What is "FAITH"

[Consilius]

Wow! Matthew 19:24! We haven't SEEN that verse before! Well, I guess it's it.

Hardy har?

Now, seriously, you know you can JUST ask the Christians who hold up that Bible rather than making isolated condemnations. If we believe everything in that book is true, don't you think we'd be able to explain it? You know, the 2000 year old, Middle Eastern, translated, copied, edited version?

Wai in de fuk do you even try to uphold it, if that's what you think about it? You say something like this, which is a good example of critical thinking, and then you come down from your progress with what you say next.

Jesus Christ spoke very much to poor Jews under Roman rule. Many of the rich were oppressive landowners or abusive generals who picked on them. From a different perspective, the materialistic Romans would have a lot of letting go to do if they were to prioritize their value of God over everything else.

You again justify what he's saying. And if your justificiation is valid, then that means that anything Jesus says, since it's all to the Jews anyway (he refuses to teach the Gentiles, of course), should be taken with a grain a salt by anyone else that reads it. (Unless he/she is a Jew.)

You confuse predestination with foreknowledge. God knows some sinners will never repent, along with everything else there is to know in the universe. But he tolerated them for a while (longsuffering) before he had to come down on them in anger (shewing his wrath) and proving his authority to others (making his power known).
"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished." Numbers 14:8

Please understand that I wouldn't post a Bible verse if I didn't know what it meant. I suppose you prove a good point to everyone reading this: that the Bible is too confusing to be understood plainly.

But, in all seriousness, the term "Vessels of Wrath" is meant as predestination, and it is not incumbent upon his foreknowledge. You can't read that any other way, but I don't care if you do because the Bible is unreliable anyway. At any rate, it just shows that your God makes these people guilty. He's obviously insecure (he is a jealous god, after all) that he comes up with all kinds of ways to show his power to his supposed creations. This verse especially justifies me in thinking he's a dick. Luckily, I don't think he's real, so I'm not at all threatened.

Since when is being a Hindu evil? Or a Muslim? Or an atheist?

You JUST said that those who don't believe in god is evil. What the fuck, Consilius? You're lacking consistency, and this debate is getting tired because of it.

Are we evil if we don't believe in your God? It's a yes or no question. Remember that you and I both decided that morality is subjective to that individual (at least that's what I gathered from previous posts), so now we're asking you what you really think on this matter. Please answer honestly so that we can stop stalling.

The Christians who decided that there were certain writings that were fit for a Bible obviously saw something in them that you don't. Or were they too afraid to question, you know, themselves?
It still remains that God isn't open to materialists who value their stuff over God and others. And Jesus DID speak to Gentiles and tell his disciples to do so (Matthew 8:5-13, 15:21-28), but his main mission was to the Jews because he came to fulfill THEIR covenant.
Yes. The Bible is confusing. That's why people dedicate their lives to interpreting it.
A "vessel of wrath" is someone who is carrying God's anger around with him. These people are guilty because they are sinners.
Jealosuy can be envy of another person or what he or she has (which is a different word in original language), and it can also be righteous jealousy of something that is yours. God is jealous in the sense that he wants to draw all people to himself. They belong to no one else, because they are his creation. Those words are not a mistake. They are there on purpose, and they are in the Bible on purpose.
God shows his power to show his creation that he's still in control in a world where we forget that much too often.

And God is the embodiment of all good, independent of whether or not it is acknowledged.

---

Evil is the absence of good. It is chosen by people who do not want good, which I am equating with God.

Exactly, which renders your previous statement a redundancy.

It's the refusal of not the Judeo-Christian deity, but of good itself that makes one evil.
Does that clear it up?

No, because when you equate good with the Judeo-Christian deity, you once again have a redundancy.

God IS good, and good cannot exist outside of him.
Good exists independent of whether you acknowledge it, and independent of whether or not you acknowledge the Judeo-Christian deity in it.