New World Order Bible Versions Doc.

[Jason Mallory]

Here's my conspiracy theory: people figured out that they could get free stuff if they just elected people who promised to give them free stuff. They're too stupid to ask where the money comes from or why the people they are taxing the crap out of don't just move to Canada or at least a different state. That's how you get Detroit.

There's no conspiracy, just stupid people who try to get freedom by giving ever-increasing power to the State.

See, that didn't take two hours.

So you don't think there are conspiracies shaping world events ?

[Solicit]

I guess I would start by saying that God alone saves. He is the one who shows mercy on whoever he chooses to. This is why Jesus could say to one of the men who was crucified with him that he would be in paradise that day. The man was not baptized before he died on the cross yet God in the flesh, Jesus told him he would be in paradise.

We could come up with all kinds of scenarios like this and of course God has the power to forgive anyone.

I fully agree that a person cannot earn their way to salvation by being a good person or doing religious things. Galatians does not list baptism as a 'work' in verses 2:14-21. What I'm sharing is that Acts 2:38 says that when a person repents (changes their belief about Jesus and decides to live their life for him) and is baptized (immersed in water) that is when they are forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given.

What do you think about 1 Peter 3:22-21 ? This scripture says that baptism saves us.

I believe the word used in 1 Peter 3:21 is "also". And Acts is talking about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ie: Speaking in tounges, prophecy etc. It never says that Baptism is what saves you. And if that scenario calls for GOD to save, as well as the criminal on the cross with Jesus, then that's proof that it's not baptism. All love tho man, not trying to argue.

[Joshua Jarboe]

So you don't think there are conspiracies shaping world events ?

Sure there are. But I reckon changing the world is very hard and two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. A conspiracy is hard to keep secret and humans are a traitorous lot.

After a lot of consideration, I've concluded that there are two major political forces in the world and have been pretty much the entire time.

There are people who want to be free. Such people are typically self-reliant. They want to retain their abilities to defend themselves and their families. Makers. Geopolitically, they want others to be free as well.

There are people who want to be rich from someone else's work. They want someone else to protect them, someone else to furnish their needs. Takers. Geopolitically, they want control.

Makers conspire to build. Engineers, craftsmen, entrepreneurs. Even managers to a lesser degree (though I think managers can be takers as well)

Takers conspire to take what others have built. Lawyers. Politicians. Sometimes bankers. Sometimes managers. People who have figured out how to make a living from entitlements. To a lesser degree, some unions (who do build a lot but do also seek to take something for nothing). Rent seekers, all. More ancient takers: raiders, some nobility, probably some clergy. Highwaymen. But always politicians.

Most folks fall somewhere between but this is usually because of some inconsistency in their thinking or because you can get a lot more by doing *some* work and then milking the cash cow you've constructed (perhaps in the form of class action shakedown lawsuits that enable you to sue a company for a statistical misrepresentation of employees along race / class / gender / orientation / etc. lines that you settle out of court for millions).

But you don't need a large scale conspiracy. It's more likely to be detected. Moreover, takers have no compelling and obvious reason to work together at a large scale. There are very large forces at work here: more then enough room for a taker to make a killing doing almost nothing except harm.

Here's one tool I've used to detect them: when smart people say stupid things, they are either A) not that smart, B) they're self-deceived, or C) they are lying or withholding something. Maybe all three.

[Jason Mallory]

I believe the word used in 1 Peter 3:21 is "also". And Acts is talking about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ie: Speaking in tounges, prophecy etc. It never says that Baptism is what saves you. And if that scenario calls for GOD to save, as well as the criminal on the cross with Jesus, then that's proof that it's not baptism. All love tho man, not trying to argue.

No arguing... just sharing ideas and asking questions.

[Joshua Jarboe]

I believe the word used in 1 Peter 3:21 is "also". And Acts is talking about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ie: Speaking in tounges, prophecy etc. It never says that Baptism is what saves you. And if that scenario calls for GOD to save, as well as the criminal on the cross with Jesus, then that's proof that it's not baptism. All love tho man, not trying to argue.

Yes you are, but you are doing so nicely. Socrates and Aristotle never said "not trying to argue" why should you? lol

[Joshua Jarboe]

No arguing... just sharing ideas and asking questions.

Socrates would approve! Socratic method ftw.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

If i was god (not saying I am but I could be and not know it. Im not sure if jesus knew his whole life that he was god?)

I would have written the bible myself, probably with lighting like god did in the 10 commandments movie because that was badass.

Now maybe Im busy creating people on some other planet and I just want to inspire the bible and have humans do the actual writing. (not sure why since I could simply will it into being effortlessly but ignore that) I would inspire them to write a book that everyone could understand without ambiguity, regardless of their age, language, intelligence, ect.

Since god must be smarter than me and could have done either of these things, we have to assume (assuming its not all bs) that he wanted humans to not clearly understand his wishes, he wanted us to be able to use the book to deceive and abuse people, he wanted to spread the bible over many areas and time and languages so we would have to collect all the writing and then throw out the ones that were not up to snuff.

Seems like a fucked god. I know, I know we arent supposed to question god because it is arrogant to assume we can understand his "plan", and we arent supposed to ask him to prove his existence to us either, seems a bit convenient to me.

One thing that troubles me about the idea of an all powerful deity is; could god microwave a burrito so hot , that he himself could not eat it?

Either way you answer, the conclusion is that his power is limited, if by nothing other than his own decrees/works.

[Joshua Jarboe]

Aaron,

You might be sort of right but I think you're probably not right in the way you think.

Before I respond I have to tell you where I'm coming from. I argue like I roll. I try to present my best move. I accept I might get tapped. I assume that even if I try something bizarre and then get beat that that's just how it goes. I attack where I see weakness and I don't apologize for it. I think we should argue like we roll: respectfully, but with all due aggression. So in that light:

That's a really horrible argument.

First, you assume that God is like you only smarter. That might not be true. But that's your foundation. My cat presented this argument to me and concluded that since there was no infinitely large can of cat food in the observable universe that there was no God. That was a pretty bad argument too. But he's a cat, so he has an excuse.

Second, you assume that a God that is "f___ed" by your standards is not real. I'm a Calvinist. If you heard everything I had to say and you were comfortable with it, I'd be assuming you weren't paying attench.

In short, it's really a big long non sequitur.

If you are willing to assume a lot of things, then yes, you can assume your way into thinking that our God is bad. If you were willing to assume that bad gods cannot exist, well you would have assumed everything you wanted to prove!

Now, if you have *questions* about how we resolve these things, ask. Easier that way. Quicker that way. Easier for you too. Actually, questions are a very good method for dismantling someone. Feed them rope. Watch them hang themselves.

The microwaved burrito argument is actually pretty bad too. I believe it betrays (both on the part of the person asking and on the part of the person stammering awkwardly to try to figure out how to answer) a weak understanding of the doctrine of sovereignty, or basically the idea that "God is all powerful." The Bible itself never says he is per se. I do believe that it says that he is sovereign over creation.

You can express the question in simpler and less disrespectful terms. Christians also believe that God is unchanging in his fundamental nature.

So can God become evil?

No, I don't believe He can. He is sovereign over everything He created but I suspect that he is not sovereign over His own nature nor does He need to be. You might say "So, he cannot change?" He doesn't want / need to. Hardly a limitation. Entirely theoretical. Doesn't matter much. Not much scripture on the subject. Very poor material to attack the faith with because we never say "Dude, he could TOTALLY become evil AND he could TOTALLY eat a burrito of infinite hotness."

So He can create any size of rock and he can move any size rock. There is no contradiction in that.

You'd be better off with the classic Noah's ark argument.

It starts with "So you mean to tell me" and ends with a lot of spluttering and being very astounded that someone could believe that. But it *is* harder to defend. My cat tried that one this morning as I was trying to go to work and I just told him it was complicated.

Does that make sense?

Right, so can God unmake himself?

Probably not if only because it is not in his nature to try.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Hold on let me figure out how multiquote works.
Heres the wall.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

First, you assume that God is like you only smarter. That might not be true. But that's your foundation.

No, I only assumed that god is smarter than me not like me.

My cat presented this argument to me and concluded that since there was no infinitely large can of cat food in the observable universe that there was no God. That was a pretty bad argument too. But he's a cat, so he has an excuse.

Because your cat would assume that if god were like him (the cat) then god would make an infinitely large can of cat food? My argument is in no way based on the idea that god is like me. It is based on the premise that, god is smarter than me, god is all powerful.

Second, you assume that a God that is "f___ed" by your standards is not real.

I didn’t assume that god is fucked. I put forth that if my hypothetical conditions are true, then he seems fucked to me. The sentence is somewhat nonsensical to me. What does the “is not real.” Part mean?

I'm a Calvinist. If you heard everything I had to say and you were comfortable with it, I'd be assuming you weren't paying attench.

That would depend on how you define, “comfortable with”. When you think something is most likely not true; the only thing that is scary about it, is the way that those who believe it may act, based on those beliefs. I do find Calvinist to be some of the least objectionable Christians.

In short, it's really a big long non sequitur.

Ok, that maybe. I was trying to be funny more than construct an argument that would withstand intense logical scrutiny. Please point out my flawed logic. What logical fallacy did I commit?

If you are willing to assume a lot of things, then yes, you can assume your way into thinking that our God is bad. If you were willing to assume that bad gods cannot exist, well you would have assumed everything you wanted to prove!

But I only assumed that god is smarter than me and that he is all powerful. Ok to be fair I also assumed that there wasn’t another equal or more powerful god, fucking with him, which would explain some things.

Now, if you have *questions* about how we resolve these things, ask. Easier that way. Quicker that way. Easier for you too. Actually, questions are a very good method for dismantling someone. Feed them rope. Watch them hang themselves.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “these things” but feel free to answer anything you see as a question in what I wrote. That rope thing is kinda sadistic for a christian who won’t even type, ”fuck”.

The microwaved burrito argument is actually pretty bad too. I believe it betrays (both on the part of the person asking and on the part of the person stammering awkwardly to try to figure out how to answer) a weak understanding of the doctrine of sovereignty, or basically the idea that "God is all powerful." The Bible itself never says he is per se. I do believe that it says that he is sovereign over creation.

That’s interesting, genuinely no sarcasm. I had wondered before if it says god is all powerful. Still, if we look at the definitions of “sovereign” that pop up https://www.google.com/webhp#q=sovereign (pick your source) and the definitions of creation https://www.google.com/webhp#q=creat...nition&spell=1, it seems to mean that he is “all powerful”. I wasn’t aware that Calvinist believes the Abrahamic is not all powerful. How do you interrupt the relevant passages?

You can express the question in simpler and less disrespectful terms. Christians also believe that God is unchanging in his fundamental nature.

What’s disrespectful about burritos, is this some sort of anti-Mexican sentiment? What terms are simpler than microwaving a burrito? In all seriousness I don’t see what is disrespectful about the question? I can’t mention god alongside mundane things like delicious microwave burritos?

Christians also believe that God is unchanging in his fundamental nature.

I don’t see how this is relevant or related. Strange though considering the apparent shift in attitudes between old and new testament.

So can God become evil?

You are asking and answering your own semi-related question? Ok. Your writing becomes difficult and hard to make sense of at this point.

No, I don't believe He can. He is sovereign over everything He created but I suspect that he is not sovereign over His own nature nor does He need to be.

I’m not sure what it means to be sovereign over ones self. Does it mean in control of your impulses. Does it mean that you are not a slave or under another’s power? To me this is the type of flowery and nonsensical language that many christians use when dealing with cognitive dissonance.

You might say "So, he cannot change?"

I might, in fact I do!

He doesn't want / need to.

You claim to personally know the desires and needs of “god”?

Hardly a limitation.

Says you, I say it is an undeniable indication of limited power.

Entirely theoretical. Doesn't matter much.

Very little in our reality is not theoretical. I agree that it doesn’t matter much but probably for very different reasons.

Not much scripture on the subject.

Why would their need to be, with faith there is no reason to question anything in the bible.

Very poor material to attack the faith with because we never say "Dude, he could TOTALLY become evil AND he could TOTALLY eat a burrito of infinite hotness."

I don’t consider it “attacking the faith”, just pointing out some things that seem odd/silly.
You don’t need to make those claims for anything I wrote to stand. I didn’t assume or claim that god could “become evil”. I simply imply that is my premises were true; he would seem to me to be fucked or evil if you prefer. That does not necessarily require change btw, maybe he was always evil.
MOST christians do believe that jehova is all powerful, that would include being able to eat an infinitely hot burrito, without blowing on it.

So He can create any size of rock and he can move any size rock. There is no contradiction in that.

I agree but you didn’t construct an analogues question. Could god make a rock so heavy that he could not move it? Also wtf is less offensive about a big rock than a microwave burrito. Is the burrito not macho enough for god?

You'd be better off with the classic Noah's ark argument.
It starts with "So you mean to tell me" and ends with a lot of spluttering and being very astounded that someone could believe that. But it *is* harder to defend. My cat tried that one this morning as I was trying to go to work and I just told him it was complicated.

I don’t know what the classic argument is against Noah s ark. I do see room for a shit load of “So you mean to tell me”s. You don’t think your cat is god right?

Does that make sense?

Most of it , No.

Right, so can God unmake himself?

You are totally asking the wrong guy. I don’t know, can he? It’s the same as asking, “Is god all powerful or not?”
It also assumes that jehovah was “made”.

Probably not if only because it is not in his nature to try.

Ok that expands on the “gods sovereignty over his own nature” stuff a little. It strikes me as an illogical argument (circular reasoning) Its not in my nature to try to cum in my own mouth but I definitely could if I wanted to, standing up.