There is no "You better do this or else" and a "yeeeeeeeeaaaaaah, if you want to" sets of laws. Any and all laws Jesus has given us is to be kept. There is no such thing as a small sin and a big sin. All sin is equal and forgivable except the one sin of denying the lord thy God. Every and all other sins are just as potent as another.

MorningSong, the Holy Spirit indwells in us all. Weather they are a believer or a none believer. Some listen to God, some don't. Some see God, some ignore him. But nevertheless he is there. He will forsake no one.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and the holy spirit dwells inside of you?

He did not tell us know ye not that the saved are temples of God... no. He said YOU are the temple of God.

C'mon Pan, you ought know better than that. We all ought know better than that. Think about that for a minute or two. I mean, your a competent fellow. Agreement with another's actions is not required in order to confidently say that those actions were not rejected by the heart of the one who performed them. I mean, we know that Hitler set out to intentionally and deliberately maim and slaughter multitudes of other humans, and continued doing so until he was forcably stopped. Now given that bit of knowledge, what possible reason is there to deny that Hitler's heart had not rejected those actions?

You claimed, as clearly quoted above, that the criterion for knowing which scriptures are divinely inspired and which are not is - and I quote...

"God's Law" is written on the hearts of all men. So, you test it and if your "heart" rejects it, then you know the answer.

Now, I'm saying that that is a highly contentious claim on it's own. There are numerous reasonable counter-arguments and adequate examples which clearly show that a person's conscience is utterly inadequate for determining what is best, let alone for determining what constitutes being "divinely inspired" bits of scripture. The point being that one's own conscience is not necessarily a reliable guide for anything at all, for it is s/he who keeps it satisfied. The example(Hitler) was simply driving that point home.



Most of this is irrelevant to the point being made, and none of it qualifies as an answer to the pertinent questions being asked. Hitler's actions speak for themselves. It is quite clear that he did what he thought was the best thing to do. He set that out with words in several different forms, created a virtual propaganda machine in order to get his thought/belief on these matters into the mind of the German public, and his heart(conscience) obviously did not reject those ideas. That is the point. Now, what I've argued here clearly shows that your claim is not necessarily true. Good reason tells us that that criterion is inadequate. So...

What criterion is adequate in order for us to know which scriptures are divinely inspired and which ones are not when they conflict with one another?



Why talk about things that do not matter? My religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have no bearing whatsoever upon the question being asked, nor the answer.

I'm making a point above that I suspect has not been grasped. It is in regards to what is first required in order for judgment to even happen. What I mean to say is that when one judges that this or that is or is not the case - whichever it may be - one always does so based upon that which is already believed. The same holds for judging scripture.



This does not seem like it is good reason to reject the following scripture concerning Hades.

What makes you believe that 1. this qualifies as a "secretly introduced" scenario - it seems rather blatantly obvious to me, and 2. that the first verse is the one that is divinely inspired to begin with?

I mean, if we suppose that some of the scripture is false, then it very well could be the case that any part of it could have been carefully put there just as easily as any other. In order to deceive the reader and lead them to believe that they ought disregard the mention of Hades, the deceiver could have very well placed that verse there for reasons unbeknownst to you. For instance, if the mention of Hades has some vital importance, then surely the enemy would want that to go unnoticed. If that is the case, then the enemy has succeeded. How do you know that that is not the case?

I see no adequate reason given in order to confidently reject one set of verses over another. The undivine determining the divine, how exactly is that even possible?



The Bible tells us lots of things, many of which contradict you're claims. I'm still wondering why you believe that you can tell which parts to believe and which parts to reject.



So human thought determines what is divine?

Which is basically why I can state with confidence that you just don't get it.

I'm sure you can, Pan, I'm sure you can. Saying that, however, says nothing much about the issues that were clearly exposed in your reasoning, which quite clearly does not warrant the confidence you espouse.

Be well Pan.

Ask one that deserves an answer.

As it stands, I've covered everything you've claimed that deserves an answer, and ignored the rest because it does not. On the contrary, you've ignored all that deserves an answer, and talked about the irrelevant. How do you reconcile the issues in your reasoning that have been so clearly revealed?



How do you know that you've correctly judged which scriptures are divinely inspired and which ones are not?

I've already covered that, and you're rather boring.

Be well Pan.

Mon 03/12/12 10:01 PM

Page 11

Bottom post.

...Man...

Still being illiterate I see?

Meh, whatever.

If you actually read his response..

..he did answer your questions, then asked his own.

If anyone is "deflecting".. it's not Creative.

..just saying.

Wow, just WOW!

I asked a forthright question and he answered by asking a question that I had already answered...


Get off your knees, your IQ is showing...