DID refer to Scripture. You refused to read it. The internet reference had TONS of Scripture material for you in answer to your question. BUT YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.Quote:
You give no scriptures. What would I look at? There is no scripture
Now you can read my mind?Quote:
In your mind, the Bible is such a jumbled, unreliable fairy tale that there is no point in putting any confidence in it.
There's no perhaps about it! You read it on a surface level, taking the words literally and missing the essence.Quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I believed what you believe about the Bible, I would never read it again.
Calling Jesus gentle and loving is a common expression. Now we can see by your words you don't believe that about Jesus. That's a shocker. But it does help to explain how your Jesus can condemn those who die in their sins to everlasting punishment in hell.Quote:
You stated a few days ago that my supposed distorting of the image of a gentle and loving Jesus. How can you have any confidence in that? How would you know it's true that Jesus was "gentle and loving"?
I believe that you believe that. Closer to the truth is your regard for the Bible being authoritative as the result of an unthinking literal understanding.Quote:
I honestly believe that is the greatest difference between the two of us. I regard the Bible as authoritative.
I am confident I have more knowledge of the historical significance of the Bible than you will ever have.Quote:
You seem to regard it as a collection of nice stories but of no real historical significance.
No perhaps about it. You ARE wrong.Quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong
In your world, the Jesus who said Love Your Enemy is the same Jesus who condemns that enemy to hell for eternal punishment. The contradiction escapes you.
In order to honor what I told Tal, I have done away with my post here and moved it here. It can be read at that place. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...76#post3851676
Our generally more civil exchange has been nice.
Thank you JL, have fun. Much appreciate the consideration their is of course new developments into the dufus handling of the covid19 crisis.
It's been reported that through the FBI fema has been tracking states health supply orders and jacking them and rerouting those supplies to it's own stockpile inventories.
I can understand rationing of scarce supplies, but why are the feds acting like pirates after the states are doing the ordering? Why doesn't the feds do the orders and logistics, if they are going to control the process?
How we are going to pay for this is not a mystery, how long will it take is the mystery. We just got over paying for the last lot, here at least, but as you have no intention of paying for the last lot, why should you be concerned about paying for this lot, just add it to the slate and continuing living in utopia, where health care ensures you will have an early death and not have to worry about itQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quiet day.
Busy day.
every day is a quiet day, whatever is happening isn't happening here
Rest assured it is happening elsewhere. Hope you're knocking on wood. Our elderly are particularly hard hit.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 AM. |