19 December 2006

I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. Matthew 12:31

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Mark 3:29

Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10

Take the Blasphemy Challenge; deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. It's time for us all to stop believing (or pretending to believe) out of fear or politeness.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Instead of arguing for the simple sake of arguing, why exactly are you denying the Holy Spirit? :) Is there a specific reason or is it just something fun to say to pass the time?

GSGold said...

A novel idea would be because we don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

Jason said...

That is novel.

You think you're denying the Holy Spirit because you don't believe in it... Hm. Yes, very novel.

I hate to break it to you but unfortunately unbelief in the Holy Spirit isn't considered blasphemy. There are billions of people out there who don't believe in the Holy Spirit because they don't believe in Scripture or God. This isn't blasphemy, it's unbelief. If, however, you believed in the Holy Spirit but denied the ability of God's power, then yes, you would be blaspheming it. See the difference?

For example, using the references listed in the original post, in Mat 12, the Pharisees were trying to convince the people that Jesus' power didn't come from God but from the "prince of the devils" (:24). This is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees believed in the Holy Spirit but they didn't want to admit Jesus had it.

Mark 3:30 is the parallel account to Mat 12. In this chapter we're told that blaspheming the Holy Spirit came in the appearance of the Pharisees saying Jesus had an "unclean spirit".

In Luke 12:10, Jesus is talking to the disciples, men well versed with the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The warning is for believers, not unbelievers.

So, you see, Christ doesn't concern himself with people who don't believe in him. His warning is for all those who believe in the Holy Spirit but who reject the power thereof.

Your unbelief means you don't fall into this category.

Suricou Raven said...

Ive been denying it for years... but, like most christian rules, there are a couple of loopholes that can be used to get around even that one - so the christians I debate with assure me that I am still eligable to convert.

Eddy1701 said...

I was thinking the same thing, Jason. In my case, though, I wouldn't say I deny the Holy Spirit, anyway. I just remain unconvinced that one exists.

Jason said...

Eddy,

Fair enough. I just thought it prudent to point out the difference between unbelief and knowledgeable denial.

At the end of the day though, the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God. If one doesn't believe in God then it's not really important whether or not they believe in His power. :)

Anonymous said...

It always amazes me that no matter the comment, where religion is concerned, someone always comes along with a convoluted faux explanation. Nothing proves the useless nature of the bible and religion more than the fact that it can be twisted to mean or not mean anything one wants. It's like a math problem where the answer keeps changing. Fill out your taxes that way and claim divine inspiration!!

Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun........

Anonymous said...

Nothing proves the useless nature of man more then the fact that he refuses to accept there is something out there bigger and more powerful then him. :) It's too humbling for most.

If you have a problem with the way the Bible is being "twisted", then show how it's being twisted. Explain away the faux explanation instead of just saying it's wrong.

Anonymous said...

How about this one:

Nothing proves the arrogance of man more than thinking he is so great that some being had to create him, it just couldn't have happened at random. After all, human females were so hot, even the angels had to bang a few. I guess with no sex in heaven there's no need for female angels and you gotta do with whatever you can get.

As to explaining how the bible is "twisted", give me a break. Check out the SAB or any of the other similar sites for more than enough details. Splitting hairs about believing or not believing, denying or not denying. Come on now.... Symantics nothing more. I learned long ago that you change few minds concerning religion and the arguments are generally not worth the time. When someone commits to a belief for which there is no proof based on a book full of contradictions........

K said...

Steve, I was curious if you had uploaded a video? If so, I'd like to see it. :)

BTW this is the guy who had the idea for tallying up god kills in the bible (just for reference).

Jason said...

Angels had sex with humans? You sure about that...? Chapter and verse please.

People can argue semantics and doctrines but that's not what validates the Bible. The proof that the Bible is the real deal is in prophecy and archaeology. The prophecies in Daniel outlining the next four world powers, the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, Alexander the Great, the scattering and regathering of the Jews, the reestablishment of the nation of Israel, the ongoing conflict between Jew and Arab, these are all historial facts that can't be argued. To see them in the Bible precluding the events themselves should be enough to at least start the process of believing.

Anonymous said...

Angels/Sons of God, whatever you want to call them. I would also stress "SONS" of god. You figure out what and how many since you're another expert who apparently forgot to actually read the bible.

Chapter and verse: Genesis Chapter 6 verse 4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Not that I don't expect a rehashing of the same "explanations" and excuses, but you wanted chapter and verse.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Prophecy and Archeology. So why is there no evidence of that 40 years of wandering in a circle? Also, if you actually check the facts, the UN gets credit for reviving Israel, not god, though I would give the bible credit for the inspiration to do so. You also, like so many bible spouters forget to mention any and all of those "prophecies" that DID NOT come true or the promises god made that weren't kept, i.e. Babylon was supposed to be destroyed and the land vacant forever even though there were people living there all along, even today and the Israelites were supposed to have their land forever even though it's been a come and go deal ever since. Modern Israel IS NOT the same as it was promised in the bible.

Just like Nostradamus, the writers of the bible wrote so many vague and contradictory things that people see what they want to see.

You might try looking into religious history for yourself, and from points of view other than your own. It's easy to think you know everything if you only expose yourself to that which you agree with. That's what is called confirmation bias. I'd suggest the writings of Robert Green Ingersol and Thomas Payne, and of course the SAB as a good place to start. I'd also suggest reading the bible, not just the "good" parts Rev. so and so talks about on Sunday.

Lastly, if you want to pattern your life on the writings of several thousand year old desert rats and believe that "the good stuff" happens after you die, go ahead. Just because Christianity has more "members" than Marshall Applewhite's Heavens Gate crowd doesn't make it any less of a cult or it's beliefs any less absurd. And while you're at it, just be thankful that you were born in the place you were born in. You could have been born into one of those "wrong religions" and doomed to hell. Just like they say in Hollywood, location, location, location. I guess that makes god sort of like a weather pattern, some get the good stuff and some don't.

Jason said...

Fallen Angels
Your personal attacks aside, this is what the Bible says about these so-called angels who had sex with women. And please, read it for yourself to confirm:

1. Matthew 22:30 is conclusive - angels do not marry: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (See also Mat 12:25, Luke 20:35)
2. "Sons of God" can refer to angels as it may in Job 38:7, but the expression is also used of men. (See Deut. 14:1, R.S.V.; Hosea 1:10; Luke 3:38; John 1:12; 1 John 3:1).
3. It is sometimes contended that only angel-human offspring could produce "nephilim" (mighty ones or giants, cf. Gen. 6:4). But the sons of Anak (Num. 13:33) were also giants, ("nephilim") and these were certainly not angel-human offspring, as they existed long after the flood.
4. If it were possible for angels to sin then what is the value of being made like unto the angels? Why resist sin in this life supposedly secure in the hope that we will be made like unto the angels (Luke 20:35), if we are merely exchanging one sinful nature for another?

Therefore, since the "sons of God" cannot be angels, they must be mortal men. Looking at Genesis 6:2, the "sons of God" are most likely the righteous line of Seth (Genesis 4:26) intermarrying with evil Cainites.

Any questions?

Jason said...

Prophecy and Archeology.
You’re discounting the entire Bible simply because there’s no historical evidence of a group of people wandering for 40 years in a desert??? I would say that's the fault of historians, not God. :)

The Bible predicted that certain nations would totally disappear, while others would remain until the setting up of the Kingdom of God on earth. Among the former were Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Philistia, etc.; among the latter were Arabia, Persia, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt and Israel. And then there’s Daniel’s powerful prophecy of the next four major world powers (Daniel 2)? Is this prophecy “vague” and “contradictory”? Please explain how a simple man could have predicted the sequence of world powers.

Here’s a little something on the prophecy of Tyre (from Ezek 26). This ancient power had opposed God's people of Israel and so they were told:
1 That Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, would conquer Tyre (vv. 7-1 1 ).
2 That the city would be made desolate (v. 2).
3 That it would be thrown into the sea (v. 12).
4 That it would become a place to spread nets upon (v. 14).
5 That its maritime supremacy would cease forever (v. 17).

Would you consider these to be vague, man-made prophecies regarding a very specific city...? Have a look at Alexander the Great’s conquest of Tyre and then compare it to the third prophecy listed above. And today? The fourth prophecy is in full swing.

The amazing thing is the detail in which the Bible predicted all this, and the wonderful way in which each point was finally fulfilled. Fallible man cannot predict the future with such certainty and detail, but the Bible does.

Regarding Babylon, it WAS destroyed and today there is virtually nothing left of it to speak of except for ruins and considering the reach of influence at the height of her power, this is astonishing. Today, while the ruins of Babylon remain, nothing has been built on top of it (like the majority of other empire capitals); no settlements, houses, etc. occupy the area. Coincidence? Not according to the Bible.

As for Israel, yes they were supposed to occupy their land forever but only under the condition they continually follow God. Which they didn’t. God punished them by dispersing them but He did promise He would eventually return them to their land, which He has. There are references a’plenty for this one.

The boundaries of modern day Israel don’t disprove Scripture. As we’re told, when Christ returns the Promised Land with its original boundaries will be restored along with peace in the land. Since we’re not living in this time period yet (unless you think we are), the boundaries are what they are.

And what about the other prophecies listed? Do you think Daniel’s prophecy of the next four major world powers is “vague” and “contradictory”? Do you think the scattering and persecution of the Jews is vague?

:) I don’t pretend to know everything. I just read the Bible and then repeat what it says. It’s there for you to read as well so please, prove or disprove me using the same book I’m using since it seems you know quite a bit about it as well.

And lastly, before you go making blatant assumptions and ignorant generalities, why not politely ask what exactly it is I believe? Because like you, I don’t believe anything “good” happens after you die (heaven) and I don’t believe anyone is “doomed to hell” because it's clear nothing in Scripture says as such.

Anonymous said...

Again, everything you point out on prophecy actually proves nothing because it is exactly the same thing people claim about all their favorite fortune tellers, from Edgar Cayce to Nostradamus. I would also dispute the "so percise" predictions you claim are in the bible since most can be explained as either misconstrued, after the fact, constructed to appear so, or could have been guessed by most with knowledge of the time's current state of affairs. Quite a few predicted the fall of the soviet union without any help from god you know. Same with the roman empire.

I would also say that your belief of nobody being doomed to hell goes against well establised christian doctrine and is a modern attempt at making christianity more user friendly. Since you quote Matthew as the definitive word on the "sons of god" issue I'm assuming you'll take his word for hell, as in:

Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

And

Matthew 18:8-9
If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Or if you prefer:

Mark 9:43-48
... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Or maybe Luke:

Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Now please don't tell me that they're refering to the trash bin or that it's a metaphor or one of those deals. Also, hell was and is believed in by people with far more time studying the bible than either you are I, and while I may not agree with their beliefs I'm not reluctant to admit or understand where they got them. I'd also suggest that you hold a minority opinion on hell the question of if anyone goes there.

If there are many believing in hell and many NOT believing in hell, how are we supposed to know who is right? Should I take your word for it and risk my "soul"? What if you're wrong on this? You might be wrong on some of the other things too. Are you asking me to believe that god inspired so many different "visions" that you really have to work at it to get it right? Doesn't seem very god like to me.

Admit it, one can make a pretty strong case, with the bible alone, for the "sinners" burning forever in hell's fire. On the other hand, you can make a case the other way too. So which is it? I'd have thought god would have been pretty clear on something like this.

Yes, I am discounting the bible, for the 40 years wandering and a lot more. Such as no evidence of a global flood, the age of the world, etc. etc. etc.

World powers? Do you really think god is sitting up on a cloud fretting over who rules what speck of dirt down here? I suspect those concerns to have been far more important to the people of the time period and that's why they wrote about them. If some of their hopes and guesses worked out, well jolly good. Remember, when you're looking at the bible you're not looking at a book that flew down from heaven. You're looking at a collection of writings put together long past the date of their orgin. I suspect that were I putting something like that together I'd try to stick to agreeable subject matter too. Not that they always did, but I'd certainly not want to include any more real big problems than I could avoid. It always blows my mind that people deem the bible to be god's word as if it were written by him from start to finish. One could have put together any number of "holy books" from the writings of the time and got quite a different guide book. We just happened to end up with this one thanks to a few "men" and what they agreed to. I guess god broke his chisle on those ten commandmants and this was the only way to go. That god, he sure leaves a lot to chance....

Needless to say, one could make a VERY good case for the world being far better off WITHOUT any bibles or religion.

You want to know the real bible biggie for me? I'd pose this as a challenge. Show me one, only one, thing in the bible that could have only come from god. Something truley "divine". Something that could not possibly have come from the mind, either sane or insane, of a mere man Nothing mickey mouse either. Let's call it a "godly fact".

You see, to my way of thinking, I'd figure god, or a supreme being, who evidently so wants and doesn't want so many specific things as we are "told", as one who would give you a little "whats it all about" info. Instead, all we get is the same line you'd get from a con artist, "take my word for it, you'll love it...."

Don't get me wrong, it isn't personal. I just happen to think everyone cuts religion too much slack. That's how we end up with presidents who vote against things like stem cell research, based on their "faith" and everyone thinks it's okie dokie. It's also how normal sane people convince themselves of the most absurd things and fail to make the most of the life they have in favor of the life they hope exists after they die, an oxymoron I might add.

Brian said...

I'm not going to be bothered to put this in the appropriate place Steve Wells, so read closely.

I see "how many has God killed". He created all of us, or least in the context that you discuss God killing anyone. How is it wrong, immoral, or shocking for God to take life away from that which he gave it?

A simple argument for a simple position.

On the post that I am commenting: do you even know what the holy spirit is? If you understood what you are criticizing, you would realize that you have to be theist in order to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.

The fact that you spend so much effort on a topic you seem to know so little shows your true intentions. Anything that pushes your agenda right?

Anonymous said...

God supposedly gave life to Adam and Eve. Did he kill them? No, he sent them out of Eden to suffer and die. Any human from there on out was given life by Adam and Eve according to your bullsh*t bible. So Adam and Eve, according to your position, had every right to kill their children without consequence but not God since he didn't "birth" any other humans than those two. Well, maybe Jesus, but God didn't kill him either. He let other humans do his dirty work for him that time. Extrapolating this to it's logical conclusion, my parents, who gave me life, have every right to kill me whenever they want without repercussions. After all, they created me.

Anonymous said...

Why did God sent Adam & Eve out of the garden? Since it was because of a mistake THEY made, then God isn't to blame. Adam & Eve's punishment was a result of their actions.

Simple.

Anonymous said...

And that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, however it was the first comment I expected to be made.

Anonymous said...

What's really great about religion is all the inane arguments it inspires over little dribbles of stupidity. Any reasonable person can see the hair splitting in most of the arguments for exactly what it is. The reason people work so hard to explain away or justify the things Steve points out is because they sense the "wrongness" in/of them. You can't explain away the horrors of the bible any more than you can expalin away the horrors committed because of it. If the best you can do is toss out that old line of "it's ok because god did it" you're wasting your time. I'd argue that an immoral/amoral being couldn't create moral beings and/or expect his creations to be morally superior to their creator, but then someone would only toss out the same BS. I'd also argue that a book full of horrors and immoralities is a poor guide to life. There's a reason modern churches stick mainly to the "cherry" parts of the bible about how jesus loves you. There's also a reason you never hear the people singing the praises of the ten commandmants highlighting the one penality (death) for breaking any of them. That wouldn't play to well with the modern work till you drop crowd. But of course, what's that old line about the "new covenant" doing away with all that such rot.

Hey, if god wanted everyone to have an owners manual, I figure he'd include it in the packaging. After all, you didn't get the manual for your car off some wino did you? But you expect everyone to believe god "inspired" these lovely visions to a few unwashed desert rats thousands of years ago???? If there is a god, and as far as I'm concerned that's up in the air, he's not sitting on a cloud making little notes every time someone has a dirty thought or jerks off so at a future date he can wax your ass good. If you want to believe in a god, why not believe in something worth believing instead of basing everything on a chock book full of horrors that need explaining. I don't rule out the possibility of a creative intelligence or supreme being at the heart of everything but I do rule out all the little petty gods with their threats and demands and jealousies. Free will? Under the threat of eternal damnation! You dare call that free will! That's like saying someone who was robbed under threat of bodily harm gave the guy money freely. And yet, the free will crap is sprayed out in pretty much all religious arguments at one point or another. If you try to expalin away any of those things people like Steve bring up, you'll have an argument with loop holes at best. Trying to make something "bad" sound like it was really "good" not only doesn't work but says something in and of itself.

K said...

I agree completely.
(The guy who was arguing with the "how many has god killed" person)
I guess I'll quit using the anonymous tag to make this a little easier.

Anonymous said...

Jason said: "4. If it were possible for angels to sin then what is the value of being made like unto the angels?"

Do you know Lucifer/Satan/The Devil? Cast down by Michael to Earth along with 1/3 of Heaven's angelic inhabitants?

Tyre stills exists in which now is Lebanon, north of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre%2C_Lebanon

The Israelites have to bear the shame of having the Al-Aqsa mosque and The Dome of the Rock in their Temple Mount. Sure God takes great care of his chosen people, not to mention the care given to the 6 million Jews killed during the Shoah, and to those killed during the pogroms, and to those killed during Bar Kochba's revolt, and to those killed by their brethren, and to those killed under Moses orders, and to those killed by god himself, etc., etc. Let they wait for THEIR MESSIAH to come to rebuild their 3rd Temple.

"Why did God sent Adam & Eve out of the garden? Since it was because of a mistake THEY made, then God isn't to blame. Adam & Eve's punishment was a result of their actions."

And according to Genesis Adam and Eve were MADE BY GOD, implying his sinful/curious/mischievous nature was embedded by god. They broke god's rules; they ate the forbidden fruit because of the way god made them (prone to temptation, prone to deceive, you call it); because the devil was cast down to Earth/Eden by Michael Archangel; yet Adam and Eve received god's punishment.

Although it's not really god's fault since he isn't real, Adam and Eve weren't real, and so on.

Exodus 20:5 says: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

What generation are we on now?

Note how god is so human and childish in his behavior that it's ridiculous.

Last but not least: Fuck the Holy Spirit.

Jason said...

Did you know Lucifer is nothing but the King of Babylon? Compare Isa 14:12 with 14:4.

Did you know Revelation is a book of prophecies “which must shortly come to pass” (verse 1)? Therefore, logically speaking, the fall of the angels couldn’t have happened any earlier then the 1st century AD. Uh oh…foiled again. Ain’t no devil in the Garden of Eden.

Tyre was an island city. When Alexander the Great built his bridge from the mainland to the island, he used the stones from the destroyed mainland suburb of the city. The prophets predicted that the Lord would bring judgement upon Tyre. Many nations would attack Tyre like the beating of the waves on the seashore (Ezek. 26:3), starting with Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon 26:6-12; cf. Jer. 47:4). Nebuchadnezzar’s army would receive no reward from their campaign against mainland Tyre, but the Lord would give him Egypt instead (Ezek. 29:17-20). The city will be reduced to ruins (26:2; Isa. 23:1, 11) and be subject to Babylon for seventy years. After that it would be allowed to return to its trading (Isa. 23:17-18; Jer. 25:22). The rubble from the city would be thrown into the sea and its treasures taken (Ezek. 26:12). The proud city would become a bare rock (26:4) and would become a place for the spreading of fishing nets (Ezek. 26:5, 14).

These prophecies were fulfilled with remarkable accuracy. What three other men, separated by geography, without any divine help, have been able to make the same specific predictions about anything anywhere anytime?

Jason said...

To: Anonymous Sun Dec 24, 06:11:00 AM 2006

I don't want to take up too much room on this post with my comment so there's a response waiting for you here if you'd like to carry on the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh wait, you wrote Isa??? For a moment I thought you were Muslim.

I know about Lucifer/heilel ben schahar, that's why I wrote Lucifer/Satan/The Devil. I knew you will make a strawman out of Isaiah 14:12-14. Blame it to St. Jerome.

Is it hard for you to acknowledge that angels sinned? Didn't you know that the devil is a fallen angel whose sin was pride?

So ain't no devil in Eden. What about the serpent that tempted Eve?

Revelation 12:9
So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And you say there were no fallen angels before Christ!?!? Don't you know your Bible?

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto SATAN, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Given that Lucifer is not Satan's name and Lucifer is the Morning Star, and Jesus calls himself "the bright and morning star" in Revelation 22:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:16;&version=9; I'm sure you have no problem with being called Lucifer worshiper.

Yet Tyre still exists.
"Tyre is an ancient Phoenician city. Today it is the fourth largest city in Lebanon [4] and houses one of the nation's major ports. Tyre is a popular destination for tourists."

Jason said...

If you know about Lucifer already, why would you use him synonymously with Satan? The name has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion on Satan or the devil or whatever you’d like to call the guy.

It’s always hard for me to acknowledge something that isn’t true. Of course I’m saying there were no fallen angels before Christ. That’s exactly what Revelation will prove any time a fallen angel point is made. The Book of Revelation contains prophecies, not history. Read verse 1 over and over and over again. Therefore, if the devil is present in the Garden of Eden but the supposed fall of the angels didn’t occur until sometime after the book of Revelation was written, then how did the devil exist as a fallen angel before he was said to have fallen?

Secondly, if we’re told we will one day be made “as the angels”, what would the be the point of this if a) we will retain our sinful nature, and b) still be punished for our wicked actions?

Who or what is the serpent in the Garden? Why, the serpent is nothing more then a serpent, of course. It’s simple simple simple. So simple in fact that Paul mentions the whole event in 2 Cr 11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

Job 1:8
Ignoring for a moment the obvious contradiction with the fallen angels in Revelation, consider these carefully when attempting to prove the existence of Satan in these verses:

1. Nowhere in the book of Job is Satan ever stated to be a fallen angel. The argument that Satan is a fallen angel is nothing more then an inferred one;
2. Job never attributed his afflictions to a rebel angel. His declaration was simply: "The hand of God hath touched me". (Job 19:21, 2:10). Even Job's brethren, sisters and acquaintances acknowledged that the evil was brought upon Job by the LORD: "they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him." (Job 42:11);
3. “Satan” is simply translated “adversary”. There’s nothing inherently supernatural about this word so why treat it in specific instances like it is?

As you well know, Lucifer is nothing more then the Latin word for “light-bearer”, a Roman term for the planet Venus. Since this word is used once and only once to describe the king of Babylon, it has no special meaning whatsoever beyond the context. Lucifer worshipper? If it makes you giggle, then so be it, my friend.

The name Tyre still exists. But the city of Tyre the prophecy was against certainly doesn’t. Did you know Babylon still exists as well – as a city in New York. How can this be!!?? :)

Anonymous said...

I wrote Lucifer because that's what Christian tradition says The Devil's name is. As I said before, blame it on St. Jerome and his Vulgate.

You see, "Babylon NY" is not an ancient Mesopotamian city.

Did Jesus bring demons with him to Earth? That's what your no demons before Christ makes me think.

Do you agree that Revelation was written after Jesus ascension to Heaven? According to you, before John's Revelation there were no fallen angels/demons on Earth. Then what about the demons Jesus sent to the pigs (Mat.8:28-32) before John of Patmos had his visions? How come Jesus saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven (Luke 10:18)?

Revelation 12:9
So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

"Was" is past tense. Revelation says the dragon, the serpent, the devil are all the same. I have a doubt though, NKJV lacks the comma KJV have between Devil and Satan. Is Satan also the Devil? Well, Jesus saw him falling.

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

There is a "him" instead of a "them". The dragon, the serpent, the Devil and Satan are all the same.

Why is that each time I search for "demon" on Jewish Encyclopedia, the frigging thing keeps telling me to see demonology and Satan!?

Anyway, your original claim was that angels are blameless, unable to sin; yet you already acknowledged that there are fallen angels i.e. angels that sinned. See? It wasn't that hard, was it? You didn't even noticed it.

This is what I found about Satan in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering.

Satan is god's prosecutor, Satan's an angel, Satan is evil, the Devil is evil, Michael Archangel cast down the rebel angels to Earth, Jesus saw Satan fall from the sky, Satan will be thrown to the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:7-10), you do the math.

So you acknowledge God brought evil, famine and death upon Job. Instead of blaming The Devil for Earth's evil we should blame God then (Isa. 45:7). Should I have pity on you as Job 19:21 says? :)I'm just being curious.

Jason said...

Christian tradition is most obviously wrong regarding the devil’s name. You can do your part to change this: stop using Lucifer.

Let’s try a different tactic with Tyre since this obviously isn’t working: Is the modern day city of Tyre in the same location (i.e. on an island) as the Biblical city of Tyre mentioned in Ezekiel 26? Yes or no.

How about this for a demon factoid: there’s no such thing as demons. I do agree that Revelation was written after Jesus’ ascension. Based on the timelines of Revelation, it’s impossible for there to be fallen angels/demons at the time of Christ. You must agree that this is only logical if the supposed fall happened after Jesus’ ascension.

Luke 10:18
1. Jesus says, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". (This was about A.D. 30). Are you okay with Satan falling from heaven in AD 30 and then again at some point later and then again previously in Genesis? Explain the multiple falls of Satan in light of Revelation and Luke.
2. Consider: The passage does not state either that Satan was in heaven or that he fell from heaven. Jesus makes a comparison indicated by the simile "as". The comparison is not that as lightning falls from heaven so Satan fell from heaven. The point of the comparison is rather that the swiftness of the fall/departure is as lightning falling from heaven.
3. The subject of reference, as seen in verse 17, is quite obviously the casting out of demons and not the fall of a rebel angel. The cures effected by the disciples were so complete and rapid as to be compared to lightning falling from heaven.

Patients today with the same symptoms as those said to be possessed with demons in New Testament times respond to chemotherapy. This is significant, for if the ailment was due to demon possession, how can the patient's recovery through medicine and therapy be explained? Can pills cast out demons?

Mat 8:28
What about the demons? There were sick men. They suffered from insanity or schizophrenia or both. Jesus cured them.

Revelation 12:9
The tense in this verse is irrelevant. Pretend for a moment you’re John. Jesus is showing you a vision of things to come. You’re writing them down. You write: “Then the boy walked down the stairs. He was kicked by his sister on the way out the door.” You’re writing a running commentary on what you’re seeing. The point is though, how can you justify the past tense anywhere in Revelation after you’ve read the first verse of the book?

Is Satan the devil? Who cares. God is called Satan. Peter is called Satan. Hadad the Edomite is called Satan. A divine angel is called Satan. The word means “adversary”. That’s it. Unless you care to submit that Hadad is God is Peter is a divine angel is Lucifer is Satan is the devil is the dragon is the serpent.

Job
No one ever blamed the all-evil, red-cloaked Satan for causing Job’s misery. Poor Satan. He totally missed out the credit for the pain and suffering he spilled on Job. Why do you think this is?

You're missing the whole Job lesson. The point of Job’s trial was to see whether or not he WOULD blame God. Which he didn’t. This is why God gave him twice as much as he had previously owned once his ordeal was over.

So, instead of blaming someone else for the evil in the world, we should first be blaming ourselves since we’re the inherently evil creatures here. It's about taking personal responsibility, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I know Christian tradition is wrong on a truckload of things, nothing new there.

Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore.
Tyre Today, Tyre has a colorful souk (covered market) well worth exploring. Look for the Ottoman khan, or inn, just inside the market entrance. On a side street is the "Mamluke House", an Ottoman period residence that is being restored as a cultural heritage and information center by the General Directorate of Antiquities.
http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

Tyre was an island fortress off the coast of modern Lebanon. It was situated about one half mile off the mainland and the water surrounding it was approximately eighteen feet deep.
The siege of Tyre had a lasting effect, for the causeway stayed, silted up, and today Tyre is connected to the mainland. Alexander, in his drive to conquer, permanently changed the face of the landscape.
http://members.tripod.com/joseph_berrigan/id34.html

Look at the western salient in the following map
http://www.earthspots.com/ExploreEarthSpot.php?NID=1211&MT=1
It looks like an island attached to the coast by a bridge of land.

Of course you and I care about Satan.

You forgot the pigs from Mat.8:28-34 Did Jesus transfer these men’s schizophrenia to the pigs?

First you said: “there’s no such thing as demons”
Then you said: “3. The subject of reference, as seen in verse 17, is quite obviously the casting out of demons and not the fall of a rebel angel.”
Please make your mind before replying.

And yes, the disciples returned to Jesus with joy because they subjected devils (Luke 10:17) I guess that’s the reason Jesus mentioned Satan. Then in Luke 10:20 Jesus said “Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you” Confirming that his disciples cast out evil spirits/demons.

Worth of note is the way Jesus speaks Yoda-style. The same can be said of “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”

According to you Jesus saw his disciples curing schizophrenia at lightspeed. Do yourself a favor and check out Luke 10:18 at http://scripturetext.com/luke/10-18.htm for translations other than KJV and Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Swahili, etc., versions.

Luke and Revelation may narrate an event that took place before their timeline. Think of flashbacks in a movie, meant to introduce the story or fill in gaps, for the plot to make sense, since the Bible is a compilation of several books; that or the Bible is incoherent.

You're assuming that Jesus didn't exist at all neither as god nor as a man before Mary's annunciation.

You believe Revelation with all of its crazy allegories yet you say that Jesus and Co. were nothing but witchdoctors.

Based on your argument that the Bible flows continually, how come there’re two creation accounts in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25?

So, when in Job 19:21 Job says
"Have pity on me, my friends, have pity, for the hand of God has struck me”
He wasn’t really blaming god, right?

Yes, there’s no such a thing like demons. Yet every Christian I know believes demons exist, except you. You’re one of a kind.

Jason said...

Predictions of Tyre

1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14).
7. She will never be found again (26:21).

Regarding the continual skepticism of one of these predictions (#6), all the rest which no argues came true: Other cities destroyed by enemies had been rebuilt; Jerusalem was destroyed many times, but always has risen again from the ruins; what reason was there for saying that Old Tyre might not be rebuilt? Old Tyre today stands as it has for twenty‑five centuries, a bare rock, uninhabited by man. Today anyone who wants to see the site of the old city can have it pointed out to him along the shore, but there is not a ruin to mark the spot. It has been scraped clean and has never been rebuilt.

What’s the issue? The island city of Tyre has never been rebuilt.

Satan
Let me ask this again: Do you think Hadad is God is Peter is a divine angel is Lucifer is Satan is the devil is the dragon is the serpent? How do you pick and chose who is Satan and who isn’t when the same Greek and Hebrew word is used every time?

Matthew 8:28-34
Yes, the disease was transferred to the pigs. Isn’t that what we’re told?

Luke 10:17-18
You claim the subject here is Satan. I’m saying, the subject can’t be Satan given the context of the verse.

You're intentionally being difficult so allow me to spell this out: When you say “demon”, you’re talking about an evil entity, a hellish minion of Satan’s. When I say “demon”, I’m using the Biblical word of the time to describe someone afflicted with an illness.

Let me lay it out for you:
Matt. 12:22 "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." "possessed with a devil {demon}" = blind and dumb (unless the demon was blind and dumb…?)

Mark 5:1-5 "No man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could anyman tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones." "a man with an unclean spirit" = insanity or schizophrenia (“spirit” = see Luke 10:20)

Mark 9:17-27 "He teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away…and ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him."
"hath a dumb spirit" = epilepsy (“spirit” = see Luke 10:20)

Luke 13:11-17 "A woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself."
"spirit of infirmity" = arthritis (“spirit” = see Luke 10:20)

See also John 10:20 and Mark 3:21 where "he hath a devil and is mad" = "he is beside himself."

I don’t assume anything and neither do you. You read Revelation 1:1 exactly the same as I do. We both read “things which must shortly come to pass?.” I couldn’t put my own spin on this if I tried. The book of Revelation is quite simply visions of the future. I don't see how you can make it anything else. The entire belief in demons hinges on the angelic fall in Revelation 12. Show me how you can turn “things to come” into “things that happened long before”.

Genesis
Genesis 1 and Genesis two aren’t two different creation accounts. They’re two accounts of the same event. Careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc.

But don’t let me sway your opinion. Go ahead and lay out the arguments for two distinct creations in Genesis.

Job 19:21. The word “struck” here is most commonly translated “touch”. Do you consider this as Job blaming God for his tribulations? No. Job is acknowledging, as his friends and family would eventually do also, that his trials have come from God.

I'm one of a kind? Aw, shucks...

Anonymous said...

Tyre is anything but a bare rock. Look again in the map:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/951/image1la6.jpg
http://www.earthspots.com/ExploreEarthSpot.php?NID=1211&MT=1

Tyre stands to this day. The island is now a peninsula because Alexander's causeway expanded by sand and landfill into todays isthmus.

Tyre is populated and her exact location is known. I even presented you with a satellite map.

Mainland Tyre was like a suburb which provided Tyre the island with freshwater and timber. Nebuchadwhatever didn't destroy Tyre proper and the Bible doesn't mention Alexander The Great, nor Macedonians, nor Greeks, just the vague "many nations will come against Tyre". Lo! I prophesy that many nations will come against the United States.

Right. There are two creation accounts, four canonical gospels, several Satan's fall accounts, etc. Glad you finally understood. You can read about the two creation accounts in http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html I don't want to discuss that further.

Blame: blame (blām) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. blamed, blam·ing, blames
1. To hold responsible.
2. To find fault with; censure.
3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.
That's it.

How could pigs be infected with a human mental disorder and commit suicide thereof? Not so long ago illnesses were still believed to be caused by evil spirits.

We already agreed Satan is an angel and god's prosecutor.

Things that must soon take place become things that happened long before after 20 centuries.

Dave said...

Hey Jason and Anonymous, this exchange is enjoyable and I appreciate the time you are taking, but… regarding this prophecy stuff… aren’t you both ignoring, like, the BIGGIE? As in Our Savior’s Return? I mean, you can argue ad naseum about the return of Israel or whether or not Tyre is the Tyre that used to be and all, but don’t these subjects pale in comparison to when Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior is coming back? I am not scholarly in Biblical issues such as y’all, but when I read Christ’s very own words from the Holy Book on when He is going to return, it really can’t get any clearer: He would return within his personal audience’s lifetimes.

I can’t recall them all (try Luke 9:27 for one), but I’m sure you can pull up the dozens of verses from memory. I know the SAB has a good list. Doesn’t the Good Book also state somewhere that you can identify a false prophet by finding even one of the prophecies false?

Anyway, it is fun to read or listen to a Christian bend the English language around and contort rational thought to a point where ‘white’ means ‘black’ or ‘murder’ means ‘mercy’ or ‘death’ means ‘life’, so I thought it would be fun to witness y’all do it with this subject. Hey, maybe you can save some souls from eternal damnation from a loving god while you are at it!

This entire discussion reminds me of one of the strongest arguments against the Bible: Wouldn’t the Inerrant Word of God, the Handbook of Life, the Manual for Salvation be, well, CLEAR? At best, the Bible is a contradictory mess, as witnessed by the countless discussions such as these.

My opinion of course. And please don’t take my comments personally. I am sure you are all really nice folks.

Jason said...

Why is it that when discussions like this get too long, someone always breaks out the "this is proof the Bible is messed up" line? :)

Souls in eternal damnation? Wait, didn't we already go through that? :)

My apologies for taking up so much space on this post. Anonymous, we can continue this chat on my site if you'd like.

Thanks to everyone for your patience. Toodles.

Jason said...

By the way, and in all honesty, this is a really interesting site. It's refreshing, and challenging, to intelligently discuss anti-Bible anti-God topics when the information on all sides is actully being taken from the very book being criticized. Roman Catholics, take note...

My apologies for hijacking this post!!

Best,
Jason

Dave said...

Sorry Jason, I should not have brought up the ‘this is proof the Bible is messed up" line, nor the eternal damnation thing, as they effectively diverted attention from the primary reason I posted. Since you addressed them, I will too and get them quickly out of the way.

First, when I stated the “eternal damnation” thing, I did not realize you were a Christadelphian. Kudos to your belief that eternal damnation in hell does not exist!

Second, you asked “Why is it that when discussions like this get too long, someone always breaks out the "this is proof the Bible is messed up" line?” Well, maybe it’s always brought up because it’s an excellent point! Is it not reasonable to think that a book written by God would be the clearest book of all?

Okay, back to my original input regarding prophecy and I’ll restate: Jesus many times claimed he would return within the lifetimes of those he was speaking. Mathew, Mark, and other books are littered with verses that could not be clearer about this. From the first, every generation of Christians claim they will personally witness Jesus’ glorious return. Here we are, 2,000 years later and they are still waiting. This is the ultimate failed prophecy.

Jason said...

This is going to be my shortest one yet. I promise. :)

My rebuttal to the confusion of the Bible comment would be to first point out all the extra-Biblical sources most Christians use (Book or Mormon, Watchtower, church tradtion & forefathers, etc.). Why do these exist? Because mainstream Christianity needs a place to put all their man-made doctrines. Is this the fault of the Bible? No, this is the fault of religious leaders trying to save face and avoide dealing with centuries and centuries of preaching false doctrine. Purgatory, the immaculate conception, the ascension and infant sprinkling are just a few of the classics.

A neutral viewing of the issues will show the Bible is super, super clear.

This is an example of how a misguided Christian creates confusion (I'm sure you've all experienced this before): The Trinity is a doctrine but it's not in the Bible. Damn it. Okay, don't panic:
Step #1: Pick any Biblical word in its plural form, like "grapes", and tie it symbolically to God being Triune.
Step #2: Pick a verse which contains the words "God" and "Jesus" and claim this is reasonable proof the two are one.
Step #3: Reference dozens of church leaders and forefathers as sufficient evidence it was an established doctrine back in the day.
Step #4: Failing this, state the opposing party is heretical and condemn said party to eternal hellfire.
Step #5: As a last resort, claim the whole doctrine is a "mystery", and for good effect, slam the door when you leave.

Again, this isn't the fault of the Bible. It's man attempting to save face and maintain his pride. It's similar to the confusion that's created when, say, someone says they're blaspheming the Holy Spirit without even believing in the Holy Spirit. It's obvious that belief is a requirement of blaspheming, and even more so when examining who Christ was talking to, but we get it all complicated and then argue for hours about it. This isn't the Bible's fault. :)

I'm keeping this short. Really.

As for Christ's 'failed' prophecy, are you referring to Luke 21 and parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark?

Dave said...

Yes. See SAB’s “What the Bible says about the End of the World” for a nice list: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

Jason said...

A neutral reading of Luke 21 clearly shows the event being mentioned is the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD70.

Jacques said...

Step #4: Failing this, state the opposing party is heretical and condemn said party to eternal hellfire.

Heh, that's how Catholics got rid of Ebionites, Arians and Cathars. But at least Catholics had the guts to fight Islam.

Dave said...

Sure, it’s the destruction of the temple alright, but much more. Try the Matthew version. A neutral reading of Matthew 24 leaves no doubt whatsoever (at least to a skeptic!) what Jesus is talking about. He was asked specifically about the “end of the world” (24:3), and after a detailed description of the carnage and His Glorious Return, Jesus specifically states (24:34) “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

Yeah, I’ve read some Christian responses to this opinion, and how “end of the world” really means “end of an age” and Jesus’ “return” really means his appearance after his crucifixion, and “generation” really means “ethnic group” and how his “all these things” response was only in reference to the temple, blah blah blah. Do the words mean what they say or not? If not, what good is any translation, especially if a common intelligent interpretation of it is the opposite of yours?

If God wrote the Bible, then He certainly knew of the future translations and the mass confusion that would ensue. Why would He have done that? Was this done as some kind of big holy final exam, where the only passing grade is to interpret it the way the 50,000 or so Christadelphians have done?

The Bible is anything but clear.

Brian said...

"God supposedly gave life to Adam and Eve. Did he kill them? No, he sent them out of Eden to suffer and die. Any human from there on out was given life by Adam and Eve according to your bullsh*t bible. So Adam and Eve, according to your position, had every right to kill their children without consequence but not God since he didn't "birth" any other humans than those two. Well, maybe Jesus, but God didn't kill him either. He let other humans do his dirty work for him that time. Extrapolating this to it's logical conclusion, my parents, who gave me life, have every right to kill me whenever they want without repercussions. After all, they created me."

Nice argument champ, except for one small thing: adam and eve are only able to "create" children because of God, and their entire existance is based upon God's grace. What if Adam and Eve thought God got things wrong? "Hey God of infinate wisdom and power, I think you are wrong, I'd rather rot it hell for all eternity than worship you."

God: ". . . ok"

And then what? Who cares. Tough Adam and Eve, you didn't respect God's infinite wisdom, you were sent to hell. God gave you free will, and you chose hell. You guy's must have been created idiots. Oh wait . . . God didn't create them stupid, and they didn't chose hell. I guess if you think about it, all arguments postulating that "God shouldn't be worshiped even if he does exist" have no real point or relevance to anyone.

Jason said...

Everyone has the ability to look at the original Greek and Hebrew words without the bias of the English translation. This is what a concordance is for. Here you'll find all kinds of original words like "grave" instead of "Sheol" and "adversary" instead of "Satan" and "fish" instead of "soul".

Looking at the original text using a neutral resource is a simple, easy task. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what translation we're reading from. Whatever English word is used, it was translated from the same Hebrew and the same Greek as every other Bible on the market. For example, looking at the original Greek for Luke 21 leaves no doubt that "world" simply means "age".

The Bible is simple. Man has made it difficult.

jake3988 said...

I recommend the dvd to anyone. It doesn't cover very much material and isn't professionally done (as in, the movie is shot by two normal guys and probably compiled in their basement) but its still a good movie of an actual person's oddessey into denying the holy spirit.

Oh. I deny the Holy Spirit.


/P.S. Visit Richard Carrier's website mentioned in the video at infidels.org... his essays are BRILLIANT.

Jason said...

You deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, not its power.

William said...

If DENYING the Holy Spirit isn't blasphemy (and I'm sure any inquisitor of the 14th century would have surely accused and murdered one for it) then how about this: "Screw the holy spirit- right in its spirity, faggoty, hole-y ass." If that ain't blasphemous I don't know what is. (I'm not homophobic, just thought I'd throw in a little hateful language to ensure blasphemousness)

Oh, and the reason we do it? To show us how serious we are that we really don't believe that god exists. If there was any doubt in our minds, would we commit the one unforgivable sin?

jason said...

I'll repost this because you obviously missed it.

--
You think you're denying the Holy Spirit because you don't believe in it...

I hate to break it to you but unfortunately unbelief in the Holy Spirit isn't considered blasphemy. There are billions of people out there who don't believe in the Holy Spirit because they don't believe in Scripture or God. This isn't blasphemy, it's unbelief. If, however, you believed in the Holy Spirit but denied the ability of God's power, then yes, you would be blaspheming it. See the difference?

For example, using the references listed in the original post, in Mat 12, the Pharisees were trying to convince the people that Jesus' power didn't come from God but from the "prince of the devils" (:24). This is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees believed in the Holy Spirit but they didn't want to admit Jesus had it.

Mark 3:30 is the parallel account to Mat 12. In this chapter we're told that blaspheming the Holy Spirit came in the appearance of the Pharisees saying Jesus had an "unclean spirit".

In Luke 12:10, Jesus is talking to the disciples, men well versed with the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The warning is for believers, not unbelievers.

So, you see, Christ doesn't concern himself with people who don't believe in him. His warning is for all those who believe in the Holy Spirit but who reject the power thereof.

Your unbelief means you don't fall into this category.
--

I await your intellectual response.

Timmy said...

Alright, so... if I don't believe in God, but I blaspheme him, it isn't blasphemy, since I don't believe, and I'm not sinning then.

Following this out to it's logical conclusion, then people who don't believe in God can't sin, since they can't sin against that which they don't believe in; thus, missionaries bring a great evil unto this world, and we'll all be saved if we don't believe, since if we don't believe, we can't sin.

Or am I missing something here?

totoro said...

Wow what a great debate about a book of myths. Ibet the Greeks and Romans use to do the same thing about their ficticious Gods too. Do you people really take that crap seriously? When will Linus lay down the security blanket?

Michael said...

I know the comments are as old as heck, but I have to answer this:

Jason said:
. If it were possible for angels to sin then what is the value of being made like unto the angels? Why resist sin in this life supposedly secure in the hope that we will be made like unto the angels (Luke 20:35), if we are merely exchanging one sinful nature for another?

I have only one answer on the possibility for angels to sin. Lucifer. You know, the Devil? If he was NOT able to sin, being an angel and all, then your own bible contradicts yourself. If he is able to Sin then God made him able to and therefore is responsible for our fall by allowing Lucifer to trick us.

Rodrigo Antônio said...

Wooo! How can you deny something you do not admit the existence. Well, something that do not exist can not be denied. You justa can deny something that exist. If it doesnt exist, can not be denied.
By the way, how do you know you are going to hell? If the Holy spirit do not exist, how do you know that hell exist? Guys, I'm sorry but you keep your life in dangerous. If The Holy Spirit do not exist, ok, you were right, and we were wrong, but what if He realy exist? I'm going to Heaven and what about you? Dont you think this is an nonintelligent decision?? Hug and, God Bless you all.

teamsonic47 said...

Shock and disbelief over your thoughts and actions.I don't understand your way of thinking. Too many unexplained events have happened to me not to believe. I pray to God and he answers. I have prayed for my car keys, money, food stamps, finding my glasses, rain and so much more and all have been positively answered immediately with no rational explaination. I was running at full speed crossing an intersection trying to catch my bus when suddenly I was YANKED back by a force that stopped me in my tracks. A car ran the light and would have killed me. I really wanted to catch that bus so I wasn't intending on stopping. So very many other events that I am convinced there is God. No other explanation.