New face here(probably-agnostic)

[TheOneWhoIsNotBrad]

Hello!New face here, and I'm kind of wondering; is this site satirical or not?
I've read a small handful of posts now, and the more I read the more torn I become. As one whose own faith lies somewhere in the murky depths between Christendom and Agnostic, I've been left without the ability to discern what, if any, of the things said are made in jest. I have read more than a few incredibly well written responses that have an almost unbelievable capacity for self-awareness that leaves me unsure whether these are being presented for the fun of it, or perhaps it's one-hundred percent real.


An example of said self awareness:
"Landover"
Would seem to be a wordplay on 'flyover' in reference to the states most commonly associated with the culture propagated here.


An example of what might confuse someone:

Either way love the level of respect in this community(excluding the pricks come here for sh*t flinging).

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello!New face here, and I'm kind of wondering; is this site satirical or not?
I've read a small handful of posts now, and the more I read the more torn I become. As one whose own faith lies somewhere in the murky depths between Christendom and Agnostic, I've been left without the ability to discern what, if any, of the things said are made in jest. I have read more than a few incredibly well written responses that have an almost unbelievable capacity for self-awareness that leaves me unsure whether these are being presented for the fun of it, or perhaps it's one-hundred percent real.


An example of said self awareness:
"Landover"
Would seem to be a wordplay on 'flyover' in reference to the states most commonly associated with the culture propagated here.


An example of what might confuse someone:

Either way love the level of respect in this community(excluding the pricks come here for sh*t flinging).

Welcome to God’s favourite forum!

I’m sorry to hear that you exist outside of Jesus’ light cone. As an agnostic your position is opposed to Christianity because to be a Christian you KNOW that Jesus is the given son of God (and is God).

1 John 5 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him

But the fact that you are here is proof, if proof be need be that Jesus has come inside you to draw you into His muscular embrace.

What church do you go to, what is your favourite Bible(KJV1611) verse and when did you start your walk with Christ?

YIC

[TheOneWhoIsNotBrad]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

~snip~
What church do you go to, what is your favourite Bible(KJV1611) verse and when did you start your walk with Christ?
YIC

Unfortunately I don't go to church. My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment. I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image. I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible as being a good compass towards a decent life but not as an empirical historical record.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Unfortunately I don't go to church.

This is indeed, unfortunate. How can it be possible to understand God's Word if you have only your own mind to rely upon? All you will end up with is your own interpretation of God.

Compare this to a passage in a foreign language - if you do not know the language at the start, you can assume its meaning, but how accurate will that be?

My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception.

If they were a universal truth, then they would have existed before then and continue to exist after then. "After then" = now.

And Who gave us these universal truths?

These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment.

The reference was to "human beings" via their interactions with each other and God. Human beings do not change: in basic terms you and I have the same brain as, for example, Joshua.

...I say this as a creationist ...

So... Who, exactly did this "creation"? And once you answer that, how can you be agnostic?

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Unfortunately I don't go to church. My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment. I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image. I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible as being a good compass towards a decent life but not as an empirical historical record.

Paramount in any investigation must be the standards of the period under investigation. The reason is simple: say if a papist King wanted to marry his brother's wife, to take an example at random. How should he interpret Scripture?

Deuteronomy 25:5-6a If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead

Very straightforward. Plural marriage was the norm. No problem. Sociologists claim that societies in which menfolk slice one another to pieces produce a surplus of women many of whom are childless and without prospects. Simply murdering one's brother would be unacceptable but if the brother died quite young? Seems obvious to me, that King should marry the widow.

Contemporary standards may nevertheless differ from ancient standards but I really cannot see how Jesus’ words are relevant here

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

..because our King was not doing any of those things. He was simply marrying his brother's widow. (And had not murdered his brother.) Even if he already had a wife, or ninety wives, nothing proposed contravened either Old Testament or New Testament standards and/or commandments.

Nevertheless arguments at the highest level have taken place over such issues. EITHER you are making up your own standards OR you are using Biblical standards but in that situation, historically, NEITHER standard prevailed and King Henry flicked off popes willy-nilly I doubt he had any collywobbles at all, ever.

Three historical periods are represented there. The ancient standard of Moses, the Roman standard and the standard of Tudor England. That meant the standard of King Henry.

I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image. I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible

Protestantism is not mentioned in The Bible. In the case of Roman catholicism, what was it exactly that was catholicised? The word does have a meaning:

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/catholic

With a lower-case "c," catholic means "universal" and "inclusive." If you listen to anything from hip-hop to Baroque, you have catholic taste in music.
When it entered the English language in the sixteenth century, catholic simply meant "general" or "common." Applied to the Western Church, it essentially meant "the Church universal," or the whole body of Christian believers, as opposed to separate congregations. After the Reformation, the Western Church called itself the Catholic Church to distinguish itself from communities of faith that were no longer obedient to Rome. This usage remains the most common, although you can still use catholic to mean general.

What was it that became universal? Inclusive? Was it the sensibilities of the French? The norms of ancient Manchuria? No. Obviously it was the pre-existing and disparate traditions of ROME. Otherwise it would never have been called ROMAN catholicism. What were those traditions? Here I'm fading out and will refer you to art, accessible through actual artefacts unearthed and available for comparison with Romish idols to this day. There's a stream back to the Greeks and the mere existence of idols at all tells us the origins have nothing to do with anything taught by Christ.

Therefore that congregation cannot be Christian.

Applying one's own standards and lying (ultimately King Henry did not lie, he said "I'm the King, hey pope! spin on this") must always be wrong. The Bible presents clear standards, endorsed by Christ but rejected by so many congregations today who prefer their own standards they just made up yesterday, and those are the standards we present. The choice is not new. And it's a very simple choice:

Joshua 24:14-15 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

The flood for that King was an emotional flood. The Bible was translated into English exposing Romish lies (the lies of pre-existing idolatry amalgamated into their false creed) and wriggle though they might popes never again held sway in the anglophone world.

God's standard can never change because He is perfect. We are commanded to be perfect too.

[Roland]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hi Theo,

Welcome to the forum. I am puzzled by your confusion over this:

An example of what might confuse someone:

The table you posted showed more posts than threads. That seems quite normal to me, the opposite would perhaps be cause for concern.

Either way love the level of respect in this community(excluding the pricks come here for sh*t flinging).

I too have found this place to be a very accepting and embracing website for Jesus. And they haven´t kicked me out which is also nice.

Kind regards,

Roland

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Have you been reading C. S. Lewis or something?

“Did Maleldil suggest that our own world might have been saved if the elephant had accidentally trodden on the serpent a moment before Eve was about to yield?”

[DolliMoans]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Well I don't see any face. Did you steal yours from someone named Brad that you'd think we'd be fooled?

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello!New face here,

Hello Mr. Not Brad!

and I'm kind of wondering; is this site satirical or not?

As an anthropologist who is studying fundamentalist Baptist movements in the US, I can reassure you that the members of this community treat the Holy Bible very seriously.

As one whose own faith lies somewhere in the murky depths between Christendom and Agnostic,

I understand exactly how you feel! I am not a Baptist myself - I haven't been banned yet from here because some members are still hoping that I will eventually become a born again Christian. So they tolerate my blasphemous thoughts which follow below...

*** blasphemy trigger warning ***

On one side, I want to believe that God exists and that there is some sense to all this madness. On the other hand, God of the Bible comes out as a cruel, vindictive being who gives out immense punishments for petty crimes. On the third hand, the history of humanity suggests that if a deity exists, that deity must really enjoy all the slaughter committed by humans in the name of their religions... That makes me think that if God does exist, He is not worthy of our worship... And then I repent for having these thoughts as if God exists, these thoughts will most certainly land me in Hell.

Unfortunately I don't go to church. My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment.

I do wonder, which universal truths are you taking about? The Bible devotes quite a lot of space to things like justified genocide and proper rules regarding slavery and other forms of oppression.


Are these the universal truths you are referring to?


And if not, would you like to explain which truths of the Bible are universal and which are not, and what criteria do you use to separate Biblical commandments into each pile?

I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image.

I highly recommend that you read all of the Bible before you repeat what you just said.


Because I don't think you really walk around killing your family members and other random people for not believing in the same God as you do. Therefore, I think that you have not read the Bible yourself, just heard someone talking about some fragments of it, and you liked these bits that were highlighted.


This is very common behavior these days, but I think you are smarter than that. Hence, you should read the whole Bible, without skipping the genocide parts, and then revisit your opinion about it.

I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible as being a good compass towards a decent life but not as an empirical historical record.

Well, if in your opinion the Bible is not an example of good empirical record, then how can you trust it when it talks about the very existence of God and Jesus?


And if the Bible cannot be trusted as the evidence of the existence of a Creator, what other evidence exists for it?


I look forward to hearing from you. But I really, really recommend that you read the Bible first and attack me for my blasphemous thoughts later.

[Basilissa]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

As one whose own faith lies somewhere in the murky depths between Christendom and Agnostic,

I will pray that Jesus decides to take away the delusion He Himself sent you in order to condemn you to Hell for your lack of faith:

1 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment. I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image. I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible as being a good compass towards a decent life but not as an empirical historical record.

This is all very good. While you say that you disregard Bible as an empirical historical record, you seem to agree that it is, in fact, an empirical historical record, at least when it comes to 1) the existence of God and 2) universal moral rules. This is a good start. Now, if you trust the Bible in these two aspects, what holds you back from trusting it regarding other stuff?

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception.

This seems very judgemental, Bard. What makes you think that you can simple toss off the most cherished beliefs and then ride roughshod over those beliefs by suggesting that ‘what you think’ is more important than what Jesus thinks?

Have you even read the Bible(KJV1611)?

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

The amazing thing is that the Bible(KJV1611) actually proves itself True(tm) WITHIN IT’S OWN VERY PAGES. And we know this because Jesus inspired the words in the Bible(KJV1611) as surely as the constitution was inspired by Moses!

So by taking your bizarre and illogical stance you are turning your back on Jesus, Moses AND the constitution!

Did those kids in that school that lots of times die defending the second amendments for nothing?

You are a sick young man, Bard. A real piece of work. Hell’s too good for people like you

All the best.

YIC

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Dear friend:
I welcome you in Christ's abundant love.

Hello!New face here, and I'm kind of wondering; is this site satirical or not?

You have seen the great care with which we quote the Bible accurately and in context. Why would we do so of this site were satirical? Wouldn't we want to distort the Bible to make it somehow funny? Instead, we treat the Bible with all of the reverence that deserves.

Unfortunately I don't go to church. My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment. I try my best to live by these words regardless of whether they stem directly from god's or from the divine wisdom we inherit from being modeled in his image. I say this as a creationist who respects the teachings of the bible as being a good compass towards a decent life but not as an empirical historical record.

Couldn't a God capable of creating the universe preserve a clear, accurate, and timeless account of such universal truths, rather than leaving non-inspired human authors to interpret and possibly garble them or express them in ways that might become dated? Wouldn't a loving God want to do so, rather than leaving us to guess at whether we had an accurate rendition and understanding of such universal truths?

[Nobar King]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello Mr. Brad. I have a simple question for you: what color is your hair?

[BrotherLarry]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

I do not see any murkinessosity in the decision of whether or not there is a LORD GOD who made all of us in His Image. The simple answer is, He's real. He invented reality - and how do I know? The Bible tells me this. I could quote a page full of scripture but instead, let me point you to the passages that are pertinent:


THE ENTIRE HOLY BIBLE KJV 1611


Once you've perused and absorbed the Blood of Jesus found on the pages of His Word, you will know that you know that you know there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun - and the only way to gain Heaven is through the PERFECT plan of Salvation(R) offered by a loving GOD who knew FROM THE BEGINNING that everything He made would screw up and so He would send His Son to die so that we could live. It is the most careful and detailed plan that could ever be planned so carefully and with detail.


Oh Friend, please choose life! Choose Christ! The Baby Jesus didn't grow up in squallor so you could resist His adult offer to die and thereby take your sins away. He came to save YOU.


Adding you to my prayer list - because that's the most effective thing I could do for you at this time.


BrotherLarry

[Didymus Much]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello Mr. Brad. I have a simple question for you: what color is your hair?

Seeing as Habakkuk is on the back burner again (Half Life 3 will get here sooner), is Project "Build NotBrad an Avatar" go?


I'll start: