|
Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to Creation. Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some one kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that man should die! No god I'd believe in would do such a thing. Even the "wrathful and vengeful" god of the old testament allowed Cain to wander free (but marked). Yet another reason why I doubt the "scriptures" were written by anyone but ordinary men. ...justification for murder deleted Rick It is your choice to believe in whatever kind of god you choose to believe in. Your choice does not determine what kind of God the scriptures reveal. That it makes you uncomfortable, or even that it is difficult to explain, does not make it any more encumbent on us, if we choose to attempt to understand the nature of God, and His activity throughout history, some of which is recorded in the Scriptures, to struggle to understand and find the real and true God with which we have to deal. The scriptures are clear when they say that God instituted the death penalty clear back in the beginning of Genesis. He with His omniscience, He saw the murder of Abel, and all the other murders throughout history. If we are offended by one murder, consider the horror He must have seen, and how His Holy Spirit must have been offended and affronted by even one, to say nothing of the horror of them all. How was it that He was able to allow Cain to walk as a marked man even? In His absolute Holiness, He should have destroyed not only Cain, but all murders. And according to Jesus, all of us are guilty of murder. This is not the vengeful God of the Old Testement, but the God of the New Testement that said we should Love our neighbor, as ourselves. How could Jesus say we are all murders? He said if we even look on our brother in wrath, we are guilty of murder. And if this is so, and Jesus is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all? It was because in His omniscience He also was able to look down through the annals of time and see Himself on the Cross, dying the death penalty for all the murderers, all of us through out history. And so He set Cain free as a marked man, as we are all marked men. The death penalty does not diminish His Love for us in the least, but is the absolute expression of His Love. By establishing the death penalty way back in Genesis, He set the stage for His own death on the Cross, the single greatest act of Love ever shown to men by which now we can be set free! Free to be in communion again with God! But understand that it was not just an act of Love for us, His Creation, that He died! But even a greater act of Love towards the Holiness of the Godhood! The image of God, was redeemed by the Blood of Jesus which represented His death, the required price for the defacement of the Godhood, was made by Jesus. You may not choose this God, that is your choice! But Jesus chose this God, and I tend to believe His choice is the better choice than yours, any day, Old Testement, New Testement, testimony written in the stars, or in the rocks, or sands of time, or pages written by fallible men. All the Creation testifies to the nature of God, that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. That you say you believe in a god is commendable, or did you? And would only confirms to me that you were made in the image of God. There is a primal need in the heart of all men to find and be in communion with God. If you are content with the rag doll god that you say you would believe in if you believed in god, is at best, intellectually slothful, and at worst derranged. Those who say they do not believe in God, and don't even make a pretense of believing, are slothful, and at least may appear to be intellectually honest if you allow them the luxury of shutting their eyes to the Creation. But you say your eyes are open, or are they closed! It would be sort of like walking into a mine field, where there are known to be many life threatening devices. Now a mad man may run into the field headlong, and assuredly will step on a mine. But what man would put on a blindfold and start walking ever so slowly. Even he will trip a mine eventually. Now the intellectual slouch may set on the side and talk about the mines, and how they know they are out there, and even study all the different kinds of mines there are. But should he step into the mine field, he is just as assuredly dead. And we are surrounded by a minefield that we are trying to get out of! The wise man climbs on the back of someone who has gone across the mine field before, and knows the way, and where all the mines are at, and gets safe passage to the other side, which is where everyone wants to get to after all. Now I can't tell whether you believe in God or not, but I would encourage you to at least be honest with yourself, take off the blindfold of your preconceived ideas of how God would be, and find out how He is, and then you will find Him! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============ Gen 9:6 ============= my biblical knowledge may be weak, but doesn't this bit pre-date jc? frtzw906 No, He was back there in the beginning! Being God, He is a part of the Eternal Godhood that the Judeo-Christian faith proclaims, and has been revealed through out history to all men everywhere! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: bearsbuddy says: ============== Not if you accept the idea of the trinity. ================== so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant? is the trinity some kind of timemachine? frtzw906 The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery that is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive of His totality or even a small part of His being, except as He showed Himself to us. He has made himself known through various pre-incarnation revelations known as theophanies, the carnate revelation through Jesus, and the post-carnate in the person of the Holy Spirit. The Godhood is not some kind of a timemachine, for He exist outside of time, where there would be no need for a timemachine such as even clocks. They would be meaningless. There would be no time to go back in, or forward in, or jump around in. This would be impossible for us to understand, since we are creatures of time, we would cease to exist as we know ourselves because everything we know about ourselves is based on time. Now obviously we got into deep water real fast, and that just from talking about the simple question about the Death Penalty. So evidently there is no simple question, and more than likely the answers are even more difficult to ascertain. In fact when you deal with the Godhood, you are dealing with some of the deepest questions, with which man can even conceive. The Godhood is beyond time, beyond all the mysteries of the whole universe, probably at the very edge of mans ability even to ask questions. This is indeed exciting! TnT |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 8:46 PM: BCITORGB wrote: bearsbuddy says: ============== Not if you accept the idea of the trinity. ================== so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant? is the trinity some kind of timemachine? frtzw906 The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery that is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive Or, for those who are not messed up, that translates to "a big load of bull****" :-/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 9:39 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM: snip same old crap that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================================ Yes, you did Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment." ===================== It has been fool, many times now. It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist. You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist otherwise. ===================== It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted your lie has already beem determined. If you mean that I agreed that you met the burden of proof on the question I posed, that is true. I also apologized as promised, if you could do so. Your views on Canadian health care remain as stupid and ignorant as ever, but it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So, unlike you, I did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize. ================== LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to soembody else, not to me. It is you that has been, and continues to remain willfully ignorant of the wait lists, and the people that die waiting for treatment. You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. ================ No, I have not. You claimed that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I did. =====================\\\ Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM: snip But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of asking the KKK for information on immigration policies. =================== No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss the problems of your health care system. But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system is eroding, and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of will to turn that around, and I think that will be the direction of things. The vast majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where something as basic as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged. ====================== Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes. snip tired old crap FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is interesting to discuss. ================== Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in Canada. No lies have been told. ===================== Not by me. You on the other hand apparently continue to claim people do not die waiting for treatment. Why do you insist on being so willfully ignorant, liarman? You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. ==================== Nope. You claimed that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. ================== Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman. You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I did. ====================== Yes, you are both, liarman... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM: snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, ======================== LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an apology. That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and showing what a coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate false accusations. ====================== No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me, liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.' You are the dishonest one here, liarman... Sorry you didn't care for the apology. ============== Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me. Yes, it was. ===================== LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain, liarman. And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was an apology because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could meet the burdern of proof in response to a question. ========================== See, you did not apologize as you promised. The fact that people die waiting for treatment was provided, you are proven to be a liar. You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. You claimed that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I did. ===================== It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman? snip same old crap |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 9:39 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM: snip same old crap that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================================ Yes, you did Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment." ===================== It has been fool, many times now. It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist. You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist otherwise. ===================== It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted your lie has already beem determined. If you mean that I agreed that you met the burden of proof on the question I posed, that is true. I also apologized as promised, if you could do so. Your views on Canadian health care remain as stupid and ignorant as ever, but it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So, unlike you, I did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize. ================== LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to soembody else, not to me. It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused about that. snip tired old crap You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. ================ No, I have not. You claimed that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I did. =====================\\\ Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment" which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in Newfoundland. Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:14 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM: snip But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of asking the KKK for information on immigration policies. =================== No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss the problems of your health care system. But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system is eroding, and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of will to turn that around, and I think that will be the direction of things. The vast majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where something as basic as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged. ====================== Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes. snip tired old crap FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is interesting to discuss. ================== Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in Canada. No lies have been told. ===================== snip tired old crap You claimed that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. ================== Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman. You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment" which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in Newfoundland. Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com