Be Thankful For Jesus’ Incredible Self-Control (Christmas Related Post)


First, read thru the following post:

Hasten Ministries: As It Wasn’t Painful Enough

… 

All done? If you followed my instructions, you’ll have just read about how Jesus suffered and was mocked while being crucified. And how He even intentionally increased the pain in order to fully take in the sorrow of sin.

This brings me to my point for this post: Do you realize how incredibly great Jesus’ self control, determination and discipline must have been as He allowed Himself to be arrested, tortured, mocked and murdered?

Yes, Jesus ALLOWED all this to be done to Him. Just read the following verses from the Matthew 26:47-54:

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.”

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

As Jesus was chained and beaten, as He was spat at and jeered by the Sanhendrin court, as He was being viciously flogged and His flesh torn to shreds, as He dragged the cross beam to Golgotha, as He lay dying on the cross for hours…

Jesus was still God in human form.

With all the limitless power still at His disposal, the same power which long ago created the 3-followed-by-52-zeroes mass of the entire universe in a split second just by His speaking.

With an army of mighty angels awaiting His slightest gesture to smite the sinners who were despising the King of Heaven, the same angels who could kill every firstborn in Egypt, blind every man in Sodom, and confuse the pagan armies into killing themselves.

With every opportunity, up to the very last second before He died, to heal Himself of all His wounds, turn the Romans and Pharisees to ashes, and reign over Jerusalem, Israel and the world as a conquering Messiah… As Simon Zealotes is protrayed as asking Him to in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar:

There must be over fifty thousand
Screaming love and more for you
And everyone of fifty thousand
Would do whatever you asked them to
Keep them yelling their devotion
But add a touch of hate at Rome
You will rise to a greater power
We will win ourselves a home!
You’ll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever!

It didn’t even have to be so dramatic and overawesome. Jesus could simply have refused to let them arrest and crucify Him in the first place, and settle down to a quiet life of marriage – as the plot of the film The Last Temptation of Christ goes.

But He didn’t. Instead, Jesus chose the most noble, unselfish path of all – to be humiliated, and to die for our sins.

The very first original temptation and sin mankind committed, to be like God (see bottom of of this post), is the very right that Jesus willingly surrendered, continuously and conciously kept on surrendering, in order to die for our sins.

In fact, we see a foreshadowing of this in Abraham’s test to sacrifice his son Isaac – Isaac would have been a young man by then, fully capable of resisting and overpowering a hundred-plus year old man. Yet Isaac ended up bound and tied – he must have knowingly let himself be prepared for death.

Like a rose, trampled on the ground… The very act of humility that some religious people think is too lowly for Almighty God to undergo is the very act of incredible honour and majesty that defines a truly Awesome God.

Mercy is not weakness. On the contrary, it takes true strength to show mercy.

A weak and unskilled gunslinger would not dare spare his enemy’s life, but the unbeatable cowboy in the white hat will always give his nemesis one last chance because he is confident he can draw and shoot fast enough o respond to any sudden aggression.

Jesus knew He could beat all the odds, and every temptation thrown at Him – including the very basic, very understandable urge to not let Himself, the ruler of all creation, be killed unjustly for the sake of evil, disgusting people like ourselves.

Thank Him today, that He never once gave in to the urge to do what was immediately just and right… At the cost of what would be eternally loving.

(Alternate snarky ending: Thank Him today, that He did not give in to the urge to cast Summon Angel Slaughterfest.)

Tags: , , , , , ,

136 Responses to “Be Thankful For Jesus’ Incredible Self-Control (Christmas Related Post)”

  1. Jesus Says:

    Yes I just read about how Jesus suffered and was mocked while being crucified and how He even intentionally increased the pain in order to fully take in the sorrow of sin, by reading this I understand His great self control, determination, and discipline thanks for sharing this valuable script.

  2. Death, Alexander McQueen, Judas and Martin Luther King « Raincoat Optimism Says:

    […] is an ongoing theological debate: that those who attended – in Christ’s presence – the gospel passover, must do […]

  3. Ron Says:

    Aside from the fact that killing an innocent person for the sake of the guilty can never be an act of justice, or the crazy notion that an act of forgiveness requires any blood sacrifice at all, the crucifixion doesn’t fulfill the terms set out by God himself.

    According to the dogma, the punishment for ‘sin’ is eternal suffering in hell, so if Jesus was supposed to take our place, that’s where he should be right now. Yet the story says that he was only dead for a few days, then arose and went to heaven. And even his physical suffering wasn’t anything special when compared to the many others who have experienced far worse.

  4. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron say “According to the dogma”…

    Which dogma? Your version of some version of dogma you read somewhere? In your limited understanding, you put words into the Bible. Your view of what the bible says and what Christians believe is both so limited and distorted that I would laugh out loud were it not unkind to do so. Still, if you persist in being a laughing stock, welcome!

  5. Simon Thong Says:

    2,998,569 hits

    I won’t be awake for the 3,000,000th hit. But congrats, Scott and well done!

    Eat your heart out, Joe the Plumber, Ron, et al!

  6. Ron Says:

    Which dogma?

    Matthew 25

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    Mark 9:42-48

    42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
    47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

    (Cross ref: Matthew 18:6-9)

    And do I really need to cite the verses where Jesus arose from the dead?

  7. Ron Says:

    “2,998,569 hits. I won’t be awake for the 3,000,000th hit. But congrats, Scott and well done!”

    LOL!!! Looks like someone’s been hitting F5 on their keyboard a few thousand times a day.

  8. Ron Says:

    “Isaac would have been a young man by then, fully capable of resisting and overpowering a hundred-plus year old man. Yet Isaac ended up bound and tied – he must have knowingly let himself be prepared for death.”

    Indeed! According to the Book of Jasher (chapters 22-3), Isaac was 37 years old, and went gladly.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/22.htm

  9. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron: LOL!!! Looks like someone’s been hitting F5 on their keyboard a few thousand times a day.

    Ron, envy becomes you.

    You’re a major hit-ter, trolling for anything and everything to challenge. Just look at the entries you comment on! LOL

  10. Ron Says:

    Not true. I comment almost exclusively on the religious threads, and occasionally on US politics, but I don’t think I’ve ever posted on any of the Malaysian-related stuff, or the anime/comics/video game topics. If that makes me a post whore, so be it.

  11. Simon Thong Says:

    That’s something to praise you for, not posting about the Malaysian-related stuff, or the anime/comics/video game topics.

    And you’re not a post whore but a good troll. Would miss you if you diappeared completely! Cheers! (my mug of Nescafe in hand)

  12. Simon Thong Says:

    Which dogma? The quoting of Bible verses is not dogma. Google the term and learn something new.

    You’re so used to attacking and criticizing but fail in doing your homework.

  13. Simon Thong Says:

    3,000,243 hits

  14. Zack T Says:

    Aside from the fact that killing an innocent person for the sake of the guilty can never be an act of justice, or the crazy notion that an act of forgiveness requires any blood sacrifice at all, the crucifixion doesn’t fulfill the terms set out by God himself. ~Ron

    Yes, it is injustice to place punishment unto an innocent person who does not wish to take it on behalf of the guilty.
    But what of an innocent person who is willing?

    By your logic, a parent cannot pay his neighbor for the items that belonged to the neighbor that his child had broke.
    Or that criminals serving his/her sentence should never be given bailouts, even though a family member or relative is willing to do so.

    And what makes you think blood sacrifice is not needed? I don’t recall you wrote the Old Testament and gave the Mosaic laws regarding sin and the sacrificing to cover one’s sins.

  15. loop Says:

    ‘Abraham’s test to sacrifice his son Isaac ‘

    Next you will prove that Abraham was a Christian.

  16. Simon Thong Says:

    No, he won’t. Abraham was not a Christian. But Abraham’s faith saved him.

    8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. (Hebrews 11.8)

  17. Ron Says:

    “The quoting of Bible verses is not dogma”

    No, but the dogma (doctrine) follows from the passages cited. Though I’ll grant that there may be certain denominations which downplay (or even deny) the concept of hell as an eternal lake of fire, or espouse that there are other roads to salvation, most do not (and especially not those which identify themselves as fundamentalists).

  18. Ron Says:

    “Yes, it is injustice to place punishment unto an innocent person who does not wish to take it on behalf of the guilty. But what of an innocent person who is willing?”

    Is that how your justice system works? Can you name which countries pardon murderers if someone else willingly volunteers to accept the punishment? And at a more personal level, Zack, if some thug murdered your family and the little old lady next door offered to serve the prison sentence in his stead, would you say “ok” and consider it justify served? Methinks not.

    “By your logic, a parent cannot pay his neighbor for the items that belonged to the neighbor that his child had broke. Or that criminals serving his/her sentence should never be given bailouts, even though a family member or relative is willing to do so.”

    Except that’s not what the redemption story says. It states that my neighbor (mankind) has transgressed against me (god) and his punishment is death. So I kill my child (Jesus) and say I’m willing to forgive my neighbor… so long as he accepts my gracious offer.

    “And what makes you think blood sacrifice is not needed?”

    Personal experience and stories from other people who granted forgiveness under the most dire circumstances. In most cases, genuine remorse and replacement of what was taken or destroyed was usually sufficient restitution, and I know of a few cases where people even forgave someone who murdered their loved ones. If humans are capable of granting forgiveness without demanding a blood sacrifice, then why would a deity be any less capable?

    “I don’t recall you wrote the Old Testament and gave the Mosaic laws regarding sin and the sacrificing to cover one’s sins.”

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you rephrase the sentence.

  19. loop Says:

    Ishmael or Isaac?

    Definitely you’ll tell that it was Isaac; Abraham’s only son, based on Genesis 22:2 “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah.”

    But when we analize the Bible, we can find that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at that time, and that Ishmael was born way before Isaac. Genesis 16:15-16:

    “So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.”

    The scripture says that Abraham was 86 years old when he had Ishmael, while in chapter 21 of the same book, verse 5 it says:

    “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.”

    If Ishmael was born when Abraham is 86 years old and Isaac was born when Abraham is 100 years old, doesn’t that make Ishmael older than Isaac? Why does the Bible describe Isaac as Abraham’s only son then, when he clearly had a brother at that time?

  20. Zack T Says:

    Is that how your justice system works? ~ Ron

    When a court sentences a punishment on a criminal, doesn’t it usually sentence like “10 years in prison OR $10,000 fine”?
    If an innocent third person or party (whoever it is) is willing/able to fork out the $10,000 fine, then the criminal is pardoned from the penalty.
    When the penalty has been paid in full, both the criminal and the person/party who paid the fine does not have to go through the prison sentence.

    Except that’s not what the redemption story says. ~Ron

    Let’s get your version of the story straight.
    Mankind has transgressed against God and the punishment of sin is death. The Son willingly suffers and pays the penalty of mankind’s sin in full (through the cross and drinking God’s cup of wraith). And now that God’s justice on sin has been fully satisfied, mankind is free from His justice if they believe and accept what the Son has done.

    Personal experience and stories from other people who granted forgiveness under the most dire circumstances. ~Ron

    “I don’t recall you wrote the Old Testament and gave the Mosaic laws regarding sin and the sacrificing to cover one’s sins.” ~Zack

    As much as it is great that there are people who have done marvelous works of forgiveness, they’re not God, and neither are you (obviously). We as humans are not completely just or fair beings, and thus, we need not every sin/transgression of our neighbor to be punished. One person we may easily or manage to forgive, but another we may demand payment or at least, never get down to forgive.

    God on the other hand is a completely just and fair God. He MUST demand payment for every sin committed by men and from every one of us; just as you would accept only a judge who will be impartial to anyone in court and not biased to/against anyone.
    God as judge cannot just sweep sins under the rug and forgive man. Every sin, big or small, must be justly punished or else God will just not be just/fair.

    And being an eternal being and that every sin is against this eternal being, thus the punishment is eternal and is being forever isolated from God; i.e. “God, why have your forsaken me?”.
    But God made the laws and have included a ‘clause’ in the law saying that if His people spill the blood of a perfect lamb of sacrifice (innocent of their sins committed, btw) to Him, He will forgive their transgression..

    Keeping in mind, the bible does teach that the OT lamb sacrifice was only for temporal forgiveness of their sins while on earth and won’t cover their sins on the Day of Judgment… whereas Jesus, the perfect Lamb (that God has provided; refer episode of Abraham’s sacrificing Isaac), is our perfect sacrifice and His gift of salvation is free for all to receive, if ONLY you will receive it. (Comes packed with Jesus)

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    Without interfering in this discussion, may I just add that many often judge God’s standards and methods using the yardstick of postmodern, humanistic, naturalistic and liberal thought. They start with the assumption that their standard of ‘right and wrong’ is correct, and therefore systems which come to different conclusions must be misguided.

    To wit: The Biblical God doesn’t follow our modern system of justice/equality/individualism/pluralism/sexual mores/relativism, therefore He must be evil. I have been guilty of this myself – if I were a pure humanist with no religious notions, I would support legalized prostitution as a carefully regulated industry for example.

    But we must remember to ask the question – who has the greater wisdom and understanding, ourselves with mere decades of experience or the infinite God Who created all?

  22. Scott Thong Says:

    Q: How did loop manage to read Genesis chapters 16 and 22, and in fact quote a portion of chapter 21, yet manage to totally miss out what happened in the rest of chapter 21?

    A: Must be following the style of Ahmed Deedat who was fond of quoting parts of the Bible in order to support his argument, while conveniently ignoring the very next verse which would immediately refute his argument.

  23. Zack T Says:

    Hmm, Interesting, Loop. Good to see you quoting Scripture properly (so far).
    But you want to challenge the bible with timeline or chronological order of events… How about we go back a little further.

    Genesis 15, “The LORD’s Covenant with Abram”

    4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
    ….
    13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.

    I don’t recall the ones mentioned in this prophecy to be the Arabs or Ishmaelites… They were Jews, weren’t they? Israelites, to be exact.

  24. Zack T Says:

    And Loop, the significance of Abraham (or Ibrahim) in the Quran was the circumcision and the promise of his son (either Isaac or Ishmael), right?
    When does circumcision actually come in? let’s go to first book of the Torah.

    Genesis 17, “The Covenant of Circumcision”

    1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

    3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

    9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

    15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.

    17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

    19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

    It’s overwhelmingly clear God was talking about Isaac and not Ishmael.
    If you want to make your claim that it was Ishmael, how about you point me where in the Quran does it state that it was Ishmael?

    And why Abraham (Ibrahim)? If the covenant was for Ishmael, then shouldn’t Muslims be focusing on Abram (or Ibram), since his name was Abram when he bore Ishmael?

  25. Simon Thong Says:

    Zack T – “I don’t recall you wrote the Old Testament and gave the Mosaic laws regarding sin and the sacrificing to cover one’s sins.”

    Ron – I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you rephrase the sentence.

    Methinks Zach T may be giving you a gentle nudge, “Are you God? Did you create everything?”

  26. loop Says:

    If the name is to be a clue in the Bible to claim that ‘Abraham’s test to sacrifice his son Isaac ‘ , then the bible clearly been lost to the Hindu sciptureThe Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Brahmanas Granth are the four sacred books in Hindu religion considered the more ancient books. Swami Daya Nand, founder of the Arya Samaj, holds the opinion that the Vedas were revealed 1.3 billion years ago, while others (Hindu scholars and orientalists) hold the opinion that they are not more than four thousand years old.
    There are a number of examples of these in Hindu scriptures. The Atharva Veda is also known as ‘Brahma Veda’ or in its meaning as the Devine Knowledge. An Analysis of the Vedas reveal that ‘Brahma’ is actually Abraham, where the initial letter A in Abraham is moved to the end making it Brahma. This analysis is accurate when one writes the two words in Arabic script, a language close to that spoken by Prophet Abraham. Similarly, Abraham’s first wife Sarah is mentioned in the Vedas as Saraswati, and Prophet Nuh (Noah of The Flood) is mentioned as Manuh or Manu. Some Pundits consider Atharva Veda as the Book of Abraham.Prophets Ismail (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac) are named Atharva and Angira, respectively, in the Vedas.

    Not a problem with me because Ibrahim was a Muslim like stated in the Quran and Islamic scholars interpret that Ishmael was the person that is mentioned in Surah as-Saaffaat verse 101 to 107 according to several aspects.

  27. cripes Says:

    “Not a problem with me because Ibrahim was a Muslim…”

    Mahathir of malaysia is of virgin birth, not a problem with me.

  28. Simon Thong Says:

    Loop – Not a problem with me because Ibrahim was a Muslim like stated in the Quran and Islamic scholars interpret that Ishmael was the person that is mentioned in Surah as-Saaffaat verse 101 to 107 according to several aspects.

    But a problem with Christians who stand by the truth of the OT.

  29. hahahaha Says:

    “Not a problem with me because Ibrahim was a Muslim…”

    hahaha Mr. Ibrahim had no say in it and Al-Jazeera was not there to record it.

  30. cripes Says:

    Muslim terrorist attacks like that of September 11, 2001 are not an expression of aberrant radicalism; it is ***** in its purest form. And it is but a further commentary on “his hand against every man”!

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    The sacrifice of Abraham’s son makes no sense in Islam. It only makes sense in Christianity.

    The act of Abraham giving up his beloved son as a sacrifice is paralleled by YHWH’s act of giving up His beloved Son Jesus as a sacrifice.

    What purpose does this scenario serve in Islam by comparison?

  32. hahahaha Says:

    Move an A from 1end to the other and it becomes “analysis”.
    Some people`s england very impressive

  33. hahahaha Says:

    “What purpose does this scenario serve in Islam by comparison?”

    Helps to steal from the Jews.

  34. loop Says:

    hahaha.. troll.See Scott, like the old time but I won’t be long..

    Regarding the issue, “No matter either one of the stories one does believe in, they (Ishmael and Isaac) are both pure and pious to God,”

  35. hahahaha Says:

    hahaha.. troll.See Scott, like the old time but I won’t be long..

    Most assuredly u will not be.

  36. cripes Says:

    The Qur’an is thrice as small as Vedas. When muslim scholars take a lots of time to learn Arabic, memorise Qur’an,read hadiths, do you believe they can learn Sanskrit, or even if not, read such big Vedas, interpret them, and present it?
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d4QADwDAkuwJ:www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Prasadh51229p4.htm+faithfreedom+mohamed+kalki+avatar&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my&source=www.google.com.my

  37. loop Says:

    ‘Mahathir of malaysia is of virgin birth, not a problem with me’

    Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed-He was born Mahathir s/o Iskandar Kutty and named Mahathir s/o Iskandar Kutty @Mahathir Mohamed. NOT as a Malay but a Malayali – (Mamak) the people of Kerala in south INDIA, where his father (Iskandar Kutty) came from.Kerala, India Homeland of Dr. Mahathir’s fore-fathers
    His father (Iskandar Kutty) (a Mamak) migrated from the southern state of Kerala, India, while his mother (Wan Tampawan) a Kedah-born, was a Malay.

    And he is muslim.Really not a problem with it but proud!

  38. Zack T Says:

    Haha… Loop,

    The issue of the names is not where the origin of the character *supposedly* started from… but the matter of whom one’s scripture (OT, NT or Quran) has claimed to derive that character from.

    The Quran made claim of Abraham/Ibrahim based on the Torah’s version of Abraham, and so does the NT.
    The OT on the other hand, makes no such reference to any prior ‘Abraham’ nor does it make such claims.

    So you are still faced with the issue.
    If Ishmael is the promised son of God’s covenant, why do you bless the name of Abraham or Ibrahim, instead of Abram or ‘Ibram’, when it is clear that the son promised to the person that was renamed Abraham was Isaac…. not the prior born Ishmael?

    And you skipped the whole rest of the issue. I don’t recall God prophesying about the Ishmaelites that will suffer 400 years in slavery in the land of Canaan, nor to be the possessor of it… but the Israelite’s, the descendants of Jacob, the son of Isaac.

    Plus, the covenant of circumcision was only made WHEN God changed Abram’s name to Abraham and promised a covenant upon Abraham’s yet-to-be-born son, Isaac.
    Since loop himself agrees that Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born and 86 when Ishmael was… that makes the covenant of circumcision about 13 years behind the birth of Ishmael.
    I guess it befits Allah to only decide things as he goes, rather than having foreknowledge of the future like YHWH, the God of the Old Testament and subsequently, the bible.

    Honestly, loop, I was hoping that during your long absence from this blog, you were doing better research into the bible. It is sad and disappointing that you did not seem to progress any… =(

  39. Zack T Says:

    And oh…

    Not a problem with me because Ibrahim was a Muslim like stated in the Quran and Islamic scholars interpret that Ishmael was the person that is mentioned in Surah as-Saaffaat verse 101 to 107 according to several aspects. ~loop

    That’s odd… why only “according to several aspects”? Why is it not “according to all possible aspects”?
    Why? Because the Quran never states which ‘son’ was it that Ibrahim was told to sacrifice…
    And this same Quran came from a prophet of the same God that commanded the deed to be done?
    And I thought the Quran was supposed to be unquestionably clear and without doubt.

  40. loop Says:

    Its was clear that the Qur’an was not mentioned (see paragraph 37:101 – 107) of the child’s name to be sacrified Abraham. In contrast to the verse that mentions 37:112 -113 children who later was Isaac.

    That without prejudiced , the children want to be sacrificed was not Isaac, because Isaac only called the name of the event then after the sacrifice.

  41. Zack T Says:

    loop,

    Sorry… I couldn’t understand what you wrote… Only understood what you were trying to say when I looked up the verses.

    Interesting. So now we have a clear contradiction between the Quran and the OT; Moses’ Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) to be exact.

    Torah – Makes real clear that Isaac was supposed to be sacrificed.
    Quran – Ishmael was supposed to be.

    And what does the Quran claim with regards to the bible?

    “And dispute ye not with the people of the book (the bible)… but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you“. (S. Ankabut 29:46).

    It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light… if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers … We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light … a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. Judge. . . what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires … “(S. Ma-ida 5:44,46,47,49).

    (( Refer: www answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/disagree.html ))

    So now you have two choices, loop.

    1 – Deny the Quran wrongly recorded who Abraham was supposed to sacrifice,
    OR
    2 – Deny the Quran and turn to the bible which was revealed by God and approved by Jesus Himself.

  42. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Quran tafseer (interpretation, not transliteration) by JAKIM’s (1995 edition that I checked) stated that verses 101 was in reference to Abraham’s first child. I don’t know if Bible version stated Isaac is the first, not Abraham. I think, in another depiction about “Adam ate from the “Tree of Knowledge” is also different narration between Quran and Bible. (no mention “tree of knowledge”). And “God search for Adam” in that even also cannot be found in Quran.

  43. loop Says:

    HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 – 122

    101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
    102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!”
    103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
    104. We called out to him “O Abraham!
    105. “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    106. For this was obviously a trial-
    107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
    108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
    109. “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”
    110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
    112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac – a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
    113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
    114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
    115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
    116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
    117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
    118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
    119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
    120. “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!”
    121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    122. For they were two of our believing Servants.

    ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE? Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.

  44. Zack T Says:

    And thus, loop has chosen option number 1 and has shown that he rather believe the Quran than the truth. Sigh…. Sad.

  45. Zack T Says:

    Corrrection: than *face* the truth

  46. loop Says:

    Nasaei,thanks for the clearance.What I mean by ‘it is clear’ that it is without doubt that Ishmael was the first born and Isaac appear after the sacrifice in reference to the verse 37:112

  47. Zack T Says:

    “And dispute ye [Muslims] not with the people of the book [the bible]… but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you“. (Quran 29:46).

    It was We [Allah] who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light… if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers … We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law [Torah] that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light … a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. Judge. . . what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires … “(Quran 5:44,46,47,49).

    (( Refer: www answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/disagree.html ))

  48. loop Says:

    ‘People of the Book ‘

    I tell you the truth and sad side of those ‘people of the book in the Quran:

    According to Islam, Allah Almighty (GOD Almighty) in the Bible promised those who try to tamper His Words in the Bible to face hell fire, because He knew that it was going to happen. He gave the people of the book (Jews and Christians) a chance/test and they simply blew it!. Look at Noble Verse 5:13 from the Noble Quran: “But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” Israel, when it lost Allah Almighty’s grace, began to sin against truth and religion in three ways: (1) they began to misuse Scripture itself, by either taking words out of their right meaning, or applying them to things for which they were never meant; (2) in doing so, they conveniently forgot a part of the Message and purpose of Allah; and (3) they invented new deceits to support the old ones.

    Let us look at Noble Verse 5:41 “O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say “We believe” with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ If any one’s trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such – it is not God’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.”

    Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran on the other hand, did promise that He will personally guard the Noble Quran from corruption. He never promised hell fire to anyone who tries to tamper His words in the Noble Quran. He will guard it Himself; “We (Allah) have, without a doubt, sent down the Message (The Quran); and We (Allah) will assuredly Guard it [from corruption]. (The Noble Quran, 15:9).” Today we have only one Arabic Noble Quran.

  49. Simon Thong Says:

    That’s what you say, Loop, and you are merely repeating yourself…having said this countless times. Going around in a loop. Which came first? The Old Testament came first, followed by the NT. To argue that we should listen to something that came later, you have to claim that the later one is the correct one, that the earlier one/ones were changed or corrupted.

    Not convincing.

  50. loop Says:

    ‘..believe the Quran than the truth.’ Sigh…. Sad.

    Today we have only one Arabic Noble Quran.And we read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and it is from Allah, and not to sell for a little gain.
    From the first chapter Allah revealed:(1) This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).

    As for the people of the book He gave the people of the book, He gave the a chance/test and they simply blew it!

    Sigh…sad

  51. Simon Thong Says:

    sigh…still going around in circles..

  52. Zack T Says:

    Today we have only one Arabic Noble Quran. ~loop

    Yes, I guess you do… does it have anything to do with what Caliph Uthman did?

    Sahih Bukhari – Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:

    Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one [STANDARDIZED] copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)

    Refer: www americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/koran_burning_and_islams_right.html

    loop, just to be sure, I want to remind you to read this bolded sentence carefully, “Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.

    So, yeah… you have only one (which is not completely true) Arabic Noble Quran, because your second caliph (who is not a/the prophet nor specifically annointed by God) decided to collect every possible Quranic copy he can get and copy/record what he saw fit and burned everything else.

    So, for Muslims, you don’t have ANY ancient Quranic manuscripts that is even within the 100 years after Muhammad’s death…
    Whereas the bible (especially the NT) has an abundance of authentic, obtainable, researchable ancient manuscripts (with plenty that are merely decades after the time of it written) that attest to the current bibles in our hands.
    Even your Quran attests that Jesus Himself was sent to confirm the Torah (Quran 5:44,46,47,49)… And we have manuscripts of the Torah that are hundreds of years before Jesus walked on earth.
    Our bible has a way better track record compared to the Quran. Just try challenging the scholars who dedicate themselves to studying (and some challenging) these manuscripts.

    So… here’s an issue for you to resolve, loop.
    You claim your Quran states that the Jews have manipulated and corrupted their book (which is the Torah)… and I pointed out, clearly stated, that the Quran states Jesus came to confirm the Torah (within the very same chapter of the Quran).
    So, your Quran is saying Jesus came and confirmed the manipulated and corrupted Torah.
    Or are you going to say Jesus did indeed confirm the ‘correct’ Torah that was still available at that time?

  53. nasaei ahmad Says:

    “Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.”

    What Jews and Christians did before? They changed their scripture ?

  54. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    That’s what you Muslims are constantly claiming (although your Quran begs to differ). Oh well, it isn’t us Christians who have the problem; our bible never tell us to refer to a revelation coming several hundred years after Jesus from some hundreds of miles away of Jerusalem or Israel itself and from amongst the non-Israelites.

    It’s funny how Allah looked after Israelites for several millenniums and many generations and then failed to keep his chosen people and decides to abandon it altogether for some secluded place where people were happy pagan worshipers.

  55. nasaei ahmad Says:

    I think Zack had already posted that Bukhari hadiths last time, at least once. Scott is familiar with that Bukhari hadith.. (Muslims compiled that Bukhari’s works… we have it at almost every mesjid and suraus in Malaysia). But Simon said this to loop instead…keep repeating..

  56. Zack T Says:

    I think Zack had already posted that Bukhari hadiths last time, at least once. ~Nasaei

    Yes I have.. Sometimes it’s helpful to remind people what they are supposed to believe (based on their own authoritative scriptures)..
    And then point out the significance of that belief in comparison with real-world criticism, be it textual, historical, or spiritual.

  57. Scott Thong Says:

    Note that I just approved a comment that may be lost among the newer ones. It has to do with Quran and Vedas:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/be-thankful-for-jesus-incredible-self-control/#comment-48770

  58. AK47 Says:

    His father (Iskandar Kutty) (a Mamak) migrated from the southern state of Kerala, India, while his mother (Wan Tampawan) a Kedah-born, was a Malay.

    And he is muslim.Really not a problem with it but proud!

    -loop

    Slipperies are narcissistic.

    “You can only term such a person as slippery. Anwar calls him a blatant liar. Tengku Razaleigh calls him a political liar. Can you beat such a slippery person? Now a slippery person can pick and choose which part of his own story that he wishes to amplify.”
    http://sakmongkol.blogspot.com/2011/03/der-house-doctor-blatant-or-political.html

  59. AK47 Says:

    To those proud of mahathir………..

    “Here is a person who can hold two opposites simultaneously. You can only term such a person as slippery. Anwar calls him a blatant liar. Tengku Razaleigh calls him a political liar. Can you beat such a slippery person? Now a slippery person can pick and choose which part of his own story that he wishes to amplify.”
    http://sakmongkol.blogspot.com/2011/03/der-house-doctor-blatant-or-political.html

  60. Scott Thong Says:

    Since we’re on the topic of Muslim vs Christian views, here’s a new post on that:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/one-pieces-neptune-a-kingly-sacrifice-christian-and-muslim-views/

  61. loop Says:

    ‘Sigh..’-Simon Thong.
    Do not sigh Simon Thong because you are save. Christ will paid the full penalty for your sins, and trust His finished work on your behalf, you will be saved from eternal death and given the gift of eternal life.

  62. loop Says:

    Keep repeating.. I wonder too why but I’m grateful and thanks to Him for every blessing granted. May God increases His blessings on me too

  63. loop Says:

    ‘Note that I just approved..’ -scott
    Hahaha..but you are lost to the more ancient books revealed 1.3 billion years ago

  64. Scott Thong Says:

    That’s funny loop, because that would mean you have lost too.

  65. loop Says:

    No Scott,Muslims are differ to idolaters. I always hold on to the newest one.

  66. Scott Thong Says:

    I’d just like to note that the Ahmadiya, Mormons, Sikhs, Bahai, Scientologists, Raelians, and Ayah Pin are all newer than Sunni or Shia Islam. Some claim to have new additions to complete the Quran. Some claim to be the latest revelation/message/upgrade/prophet after Mohammad. Some even claim their leader is Mohamad reincarnated/returned.

  67. loop Says:

    Meaning ‘all that are the beginning of birth pains’ (Matthew 24:6-8).

  68. Zack T Says:

    I always hold on to the newest one. ~loop

    I’d just like to note that the Ahmadiya, Mormons, Sikhs, Bahai, Scientologists, Raelians, and Ayah Pin are all newer than Sunni or Shia Islam. ~Scott Thong

    Meaning ‘all that are the beginning of birth pains’ (Matthew 24:6-8). ~loop

    Honestly, loop…… what?

    You say you *always* hold on to the *newest* one… and yet you don’t.
    You believe in the Quran, and yet you deny/disagree and never uphold some (if not many) parts of the Quran…

    I guess one is truly what he believes in.
    Please, loop, stop throwing red herrings or tearing down strawmen and actually answer/address the issues/questions that are directed at you.
    Judging something with prior conclusion/s will not get you closer to the *truth* of a matter.

  69. Zack T Says:

    No Scott,Muslims are differ to idolaters. ~loop

    Yeah… bowing from anywhere around the world to a building that houses a b**** s**** is *very* different from idolaters.

    Yet again… true to the nature of the *****; contradictory.

  70. nasaei ahmad Says:

    I’d just like to note that the Ahmadiya, Mormons, Sikhs, Bahai, Scientologists, Raelians, and Ayah Pin are all newer than Sunni or Shia Islam. Some claim to have new additions to complete the Quran. Some claim to be the latest revelation/message/upgrade/prophet after Mohammad. Some even claim their leader is Mohamad reincarnated/returned.
    – Scott.

    Some of my friends are also prophets. Hehhe..

  71. loop Says:

    Some of my friends are also prophets. Hehe..he wrote OT too because knew very well that OT he made no such reference to any prior ‘Abraham’ nor does it make such claims.

  72. straits Says:

    ..he wrote OT too because knew very well that OT he made no such reference to any prior ‘Abraham’ nor does it make such claims.
    _______________________________

    Vedas were earlier and prophetic enough.

  73. straits Says:

    Researchers claim they found Atlantis in a Spanish swamp
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/researchers-claim-they-found-atlantis-in-a-spanish-swamp/article1941953/

  74. straits Says:

    THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES
    http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

  75. ved Says:

    What`s in a number

  76. Scott Thong Says:

    Interesting… If there really are 223 ‘out of nowhere’ genes, it’s an argument for the special creation of humanity as Genesis states.

  77. nasaei ahmad Says:

    “Vedas were earlier and prophetic enough.”

    Animism might be the most early among the many. So, anything later than that should be rejected..

  78. straits Says:

    Homo sapiens: The successful deciphering of a female Neanderthal genome was reported in the journal Science on February 13, 2009. The project, undertaken by scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, aimed to verify when that failed species of humans and Homo sapiens (= Modern Man) branched off, and whether the two bad ever interbred. The New York Times pointed out that the new findings “document two important sets of genetic changes – those that occurred between 5.7 million years ago, when the human line split from the line leading to chimpanzees, and 300,000 years ago when Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans parted ways.”

    In The 12th Planet (1976), describing the Anunnaki’s genetic engineering to fashion The Adam, Zecharia wrote: “Man is the product of evolution; but modern Man, Homo sapiens, is the product of the ‘gods’. For, some time circa 300,000 years ago, the Nefilim took ape-man (Homo erectus) and implanted on him their own image and likeness.” In The Earth Chronicles Time Chart (The Wars of Gods and Men, 1985) Zecharia wrote: 300,000 years ago: The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation… Homo sapiens begins to multiply.”
    http://www.sitchin.com/

  79. straits Says:

    The Deluge: In The 12th Planet and Divine Encounters Zecharia suggested that the biblical Flood was a giant tidal wave caused by the slippage of the ice sheet off Antarctica, causing the abrupt end of the last Ice Age circa 13,000 years ago. Two recent studies corroborate both aspects of Zecharia’s take on the subject: A study of ancient temperatures in the journal Nature of 26 February 2009 concludes that while warming at the end of the last Ice Age was relatively gradual in Greenland (north Atlantic), it was “rapid and abrupt” in Antarctica (south Atlantic), about 13,000 years ago.

    A study of ancient sea levels published in Science of 6 February 2009 concludes that (a) Antarctica’s ice sheet collapsed abruptly and (b) that due to the topography of the continent and its surrounding sea beds, the tidal wave was at least three times higher than hitherto calculated, reaching its maximal impact some 2,000 miles away. A diagram accompanying the article shows the area of maximal tidal impact in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean Sea and northward therefrom – the very Lands of the Bible and Mount Ararat.

  80. Zack T Says:

    Annunaki?? Wow… now we have a David-Icke-ist.

  81. Simon Thong Says:

    straits Says: Two recent studies corroborate both aspects of Zecharia’s take on the subject: A study of ancient temperatures in the journal Nature of 26 February 2009…about 13,000 years ago.

    Sorry, these kinds of studies can’t be more than guesses no matter how ‘scientific’ they claim or sound. Not even when they appear in Science. Scientists can’t even produce non-controversial measurements of temperature for the present!

  82. hotties Says:

    Paleoclimatology (also Palaeoclimatology) is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses a variety of proxy records from ice sheets, tree rings, sediment, corals, shells and rocks to determine the past state of the climate system on Earth.

    Paleoclimatology has wider implications for climate change today. Scientists often consider past changes in environment and biodiversity to reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

  83. loop Says:

    So, there were giants upon this earth. Keep an open eyes and regularly check your face for slightly reptilian features.Who knows if you are descended from the Annunaki. Hohoho

  84. horsies Says:

    Egyptian and other Arab archaeologists/scientists are looking for funny looking horses flying around Jerusalem in 5/6 century.

  85. al masry Says:

    Zahi Hawass stole the jeruslem flying horsy`s skeletin and wings
    http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/351660

  86. Simon Thong Says:

    If climatologists of today’s weather FAIL, what are the prospects of paleoclimatologists using PROXY RECORDS getting it even slightly correct? 0.0000000001%? You could throw away a couple of zeroes if you’re optimistic.

  87. Ron Says:

    “When a court sentences a punishment on a criminal, doesn’t it usually sentence like “10 years in prison OR $10,000 fine”? If an innocent third person or party (whoever it is) is willing/able to fork out the $10,000 fine, then the criminal is pardoned from the penalty. When the penalty has been paid in full, both the criminal and the person/party who paid the fine does not have to go through the prison sentence. –Zack

    Let’s keep this in context. According to biblical doctrine (which you yourself agree with), ALL ‘sin’ is punishable by death — fines are not an option. So the only relevant analogies available are those pertaining to crimes which always demand confinement or execution of the guilty. And to my knowledge, no western court of law allows a third-party stand-ins for those convicted of such crimes.

    “Let’s get your version of the story straight.
    Mankind has transgressed against God and the punishment of sin is death. The Son willingly suffers and pays the penalty of mankind’s sin in full (through the cross and drinking God’s cup of wraith). And now that God’s justice on sin has been fully satisfied, mankind is free from His justice if they believe and accept what the Son has done.”

    Oh, I understand it fully — I just think it’s sick and twisted. And I have a feeling that if this were a real life event involving ordinary humans you would too.

    “God on the other hand is a completely just and fair God.”

    What’s ‘just and fair’ about infinite torture for a finite crime?

  88. Ron Says:

    “But we must remember to ask the question – who has the greater wisdom and understanding, ourselves with mere decades of experience or the infinite God Who created all?” –Scott

    Still begging the question?

  89. Ron Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LWh6-Zyj4E&NR=1

  90. Zack T Says:

    And to my knowledge, no western court of law allows a third-party stand-ins for those convicted of such crimes. ~Ron

    Again, you’re commiting the fallacy of using human standards to explain God’s standards.
    But anyways, I am still “within context”… God did provide a “serve in prison for XX years or pay fine of XXXX”.
    Either go hell or sacrifice a lamb for your sins.
    That was what all that Mosaic law was supposed to teach the Jews (and subsequently, the Gentiles).

    What’s ‘just and fair’ about infinite torture for a finite crime? ~Ron

    All ‘finite’ sins are against an infinite God.
    Each and every one of us has a soul that will exist for eternity. If our soul is tainted with sin, therefore it is eternally tainted with sin.
    So we all need the blood of Christ to cleanse us of our sins, so that we may be deemed not only sinless, but even righteous before God.

  91. party time Says:

    “If an innocent third person or party (whoever it is) is willing/able to fork out the $10,000 fine, then the criminal is pardoned from the penalty.”

    In order to make sure Hillary Clinton can enjoy cordial exchanges with her counterparts in Pakistan during her upcoming visit, CIA contractor Raymond Davis just got “pardoned” by the families of the men he killed in late January.
    http://www.eurasiareview.com/opinion/opinion-opinion/cia-killer-gets-pardoned-in-exchange-for-2-million-blood-money-16032011/

  92. party time Says:

    2million USD is better than 10,000

  93. Ron Says:

    “Again, you’re commiting the fallacy of using human standards to explain God’s standards.” –Zack

    Not at all. The comparison is between modern human standards and man’s earlier attempts to forge a moral code under the guise of divine edict. Until the existence of supernatural entities can be firmly established, all claims for ‘God’s standards’ are superfluous.

    “But anyways, I am still “within context”… God did provide a “serve in prison for XX years or pay fine of XXXX”.
    Either go hell or sacrifice a lamb for your sins.”

    I think you’d better re-read the OT laws. The penalty for violating any of the ten commandments and sexual immorality was death. Animal sacrifice was prescribed for peace offerings, atonement for lesser sins (ex. violating Jewish cleanliness and dietary laws, giving birth, etc.), and because Yahweh savored the smell of roasting animal flesh.

    “Each and every one of us has a soul that will exist for eternity. If our soul is tainted with sin, therefore it is eternally tainted with sin. So we all need the blood of Christ to cleanse us of our sins, so that we may be deemed not only sinless, but even righteous before God.” –Zack

    You didn’t address my question: What’s ‘just and fair’ about eternal torment for a finite crime? Why not just obliterate the unredeemed and be done with it? Torturing someone for eternity is cruel and unusual punishment.

  94. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron – under the guise of divine edict.

    Do you accuse the Old Testament writers of guise?

  95. Ron Says:

    What I’m saying is that the Levites set themselves up as the priestly class, made up rules they claimed came from god, then demanded tithes and tributes as penance for violation of those rules — much in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church later exercised political control by claiming its ecclesiastical jurisdiction was founded on an incontrovertible apostolic succession authorized directly by Jesus’ enunciation, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    It’s a sweet deal, isn’t it.

  96. Scott Thong Says:

    Scientists can’t even produce non-controversial measurements of temperature for the present! – Simon Thong

    Ergo, since the one period where we can check these proxies against strictly measured readings, the proxies fail, and aren’t anywhere near the actual readings. Does this give the warmistas pause when they then rely on these proxies to yield accurate temperature data before 1900? And presume to give us a temperature read of the last 1000 years (or 10,000) years?http://ace.mu.nu/archives/313559.php

  97. Zack T Says:

    You didn’t address my question: What’s ‘just and fair’ about eternal torment for a finite crime? Why not just obliterate the unredeemed and be done with it? Torturing someone for eternity is cruel and unusual punishment. ~Ron

    Seems to me Ron’s asking why is there such a thing as life sentences.

    I think you’d better re-read the OT laws. The penalty for violating any of the ten commandments and sexual immorality was death. Animal sacrifice was prescribed for peace offerings, atonement for lesser sins (ex. violating Jewish cleanliness and dietary laws, giving birth, etc.) ~Ron

    There are many different animal sacrifices with different prescription and offering.. But all involves redeeming the person/people of their sin, albeit temporarily.

    God required animal sacrifices to provide temporary forgiveness of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain’s was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel’s was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).

    In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute—that is, the animal died in place of the sinner, but only temporarily, which is why the sacrifices needed to be offered over and over. Animal sacrifices have stopped with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrificial substitute once for all time (Hebrews 7:27) and is now the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. The only basis on which an animal sacrifice could provide forgiveness of sins is Christ who would sacrifice Himself for our sins, providing the forgiveness that animal sacrifices could only illustrate and foreshadow.

    ~ Why did God require animal sacrifies in Old Testament? – www gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

    The sacrifice of lambs played a very important role in the Jewish religious life and sacrificial system. When John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), the Jews who heard him might have immediately thought of any one of several important sacrifices. With the time of the Passover feast being very near, the first thought might be the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. The Passover feast was one of the main Jewish holidays and a celebration in remembrance of God’s deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. In fact, the slaying of the Passover lamb and the applying of the blood to doorposts of the houses (Exodus 12:11-13) is a beautiful picture of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Those for whom He died are covered by His blood, protecting us from the angel of (spiritual) death.

    Another important sacrifice involving lambs was the daily sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. Every morning and evening, a lamb was sacrificed in the temple for the sins of the people (Exodus 29:38-42). These daily sacrifices, like all others, were simply to point people towards the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In fact, the time of Jesus’ death on the cross corresponds to the time the evening sacrifice was being made in the temple. The Jews at that time would have also been familiar with the Old Testament prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, who foretold the coming of One who would be brought “like a lamb led to the slaughter” (Jeremiah 11:19; Isaiah 53:7) and whose sufferings and sacrifice would provide redemption for Israel. Of course, that person was none other than Jesus Christ, “the Lamb of God.”

    ~ What does it mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God? – www gotquestions.org/Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html

  98. Ron Says:

    “Seems to me Ron’s asking why is there such a thing as life sentences.” –Zack

    No, I asked: What’s ‘just and fair’ about eternal torment for a finite crime?

    Most nations prohibit torture because it’s considered cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, by international consensus, the intentional infliction of human suffering is deemed immoral. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

    Life sentences are usually reserved for crimes of violence; and even then, most countries offer the possibility of parole after 20 – 30 years for prisoners who have demonstrated that they are unlikely to re-offend.

    “There are many different animal sacrifices with different prescription and offering.. But all involves redeeming the person/people of their sin, albeit temporarily. […] In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute.[…]~ Why did God require animal sacrifies in Old Testament? – www gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html”

    Except that by its very definition, an act forgiveness requires no restitution.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forgive

    Forgive:
    1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.
    2. To renounce anger or resentment against.
    3. To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example).

    …and further down

    “These verbs mean to refrain from imposing punishment on an offender or demanding satisfaction for an offense.”

    1. to cease to blame or hold resentment against (someone or something)
    2. to grant pardon for (a mistake, wrongdoing, etc.)
    3. (tr) to free or pardon (someone) from penalty
    4. (tr) to free from the obligation of (a debt, payment, etc.)

    A quick search through other dictionaries yields similar results.

  99. Zack T Says:

    I actually have answered your questions, but you didn’t understand it or see the significance of it.

    Most nations NOW prohibit torture because it’s IN more MODERN HISTORY considered cruel and unusual punishment.
    Different times, different standards… God is eternal and unchanging, and thus His standard is such that one has to be punished into complete isolation from God’s presence.
    And since only God is good and without Him, nothing good can happen, thus you get the torture part; not because of God, but because of His absence.

    Ron said, “…an act forgiveness requires no restitution.”

    Ok… allow me give you some parables of my own:
    You are in a court of law.. and there is a murderer convicted of his crime, obviously guilty, no doubt about it.

    Scenario 1 – Judge comes in, “Murderer, you have been found guilty and are sentenced 100 years in prison or $2mil fine. ….. But because I am a forgiving guy, I’ll let you go. you’re a free man.”

    Scenario 2 – Judge comes in, “Murderer, you have been found guilty and are sentenced 100 years in prison or $2mil fine.” Gets up from his seat, takes off his robe, goes down to the front of the podium, writes a cheque for $2mil, and opts to pay for the murderer’s fine.

    Both scenarios included a forgiving judge… but which one was just?

    God, the Judge, is both All-Just and All-Forgiving/Loving… As a just judge, He must punish all sin, but as a loving father, He opted to pay for our sins Himself.

  100. Zack T Says:

    One life story of a man who sacrificed himself to take a death sentence in place of a stranger
    –> www auschwitz.dk/kolbe.htm

  101. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, if you did your homework, you would discover that forgiveness in the freedictionary.com is less relevant than what ypou would have found if you typed “Forgiveness in the Bible”. You would get

    God’s Forgiveness – What’s Required?
    The Bible gives us the costly requirement for God’s forgiveness: “Without the shedding of Blood, there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). In the Old Testament, the continual sacrifices of unblemished lambs were required to satisfy God’s wrath and judgment. However, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on a Roman cross and became the ultimate, once-and-for-all sacrifice for our sins. Jesus purchased God’s forgiveness on our behalf when he became the Lamb of God and died on the cross for you and me.

    “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18). “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (Ephesians 1:7).

    Try that and you may learn something.

  102. Ron Says:

    The dictionary definition is relevant. Words have meaning — they exist to communicate specific thoughts and concepts in a clear and precise manner. Forgiveness means unconditional absolution, and the biblical usage — conditional absolution — negates the meaning of the word, much in the same way that demanding reimbursement for a gift negates the meaning of the word gift.

  103. Ron Says:

    “I actually have answered your questions, but you didn’t understand it or see the significance of it.” –Zack

    No, thus far you’ve skirted the issue.

    The first time I asked: “What’s ‘just and fair’ about infinite torture for a finite crime?”

    You responded with a mini-sermon on tainted souls but left my question unanswered.

    The second time I refined the question and asked: “What’s ‘just and fair’ about eternal torment for a finite crime? Why not just obliterate the unredeemed and be done with it? Torturing someone for eternity is cruel and unusual punishment.”

    You evaded those by introducing a question I hadn’t asked: “Seems to me Ron’s asking why is there such a thing as life sentences.”

    The ball is still in your court.

    “Ok… allow me give you some parables of my own: […]”

    We’ve already gone over this, but to reiterate…

    In common law there are no fines for murder — a conviction leads to either a prison sentence, state execution, or confinement to a mental institution if it’s determined the person lacks the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. And no court claiming to uphold the principles of justice would demand or allow innocent people to take the punishment of the guilty, because doing so would be a travesty of justice, i.e., a direct violation of the very principles its been sworn to uphold.

    So your analogy fails.

    “One life story of a man who sacrificed himself to take a death sentence in place of a stranger”

    The only parallels to be drawn from this example are that god’s moral code ranks right up there with the depravities of a Nazi concentration camp. Thanks for making my case.🙂

  104. Ron Says:

    “Most nations NOW prohibit torture because it’s IN more MODERN HISTORY considered cruel and unusual punishment. ”

    Yes, because we’ve only recently thrown off the shackles of religious dogma. The art of torture was honed to perfection during the Dark Ages — that period of human history ruled by Christian theocracies.

    “Different times, different standards… God is eternal and unchanging, and thus His standard is such that one has to be punished into complete isolation from God’s presence.”

    Exactly. Moral standards have evolved and keep evolving. As a result, we can now acknowledge the standards attributed to the biblical god are barbaric by modern standards.

    “And since only God is good and without Him, nothing good can happen…”

    How exactly do you decide that only God is good? Before making such a determination you’d first be required to formulate a set of principles that defines the concept of what it means to be good.

    “…thus you get the torture part; not because of God, but because of His absence.”

    Complete non-sequitur. Torture isn’t good or just. And since the biblical god created hell and has direct control over who gets sent there, divine justice constitutes nothing more than an act of divine vengeance — an emotional response that’s unbefitting of any deity claiming to be all-merciful.

  105. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron – The only parallels to be drawn from this example are that god’s moral code ranks right up there with the depravities of a Nazi concentration camp. Thanks for making my case.🙂

    Stop being silly, Ron.

    Ron – Exactly. Moral standards have evolved and keep evolving.

    Stop making unsubstantiated claims, Ron.

  106. Simon Thong Says:

    Nominal Christian, Mormon missionary, atheist, and now a born-again Christian, Richard Morgan recently spoke to Apologetics315 about his life-changing, or saving, experience on none other than Richard Dawkins’ infamous website. See http://au.christiantoday.com/article/former-atheist-turned-christian-through-dawkins-website-continues-strong-faith-in-god/10601.htm

    Something he said was:

    More than the religious debate, it was his interest in evolution that led him to follow Richard Dawkins. Upon finding the author’s actual website, Morgan was excited to communicate with scientists and philosophers who could offer more insight into evolution.

    But rather than discussing the nature of evolution in the “oasis of clear thinking,” Morgan was horrified to discover in his first forum that more than half of the people devoted their time saying rude things about believers using extremely foul language.

    You may not use foul language, Ron, but isn’t it true that you spend your time saying rude things about believers and God?

  107. Ron Says:

    “Stop making unsubstantiated claims, Ron.” –Simon

    My claims are substantiated by history.

    “You may not use foul language, Ron, but isn’t it true that you spend your time saying rude things about believers and God?”

    I’m just telling it like it is. If that offends you, so be it. If the catholic pope and prominent Christian preachers like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, and the late Jerry Falwell are allowed to openly spew their hate-filled invectives without restriction, why can’t I voice my opposition to those opinions in an equally forceful manner?

  108. Simon Thong Says:

    Oh, I’m not offended. My point was and is that clear thinking deserts you, and we get a lot of vitriol.

  109. Ron Says:

    If my reasoning were really as unsound as you claim, then an airtight rebuttal countering the issues I’ve raised would have been posted long ago. Unable to do so, however, it appears you’re now attempting to shift focus away from the topic at hand by impugning my motives instead — a cheap diversionary tactic to draw attention away from your inability to adequately address the points raised.

  110. Simon Thong Says:

    An airtight rebuttal? It doesn’t exist. Don’t hold your breath or you’ll suffocate🙂 Neither does an airtight rebuttal of the belief in God. Still don’t understand?

  111. Simon Thong Says:

    Coming back to your claim that “Moral standards have evolved and keep evolving”, now that can be substantiated or rejected. However, you have merely asserted “My claims are substantiated by history” without citing examples. Prove it.

  112. Simon Thong Says:

    When you address that question, also explain what you mean by modern standards. Spell it out. Don’t merely refer me to some website.

  113. Ron Says:

    Do I really need to enumerate the obvious?

    At one time slavery, genocide, misogyny, stoning people to death, and ravishing young maidens acquired as war booty were not only condoned but actively prescribed and granted authority via religious texts. One by one, all of these activities have fallen to the wayside in practically every modern nation (excluding Islamic theocracies): slavery has been abolished, women have been granted equal standing in society, rape and torture is outlawed, inter-racial marriage is permitted, homosexuality is no longer a crime, and same-sex unions are slowly gaining legal recognition. And suffice it to say, that at each and every juncture, the conservative religious zealots had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by their more moderate and liberal counterparts.

  114. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron – the conservative religious zealots had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by their more moderate and liberal counterparts.

    Nope, it is the religious, Christians, who were the driving force for the following:slavery has been abolished, women have been granted equal standing in society, rape and torture is outlawed, inter-racial marriage is permitted.

    Also, for the advance of education throughout the world.

    As for homosexuality being no longer a crime, Christians were at the forefront in the battle for this change.

    Same-sex unions are slowly gaining legal recognition? Yes, very slowly, and proponents for these are the ones “kicking and screaming” for their legalization.

    You couldn’t help ranting, could you, so-called RATIONAL atheist that you claim to be? You’re so emotional that all it takes is a scratch and your true irrational, emotional anti-Christian bias seems to emerge, doesn’t it?

    Yet things are also getting worse. You cite partial history. Don’t ignore the genocide that still goes on in many parts of the world, or the inter-tribal wars…

  115. Ron Says:

    You asked me to provide examples which substantiate the claim that moral standards have evolved, and I’ve done so.

    Furthermore, historical evidence demonstrates that progressive social changes have almost always been initiated and championed by the humanists and freethinkers who stood opposed to the religious orthodoxy of their day.

  116. Simon Thong Says:

    Who led the abolition of slavery? Not freethinkers or humanists but Christians. Heard of William Wilberforce? He led the Saints which included those of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade formed in 1787 by a group of Evangelical English Protestants allied with Quakers to in their shared opposition to slavery and the slave trade.

    Who led the fight for the vote for women and succeeded in NZ? It was Kate Shephard, the head of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the major force behind the women’s suffragette movement.

    So much for the nonsense you wrote, that “historical evidence demonstrates that progressive social changes have almost always been initiated and championed by the humanists and freethinkers who stood opposed to the religious orthodoxy of their day”.

    Many changes came long before your kind ever got together to make loud noises and thump their chests, screaming, “Look at us, champions of humanity!” LOL

  117. Simon Thong Says:

    Guess who led the fight to give the vote to blacks in the USA? A Christian, a minister no less.

    In Japan, christians are in the forefront of disaster relief. Ever heard of World Vision?

    World Vision is distributing relief supplies to thousands of people devastated by the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11. An emergency response team is on the ground in hard hit areas, providing water, blankets, and other urgently needed supplies to survivors. Ongoing efforts will focus on the unique needs of children, who are the most impacted. Please help us respond quickly to this disaster.

    And what have atheists done?

  118. Scott Thong Says:

    I believe I’ve already covered in various posts how in the future, society will look back on 21st-century liberalism and tut-tut at the horrendous bigotry of outlawing pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, suicide, involuntary euthanasia…

    So progressives should beat future-progressives to the punch by fighting to legalize all these things preemptively.

    In fact, some atheists and libreals are well on the way already.

  119. Ron Says:

    “Who led the abolition of slavery? Not freethinkers or humanists but Christians. Heard of William Wilberforce? He led the Saints which included those of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade formed in 1787 by a group of Evangelical English Protestants allied with Quakers to in their shared opposition to slavery and the slave trade. […]” — Simon

    Once again you’re railing against strawmen. At what point did I state that the freethinkers of their day were all non-religious? When the freethought movements took hold during the 18th and 19th (depending on country) centuries it’s highly unlikely there were too many atheists in the crowd, and certainly none who would have expressed those opinions publicly. The Quakers (who formed the first anti-slavery movement in 1775) were themselves all too familiar with the religious oppression they’d faced at the hands of the mainstream churches.

    The WCTU was a non-sectarian movement; and in the US, the leading advocates for women’s suffrage more often than not identified themselves as Unitarians and Universalists.

    “Guess who led the fight to give the vote to blacks in the USA? A Christian, a minister no less. ”

    Yes, and it was also an president Woodrow Wilson (devout southern Presbyterian) whose openly racist segregation policies helped southern legislators draft the ‘Jim Crow’ laws, effectively disenfranchising the black population from participating in the ‘American Dream’ — all because he believed that white southerners were the only real citizens and feared what might arise from a south “ruled by an ignorant and inferior race.” Among his more famous quotes:

    “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self preservation — until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”

    “In Japan, christians are in the forefront of disaster relief. Ever heard of World Vision?”

    Yes, ever heard of the folowing secular relief organizations:

    Doctors Without Borders
    Foundation Beyond Belief
    Global Giving
    Mercy Corps
    Operation USA – founded 1979 to help Vietnamise boat people in Malaysia
    Oxfam
    Plan
    Shelterbox
    The Red Cross
    UNICEF

    All secular and actively involved in aiding Japan.

    “And what have atheists done?”

    Ever heard of: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Robert W. Wilson, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Wozniak, Bob Geldof, Sting, Richard Curtis, (the late) Andrew Carnegie, George Clooney, Lance Armstrong, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie?

    Those are just a few of the more prominent atheists and agnostics who have supported various charities. And since they don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s safe to presume their efforts are genuinely directed towards helping others rather than just collecting brownie points for gaining entry to heaven.

  120. Simon Thong Says:

    1 How presumptuous you are, Ron, to say “And since they don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s safe to presume their efforts are genuinely directed towards helping others rather than just collecting brownie points for gaining entry to heaven.”

    Who told you that Christians help others to gain brownie points for gaining entry to heaven.

    2 How ignorant you are, Ron, to believe brownie points are needed for gaining entry to heaven. You can only blame yourself since you read the Bible only to look for ammunition to shoot others down, not for understanding.

    3 Well done, so you also know about the list of Celebrity Atheists! See how well-read you can be if you put yourself to it? Now, try reading the Bible with non-atheistic, agnostic glasses.

    4 No, I’m not railing at strawmen. I’m criticizing YOU for your personal stance, for blatantly accusing Christians of the conservative persuasion of being religious zealots who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age.

    5 Oh, you want to have your cake and eat it? At what point did you state that the freethinkers of their day were all non-religious? You did not have to. Atheists and agnostics are your pet loves, and suddenly, discovering that those humanists and free thinkers were Christians, you want to claim them for your side, too. Sorry, you can’t. They were anti-slavery because they were believers in God.

    6 You really want to win so badly, as always. You said -The WCTU was a non-sectarian movement; and in the US, the leading advocates for women’s suffrage more often than not identified themselves as Unitarians and Universalists.

    What does non-sectarian mean? Non-denominational. And Christian! Frances Willard was nethodist. Annie Turner Wittenmyer was methodist.
    Christians.

  121. Ron Says:

    “Now, try reading the Bible with non-atheistic, agnostic glasses.”

    I did… that’s why I became an atheist in the first place.

    “Atheists and agnostics are your pet loves, and suddenly, discovering that those humanists and free thinkers were Christians, you want to claim them for your side, too. Sorry, you can’t. They were anti-slavery because they were believers in God.”

    Project much? Re-read my previous post (March 28, 11 at 11:54 pm). I specifically wrote, “…the conservative religious zealots had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by their more moderate and liberal counterparts.” because I already knew you’d later attempt to play semantic games by assigning meanings to my words which I never intended. :p

    BTW, they were anti-slavery, because they rejected the moral code of the OT god in favor of the much kinder doctrine of gentle Jesus, meek and mild — for which I am forever grateful.

  122. Ron Says:

    “I believe I’ve already covered in various posts how in the future, society will look back on 21st-century liberalism and tut-tut at the horrendous bigotry of outlawing pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, suicide, involuntary euthanasia…”

    Your sophistry aside, there’s no doubt that future generations will regard today’s teabaggers with the same disdain usually reserved for Reaganomics, McCarthyism, prohibition, slave ownership and the colonial suppression.

  123. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron – Project much? Re-read my previous post (March 28, 11 at 11:54 pm). I specifically wrote, “…the conservative religious zealots had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by their more moderate and liberal counterparts.” because I already knew you’d later attempt to play semantic games by assigning meanings to my words which I never intended. :p

    On hindsight, you are so intelligent, haha. Of course, you could claim anything but I won’t be as dishonest and say, “There, I knew you would say that, and I pretended to fall into your trap.”

    As for semantics, you’re adept at assigning meanings to Christians..your own narrowly-bigoted meanings. As in “they were anti-slavery, because they rejected the moral code of the OT god in favor of the much kinder doctrine of gentle Jesus, meek and mild”. Still trying to eat your cake and have it?

    Nope, you became an atheist because you lost your way and to explain your situation, you threw out God with the bath water.

  124. Ron Says:

    I ate my cake and yours and Zack’s too. Scott (wisely) never even brought his out of the fridge.

    Face it Simon, you’ve come up empty-handed on every point in the discussion. You admitted as much when wrote that you had no airtight rebuttal to make, and I respect your forthright candor.

    As for why I became an atheist, I’ve already explained the reasons why elsewhere on this god-forsaken blog. At that time you accused me of being a liar, so your further opinions on the matter have little street cred with me.

  125. Ron Says:

  126. Scott Thong Says:

    Your sophistry aside, there’s no doubt that future generations will regard today’s teabaggers with the same disdain usually reserved for Reaganomics, McCarthyism, prohibition, slave ownership and the colonial suppression. – Ron

    Really? I thought they would be looking back at the fallacy of socialism & communism, single motherhood, letting only criminals and psychos have guns, running multi-trillion deficits, global warming, not drilling for your own oil while subsidizing Brazil to drill for their oil and sell it to you, Obamanomics, basically every left-wing policy…

    And unfortunately the libs of the future still won’t learn their lessons!

    Why do I say this? Because all the above have already been proven by the dismal performance of Communist states, statistics linking crime to broken families, gun-ownership cutting short many shooting sprees, EU members going into default, global cooling (remember that?), 4+ bucks for gas, Caternomics… And libs of the present day still champion those ideas despite the evidence of their failures being right in front of their faces!

  127. Scott Thong Says:

    Yes, and it was also an president Woodrow Wilson (devout southern Presbyterian) whose openly racist segregation policies helped southern legislators draft the ‘Jim Crow’ laws – Ron

    President Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat?

    Like Senator Robert Byrd, the Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK?

    And aspiring mayor John Paul Rogers, Democrat and former head of the United Klans of America?

  128. Simon Thong Says:

    What a greedy man you are, Ron, eating all our cakes. No wonder you have diarrhoea….VERBAL diarrhoea. Put simply, you RUN AT THE MOUTH.

    No, you haven’t won anything though you may proclaim it to be so.

    What credibility do you have? Especially when you quote parts of any statement that suit your case. My words were “An airtight rebuttal? It doesn’t exist. Don’t hold your breath or you’ll suffocate🙂 Neither does an airtight rebuttal of the belief in God. Still don’t understand?” In what sense have I conceded anything? You see the first part, but completely ignored the second part.

    This is NOT a street argument where the loudest, baddest, meanest and ugliest win because he can show you a longer knife, a bigger fist or a gun. But it’s obvious that you still don’t understand.

    Your story about your being an atheist is your story, and I’m merely giving you the psychological explanation for your extreme anti-Christian stand. Just being helpful.

  129. Ron Says:

    Are you a qualified psychologist?

  130. Ron Says:

    “President Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat?”

    And your point is?

    “Like Senator Robert Byrd, the Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK?”

    I’ll see your Byrd and raise you George Allen, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, and Strom Thurmond. BTW, Byrd apologized: “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

    “And aspiring mayor John Paul Rogers, Democrat and former head of the United Klans of America?”

    Mayor != congressional office

  131. Ron Says:

    “Why do I say this? Because all the above have already been proven by the dismal performance of Communist states”

    Which EU members and Commonwealth nations with universal healhcare are communist states? Which ones have the problems you mentioned?

  132. Scott Thong Says:

    Which EU members and Commonwealth nations with universal healhcare are communist states? Which ones have the problems you mentioned? – Ron

    While Communism and universal healthcare don’t always go hand in hand, I’m sure it’s pretty well reported how well Britain and Canada are faring with their local versions of Obamacare.

  133. Ron Says:

    Here are the WHO rankings according to country:

    1 France
    2 Italy
    3 San Marino
    4 Andorra
    5 Malta
    6 Singapore
    7 Spain
    8 Oman
    9 Austria
    10 Japan
    11 Norway
    12 Portugal
    13 Monaco
    14 Greece
    15 Iceland
    16 Luxembourg
    17 Netherlands
    18 United Kingdom
    19 Ireland
    20 Switzerland
    21 Belgium
    22 Colombia
    23 Sweden
    24 Cyprus
    25 Germany
    26 Saudi Arabia
    27 United Arab Emirates
    28 Israel
    29 Morocco
    30 Canada
    31 Finland
    32 Australia
    33 Chile
    34 Denmark
    35 Dominica
    36 Costa Rica
    37 United States of America

    http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

    Note that the both Canada (30) and the UK (18) rank higher than the US (37) and do it more cheaply too. ( http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html )

  134. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, please don’t leave out the all important qualifications.

    In the article you cited, there is this:

    The World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

    There may have been no significant changes since 2000 but we don’t know that, do we?

  135. Ron Says:

    Actually, we do know. According to the latest report (covering 2008), the stats are very similar. Life expectancy rankings (highest to lowest) are:

    83 – Japan, San Marino
    82 – Australia, Iceland, Italy, Monaco, Switzerland
    81 – Canada, France, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden
    80 – Austria, Belgium, Cypress, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Korea, UK
    79 – Denmark, Portugal
    78 – USA
    77 – Cuba
    76 – Mexico
    73 – Malaysia

    And once again the US has the highest per capita expenditures of all the above nations.

    http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2010/en/index.html

  136. SCOTT THONG: Debunking Norway Shooter Anders Breivik’s Usage of Bible Verses in His Manifesto | simonthongwh Says:

    […] (Compare Matthew 16 where they take Jesus’ ‘yeast’ metaphor literally.) Furthermore, Jesus could easily have smited the guards, so what would He need His disciples to be armed for – with a measly two […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: