Description: Why a Christmas bulb? Because imprisoned members of the underground church in China, (living on rations of perhaps 500 calories per day), are forced to assemble thousands of bulbs per day without tools, crimping them with their teeth. After a few hours of their minimum 16-20 hour day (kneeling in a 20x20 cell with 40 others),their fingers are bloodied and if they don't make their quota (AND keep up the quality), they are beaten mercilessly.
The author of the Book of Hebrews calls us to remember our brothers and sisters in Christ as though we were right there with them.
As we come into the season when we celebrate the birth of our Savior, let this be a reminder to ask for the Lord's protection for these who "let their light shine" in the darkness of a Chinese prison.
Tim
PS: For the full story, go to http://www.thelightsofchristmas.org. I think http://www.persecution.com and http://www.persecution.org has info on this as well.
NOTE: for those who have difficulty accepting these links because they are *not secular*, please check the following links.
Ever notice how in all the pictures of jesus you see, he LOOKS LIKE GREG ALLMAN! Ever see Greg Allman and Jesus together in the same room? hmmmmmmm.........
I would smooth out the color levels of the wallpaper.
On the religion issue, people are going to argue about it until the end of time, why waste time on it?
I know this is kind of off-topic, but I found a link that most atheists will find quite funny, while it will give christians something to think about. This is a sort of response to the atheist test Tim advertises in his signature. BTW, as coke cans are not known to reproduce by themselves, this 'atheist test' is kinda flawed. Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/kiss.html
Now the on-topic part. I do pity the christians that are imprisoned in China. Their treatment isn't fair for humans. I do, however, have to stress that not only christians are imprisoned on unfair grounds in China, and that this sort of thing doesn't only happen in China. Our amnesty international group focusses on Falun Gong at the moment, for example. The chinese government isn't known to honor the human rights very well. On the other hand, you may have heard about Guantanamo Bay, and may know that the death penalty is still common in a couple of dozen countries. This month, there was a call for action from amnesty where two women were sentenced to death because they (allegedly) spread false money in vietnam, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. People get arrested for using the internet, writing letters, that sort of thing - most of the time because they disagree with their government's views. This sort of stuff happens, and it doesn't only happen to christians, so trying to make a point that christians were some oppressed minority is ridiculous as well. I'm not saying that this doesn't call for action - it does - but fairness requires to mention all of the others as well. So, if you do something, do it because those people are human, not only because they're christian.
I can appreciate the rather intriguing set of questions posed on the Athiest "Free Thinker" site. These people are free thinking, but obviously not well informed with their medeval style conclusions and blatently ignorant statements. They sound convincing to someone with no scientific background, but a little study reveals that these general and confused statements come from common and confused people.
By the way, I do not understand the picture in this wall paper at all. I think I know what it is trying to do, but the beams make the paper a bit too busy to use as an actual desktop background, and I am still trying to figure out what that brown thing is.
But as I always say, "to be a good artist you must make 1000 mistakes" ...well...begin.
Am I the only person who can see the irony in this? They're in prison for being Christian and they're punishment is making CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS!!! Absolutely brilliant!
And thank you for bringing this to my attention. I needed a good laugh like that today.
It's quite interesting how a simple image like this can provoke so much comment from such a wide variety of people - some of them seem to be just openly agnostic / anti-christian, and others seem to hold some sort of PhD in Theology!
I think that if we're not careful, this entire situation could devolve into a war between those who uphold christian doctrine and those who openly oppose it. Maybe we should all just give a little space for people to express themselves as they see fit, and in so doing give them the space to hold the religious beliefs that they want to, without being persecuted.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
If I could ignore his pictures, as I ignore his postings, keeping the peace would be easy, I assume.
You can't argue with them, because they don't want to understand your position, they want you to take theirs.
I assume that most people here reacting harshly to this self-proclaimed prophet try hard to hold back, but just have to express their anger once in a while; you see the comments of this kind pile up under every of his pictures, while the names change from thread to thread with the "old faces" back every now and then.
If the site-owner would allow to filter out contributors to treat them as the trolls they are, this war wouldn't be near, and the hard-core christians could give one another blowjobs on there religious hard-ons in a little, ignored corner; everbody could be happy.
regards
Sorry, man.
Neither of the two links you posted (nizkor.org) even mention Chinese evangelists being forced to exist in tiny cells, crimping bulbs with their teeth.
All that's offered is anecdotal evidence in the first link (which was quite interesting, but as I said, purely anecdotal); and the persecution.org site catered to the fanatical crowd (Pat Robertson supported Robert Taylor and made money off of blood diamonds and gold. He doesn't have a thing to say about persecution in my book, and should keep his self-righteous, hypocritical piehole shut).
I would like to see an unbiased source of proof of your claims concerning Christian evangelists in China. Instead, you offer a snippet of information on debating tactics.
I ask myself why.
that in the end...only the truth shall prevail...
everybody will have an answers to their questions.
The bible says to believe and you shall see. not the other way.
No problem about your english; it's your faithful spirit that counts...and God honors.
There are those for whom very little, evidence is necessary...and those for whom no amount of evidence will be sufficient, either in amount or kind. Very sad for them to have hardened their hearts this way.
Hebrews 11 tells us that "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (a paraphrase). Again, it's a matter of trust...and a lack of trust dishonors God.
As with everyone else here, I appreciate your support...and your prayers. For those who chose disbelief, we owe them nothing, save the Gospel and our prayers.
Blessings to you, brother!
Tim
Yes Tim, you are right. The way members of the Falun Gong are treated, often violates human rights. I think the best thing you can do is to petition your government to take action like withdrawing China's "most-favoured”
trading partner status. (I'm assuming you are in the US) Of course this will also hurt the economy of the US and your government isn't likely to allow that, but you can always try. O and don't forget about the thousands of innocent people arround the world who are being indifinetily imprissoned for no good reason whatsoever and without any prospect of a fair trail.
>As for your statements, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the actual doctrines as presented in Scripture.
>What scripture whould the be? There are a lot of scriptures around, and not all have to do with Christianity....
Flanders, your very reference to Christianity shows that you know which Sciptures I'm refering too. I shouldn't give you any hints though, you're working so hard to show an attempt at logic.
>Can God be guilty of intolerance?
>You tell me. From what Mark 16:15-16 tell it definitly seems to be the case. (Assuming Mark speaks on behalf of God. Mmm interesting point: how do we actually know he wasn't making things up?)
Ahh, you are capable of some reason after all. However, you bit my hook and now I'm reeling you in. See, if you're going to argue against Scripture then you have to argue against what it actually states :) Scripture posits that God defines good and evil, and does whatever He pleases. If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. If He defines what is good and evil, then He is outside of the bonds of guilt.
As for Mark making things up, how do you know he didn't? I won't give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a compelling reason to share that Mark did make it up. Do you?
>Does the pot say to the potter, "why have you made me like this?"
>Don't know. I don't tend to have conversations with pots. ;)
The analogy is not far above your understanding, and yet...
>Or does not the potter have the right to make from the same clay, one pot for honor, and another for destruction?
>Never known a potter to destroy a perfectly good pot, only ones that are faulty or broken during fireing. If God is perfect there won't be any faulty pots that need destruction. Are you implying that God isn't perfect?
I'm not implying that God is imperfect. Is it your position that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction? If that is your position, then cite your source of knowledge.
>Who is the clay to answer back to the potter?
>Clay doesn't, humans do.
Non-responsiveness. I find your answers lacking understanding, although the analogy is clear to see. I'm disappointed that there is so little substance in your responses.
See, if you're going to argue against Scripture then you have to argue against what it actually states :) Scripture posits that God defines good and evil, and does whatever He pleases. If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. If He defines what is good and evil, then He is outside of the bonds of guilt.
Hmmm…so God defines good and evil and therefore is above it? So God is in fact immoral?
This still doesn’t explain why God allowed the possibility of non-believers and other religions. Of course you can say: well he must have had a reason but that is not a real answer. If God doesn’t tolerate non believers than why allow for the possibility in the first place and then, in your words, punish those non-believers by sending them to hell? Sounds a bit sadistic to me. Of course God will be beyond sadistic as well.
As for Mark making things up, how do you know he didn't? I won't give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a compelling reason to share that Mark did make it up. Do you?
As you know it nearly always impossible to prove a negative. But you can’t prove the positive, that Mark wasn't making things up, either. That's why it's called belief I guess. I don't, you do but neither case will probably ever be proven.
The analogy is not far above your understanding, and yet...
Don’t worry. I do understand the analogy; I just don’t take it very seriously because it is a very bad one. Last time I looked there was a huge difference between clay and humans. Humans do question their existence, it’s human nature. (One of the results is religion..at least that is the theory I subscribe to.) Clay on the other hand…is just clay.(as far as we know ;)
I'm not implying that God is imperfect. Is it your position that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction? If that is your position, then cite your source of knowledge.
That’s turning my question around. My question was: why should God allow the existence of non-believers and other religions? I’m not saying that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction as you say. I just want to know the reason, because it seems very illogical. Why bother with something you can’t tolerate when you can prevent it in the first place? Of course it could have been a mistake, but then again a perfect God wouldn't make one would he?
Non-responsiveness. I find your answers lacking understanding, although the analogy is clear to see. I'm disappointed that there is so little substance in your responses.
Well I am not the one hiding behind cliché’s like: If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. That like answering a question with: just because.
You are referring to Epicurius' Dillemma: Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? Actually, the contemporary theological view is neither. "Good" is inherent in God's nature, not something he sat down and decided.
But there's no real point of your arguing here. You are a five point Calvinist, who believes that the whole world is damned except for a few whom God has arbitrarily selected. So much for the omnibenevolent God.
You are referring to Epicurius' Dillemma
I was refering to a Biblical doctrine.
But, this is besides the point, as I said God "defines" good and evil(Isaiah 45:7). I did not present God as making a decision.
"Good" is inherent in God's nature
Depends, does your perception of good define God, or does He define it?
You are a five point Calvinist, who believes that the whole world is damned except for a few whom God has arbitrarily selected. So much for the omnibenevolent God.
I believe the Biblical doctrines of man and Grace...these are not defined by Calvin. As CH Spurgeon said, "They call it “Calvinism”, and put it aside among the old exploded tenets which this enlightened age knows nothing of. What right they have to ascribe to the Genevan reformer a doctrine as old as the hills I do not know. But our Lord Jesus never hesitated to fling that truth into the face of His enemies. He told them, “Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Here he tells them plainly that they could not come unto Him unless the Father gave them the grace to come. This humbling doctrine they could not receive, and so they went aside." [CHS, Sermons, 28, 111-2]
Omnibenevolent God? Where do you find that in the Bible?
Peace.
Tim, I commend you on doing what so many Christians are afraid to do because of persecution. Though sometimes I feel the artwork itself could be a little cleaner, I commend you for having the courage to share what you believe.
All this backlash is expected, as it is stated in the Matthew 5:10-12:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Last I checked, the Internet was all about freedom of expression. It seems it's ok for pornography, hate, and violence to be expressed on the Internet, but let's all bring in the censors when it comes to something like the Good News of Jesus Christ. Others have posted submissions regarding their faith beliefs, and yet anything having to do with Christianity is received with utter disdain.
Again, so-called "tolerance" rears it's ugly head. If you don't believe the message, if you don't believe that you have sin in your life as everyone does, as Tim does, as I do, and that God has given a gift, his son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for all of our sins past present and future through his death and resurrection, then don't read on. The choice is yours to make, and it's not forced upon you. Tim and others are as free to express their beliefs as many of you are to criticize them. Sure you have to go into the submission to see who it is, but if you read it and don't agree with it, move on to the next submission and that's it. Many people are thankful for his posts. Not all of KDE-Look "hates" him or others like him.
Thanks for the encouragement.
About the art, well, sometimes it's the nature of art...sometimes it's just learning. This one in particular I DID expect someone to pick apart because I drew that bulb by hand...I figured since they are putting them together by hand, it would be rather cheap of me to make a nice slick one from a photo, etc.
About the rest...no surprises, nothing new. They look at it by sheer choice...as has been said in this particular thread, my work (this one in particular) could be forseen by my "hallmark" gradient. Of course, the choice was still made. Then made repeatedly to come back. But somehow it is "forced" on them.
I won't dare compare myself to the apostle Paul, but I'm remembering how he was beaten up, thrown out of Jerusalem and left for dead...and then got right back up and marched back to Jerusalem to win more for Christ. It's not much different, really, as far as attitude is concerned...and Jesus Christ Himself said "you have heard it was said that you shall not kill...but I say to you that if you hate your brother you are guilty of murder." This anger just hasn't come to it's physical expression...yet. But if it does, it does. The scriptures have foretold us what's coming up. How the nations are aligning. It's all coming together. "I know in Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted with Him against that Day." (the day of Judgement).
So, we pray for them because Christ died for them; to redeem them from their sin and restore a right relationship with God.
I pity them; they don't get it...yet.
Blessings
Tim
Great, now the subject subtly shifts (as it generally does) from expression of faith to cultural bashing.
Tim, can you cite references for your claims? References not from some christian fundie propaganda site?
And Chris308, really. Chinks? Towel heads?
Please tell me that was a troll, and not the inbred droolings of the sort of bible-thumping neocon that gives christians a bad name in the first place.
Honestly, folks... kde-look has hit a new all-time low.
"Tim, can you cite references for your claims? References not from some christian fundie propaganda site?"
Of course he can not cite any historical references, nor can anyone else who believes as he does. Ask them why in Daniel 5:1-2, Daniel claims King Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, the facts of history, as dug up in the archeological record, prove that not only was Belshazzar never a king, but his father was named Nabonidos, not Nebuchadnezzar. But if you press people like this for facts, you will not EVER actually be given any facts, nor any sensible explanation as to how Daniel, and the rest of the Bible, got so many facts completely wrong.
Ask them how they can follow a God, who claims to be just and moral, after he tells the Hebrews:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. Leviticus 25:44-46
The only thing these proselytizers will tell you is that slaves back then were not really slaves. No, really, they just called it slavery just to call it that. That was not what it really was. Even though you could buy people who become your property, it really was not slavery. Even though you could bequeth your property, I mean slaves, to your sons, it reall was not slavery.
Exodus 21:20-21, lets us know that this explanation, "It really was not slavery," is totally bogus:
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."
So we see here, it was totally legal, under the god this guy worships, to KILL ANOTHER MAN and not be punished! See, slavery really was slavery! Slave owners held the power of life and death in their hands, all accordingto this god's
will. But really, it wasn't slavery, to hear the proselytizers tell it.
Further, you can press believers of this particular myth to explain why, if Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of 2, in order to kill Jesus, why is there NO RECORD OF IT ANYWHERE in the historical record? Don't you think if all male children under age 2 were slaughtered in ANY nation, people would record such a tragedy? Of course they would, yet for this little fairy tale, no such evidence exists! I have put this question to this TimBrown person 3 times already. Do you think he has bothered to answer the question? Of course not!
To go even one step further, ask them why the nativity scene is painted in 4 scenes, in the temple of Luxor and these painting have been there since 1538 BC. Admittedly, the names in this nativity scene are different, as it has the virgin mother Isis, the baby Horus and Anup is the Holy Ghost who impregnates the virgin mother Isis. But if these tales of Jesus are so obviously true, then why were the Egyptians telling the same tall tales, complete with a nativity scene & 3 magi, over 1500 years before the alleged birth of Christ? Once you have posed this question to the proselytizers you will greatly enjoy the peace and queit you will experience, as they fall completely silent.
And this is why we must press these proselytizers for facts and evidence. It is only then that they will finally shut up with these outrageous claims for which they have no evidence whatsoever.
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Ex. 21:20-21
Whose translation is this? According to the KJV, it is translated as follows:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he [the servant] continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
"Continue" probably means continue working. Furthermore, the NIV, which is not based on the 'censored' LXX, says the following:
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
So your exegesis is not correct. You certainly have the right (and the knowledge) to criticize Christianity. However, please cite your sources, and don't jump to conclusions.
um... I meant references about the treatment of these people in China.
I note that he posted two links, but both are fundie sites. Nothing from Amnesty International or any international human welfare organization.
Ratings & Comments
51 Comments
Ever notice how in all the pictures of jesus you see, he LOOKS LIKE GREG ALLMAN! Ever see Greg Allman and Jesus together in the same room? hmmmmmmm.........
I would smooth out the color levels of the wallpaper. On the religion issue, people are going to argue about it until the end of time, why waste time on it?
It would be funnier if they broadcast the people making the decorations on all the TVs in department stores while everybody was christmas shopping.
I know this is kind of off-topic, but I found a link that most atheists will find quite funny, while it will give christians something to think about. This is a sort of response to the atheist test Tim advertises in his signature. BTW, as coke cans are not known to reproduce by themselves, this 'atheist test' is kinda flawed. Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/kiss.html Now the on-topic part. I do pity the christians that are imprisoned in China. Their treatment isn't fair for humans. I do, however, have to stress that not only christians are imprisoned on unfair grounds in China, and that this sort of thing doesn't only happen in China. Our amnesty international group focusses on Falun Gong at the moment, for example. The chinese government isn't known to honor the human rights very well. On the other hand, you may have heard about Guantanamo Bay, and may know that the death penalty is still common in a couple of dozen countries. This month, there was a call for action from amnesty where two women were sentenced to death because they (allegedly) spread false money in vietnam, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. People get arrested for using the internet, writing letters, that sort of thing - most of the time because they disagree with their government's views. This sort of stuff happens, and it doesn't only happen to christians, so trying to make a point that christians were some oppressed minority is ridiculous as well. I'm not saying that this doesn't call for action - it does - but fairness requires to mention all of the others as well. So, if you do something, do it because those people are human, not only because they're christian.
I can appreciate the rather intriguing set of questions posed on the Athiest "Free Thinker" site. These people are free thinking, but obviously not well informed with their medeval style conclusions and blatently ignorant statements. They sound convincing to someone with no scientific background, but a little study reveals that these general and confused statements come from common and confused people. By the way, I do not understand the picture in this wall paper at all. I think I know what it is trying to do, but the beams make the paper a bit too busy to use as an actual desktop background, and I am still trying to figure out what that brown thing is. But as I always say, "to be a good artist you must make 1000 mistakes" ...well...begin.
Am I the only person who can see the irony in this? They're in prison for being Christian and they're punishment is making CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS!!! Absolutely brilliant! And thank you for bringing this to my attention. I needed a good laugh like that today.
If it's true, it's certainly not funny.
It's quite interesting how a simple image like this can provoke so much comment from such a wide variety of people - some of them seem to be just openly agnostic / anti-christian, and others seem to hold some sort of PhD in Theology! I think that if we're not careful, this entire situation could devolve into a war between those who uphold christian doctrine and those who openly oppose it. Maybe we should all just give a little space for people to express themselves as they see fit, and in so doing give them the space to hold the religious beliefs that they want to, without being persecuted. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
If I could ignore his pictures, as I ignore his postings, keeping the peace would be easy, I assume. You can't argue with them, because they don't want to understand your position, they want you to take theirs. I assume that most people here reacting harshly to this self-proclaimed prophet try hard to hold back, but just have to express their anger once in a while; you see the comments of this kind pile up under every of his pictures, while the names change from thread to thread with the "old faces" back every now and then. If the site-owner would allow to filter out contributors to treat them as the trolls they are, this war wouldn't be near, and the hard-core christians could give one another blowjobs on there religious hard-ons in a little, ignored corner; everbody could be happy. regards
Sorry, man. Neither of the two links you posted (nizkor.org) even mention Chinese evangelists being forced to exist in tiny cells, crimping bulbs with their teeth. All that's offered is anecdotal evidence in the first link (which was quite interesting, but as I said, purely anecdotal); and the persecution.org site catered to the fanatical crowd (Pat Robertson supported Robert Taylor and made money off of blood diamonds and gold. He doesn't have a thing to say about persecution in my book, and should keep his self-righteous, hypocritical piehole shut). I would like to see an unbiased source of proof of your claims concerning Christian evangelists in China. Instead, you offer a snippet of information on debating tactics. I ask myself why.
that in the end...only the truth shall prevail... everybody will have an answers to their questions. The bible says to believe and you shall see. not the other way.
No problem about your english; it's your faithful spirit that counts...and God honors. There are those for whom very little, evidence is necessary...and those for whom no amount of evidence will be sufficient, either in amount or kind. Very sad for them to have hardened their hearts this way. Hebrews 11 tells us that "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (a paraphrase). Again, it's a matter of trust...and a lack of trust dishonors God. As with everyone else here, I appreciate your support...and your prayers. For those who chose disbelief, we owe them nothing, save the Gospel and our prayers. Blessings to you, brother! Tim
Yes Tim, you are right. The way members of the Falun Gong are treated, often violates human rights. I think the best thing you can do is to petition your government to take action like withdrawing China's "most-favoured” trading partner status. (I'm assuming you are in the US) Of course this will also hurt the economy of the US and your government isn't likely to allow that, but you can always try. O and don't forget about the thousands of innocent people arround the world who are being indifinetily imprissoned for no good reason whatsoever and without any prospect of a fair trail.
>As for your statements, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the actual doctrines as presented in Scripture. >What scripture whould the be? There are a lot of scriptures around, and not all have to do with Christianity.... Flanders, your very reference to Christianity shows that you know which Sciptures I'm refering too. I shouldn't give you any hints though, you're working so hard to show an attempt at logic. >Can God be guilty of intolerance? >You tell me. From what Mark 16:15-16 tell it definitly seems to be the case. (Assuming Mark speaks on behalf of God. Mmm interesting point: how do we actually know he wasn't making things up?) Ahh, you are capable of some reason after all. However, you bit my hook and now I'm reeling you in. See, if you're going to argue against Scripture then you have to argue against what it actually states :) Scripture posits that God defines good and evil, and does whatever He pleases. If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. If He defines what is good and evil, then He is outside of the bonds of guilt. As for Mark making things up, how do you know he didn't? I won't give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a compelling reason to share that Mark did make it up. Do you? >Does the pot say to the potter, "why have you made me like this?" >Don't know. I don't tend to have conversations with pots. ;) The analogy is not far above your understanding, and yet... >Or does not the potter have the right to make from the same clay, one pot for honor, and another for destruction? >Never known a potter to destroy a perfectly good pot, only ones that are faulty or broken during fireing. If God is perfect there won't be any faulty pots that need destruction. Are you implying that God isn't perfect? I'm not implying that God is imperfect. Is it your position that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction? If that is your position, then cite your source of knowledge. >Who is the clay to answer back to the potter? >Clay doesn't, humans do. Non-responsiveness. I find your answers lacking understanding, although the analogy is clear to see. I'm disappointed that there is so little substance in your responses.
See, if you're going to argue against Scripture then you have to argue against what it actually states :) Scripture posits that God defines good and evil, and does whatever He pleases. If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. If He defines what is good and evil, then He is outside of the bonds of guilt. Hmmm…so God defines good and evil and therefore is above it? So God is in fact immoral? This still doesn’t explain why God allowed the possibility of non-believers and other religions. Of course you can say: well he must have had a reason but that is not a real answer. If God doesn’t tolerate non believers than why allow for the possibility in the first place and then, in your words, punish those non-believers by sending them to hell? Sounds a bit sadistic to me. Of course God will be beyond sadistic as well. As for Mark making things up, how do you know he didn't? I won't give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you have a compelling reason to share that Mark did make it up. Do you? As you know it nearly always impossible to prove a negative. But you can’t prove the positive, that Mark wasn't making things up, either. That's why it's called belief I guess. I don't, you do but neither case will probably ever be proven. The analogy is not far above your understanding, and yet... Don’t worry. I do understand the analogy; I just don’t take it very seriously because it is a very bad one. Last time I looked there was a huge difference between clay and humans. Humans do question their existence, it’s human nature. (One of the results is religion..at least that is the theory I subscribe to.) Clay on the other hand…is just clay.(as far as we know ;) I'm not implying that God is imperfect. Is it your position that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction? If that is your position, then cite your source of knowledge. That’s turning my question around. My question was: why should God allow the existence of non-believers and other religions? I’m not saying that God could not have a reason to make "pots" of wrath prepared for destruction as you say. I just want to know the reason, because it seems very illogical. Why bother with something you can’t tolerate when you can prevent it in the first place? Of course it could have been a mistake, but then again a perfect God wouldn't make one would he? Non-responsiveness. I find your answers lacking understanding, although the analogy is clear to see. I'm disappointed that there is so little substance in your responses. Well I am not the one hiding behind cliché’s like: If He pleases to not tolerate something, then it is good for Him to do so. That like answering a question with: just because.
You are referring to Epicurius' Dillemma: Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? Actually, the contemporary theological view is neither. "Good" is inherent in God's nature, not something he sat down and decided. But there's no real point of your arguing here. You are a five point Calvinist, who believes that the whole world is damned except for a few whom God has arbitrarily selected. So much for the omnibenevolent God.
You are referring to Epicurius' Dillemma I was refering to a Biblical doctrine. But, this is besides the point, as I said God "defines" good and evil(Isaiah 45:7). I did not present God as making a decision. "Good" is inherent in God's nature Depends, does your perception of good define God, or does He define it? You are a five point Calvinist, who believes that the whole world is damned except for a few whom God has arbitrarily selected. So much for the omnibenevolent God. I believe the Biblical doctrines of man and Grace...these are not defined by Calvin. As CH Spurgeon said, "They call it “Calvinism”, and put it aside among the old exploded tenets which this enlightened age knows nothing of. What right they have to ascribe to the Genevan reformer a doctrine as old as the hills I do not know. But our Lord Jesus never hesitated to fling that truth into the face of His enemies. He told them, “Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Here he tells them plainly that they could not come unto Him unless the Father gave them the grace to come. This humbling doctrine they could not receive, and so they went aside." [CHS, Sermons, 28, 111-2] Omnibenevolent God? Where do you find that in the Bible? Peace.
Why all the updates? Nothing seems to be changing.
Changelog: Updated description.
Tim, I commend you on doing what so many Christians are afraid to do because of persecution. Though sometimes I feel the artwork itself could be a little cleaner, I commend you for having the courage to share what you believe. All this backlash is expected, as it is stated in the Matthew 5:10-12: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Last I checked, the Internet was all about freedom of expression. It seems it's ok for pornography, hate, and violence to be expressed on the Internet, but let's all bring in the censors when it comes to something like the Good News of Jesus Christ. Others have posted submissions regarding their faith beliefs, and yet anything having to do with Christianity is received with utter disdain. Again, so-called "tolerance" rears it's ugly head. If you don't believe the message, if you don't believe that you have sin in your life as everyone does, as Tim does, as I do, and that God has given a gift, his son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for all of our sins past present and future through his death and resurrection, then don't read on. The choice is yours to make, and it's not forced upon you. Tim and others are as free to express their beliefs as many of you are to criticize them. Sure you have to go into the submission to see who it is, but if you read it and don't agree with it, move on to the next submission and that's it. Many people are thankful for his posts. Not all of KDE-Look "hates" him or others like him.
Thanks for the encouragement. About the art, well, sometimes it's the nature of art...sometimes it's just learning. This one in particular I DID expect someone to pick apart because I drew that bulb by hand...I figured since they are putting them together by hand, it would be rather cheap of me to make a nice slick one from a photo, etc. About the rest...no surprises, nothing new. They look at it by sheer choice...as has been said in this particular thread, my work (this one in particular) could be forseen by my "hallmark" gradient. Of course, the choice was still made. Then made repeatedly to come back. But somehow it is "forced" on them. I won't dare compare myself to the apostle Paul, but I'm remembering how he was beaten up, thrown out of Jerusalem and left for dead...and then got right back up and marched back to Jerusalem to win more for Christ. It's not much different, really, as far as attitude is concerned...and Jesus Christ Himself said "you have heard it was said that you shall not kill...but I say to you that if you hate your brother you are guilty of murder." This anger just hasn't come to it's physical expression...yet. But if it does, it does. The scriptures have foretold us what's coming up. How the nations are aligning. It's all coming together. "I know in Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted with Him against that Day." (the day of Judgement). So, we pray for them because Christ died for them; to redeem them from their sin and restore a right relationship with God. I pity them; they don't get it...yet. Blessings Tim
Great, now the subject subtly shifts (as it generally does) from expression of faith to cultural bashing. Tim, can you cite references for your claims? References not from some christian fundie propaganda site? And Chris308, really. Chinks? Towel heads? Please tell me that was a troll, and not the inbred droolings of the sort of bible-thumping neocon that gives christians a bad name in the first place. Honestly, folks... kde-look has hit a new all-time low.
"Tim, can you cite references for your claims? References not from some christian fundie propaganda site?" Of course he can not cite any historical references, nor can anyone else who believes as he does. Ask them why in Daniel 5:1-2, Daniel claims King Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, the facts of history, as dug up in the archeological record, prove that not only was Belshazzar never a king, but his father was named Nabonidos, not Nebuchadnezzar. But if you press people like this for facts, you will not EVER actually be given any facts, nor any sensible explanation as to how Daniel, and the rest of the Bible, got so many facts completely wrong. Ask them how they can follow a God, who claims to be just and moral, after he tells the Hebrews: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. Leviticus 25:44-46 The only thing these proselytizers will tell you is that slaves back then were not really slaves. No, really, they just called it slavery just to call it that. That was not what it really was. Even though you could buy people who become your property, it really was not slavery. Even though you could bequeth your property, I mean slaves, to your sons, it reall was not slavery. Exodus 21:20-21, lets us know that this explanation, "It really was not slavery," is totally bogus: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." So we see here, it was totally legal, under the god this guy worships, to KILL ANOTHER MAN and not be punished! See, slavery really was slavery! Slave owners held the power of life and death in their hands, all accordingto this god's will. But really, it wasn't slavery, to hear the proselytizers tell it. Further, you can press believers of this particular myth to explain why, if Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of 2, in order to kill Jesus, why is there NO RECORD OF IT ANYWHERE in the historical record? Don't you think if all male children under age 2 were slaughtered in ANY nation, people would record such a tragedy? Of course they would, yet for this little fairy tale, no such evidence exists! I have put this question to this TimBrown person 3 times already. Do you think he has bothered to answer the question? Of course not! To go even one step further, ask them why the nativity scene is painted in 4 scenes, in the temple of Luxor and these painting have been there since 1538 BC. Admittedly, the names in this nativity scene are different, as it has the virgin mother Isis, the baby Horus and Anup is the Holy Ghost who impregnates the virgin mother Isis. But if these tales of Jesus are so obviously true, then why were the Egyptians telling the same tall tales, complete with a nativity scene & 3 magi, over 1500 years before the alleged birth of Christ? Once you have posed this question to the proselytizers you will greatly enjoy the peace and queit you will experience, as they fall completely silent. And this is why we must press these proselytizers for facts and evidence. It is only then that they will finally shut up with these outrageous claims for which they have no evidence whatsoever.
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Ex. 21:20-21 Whose translation is this? According to the KJV, it is translated as follows: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he [the servant] continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." "Continue" probably means continue working. Furthermore, the NIV, which is not based on the 'censored' LXX, says the following: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." So your exegesis is not correct. You certainly have the right (and the knowledge) to criticize Christianity. However, please cite your sources, and don't jump to conclusions.
um... I meant references about the treatment of these people in China. I note that he posted two links, but both are fundie sites. Nothing from Amnesty International or any international human welfare organization.