Judas should've asked JESUS for forgiveness instead of killing himself

[HTXBreh]

The letter not existing doesn't mean the sound the letter represents didn't exist so that objection has always been invalid due to transliteration.​

You idiot I just said Jah is Yah his name wasnt Jesus it was Yashua

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Beloved ya'll religious folks stay talking in riddles.

So we have a predetermined hand...so no matter what we get that hand. So regardless of what choices we make that hand is the hand. That being free choice is an illusion. AFAIK for god to be the god that is outlined in the bible he has to be omniscient which means he knows who goes to heaven and hell already.

You're speaking incorrectly and I'll show you why. 'Free Choice' isn't an illusion as you're thinking if choices are 'free', they are unlimited. The simple fact of the matter is that though your choices may be limited, you are still 'free' to choose between those options you have access to. Also, 'omniscience' doesn't invalidate 'free choice' as all it actually means is knowledge of ALL choices without limit. So, ancient Hebrews believed that YHWH, knew all the 'choices' they had, not that it knew what choices they would, or would not, make.​

Foreknowledge does not necessitate predetermination/predestination, therefore, YHWH, need not know what humans will choose to do to be 'omniscient'. Your objection is only valid vs 'Open Theists', not ALL theists.....

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You idiot I just said Jah is Yah his name wasnt Jesus it was Yashua

I'm saying it doesn't matter. Hawaiians celebrate Christmas and their alphabet doesn't have the letters for them to even pronounce it.

They know what it means.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I agree. You can tell the bible is fukking allegorical just from the zany things in the OT...but the prob is peeps act like this stuff is mystical while still being based on some type of logic. I would have zero rebuttal if they were just like "this is what I believe and thats that" I'd actually respect that more.

I disagree. The text abounds in logic. Most of what is written ISN'T allegorical, but theological and that is the main disconnect modern readers experience when examining the text. It wasn't written to be understood by people 3,000 years in the future but by people that lived at the time it was written. THAT is it's proper context.​

Another point of contention is that many people, adherents and critics alike, think the text is wholly prescriptive when, in actuality, most of it is descriptive.​

 

[FlexPavilion]

Judas was thief, that's why he needed 30 pieces of silver to put back into the treasury. He snitched because he thought nothing would come of it. He seen Jesus get out of a jam many times before. His guilt caused him to throw himself off a cliff with a rope around his neck. Yeah, he could've repented, but he probably lost his mind when he realized what he set into motion.

 

[Able Archer 83]

A lot of people just hate the thought of submitting to a Holy God. That's fine. You can admit that. But there's consequences to that.

Not to derail the conversation from the betrayal of Judas, but if I'm going to "submit", I need to know what I'm submitting to. As it is, I find the concept of "Holy God" presented in the Abrahamic religions to be wildly inconsistent; indeed, it's non even internally consistent.

 

[Chrishaune]

Not to derail the conversation from the betrayal of Judas, but if I'm going to "submit", I need to know what I'm submitting to. As it is, I find the concept of "Holy God" presented in the Abrahamic religions to be wildly inconsistent; indeed, it's non even internally consistent.

1 Corinthians 1:19-20
19The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.
20As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

If you want to choose to be part of that crowd that's fine with me. There's also a way to know for yourself by just studying the book.
I have a tip for you also. All so called religions that came through Abraham are not equal. There's only 1 child of promise from Abraham. If you read and compare, you know.

Most people already know, they just don't want to accept it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Not to derail the conversation from the betrayal of Judas, but if I'm going to "submit", I need to know what I'm submitting to. As it is, I find the concept of "Holy God" presented in the Abrahamic religions to be wildly inconsistent; indeed, it's non even internally consistent.

While I agree with knowing what it is one is submitting to, the criticism that the text isn't consistent is false. That claim comes from misunderstanding what types of literature are within the corpus (you don't read poetry as non-fiction, for instance), theological nessaging to civilizations that no longer exist, as well as not comprehending the length of time represented in the corpus. We're talking over 1,500+ years. During that time, the writers went from a nomadic existence to an urban existence, then through a civil war, then were conquered and exiled, then repatriated. Of course their understandings changed over time and those changes are reflected within the corpus. It would be HIGHLY suspect if they didn't.​

 

[Deafheaven]

You're speaking incorrectly and I'll show you why. 'Free Choice' isn't an illusion as you're thinking if choices are 'free', they are unlimited. The simple fact of the matter is that though your choices may be limited, you are still 'free' to choose between those options you have access to. Also, 'omniscience' doesn't invalidate 'free choice' as all it actually means is knowledge of ALL choices without limit. So, ancient Hebrews believed that YHWH, knew all the 'choices' they had, not that it knew what choices they would, or would not, make.​

Foreknowledge does not necessitate predetermination/predestination, therefore, YHWH, need not know what humans will choose to do to be 'omniscient'. Your objection is only valid vs 'Open Theists', not ALL theists.....

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

You said a lot of religious fluffiness but in your own words you worship a god who is essentially just winging it. Worship a god who creates his anathema pretentious religious brehs

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You said a lot of religious fluffiness but in your own words you worship a god who is essentially just winging it. Worship a god who creates his anathema pretentious religious brehs

I'm a theological noncognitivist. You might wanna look that up.....unless you like putting your foot in your mouth.​

The only person 'winging it' is you, son.

If you feel that was a bunch of 'religious fluffiness', you might consider you don't possess the knowledge to actually have a meaningful dialogue on the subject rather than lash-out, ineffectively, at someone who does.​

 

[Able Archer 83]

If you want to choose to be part of that crowd that's fine with me. There's also a way to know for yourself by just studying the book.

I have studied the book. It's not like I was born saying "I don't believe in god", and refused to engage with any religious text. It doesn't work like that. I studied the text, studied the context (i.e. source criticism, ancient history), and drew my own conclusions.

I have a tip for you also. All so called religions that came through Abraham are not equal. There's only 1 child of promise from Abraham. If you read and compare, you know.

What Jesus promised was an imminent apocalypse. "And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”"

Let me be clear: I do find the moral teachings of Jesus to possess merit, but his mission is ultimately defined by its unrealized eschatology. The genius of the gospel authors and Paul was their ability to turn what should have been a crippling flaw (the lack of a foreseen apocalypse has been the ruin of many a millenarian movement) into a force of moral coercion. "For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." While I think their ability to make the best out of an embarrassing situation was clever--even admirable--I find it neither a compelling reason nor a stable foundation to base my entire identity and moral compass around.

In short, Jesus promised something that was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago, but didn't happen. Therefore, lacking any other evidence of realized eschatology, any other promises provided by Jesus are suspect at best.

 

[MikelArteta]

I have studied the book. It's not like I was born saying "I don't believe in god", and refused to engage with any religious text. It doesn't work like that. I studied the text, studied the context (i.e. source criticism, ancient history), and drew my own conclusions.



What Jesus promised was an imminent apocalypse. "And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”"

Let me be clear: I do find the moral teachings of Jesus to possess merit, but his mission is ultimately defined by its unrealized eschatology. The genius of the gospel authors and Paul was their ability to turn what should have been a crippling flaw (the lack of a foreseen apocalypse has been the ruin of many a millenarian movement) into a force of moral coercion. "For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." While I think their ability to make the best out of an embarrassing situation was clever--even admirable--I find it neither a compelling reason nor a stable foundation to base my entire identity and moral compass around.

In short, Jesus promised something that was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago, but didn't happen. Therefore, lacking any other evidence of realized eschatology, any other promises provided by Jesus are suspect at best.

you do know Jesus said that in mark he was talking about the transfiguration when Jesus was speaking to Elijah and Moses and heard God spoke

peter James and John see the glorified Christ before they died

 

[Chrishaune]

In short, Jesus promised something that was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago, but didn't happen. Therefore, lacking any other evidence of realized eschatology, any other promises provided by Jesus are suspect at best.

What Jesus did was fulfill many of the prophecies from the book. But your doubt causes you to skip over that fact. The prophets of old wrote many future events that Jesus did fulfill. But you try to use a future event to say God lied because it hasn't happened yet. God's timetable is God's timetable, not man's. Your understanding is woefully lacking. I'm just telling you the truth. You need to be accountable to a person that can teach you about the Word to get an understanding. You won't get it from arguing on the internet.

 

[Black Hans]

Yeah, he should've because he would have been forgiven. But the condemnation he felt based on what he did led to him killing himself and now he's still suffering for it There's a message in this. Condemnation is a MAJOR problem that people shouldn't practice on others or themselves. Jesus is God, brehs. He understands humanity more than anyone and contrary to popular opinion, does NOT condemn people until they reach eternity if they do not accepted His mercy. People justl reap what they sow, which is the reason why most people are in the state they're in on this Earth. Ask God to realign your perceptions instead of being led by your own imagination. Truly repent and ask God to help you overcome through His grace and Holy Spirit, instead of primarily seeking relief through repentance and not wanting to confront your Flesh (self-centered) nature.