Support NeoGAF

[Walter Matthau]

This will happen. Advanced AI mixed with quantum computers will create the closest thing we'll see as a God.

For example, people right now are working on biological immortality, but at a human rate it could take many, many decades. AI with quantum computing could figure this out over a weekend or less. It could also easily create an "afterlife" by figuring out a way to upload our mind into some hyper realistic virtual world upon death. Your own personal heaven.

Or be used to punish someone to eternal hell which is the subplot to Surface Detail.

 

[funkygunther]

The solution is that the daughter (who at that time did not have a way to make money or be a provider) should remain with her father, living in the streets and being unable to feed or clothe herself? You're saying that that is better than her being essentially apprenticed somewhere that kept her fed and clothed in exchange for work? Being destitute is better than being employed. That's your take.

You are putting words in my mouth and deflecting, adding a fantasy that isnt even the text. The daughter is still being sold, not "necesarily apprenticed" either. Are you ready to say you were wrong? Or do you have some more deflection.

I want people to know my "if" because I believe that my "if" is the truth. And since I believe that it is the truth, how selfish and hateful would I have to be to not provide the truth that leads to eternal life to the people around me?

The same punishment as lying. Sin keeps us apart from God. Even as a Christian, we have a sin nature that we cannot conquer. If we choose to live in the sin then our relationship with God is hampered in the same way that a husband who is sleeping with a mistress is hampering his relationship with his wife. The punishment after death is that those who rejected God will pay for their sins by being eternally separated from Him. This place of separation is Hell. Hell was created for the angels who rejected God, because God abhors sin. The fallen angels will be in a place of punishment, and those who reject God will join them. But for as much as God abhors sin, He was (and is) still compassionate and merciful, and He provided us with a way to escape this punishment. The people who do not reject God will have their sins forgiven, because Jesus died on the cross as payment for our sins.

You're using truth interchageanly with belief now, just in place of the word know. But I get it, you belief a thing and want to tell others you believe a thing. So far, so whatever.

Now for sin and punishmemt I think we're getting somewhere but we don't have to keep talking about your belief if you think I'm attacking it. You are the one that brought it up.

So homosexuality and lying are equivalent, and they'll be judged when they're dead. So not like a crime. But the punishment is hell. Which means all liars are in hell? Must be a pretty busy place. Or do you have a way for liars to not go to hell?

 

[IFireflyl]

You are putting words in my mouth and deflecting, adding a fantasy that isnt even the text. The daughter is still being sold, not "necesarily apprenticed" either. Are you ready to say you were wrong? Or do you have some more deflection.

I explained what went into this. I didn't deflect. I am not putting words in your mouth. I merely provided context for what went into this "slavery", and I explained that this was in the best interest of the daughter. The sole justification for selling ones daughter was poverty. Furthermore, if the father was to come into money, he was obligated to immediately buy back his daughter. The daughter must have been a minor who was under the age of 12 and not showing signs of maturity. Once the daughter hit that stage, she was to be immediately freed. The daughter was to be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the purchaser. In return, the daughter would perform household chores. This isn't the sick, twisted thing that you're making it out to be. It was essentially a foster home, but you're stuck on the words of "sell", "slave", and "master" as if that was the same thing that black people experienced a couple hundred years ago.

Again, the alternative to the above was for the daughter to be destitute with her father, unable to feed, clothe, or shelter herself. Why is that better to you than servitude where there were strict laws regarding how she must be treated?

Now for sin and punishmemt I think we're getting somewhere but we don't have to keep talking about your belief if you think I'm attacking it. You are the one that brought it up.

So homosexuality and lying are equivalent, and they'll be judged when they're dead. So not like a crime.

It is a crime against God. Our society just doesn't tend to punish these things like a we do with things like rape and murder.

But the punishment is hell. Which means all liars are in hell? Must be a pretty busy place. Or do you have a way for liars to not go to hell?

If you're not going to read what I said, then we're done here.

 

[funkygunther]

I explained what went into this. I didn't deflect. I am not putting words in your mouth. I merely provided context for what went into this "slavery", and I explained that this was in the best interest of the daughter. The sole justification for selling ones daughter was poverty. Furthermore, if the father was to come into money, he was obligated to immediately buy back his daughter. The daughter must have been a minor who was under the age of 12 and not showing signs of maturity. Once the daughter hit that stage, she was to be immediately freed. The daughter was to be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the purchaser. In return, the daughter would perform household chores. This isn't the sick, twisted thing that you're making it out to be. It was essentially a foster home, but you're stuck on the words of "sell", "slave", and "master" as if that was the same thing that black people experienced a couple hundred years ago.

Again, the alternative to the above was for the daughter to be destitute with her father, unable to feed, clothe, or shelter herself. Why is that better to you than servitude where there were strict laws regarding how she must be treated?

That is not the alternative, that is an alternative fantasy you've created. I can create one too: the dad spent all his money on candles and has no money for his daughter any more. Oops, you're off to get sold now. My scenario is just as valid as yours but it doesn't get to the bottom of the actual issue, which is removing the agency from the daughter.

If you're not going to read what I said, then we're done here.

Ok then let me put it bluntly using your language. What is the last possible opportunity a liar can not reject God in order for his lying to be forgiven?

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Hey Firefly, you say that the matter in the universe must have been created by god because it couldn’t have appeared from nowhere. You have to realize you’re just pushing back the goalposts, because where did god originate? If god transcends the laws of the universe and has always existed, that’s an awfully convenient explanation to get around the universal rule that something cannot come from nothing. The universe needed to be created, but god is simply eternal? Why couldn’t the universe just be eternal on its own and we cut out this unnecessary god from the explanation? Christians seem to think this is such a gotcha argument when it falls victim to its very own logic unless you choose to ignore it only in god’s case.

 

[IFireflyl]

That is not the alternative, that is an alternative fantasy you've created. I can create one too: the dad spent all his money on candles and has no money for his daughter any more. Oops, you're off to get sold now. My scenario is just as valid as yours but it doesn't get to the bottom of the actual issue, which is removing the agency from the daughter.

I didn't posit a scenario. I said poverty in general. You're the one making ridiculous scenarios where people could have abused this system. People also abuse the welfare system. Let's take that away from everyone who needs welfare for a few weeks while they are trying to get a job, eh? You have changed your argument from, "The Bible condones slavery, and women are products," to, "Oh look, a crappy dad abused the system." You're not trying to have a conversation and find truth. You're trying to prove that you're right, and the best way to do that is to ignore culture and context, and use logical fallacies to make your points. I've gone through this with you before, and if you want a real discussion I'm happy to oblige. But if you're going to throw this arrogant attitude in my face for my well thought out responses, then I'll wipe my hands of this conversation. I'm not about to indulge your desire to smack down a Christian.

Ok then let me put it bluntly using your language. What is the last possible opportunity a liar can not reject God in order for his lying to be forgiven?

Before they die. And to address your next question, simply saying, "I believe in you, God," right before you die isn't good enough. Christianity calls for you to know that you are a sinner, to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins, and to truly repent for your sins. It's not about the words you say; it's about the change in your heart.

 

[funkygunther]

I didn't posit a scenario. I said poverty in general. You're the one making ridiculous scenarios where people could have abused this system. People also abuse the welfare system. Let's take that away from everyone who needs welfare for a few weeks while they are trying to get a job, eh? You have changed your argument from, "The Bible condones slavery, and women are products," to, "Oh look, a crappy dad abused the system." You're not trying to have a conversation and find truth. You're trying to prove that you're right, and the best way to do that is to ignore culture and context, and use logical fallacies to make your points. I've gone through this with you before, and if you want a real discussion I'm happy to oblige. But if you're going to throw this arrogant attitude in my face for my well thought out responses, then I'll wipe my hands of this conversation. I'm not about to indulge your desire to smack down a Christian.

The scripture stays the same no matter how much you work around it, it's cool with selling the daughter. If you want to say it's cool with selling the daughter (in specific circumstances) then that doesn't change my point or argument at all.

Before they die. And to address your next question, simply saying, "I believe in you, God," right before you die isn't good enough. Christianity calls for you to know that you are a sinner, to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins, and to truly repent for your sins. It's not about the words you say; it's about the change in your heart.

Why isn't that good enough? It might be genuine.

 

[IFireflyl]

Hey Firefly, you say that the matter in the universe must have been created by god because it couldn’t have appeared from nowhere. You have to realize you’re just pushing back the goalposts, because where did god originate? If god transcends the laws of the universe and has always existed, that’s an awfully convenient explanation to get around the universal rule that something cannot come from nothing. The universe needed to be created, but god is simply eternal? Why couldn’t the universe just be eternal on its own and we cut out this unnecessary god from the explanation? Christians seem to think this is such a gotcha argument when it falls victim to its very own logic unless you choose to ignore it only in god’s case.

I'm not pushing back the goalpost, and I'm not making "gotcha" arguments. All of the space and time that we see and know was created by God. The creator (God) exists outside of His creation. God has always existed, and where He exists is outside of time itself. God isn't sitting on a physical planet in space inside of the universe that He created. He's on another plane of existence entirely. To me, it makes sense to see the universe as being created by God. What doesn't make sense is saying that a non-living universe somehow always existed, and eventually this non-living universe with no living organisms created living organisms. If God made this universe, then He also created the physics and science that we use in this universe. God can create the universe, but His creations inside of this universe still have to adhere to the physics and sciences that He created this universe with.

TL;DR: Everything inside of our universe was created. God can present Himself inside of His creation (our universe), but He doesn't reside inside of this creation. He resides in Heaven, which is a realm we cannot see or touch. It's impossible to explain how God has always existed in a realm that we do not have access to. We do, however, have access to the realm that we are in, and science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

The scripture stays the same no matter how much you work around it, it's cool with selling the daughter. If you want to say it's cool with selling the daughter (in specific circumstances) then that doesn't change my point or argument at all.

You can't pick verses out and ignore other verses that reference it as proof of something. The Bible verses need to be taken in context with other Bible verses in the same vein. The Bible is full of examples where it says X in one section, and then in another section it clarifies and provides additional information regarding X. The scripture also says this:

"If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly[a] on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land."

-Deuteronomy 15:7-11

That is also referring to this indentured servitude (called slavery).

Why isn't that good enough? It might be genuine.

My last sentence confirmed my meaning. If you're having difficulty with understanding the intent behind what I a said, then it is no small surprise to find out that you're misunderstanding the Bible versus that you cherry pick. Especially since, as I previously stated, the Bible gives you nuggets here and there that have to be combined in order to have an understanding of the big picture.

 

[funkygunther]

You can't pick verses out and ignore other verses that reference it as proof of something. The Bible verses need to be taken in context with other Bible verses in the same vein. The Bible is full of examples where it says X in one section, and then in another section it clarifies and provides additional information regarding X. The scripture also says this:

"If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly[a] on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land."

-Deuteronomy 15:7-11

That is also referring to this indentured servitude (called slavery).

What does that have to do with selling your daughter? Oh right, nothing...we back on slaves or stick with women? Lest we forget in Exodus it's explicit that women can not be freed like the male slaves/indentured servants. So on the subject of women let's take a look at Deutoronomy since we're here already:

“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. ...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Nice treatment of women you got there too.

My last sentence confirmed my meaning. If you're having difficulty with understanding the intent behind what I a said, then it is no small surprise to find out that you're misunderstanding the Bible versus that you cherry pick. Especially since, as I previously stated, the Bible gives you nuggets here and there that have to be combined in order to have an understanding of the big picture.

I seek further clarification. They had a change of heart on their death bed, are they clear?

 

[IFireflyl]

What does that have to do with selling your daughter? Oh right, nothing...we back on slaves or stick with women? Lest we forget in Exodus it's explicit that women can not be freed like the male slaves/indentured servants. So on the subject of women let's take a look at Deutoronomy since we're here already:

“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. ...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Nice treatment of women you got there too.

It actually was. The whole point of that was to protect the woman. If it was found that she wasn't a virgin that would ruin her reputation.

I seek further clarification. They had a change of heart on their death bed, are they clear?

There's no further clarification that needs to be made with what I said. I was extremely specific with my words. Do my words say that they are good?

 

[funkygunther]

It actually was. The whole point of that was to protect the woman. If it was found that she wasn't a virgin that would ruin her reputation.

Parading the genitals of a woman to city elders to prove she's a virgin is good? Ok lol. And if she's not a virgin? Actually it doesn't matter, that's not the original point is it. Are you forgetting? The point is treating women as inferior, which this does.

There's no further clarification that needs to be made with what I said. I was extremely specific with my words. Do my words say that they are good?

Be explicit please. Someone has a change of heart (your words) on their death bed. Are they clear? If they are not clear with a change of heart on their death bed, when is the cut-off before the change of heart ceases to apply?

 

[IFireflyl]

Parading the genitals of a woman to city elders to prove she's a virgin is good? Ok lol. And if she's not a virgin? Actually it doesn't matter, that's not the original point is it. Are you forgetting? The point is treating women as inferior, which this does.

This isn't treating women as inferior. This is God saying, "You need to change how women are treated." They didn't parade her genitals. Again, you are ignoring the culture. This was a time where, when a woman was married, there would be someone to confirm that the marriage was consummated. They would also wipe the blood from the bride's broken hymen onto a cloth, and that cloth would be given to the bride's parents to keep in the event that someone wanted to claim that she was not a virgin. While you might not appreciate the "how", the "why" is literally to protect the woman from a man who just wanted to screw her and then leave her.

Be explicit please. Someone has a change of heart (your words) on their death bed. Are they clear? If they are not clear with a change of heart on their death bed, when is the cut-off before the change of heart ceases to apply?

I was explicit, and I am about to be done with you. Read what I said. If you can't comprehend the basic sentence structure that I used, then I'm going to assume that you are being willfully argumentative.

Before they die. And to address your next question, simply saying, "I believe in you, God," right before you die isn't good enough. Christianity calls for you to know that you are a sinner, to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins, and to truly repent for your sins. It's not about the words you say; it's about the change in your heart.

All of the italicized, and then the italicized and underlined. That answers your question. Based on what I said, what is the answer to your hypothetical scenario?

 

[funkygunther]

This isn't treating women as inferior. This is God saying, "You need to change how women are treated." They didn't parade her genitals. Again, you are ignoring the culture. This was a time where, when a woman was married, there would be someone to confirm that the marriage was consummated. They would also wipe the blood from the bride's broken hymen onto a cloth, and that cloth would be given to the bride's parents to keep in the event that someone wanted to claim that she was not a virgin. While you might not appreciate the "how", the "why" is literally to protect the woman from a man who just wanted to screw her and then leave her.

Of course it is. It is a demeaning show that tells the value of a woman is in her virginity, something that is not afforded to men. You want to know how to protect the woman? By not caring about whether she is or isn't a virgin. History allows us to examine ourselves and grow as a species and society. We can use the Bible as a historical document for this exercise if you want. So was the culture at the time wrong, then, for expecting this of a woman? If it was, where does the Bible say this practice shall not continue any more because it is wrong?

I was explicit, and I am about to be done with you. Read what I said. If you can't comprehend the basic sentence structure that I used, then I'm going to assume that you are being willfully argumentative.

All of the italicized, and then the italicized and underlined. That answers your question. Based on what I said, what is the answer to your hypothetical scenario?

OK, I am transcribing everything. On their death bed, let's say 24 hours before they die, the liar: admits (knows) they have lied and committed sin, they accept Jesus as the Son of God and that he was crucified for the sin of lying and they truly repent for their sins. Are they clear?

 

[IFireflyl]

Of course it is. It is a demeaning show that tells the value of a woman is in her virginity, something that is not afforded to men. You want to know how to protect the woman? By not caring about whether she is or isn't a virgin. History allows us to examine ourselves and grow as a species and society. We can use the Bible as a historical document for this exercise if you want. So was the culture at the time wrong, then, for expecting this of a woman? If it was, where does the Bible say this practice shall not continue any more because it is wrong?

The culture was wrong for a ton of things back then, including how women were treated. Maybe you haven't heard the story of the prostitute who was going to be stoned to death, and Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The Old Testament, as I previously said, was

OK, I am transcribing everything. On their death bed, let's say 24 hours before they die, the liar: admits (knows) they have lied and committed sin, they accept Jesus as the Son of God and that he was crucified for the sin of lying and they truly repent for their sins. Are they clear?

I'm not going to hold your hand through basic words. You tell me if "they're clear" based on what I said and your hypothetical scenario.

 

[funkygunther]

The culture was wrong for a ton of things back then, including how women were treated. Maybe you haven't heard the story of the prostitute who was going to be stoned to death, and Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The Old Testament, as I previously said, was

Good, so the culture was wrong. Are the words in the Old Testament God's words or not?

I'm not going to hold your hand through basic words. You tell me if "they're clear" based on what I said and your hypothetical scenario.

Let me be clear. You gave a qualifier:

simply saying, "I believe in you, God," right before you die isn't good enough

You know what isn't good enough, and I can only assume from that you have some idea of what is good enough. So the liar has met the criteria you laid out on their death bed as I outlined, according to your qualification, is that good enough?

 

[IFireflyl]

Good, so the culture was wrong. Are the words in the Old Testament God's words or not?

As I have already said, what God wants and what God allows are not always the same thing. The world was lost in sin. God revealed Himself to the Israelites in the Old Testament, and He gave them the first steps they needed to take to change their ways. Then, God revealed Himself again in the New Testament in the form of Jesus, and Jesus essentially told them that they weren't nearly as great as they thought they were, because God didn't reveal the full truth to them as they were so lost in sin that they would have found the changes that God wanted to be impossible to overcome.

If you have a messy house, you have to start cleaning somewhere. God had them start cleaning in the Old Testament, and then in the New Testament he showed them just how dirty their house was, even though they thought they had done a great job of cleaning it.

Let me be clear. You gave a qualifier:

That isn't a qualifier. I said, "Words aren't enough." I then went on to say what is actually required.

You know what isn't good enough, and I can only assume from that you have some idea of what is good enough. So the liar has met the criteria you laid out on their death bed as I outlined, according to your qualification, is that good enough?

I already told you the requirements. So based on those requirements, what do you think? What I am not going to do is give you a yes or no answer when you should be intelligent enough to surmise the answer based on my extremely clear post. The reason I am not going to give you a straight yes or no answer, is because the way that you are wording this is the way that people word things when they want to try to entrap someone and/or twist their words. The requirements for salvation are extremely clear for a reason. This isn't supposed to be something that people can't understand. I have provided you with the requirements. That gives you all of the information you need to answer your own hypothetical questions.

 

[funkygunther]

As I have already said, what God wants and what God allows are not always the same thing. The world was lost in sin. God revealed Himself to the Israelites in the Old Testament, and He gave them the first steps they needed to take to change their ways. Then, God revealed Himself again in the New Testament in the form of Jesus, and Jesus essentially told them that they weren't nearly as great as they thought they were, because God didn't reveal the full truth to them as they were so lost in sin that they would have found the changes that God wanted to be impossible to overcome.

If you have a messy house, you have to start cleaning somewhere. God had them start cleaning in the Old Testament, and then in the New Testament he showed them just how dirty their house was, even though they thought they had done a great job of cleaning it.

It was a yes or no question. The culture was wrong, you have said already. So are the words in the Old Testament God's words or not? It is the same God between both testaments after all. I'll remind you that words like "shall" and "will" are an expression of both what God (or the writer, if you agree that the Old Testament is not God's words) wants and allows.

I already told you the requirements. So based on those requirements, what do you think? What I am not going to do is give you a yes or no answer when you should be intelligent enough to surmise the answer based on my extremely clear post. The reason I am not going to give you a straight yes or no answer, is because the way that you are wording this is the way that people word things when they want to try to entrap someone and/or twist their words. The requirements for salvation are extremely clear for a reason. This isn't supposed to be something that people can't understand. I have provided you with the requirements. That gives you all of the information you need to answer your own hypothetical questions.

It was another yes or no question. I'm doing this on purpose so that I can't twist your words, they will literally only be yes or no. It's the opposite of what you're proclaiming. You are saying these requirements are extremely clear, but I disagree. Hence the hypothetical. If they are extremely clear my hypothetical would be very easy to answer, because it is based on nothing but your requirements.

 

[IFireflyl]

It was a yes or no question. The culture was wrong, you have said already. So are the words in the Old Testament God's words or not? It is the same God between both testaments after all. I'll remind you that words like "shall" and "will" are an expression of both what God (or the writer, if you agree that the Old Testament is not God's words) wants and allows.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. God didn't say anywhere in any of the scriptures that you provided that He thinks that women are inferior. His laws were crafted to help the women who were treated as if they were worth less than men. God further helped women in the New Testament. God loves humanity, regardless of whether someone is a male or a female. You're trying to argue that God should have done more for women if He wanted to help them, and you think that these laws were subjugating women instead of helping them. But you're arguing this point from a place of ignorance. You don't know anything about the culture of that time, and you're trying to import modern information and sensibilities into a historical setting. Whether or not things would have been better if women were treated differently back then is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God has helped women, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. You are free to disagree with that, but I will not be responding to this line of questioning any further. You're not looking for perspective. You're trying to prove a point. Don't bother refuting this. I am not an idiot, and I see exactly what you're trying to do. I have provided the context of the culture and setting that this was written in. You're free to believe what you want to believe.

It was another yes or no question. I'm doing this on purpose so that I can't twist your words, they will literally only be yes or no. It's the opposite of what you're proclaiming. You are saying these requirements are extremely clear, but I disagree. Hence the hypothetical. If they are extremely clear my hypothetical would be very easy to answer, because it is based on nothing but your requirements.

I provided three requirements.

• Acknowledge that you are a sinner.
• Accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins.
• Truly repent for your sins.

Technically, I should have included a fourth requirement:

• Accept Jesus as the Lord of your life.
  • E.g. Proclaim that Jesus is your master of your life.

What part of these requirements isn't clear? I am happy to touch on whichever requirement is confusing you.

 

[funkygunther]

The Bible is the inspired word of God. God didn't say anywhere in any of the scriptures that you provided that He thinks that women are inferior. His laws were crafted to help the women who were treated as if they were worth less than men. God further helped women in the New Testament. God loves humanity, regardless of whether someone is a male or a female. You're trying to argue that God should have done more for women if He wanted to help them, and you think that these laws were subjugating women instead of helping them. But you're arguing this point from a place of ignorance. You don't know anything about the culture of that time, and you're trying to import modern information and sensibilities into a historical setting. Whether or not things would have been better if women were treated differently back then is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God has helped women, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. You are free to disagree with that, but I will not be responding to this line of questioning any further. You're not looking for perspective. You're trying to prove a point. Don't bother refuting this. I am not an idiot, and I see exactly what you're trying to do. I have provided the context of the culture and setting that this was written in. You're free to believe what you want to believe.

Ha, cool. So I'm coming from a place of ignorance after asking if, where the Bible instructs how women shall be treated in a demeaning manner compared to men, is the word of God or not. Ok well if you aren't enjoying this and don't want to respond any more, that's fine...let's go with the below:

I provided three requirements.

• Acknowledge that you are a sinner.
• Accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins.
• Truly repent for your sins.

Technically, I should have included a fourth requirement:

• Accept Jesus as the Lord of your life.
  • E.g. Proclaim that Jesus is your master of your life.

What part of these requirements isn't clear? I am happy to touch on whichever requirement is confusing you.

The part where all three requirements are met, but they're only met in the 24 hours before the sinner dies. Are they still met?

 

[Hoppa]

That's it I want off this rock NOW.

 

[IFireflyl]

The part where all three requirements are met, but they're only met in the 24 hours before the sinner dies. Are they still met?

There was no time requirement other than "before you die". I'm not sure why the 24 hours is important to you. Did you not hear that Jesus was hung on a cross between two thieves, and one thief told Jesus that he believed in him and asked him for forgiveness? Jesus told him that on that day he would be with Jesus in Heaven.

 

[funkygunther]

There was no time requirement other than "before you die". I'm not sure why the 24 hours is important to you. Did you not hear that Jesus was hung on a cross between two thieves, and one thief told Jesus that he believed in him and asked him for forgiveness? Jesus told him that on that day he would be with Jesus in Heaven.

The 24 hours was just arbitrary to denote the first time I asked the question, which was when was the cut off. But you dragged answering the question out and now have given the timing some importance that wasn't there before. So is your answer yes, of course they're absolved?

 

[IFireflyl]

The 24 hours was just arbitrary to denote the first time I asked the question, which was when was the cut off. But you dragged answering the question out and now have given the timing some importance that wasn't there before. So is your answer yes, of course they're absolved?

The timing was never important so long as it was before death. I never said otherwise.

 

[funkygunther]

The timing was never important so long as it was before death. I never said otherwise.

Of course, the requirements are met. That's great news for all sinners that they can be that way all their lives and in their dying breath meet your requirements and go to heaven.

 

[IFireflyl]

Of course, the requirements are met. That's great news for all sinners that they can be that way all their lives and in their dying breath meet your requirements and go to heaven.

I knew that's what you were driving at, because you make your objective very obvious in your posts. That is why I didn't simply spoon-feed you the answer you wanted me to give. True repentance doesn't come from living like you want and saying, "Sorry, bro," at the end. I was very clear that it requires a heart change, not just a desire to avoid hell. I'm done with you since you're incapable of having a discussion on beliefs and perspectives without being a douche about it. Have a nice life.

 

[funkygunther]

I knew that's what you were driving at, because you make your objective very obvious in your posts. That is why I didn't simply spoon-feed you the answer you wanted me to give. True repentance doesn't come from living like you want and saying, "Sorry, bro," at the end. I was very clear that it requires a heart change, not just a desire to avoid hell. I'm done with you since you're incapable of having a discussion on beliefs and perspectives without being a douche about it. Have a nice life.

Oh you're changing now huh? But all requirements were met!

OK then how long does true repentance take?

 

[IFireflyl]

Oh you're changing now huh? But all requirements were met!

OK then how long does true repentance take?

I didn't change a thing about what I said. Go back and read my first post where we discussed this. That's your problem; you don't read. It's no wonder you don't understand the Bible. You don't understand basic English. Here was my post that I continually repeated (which you didn't read as you were too busy trying to make a "gotcha" response):

Before they die. And to address your next question, simply saying, "I believe in you, God," right before you die isn't good enough. Christianity calls for you to know that you are a sinner, to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for your sins, and to truly repent for your sins. It's not about the words you say; it's about the change in your heart.

My stance hasn't wavered. As I said, I'm done with you. You're just trying to win an argument. Good luck in life. You should try not to be such a condescending ass to people who have different beliefs than you do. You likely won't change your behavior, but I hope one day you try.

 

[funkygunther]

I didn't change a thing about what I said. Go back and read my first post where we discussed this. That's your problem; you don't read. It's no wonder you don't understand the Bible. You don't understand basic English. Here was my post that I continually repeated (which you didn't read as you were too busy trying to make a "gotcha" response):



My stance hasn't wavered. As I said, I'm done with you. You're just trying to win an argument. Good luck in life. You should try not to be such a condescending ass to people who have different beliefs than you do. You likely won't change your behavior, but I hope one day you try.

Are you saying you can't truly repent in a second now, in the time it takes to have a dying breath? How long does it take then? How long did it take Jesus' thief friend?

 

[IFireflyl]

Are you saying you can't truly repent in a second now, in the time it takes to have a dying breath? How long does it take then? How long did it take Jesus' thief friend?

The questions you're asking are stupid. There isn't a set answer. Some people never repent from wrongdoing because they don't want to. Some people repent the second they do something wrong. How do you expect me to answer a question about human behavior and when someone would repent from something? Feel free to respond to this, but I'm never responding to you again. You're either an ass or an idiot, and either way it's a waste of my time.

 

[funkygunther]

The questions you're asking are stupid. There isn't a set answer. Some people never repent from wrongdoing because they don't want to. Some people repent the second they do something wrong. How do you expect me to answer a question about human behavior and when someone would repent from something? Feel free to respond to this, but I'm never responding to you again. You're either an ass or an idiot, and either way it's a waste of my time.

It's not human behaviour, it's your requirements for absolution. There's no time requirement, and the sinner has met all your other requirements in their last breath. You're not telling me what the problem is here, the sinner met your criteria.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Funky G, you have the patience of a saint. You’re really doing god’s work here. I wish I could calmly deconstruct the argument like you, but I don’t practice what I preach. It would take a miracle for a revelation to occur, but that’s your cross to bear. Hereafter, the writing’s on the wall for lazy arguments, god willing and the creek don’t rise.

 

[daffyduck]

Funky G, you have the patience of a saint. You’re really doing god’s work here. I wish I could calmly deconstruct the argument like you, but I don’t practice what I preach. It would take a miracle for a revelation to occur, but that’s your cross to bear. Hereafter, the writing’s on the wall for lazy arguments, god willing and the creek don’t rise.

Let's be honest. Funky G doesn't either.

 

[IFireflyl]

Funky G, you have the patience of a saint. You’re really doing god’s work here. I wish I could calmly deconstruct the argument like you, but I don’t practice what I preach. It would take a miracle for a revelation to occur, but that’s your cross to bear. Hereafter, the writing’s on the wall for lazy arguments, god willing and the creek don’t rise.

It isn't patience when you ignore what the person says. He was being an imbecile. If you wish you could be like him, then I'm really sad for you.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Let's be honest. Funky G doesn't either.

It isn't patience when you ignore what the person says. He was being an imbecile. If you wish you could be like him, then I'm really sad for you.

Ok, but did either of you even appreciate my wordplay at all? Cmon, I spent some time on that. See, it’s funny because I’m an atheist using common Christian idioms, what a hilarious contradiction. Yet, we’re all connected culturally through the language. See, A point of commonality! Love you guys just don’t agree with the god thing.

 

[funkygunther]

It isn't patience when you ignore what the person says. He was being an imbecile. If you wish you could be like him, then I'm really sad for you.

I was asking you questions that you couldn't answer, when it got too hot you insult me and run away. Anyone can just look back at the conversation and see for themselves.