Would you rather...

a reply to: network dude

begging for cash in exchange for a rim job by a Nigerian prince.

* digs frantically in couch cushions *

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

When confronted with a set of rules that don't seem right, sometimes your best move is to not play at all...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: geazum

is there some way to auto ban this pinhead? He does the obligatory 5 posts with the dots, then the "Big news coming" with a spyware link, and then the savior begging for cash in exchange for a rim job by a Nigerian prince. it's the same MO each time. If you could delete the accounts right when the first "..." post is made, it would save the mods time to smack us regular folks around some.

I've no idea what you're talking about...

I've never asked for money, nor claimed to be a Messiah.

And you'd be willing to auto-ban me?

Wow...

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan
I was going to say the same...
But
His post was adressed at geazum, it would be correct by the mods to take his message down too... It's misleading indeed

a reply to: Terpene

Ah I see.

My mistake then.

I was understandably confused.

^_^

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

And I couldn't just post it on the Internet? Not even anonymously?

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

Scenario B, cause that doesn't involve me having to deceive anyone. I really don't like doing that. There's enough of that already going around.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“... having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 3:5-7)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

...
How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Source: Philosophy (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

“But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

originally posted by: AlexandrosOMegas

... nobody is ever going to give you a dime ...

"There's a sucker born every minute." Don't underestimate the reality of that statement. Or this statement:

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Politicians, talking heads on TV, religious leaders, teachers and philosophers, including those philosophers posing as "scientists"*, are all experts in making efficient use of these sad realities (for self-gain, satisfying their love of self and love of money, see 2 Timothy 3:1-5). (to name a few from the last category: Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Craig Venter, Richard Feynman, James D. Watson, Noam Chomsky, Alan Guth, Carl Sagan, Jack Szostak, Lee Cronin, Dave Farina, Jeremy England, Roger Penrose, Fred Hoyle, J. Robert Oppenheimer, J.A. Wheeler, David Bohm, ah well, too many to mention)

*: Scientist - Wikipedia

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

The real reason was for marketing/propaganda reasons, but I don't feel like going into detail about that now. But it was part of the rise of a new (false) religion, called "scientism".

...

As soon as modern science was born in the 17th century, ... Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. ...

... the Enlightenment ... swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. ... “Its ancestral roots,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica, were found “in Greek philosophy.”

... Prominent leaders in France included Voltaire and Denis Diderot. In Great Britain it found spokesmen in John Locke and David Hume. Advocates were also found among U.S. founding fathers, including Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. ... Outstanding members in Germany were Christian Wolff, Immanuel Kant, and Moses Mendelssohn, grandfather of composer Felix Mendelssohn.

...

Source: Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Religion’s Future in View of Its Past; Awake!—1989)

...

Who Are the Victims?

Anyone misled into believing pseudoscientific theories becomes a victim. But even believing scientific truths poses a danger. The spectacular scientific advances resulting from the scientific revolution deceived many into believing that now nothing was beyond reach.

This belief was intensified as scientific progress continued to erode the antiscientific attitude false religion had once fostered. Commerce and politics began recognizing science as a powerful tool to be used in achieving their goals, be it monetary reward or consolidation of political power.

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

...

Source: Part 4 Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

Not to worry though:

Current events-The End of False Religion is imminent! (playlist)

It's a "falling empire" (to use a phrase from this song):

And just to throw in some more Bob Marley (especially for those with the attitude described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 quoted in my previous comment, or who might feel inclined to give a demonstration of it here):

So come with me (on this little trip down this particular rabbit hole) and we'll be...

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

Two words: 'Kobayashi Maru'.

I can imagine a person that fears death because they know very little about the resurrection promised by God in the Bible (or don't believe any of that) might see scenario B as a 'no-win' scenario.

“But I do admit this to you, that according to the way that they call a sect [whereislogic: synonym: cult], in this manner I am rendering sacred service to the God of my forefathers, as I believe all the things set forth in the Law and written in the Prophets. And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:14,15)

Full title, cause it doesn't show above: Jehovahs Witnesses- [a destructive cult?] Persecution of a peaceable people (playlist)

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

...
The second choice that demands the ultimate sacrifice, death I presume', is impossible to LIVE with, so naturally the first option is the only option.

Congrats to be the first person in this thread to give a direct answer (Astyanax was the first to give an indirect answer, by pointing out the scenario he considered was harder to live with*, scenario A, which would be the opposite answer to yours). Both you and Astyanax are making the same misinterpretation of the OP though, since in scenario B, he was obviously asking whether you can live with it before making that ultimate sacrifice (knowing it will happen, put yourself in Jesus' shoes for a moment and you will understand that scenario, Jesus knew what was going to happen to him).

*: the question was: "which of the two would be easier to live with?"

Scenario A seems applicable to the fella discussed in the video below, if you keep in mind that the only person he loves is himself (so not sure if the term "everyone" is appropiate in that case, re-read the OP if you don't know where I'm quoting that word from; or was I not supposed to point that out so early yet? That being the reason the OP says "everyone"):

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

...
"When in doubt, my dear fellow, do nothing" Tolstoy

originally posted by: quintessentone
"May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears." Nelson Mandela

So what's your choice concerning the question and the scenarios presented in the OP? (try not to misinterpret or change the scenarios, or add another one) 2 choices in the OP.


LOL, Jehovah (Jah is the shortened version, also used in the Bible) has all the best singers:


Revelation 21:3-5 (second-to-last chapter in the Bible):

With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful* [Or “trustworthy.”] and true.”

2 Peter 2:1-3

However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct,*[Or “their acts of shameless conduct.”] and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.




English version:

Remember Indiana, "the shrewd one considers his steps" (Pr 14:15, see my signature). Alternate rendering: "the shrewd one ponders each step." (NW Study Edition)

At least he didn't give up (talking about Indiana in the scene above).

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

"Easier to LIVE with"?. Answers obvious. The one that keeps me alive.

Ah, the 2nd direct answer on page 1. Uhm, let's see, do I have a song about their being no need to fear death? Probably already in there somewhere. I did talk about the resurrection before.

LOL, Jehovah (Jah is the shortened version, also used in the Bible) has all the best singers:
...

I just realized the above version is missing 2 verses, this one doesn't (I kinda like the extra bonus message at the end above though):

I should have led that one in with this text (guess I have some space for a bit more historical information now):

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

Coming back to 2 Cor 10:3-5:

Context (playlist link), starting one video earlier in the playlist:

"you can't use his name!"

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

...
The second choice that demands the ultimate sacrifice, death I presume', is impossible to LIVE with, so naturally the first option is the only option.

originally posted by: whereislogic
... Both you and Astyanax are making the same misinterpretation of the OP though, since in scenario B, he was obviously asking whether you can live with it before making that ultimate sacrifice (knowing it will happen, put yourself in Jesus' shoes for a moment and you will understand that scenario, Jesus knew what was going to happen to him). ...

Just to be clear, scenario B is also not completely applicable to Jesus, since it isn't true that:

Nobody believes in you; no one.

Quoting from the OP. I already explained in the rest of my comment above why scenario A isn't completely applicable to the other fella the way it's phrased in the OP. You have to keep one thing/caveat in mind that would make it applicable (which I already spelled out).

Thank you all for the answers.

You have satisfied my curiosity.

^_^


P.s. I find it interesting that you all assume the ultimate sacrifice to be termination of one's own current life.

originally posted by: BrotherKinsMan
Thank you all for the answers.

You have satisfied my curiosity.

^_^


P.s. I find it interesting that you all assume the ultimate sacrifice to be termination of one's own current life.

I didn't think that because the end result being death was not specified. So everyone should have had a different idea of what the ultimate sacrifice is. This is a great lesson in assuming.

originally posted by: BrotherKinsMan

P.s. I find it interesting that you all assume the ultimate sacrifice to be termination of one's own current life.

I didn't. Until I started responding to those who did, then in order to make my response more relevant to the person I was responding to, I sort of had to go along.

I do agree with the notion that the expression is usually used to refer to that. It's a common expression in Christian theology after all.

Good one