God is real

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

Only in this arena! But yes, I think a kind of bigotry has set in.



I see defensiveness that anyone would feel being told up is down where you see villainy.

Not THAT Jet Lagged.

Welcome back crazy man.

I will consider your point with sincere introspection.

Now how about inspecting my point as a matter of consideration?

[ghoulslime]

Eva wrote

gs, i had told you before that he links were ok, it's just that i could not edit this post like i had been able to do before...

Eva, you don't have to apologize, sweety. I am a naughty boy, and will do naughty things. You are the forum mod and must do responsible things. This means that sometimes you will have to give me a spanking. I will still love you in the morning.

[ghoulslime]

Choobus wrote

If you're going to do links you may as well post the full and complete set!

Hee hee! Don't get me in trouble! I am already on Eva's poo poo list. Somehow, I think this is not the right timing for gaping pussy/cock in mouth sort of photos.

You wanna smell my finger?

(Besides, her cock was huge. Hee hee!)

Ok, here is one pretty mild nude shot:

www.poetryring.com/ra/distraction4.jpg

Sternwallow wrote

But, the Moasic law, all 613 of them, was not complete, then. Those people were denied the set of laws, many of them contradicting the Mosaic law, that could lead them to salvation. Thus, we are left to guess that all people, shown by Mosaic law to be so imperfect, before the year 31 CE were doomed and without hope, no matter how well they obeyed the will of God.

It is also worth noting that, although there might not have been explicit words saying the old laws were eternal, there also were no words specifying their expiration date either. We know, because He said so, that God does not and probably cannot, change His mind since He is "unchanging", not just in the broad outlines of His character, but in every detail of His perfection.

I am surprised, for the sake of generosity, that you said the above. It is a complete fabrication. Even though there are some aspects of perfection that we may not know or may not agree on, one thing is absolute about it. If something is perfect there is nothing better and their can be nothing better than it.

If such a small thing as painting the lug nuts of your Lamborghini gold would improve it, which it would, then the car was not perfect. If the cylinders can accumulate carbon build-up, the car is not perfect.

I say, if something is vulnerable to corruption then, no matter how perfect it may seem, it is not perfect. Lucifer comes to mind. He could not have been perfect and still committed a transgression against anyone, especially God. Similarly, Adam was not perfectly obedient exactly because he had the flaw of disobedience that was manifested in eating the forbidden fruit.

Back on topic of the law, you have not substantiated the notion that some groups of people, over time, did not need the Mosaic law until they got to Sinai and that those living before Christ, did not deserve a path to salvation. Who knows what new, unimaginable, laws God has in mind that we are now failing to obey so we are consigned to Hell because He won't tell us about them until a hundred years from now?

The main problem is that we may not agree is on the definition of "perfect". It seems that in your reasoning that perfect means that it is not improvable, while I have a tendency to look at "perfect" from the NT manner of something that is perfect is "complete". What this means is that when I say that the Mosaic law is perfect for its intended use, I am saying that it is a complete composition suitable for its intended use. I make this distinction because I don't want to misrepresent what I believe the scriptures say about the "Law". I know the word in the english text is "perfect" but I believe that it doesn't really represent the best image of what is happening.

The Mosaic Law was not intended to save anyone and no one was ever saved by trying to keep it because if you missed just one of the 613 laws at one time in your life then you demonstrated that you were not worthy of salvation.

A question I like to ask people from time to time is. "Just how were people in the OT saved?" You would be supprised at the number of Christians that can't answer that question. (clue) It is not by keeping the Mosaic Law or the 10 commandments.

[calpurnpiso]

thomastwo wrote

ubs - I've been posting on this forum, on and off, since 2004. During that time I've learnt a lot and as a result have a much better idea of what I believe and why I believe it.

I tend to be a sporadic poster as I use the forum when I've got something on my mind to consider and then drop away again. One issue with RA is that threads never really die. They just go on or, more usually, round in circles. So you have to walk away at some point.

As for the insults, I've experienced the forum go through various cycles of tolerance to theist posters. Occassionally it's enough to stop me posting. There was one particular period when several, I thought, decent theists stopped posting because of this. I don't really mind the insults. They mean nothing to me. I don't take them personally at all. I can tolerate them providing they don't become the only "debate" that is occurring. And now the forum has the ignore function it's much better. I use it for people who only offer abuse and no argument at all.

...and? Do you need to confess your sins to us?....Please kneel & repeat after me in deep piety and contrition:

Oremus

"Pene-cristus Noster
qui es in caelis,

sanctificetur nomen tuum.

Adveniat Specu regnum tuum.

Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo et in cavernam.

Sacra Lactis nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,

et dimitte nobis castus nostra,

sicut et nos
dimittimus casta nostris.

Et ne nos inducas in tentationem:

sed libera nos a castis mala.

Ego te absolvo et:

Benedic Domine Pene Cristo,

nos et haec tua dona
quae de tua largitate
sumus sumpturi
per Pene Christum
Dominum Nostrum. Amun.

I guarantee you'll feel so much better after goingto bed and dreaming on the absolution of the Libido lord penis Christus.

Guarantee you'll be a born again man ready to bathe & absorb the photon giving rays of the living god & savior creator of life. Sol.

[Sternwallow]

Eva wrote

gs, you know better than this. you can't post the photo of the topless lady. i'm trying to remove the tags so if anybody wants to see it, they can click the link, but i can't see how.

i'm very dissapointed with you.

Wait! If Cal can post breast-discovered women, why not GS?

Can the Ghoul post topless women pitchers if he puts a "National Geographic" caption under each one?

I thought that was a delightful image of a photogenic pair and the people look good as well.

[Sternwallow]

UBS wrote

Let me ask you this GS. What if a theist came in here and he/she really had a great concept. Not a way to make you into a theist, but a paradigm so wonderful that it forever changed your life? Would you want the paradigm or would you rather kick him in the teeth? You don’t have to answer right away.

Always on the lookout for new and better information, I would take the new paradigm if it had been vetted elsewhere and shown to be valid, not on the say-so of this walking wart, and then I would kick the arrogant proselytizing clod in the teeth.

A paradigm shift that would change my life might be a cure for Cancer. If someone shows up here claiming to have discovered such a sure-fire cure in a potion of ground mulberry seeds and powdered tire tread heated in Cod-liver oil, I will not accept it. I would not even try it in the final disease desperation because it has not been tested and shown even to be benign.

To put it another way, an activity is still objectionable proselytizing even if the truth of the proposition being offered has been or can be verified. If it is true then the activity is an unwarranted attempt to make me believe something on faith whose truth is incidental.

[dogpet]

Choobus wrote

If you're going to do links you may as well post the full and complete set!

If you change the 3 to 4 you get the full length shot. She's a bit of a munter though.
Edit: I see the pervs already posted the link.

[Sternwallow]

happywarrior wrote

The main problem is that we may not agree is on the definition of "perfect". It seems that in your reasoning that perfect means that it is not improvable, while I have a tendency to look at "perfect" from the NT manner of something that is perfect is "complete". What this means is that when I say that the Mosaic law is perfect for its intended use, I am saying that it is a complete composition suitable for its intended use. I make this distinction because I don't want to misrepresent what I believe the scriptures say about the "Law". I know the word in the english text is "perfect" but I believe that it doesn't really represent the best image of what is happening.

I guess you are right that we do not agree on perfection. IMV it does not mean complete and only applicable for a set time (when it is imposed in an eternal context). It also means that no part of it is flawed or less than the very best. Thus, the Mosaic law was, like the Noachean covenant, eternally in force since it came from the same eternal perfect author and had no expiration date, like "'till Burnham Wood to Dunsenane Hill goes".

My point about Mosaic law being incomplete is exactly that those people were not given the set of laws and conditions by which they could achieve salvation, that is, the specifications given so much later by Jesus. And remember, some of Jesus' rules conflict with the OT even though He promised not to change them even a tiny bit.

The Mosaic Law was not intended to save anyone and no one was ever saved by trying to keep it because if you missed just one of the 613 laws at one time in your life then you demonstrated that you were not worthy of salvation.

So how were you supposed to be saved since you would not hear Jesus for another thousand years?

A question I like to ask people from time to time is. "Just how were people in the OT saved?" You would be supprised at the number of Christians that can't answer that question. (clue) It is not by keeping the Mosaic Law or the 10 commandments.

I am not surprised that Christians are befuddled by that question, even though it is a very transparent trick. The answer is that the OT folks were not saved and therefore burn forever in Hell if Jesus' teachings are true, or they join the rest of humanity being neither saved nor damned if Jesus didn't exist or if His teachings were not true.

The proper Christian answer, of course, is that, according to scripture, Jesus saves whoever He wishes, whenever He wishes, based on nothing but His whim. Nothing any person can do good or bad, will influence this in any way. It specifically says that you can't gain salvation by asking for it if Jesus doesn't happen to feel good that day.

[ubs]

Sternwallow wrote

A paradigm shift that would change my life might be a cure for Cancer.

Well this is worrisome. I didn't know you were fighting something Stern.

[calpurnpiso]

Sternwallow wrote

Wait! If Cal can post breast-discovered women, why not GS?

Can the Ghoul post topless women pitchers if he puts a "National Geographic" caption under each one?

I thought that was a delightful image of a photogenic pair and the people look good as well.

Yup, is Eva turning into a prude American Christpsychotic on us?....that's art not porn..

[Sternwallow]

ubs wrote

Well this is worrisome. I didn't know you were fighting something Stern.

No need to worry. I meant it in the generic sense and concerning some out-of-the-blue cure by some ditch-digger on his kitchen table.

My personal paradigm would not shift if the medical research community announced a cure for cancer. We have reasons, including their funding and their ongoing efforts, to expect a valid cure sometime not far off. It is not a firm and yet failed promise like the second coming, but it is a reasonable expectation.

[Sternwallow]

calpurnpiso wrote

Yup, is Eva turning into a prude American Christpsychotic on us?....that's art not porn..

"Smut, thank God, is in the eye of the beholder" Tom Lehrer

[Kate]

Um, ghoulie, what were you doing in China exactly?

Sternwallow wrote

I am not surprised that Christians are befuddled by that question, even though it is a very transparent trick. The answer is that the OT folks were not saved and therefore burn forever in Hell if Jesus' teachings are true, or they join the rest of humanity being neither saved nor damned if Jesus didn't exist or if His teachings were not true.

The proper Christian answer, of course, is that, according to scripture, Jesus saves whoever He wishes, whenever He wishes, based on nothing but His whim. Nothing any person can do good or bad, will influence this in any way. It specifically says that you can't gain salvation by asking for it if Jesus doesn't happen to feel good that day.

The OT believers were saved in the same manner as the NT believers, by faith. The OT looked forward and the NT looks back to the cross. Abraham was saved before the law existed, he believed in an unseen event.

I'm not a Calvinist so when the bible says that "whosoever" believes In Christ will be saved I believe it to mean just exactly that. No one is Condemned to Hell as a whim of the Omnipotent lottery but everyone is given the choice. But this is a matter of much debate even among Christians. So you are actually in good, . . . well at least in the company of many who hold your view of devine selection. This was just being debated on another bible forum I participate in. bible.org I find it difficult to accept this concept of divine lottery and is quite offensive in light of other scriptures that show God's concern for his creation.

I find no comfort in the thought that you might be going to hell just because. . .