ignorance and accountability is not exclusive to those who believe as you do. As a matter of fact some would say that putting all on a ancient book is ignorance and avoidance of accountability.
Ok, if you're venting about today's world vent. You can write a hub about it and I'll comment. But a forum presupposes you are willing to entertain that you could be wrong or grow from a premise. Or that you are willing to test how it would do as an argument.
So if your mind is set, or your cup full, then there is no point in pouring more coffee in it.
That's the problem with "knowledge". So many college grads are pressured into reading all kinds of theories, when their own common sense (if they'd listen to it) would tell them that most of those theories are simply hogwash, dreamt up by vivid imaginations.
Like Creationism ? or Jesus theory(err fact) where a guy who manages to split ocean died on wooden cross helplessly? Yeah, today's world is badly brainwashing kids,Brenda. Be wary of evolution it's poison to children with fantasy.
Though I admittedly do not believe in creation, there exist people that believe in both evolution and creation together without any internal dissonance. It is possible, they can compliment each other.
And I concur with cecil, do you deny it simply because it threatens your worldview or have have you done legitimate research and then made an informed decision for yourself that you can rationally justify.
No one person has the same worldview, and it is quite naive to assume the one you hold is the only one that can possibly be right.
Yes, I know what she means. I believe Brenda starts her day calling friends and neighbors with her updates. Some of them suddenly remember that they had "something really important to do", others have caller ID. After a few hours she gives up, logs on to hubpages and let's it fly.
It's funny and usually harmless until just before naptime when she gets cranky and begins the Pervert / baby-killer / dictator rants.
That's about the time I remember having "something really important to do".
To say "Humans came from apes" is very oversimplified, you know.
Apes came from cosmic dust, as did humans, and there is no conflict in believing that this was God's method of creating both, where apes came first from cosmic dust, then humans from the further complexification of that cosmic dust into shortsighted thinkers.
If we evolved from apes, we are a more complicated, advanced form of the ape. Hence forth the phrase, "complicated ape!" Totally groovy! Thanks for the data, yo; this site is banging 'bots full of info!
Do you think of these things when you eat a simple tomato? Complication is stupid, for example: let me only eat the items, while trying to survive in nature, that I can identify 100% of its composition via science books & medical facts - yeah, I'll starve to death. How foolish... Ha-ha!
i love my life and its little tiny connect the dots. boys in high school just totally bought it. i got so many roses and chocolates, and nerdy boys calling me their soul-mates! that was the age of unbridled ignorance (just stay on topic)
This may be, however, we must take the higher road and exercise understanding and tolerance. All life is about perception. What one sees as ignorance another sees as wisdom. We are not to judge. We can persuade and testify, but in the end we are to accept our neighbor for who they choose to be without interacting with them in a condescending tone. Pulling down the spirit of another is not Christlike. As we judge we shall be judged also. Pride is the biggest obstacle for the vast majority of us. It prevents learning. It prevents tolerance and understanding. It encourages and fosters a self righteous attitude. This is wrong and only conjures negative feelings. Anything that brings such results is not of God.
We are to persuade and testify, but in all things exercise exceptional love.
But let me just point out one thing: Love is NOT love if you perceive yourself better than another. That's called pity for them being "less" than you. So if you truly love someone, you get them warts and all. It's not a smorgasborg of loving this and that. Christ was about UNCONDITIONAL love. So you don't get to love the dessert part of the person. Doesn't work.
So exercise your love, but for pete's sake, don't confuse it with your pity for those who are so "lost" when you "know" that you are so "found." Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
Well, I don't know Pete but there's no reason to point it out to me. I thoroughly mentioned it in my original post. The process of pulling someone down requires pride on the part of the perpetrator. I agree, that's not love. I am not and never have been one of those "love this love that" types of people. Love means much more than that. Love requires understanding and tolerance. It requires work - mostly on the self to see beyond the perceived imperfections of others. To love IS to serve others and to accomplish the uplifting of their spirits.
I believe we are on the same page, but you might be misperceiving me and my real character.
I didn't know that being a Christian required required one to also believe in a literal 7 day creation. Nor do I find creationism and evolution to be exclusive of one another. I thought the Bible was suppose to emphasize spiritual truth.
So - you mean I should not ridicule people like you who cannot understand science and think they have all the answers?
I should not judge you - I should simply try and teach you the real facts? OK - will do.
Sorry for the ridicule earlier.
See - there is this theory called "evolution." It pretty much knocks your beliefs out of the water fact-wise. You should check it out. If you have any questions - there are quite a lot of educated people here who can answer them for you.
From now on I take the high road. Let me know when you want to be educated. I am ready to teach you whenever you are ready to learn.
Because that theory doesn't hold up. God doesn't need to "turn" apes into humans, etc., because He can (and did) create many things by just speaking them into existence.
So for you to even imagine that we have a "common ancestor" is a theory devoid of common sense. And if it even had a shred of truth to it, you'd have to then try to figure out who the ancestor of THAT "common ancestor" was, and who/what the ancestors were of THOSE, and so on and so on. Which comes right back to how life even began in the first place. Which points undeniably to a Creator who made mankind in His image, not from animals.
how do you explain the plethora of evolutionary evidence? if you are a christiam fundamentalist and believe in genesis, how do you account for dinosaurs? what also will happen to your understanding of where we came from, if tomorrow we made first contact with other beings? and i dont know why people think science and religion are mutually exclusive. i believe in god as creator but i also believe in the laws and facts of physics and biology. the big bang is a fact. but i believe a super-souled eternal omnipotent archetypal creator is also fact.
I read it last year. I still have it on my bookshelf.
It is a good truthful book.
What makes you think Parsley is my favorite evangelist, though?
Actually, he used to be, until he went from good ol' Kentucky-boy-basic-simple-hellfire-'n'-brimstone salvation preachin' to....a more money-focused, "new" prophecy-teaching mode. Seems to get most of the good preachers every time.
There are still several that are good, though. Charles Stanley maybe. Adrian Rogers was good; re-runs of him can be found; but so far the best is Billy Graham, even though he's been at one point the subject/object of some doctrinal conflict. He kept his messages set to the basics of salvation, praise God! even while inserting his vast Biblical knowledge at appropriate times. I hear he wants to preach at least once again. I hope to hear it if he does.
I doubt you were interested in hearing all that. But hey that's what ya get when ya post a pic of Rod Parsley to me. Again, have you read the book? Most of all, have you read THE Book??
So the pneumonia is gone or under control? I'm glad she has her faith to comfort her. When belief is used for support, I'm all for it. When it is used as a weapon to bash peaceful people who have done the believers no harm, I'm agin' it.
It's interesting that you choose the KJV as your source for ultimate truth. "In The Beginning" by Allistair McGrath is a great book dealing with how the KJV came to be, and how it became the standard for many modern Christians.
Yes, she recuperated from the pneumonia. For someone who's over 80 years old, she recovered really well I think.
Hmm... If the KJV is wrong or biased, I'd think that would make the other versions wrong too. After all, the KJV isn't much different at all. It's just the nuances in particular verses in the other versions that give me cause for alarm. The KJV is really not that hard to understand.
Maybe that's true, but why would you read a version written in Shakespearean English when there are umpteen sound ones written in modern English, and that benefit from the 400 years of scholarship that have taken place since (not sure of the date for the KJV, but King James was crowned in 1611 I think)
Well, that's where the Spiritual interpretation concept comes in! What is written and protected by the Spirit and understood via the Spirit is...simply Truth. Which leaves no need for all the hoopla/controversy about the supposed erroneous translation....
Believe it or not, I like this answer. I mean, as I am sure you know, I don't actually believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but I would accept that, from a Protestant perspective at least, as long as you are "led by the Spirit" while you are reading, then the message should come through. (Of course I am not sure what the position of the Catholic Church is on this. It used not to trust normal people to interpret the Bible for themselves I think, but since the Vatican Council of the 1960s I am not sure where they stand on that)
Very nicely stated, rebekah. Because of the media and the miracles of the age we live in, such things as ignorance, intolerance, hate, violence, etc., are more widely advertised than ever before, thus creating an illusion that the world has gone to hell. In actual fact, humans have always acted this way. There is likely no increase at all in how stupid we've become. It's probably about the same as it's always been, with the addition of seeing and hearing about it in high definition, 24/7 on over 800 channels of viewing choice.
It's amazing how twisted perceptions can become without adequate knowledge of facts.
So you're saying we might have no difference of actual intelligence level but we're bombarded with displays of stupidity "just because we can" display evidence of those (stupid) things now with our technology?
I'm saying that you're going to find what you look for. If you're looking for negative, you'll find as much as you want. If you're looking for positive, you'll see an abundance of that, too. If you believe we are no more intelligent than we were 100 years ago, then you'll support it with your own twisted perceptions and evidence.
However, I have a tendency to look at a glass that is not so empty, because there is emperical data to support those ideas.
You look at the world in one direction, and miss everything in your peripheral. But that is what you want isn't it? If you don't look anywhere else you don't risk threatening a worldview you've become comfortably attached to.
Religion is not the problem, neither is belief, nor is faith. Self-inflicted ignorance is.
EXACTLY!! I agree with you. Are you talking about this kind of IMAGINATION?
"Where did a young-earth worldview come from? Simply put, it came from the Bible... Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “the earth is 6,000 years old.” ... God gave us something better...s a “birth certificate.” For example, using my personal birth certificate, I can calculate how old I am at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin calculations of the age of the earth. Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today. Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). So a simple calculation is: 5 days + ~2000 years + ~4000 years ______________ ~6000 years At this point, the first 5 days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and, with careful attention to the biblical details, have arrived at the same time-frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4,000 B.C. " (Quoted from Answersingenesis.org)
or this kind of "imagination"?
200,000 years ago humans (homo sapiens) in Africa leave what will be a fossil record of their species.
50,000 YA Humans running from drought have left Africa, taking a coastal route to India and then to Australia.
43,000 YA Humans are in an area around 500 kilometers south of what is today Moscow, their presence to be surmised in CE 2007 by archaeologists who have uncovered artifacts at what today is called the Kostenki Site.
40,000 YA Near what today is Beijing, human bones dating to around this year have been found. At least one person to whom these bones belong wore shoes. According to Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in Missouri, evidence also exists of some shoe or sandal wearing among Neanderthals.
Why not just make the circle big enough for the square to fit comfortably through. No problem. Unless of course you just don't believe it is possible, then just make the square smaller then the circle and that should suffice.
Brenda has postulated that men's outies (I've referred to them as pegs) don't fit a male's innie (I've referred to them as holes) She cites this as evidence that God does not approve of homosexuals, and in fact blesses those who bash them and call them perverts.
You're discarding biblical truth which is wrong thing to do,you'll be sent to hell for questioning christian assumptions. I'll pray for you so that you'll learn the truth that when you drive your car on kansas highway you'll realize that earth is flat.
Christian's assumptions must be grounded on Jesus teachings, examples and moral, not on Old Testament's presumptions. Many Old Testament "teachings" and "laws" contradicts Jesus examples of tolerance, indulgence, charity and above all, love for the fellow man. Take for example the "Talion Law", many rules stated in Leviticus, and other parts of the Old Testament.
I didn't say you were retarded, I said what you said was.
A vacuum is the absence of matter. Between bodies of matter in space (planets, black holes, asteroids, stars, etc.) there exists nothing, that is called a vacuum. Because there are gravitational forces pulling in all directions in space, it is not possible for something to exist flat, because it is being pulled on in all directions.
No, because toffee is only being pulled on in one dimension on one plane. If toffee were to also be pulled in all other rotations of the three x, y, and z planes, if it had enough elasticity not to snap (low tensile strength) it would also no longer be flat.
spheric thinking? interesting. light is this. the magnetic/absorptive stasis between the wave/ray (pre-post optic) would be space. The objects within: dominant, equal or submissive 3³ stasis of light. A star being projective dominant, a moon being reflective dominant, a blackhole dominant equal.
I think you're smart enough to know that all those purported pics of the earth from space have been "doctored." I think that and book-banning, and a few other things are the point here. (He said, tongue-in-cheek...)
Yes, I have thought about moving to the woods at times to live in the trees. lol I'm jk, I would miss my home and family along with controlled heating and air, just not everyone else of the material illusion.
..and another thing about this whole evolution myth...
Why are so many of today's animals so darn yummy? Wouldn’t you think that they would develop a sour taste over time, so that they would be made less appealing for to our taste buds (much like my relationship soured with my former flat chest girlfriend?
Brenda - are you going to get around to your real homophobic agenda soon? we are all waiting, breathlessly.
your opinions and writings are fatuous
fat·u·ous (fch-s) adj. Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way: "'Don't you like the poor lonely bachelor?' he yammered in a fatuous way" (Sinclair Lewis). See Synonyms at foolish.
My cat ran away Sunday, and returned late that night. I knew cats have a "homing" instinct and he'd most likely come back unless he got killed or something.
He's such a sweet kitty! It would be so neat if he could've told me where he'd been and what he experienced during his little trip out into the world.....
But alas! He can't TALK literally. I doubt he could've even remembered everything that happened to him. It would've been even neater if he had the ability to listen to instruction, to be taught like humans can be taught; if he had, he probably wouldn't have run off in the first place!
So...I was thinking how well this illustrates that the basic evolution theory is CRAP!!! If we had evolved from apes, apes would've by now grown the ability to speak and formulate ideas and learn better by being taught. I bet cats would've done the same thing. And dogs, etc. And elephants and whatever animal is highly intelligent.
For Mark Know-less who says he's an animal descended from apes, I say phooey-----take responsibility for your own behavior and beliefs, because mankind's instincts PLUS our intelligence PLUS our consciences PLUS many other aspects well-illustrates the distinction between the animals and humans. Just 'cause people choose not to use their consciences and common sense doesn't mean it isn't there for their usage.
People who use the theory of evolution to excuse their behaviour are dough brains. Right and wrong remain right and wrong, no matter what.
The theory of evolution proposes that traits do not develop that do not give an animal an advantage in their environmnent. Admittedly, based on this, you would think elephants would develop speech -- how could it not be an advantage, right? Except that there is nothing that says that speech is "inevitable" for ANY species. The theory states that we "happened" to develop speech.
Hey look, I know it sounds weird, but that is not really the question. The question is that of whether it is logically possible. And it is.
well you do have a point in that we are not animals and therefore must be more deliberate instead of reactive in our behaviors. But we do have this capacity as you mentioned.
ok let me put it this way, a day in G-d's life is an eternity in ours. So what He would create in an instant, is a million years to ours. right? evolution is G-d creating us magically but in slow-mo. So it seems like evolution to us, but really its G-d doing it in god time
I believe what you are talking about is the theory that humans have a COMMON ANCESTOR with apes, not that we actually came from them.
But we all know that's just unbridled ignorance don't we, because man came from a mound of dirt and woman came from his rib.
For the life of me, I just can't figure out which sounds more ignorant... common ancestor of a native species with which we share approx 99% similar DNA, or a mound of dirt?... DNA evidence... or dirt? This is a tough choice.
Maybe we can think outside the book for a minute... why not put an end to this neverending debate and just accept that evolution is nothing more than a tool of the creator.
I agree with Disturbia that common ancestors makes more sense than ancient mound of dirt.
It has been pointed out by me numerous times that there are Christians out there who claim to believe in the theory of evolution and see no real conflict between their faith and this branch of science.
DNA testing wasn't around when Darwin came up with his theory. It is really something though that this testing plus other science which has come about since his death tends to prove that he really was onto something.
The idea that evolution is the tool of the creator sits well with a lot of people but not with creationists ands it never will. Hell in the Bible belt in the USA there's a so called museum dedicated to Noah's ark in which you have statutes of dinosaurs. Plus you have the nonsense continually propagated by the ignorant that the world is a lot younger than most scientists claim. Got to see this crazy museum some day. Maybe better than Disneyland.
Andrew Denton did a special for the ABC. God on My Side (2006).
But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship -- Noah's Ark, to be precise.
The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled on Saturday, hope to draw as many as half a million people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible's first book, Genesis, as literal truth.
There you go. Noah's ark with two T-Rex passengers.
Can homo sapien sapiens (us) have derived from common ancestors as other creatures?
I don't see any reason why not. I have seen no evidence to illustrate that everything just "showed up"...
I don't understand why it is hard for people to see themselves as related and connected to life around them....I find it to be a greatly unifying and empowering concept..
I compare those who view humanity as "holier than other creatures" the same as those who view their ethnicity or "race" (a figment of human imagination itself) as superior and unrelated to other humans...
Dumb and dumber...which is which is dependent on the specific case in point..
Human, Bonobo, Orangutan or cat...we all share enormous commonality...we are all related children of this earth.
No, I'm sure they wouldn't have known how we call them and such...but is it possible that they might have at least considered that there was some tiny building block of life of which they were comprised? There are other instances in the OT that show that the ancient Hebrews might not have been as stupid as people give them credit for being...they just didn't have the same terminology as we do today.
Sure, anything is *possible* but it's not very likely, because the creation story in the OT bears an uncanny resemblance to countless other creation myths of the time in other religions--Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Greek mythology, etc. They all described the creation of humans in the same kinds of simple terms--from dust, from a tree, from the ocean, or whatever.
The general character of the social and political order of the ancient Hebrews indicates they were, in fact, quite backward. Doesn't mean they couldn't get lucky once in a while in explaining something.
So...you're calling the ancient Hebrews backwards... but "dust" "tree" and "water" all get lumped in the same category? Interesting.
I mean, I'm with you there on the similarity of the stories...but don't you think the WAYS that the stories are different might have some kind of importance?
I'm not saying it's the end-all, be-all story...I'm just saying that perhaps some people are a little narrow-minded when it comes to their interpretations of these things.
The ancient Hebrews certainly lived a different lifestyle, of necessity, but I've never been able to think of them as backwards: apparently they had quite a few useful skills for the time, had an extensive knowledge of natural medicine for the time, and they even knew the earth was round and suspended in space.
Has it ever occurred to you how strange and "backwards" it is to talk to someone who isn't there with you? And yet we all do it every day on the telephone and on the computer. I just think it's interesting to try to understand what they were thinking back then. I think it's interesting how so many people equate "ancient" with "backwards" and "stupid" and "primitive."
Yes, the Hebrews had plenty of technology and advances "for the time"... as did many other societies from China to India to Greece to Africa.
All societies of the time were backward because they treated women as commodities to be bought and sold, tortured and killed people if they followed a different religion, held racist and xenophobic views of other people, etc... all of this is demonstrated in the Old Testament.
The Hebrews were not unique. But why someone would give more authority to the Hebrew creation story as opposed to, say, the Hindu creation story or the ancient Japanese creation story escapes me. Yes, they were smart "for the time," but the time was pretty dumb.
LOL @ the time was pretty dumb...I like that...although I'm not sure it's the best way to express it.
I'm not giving any particular importance to this story over the others...I'm simply discussing the ancient Hebrew story because it seems to be the one of interest in this thread. I do agree with you, the similarities are uncanny...but I also DO believe that the differences between the cultures' stories are important.
"dust of the earth" has always been of particular interest to me, because I think it stands out from the "trees" "ocean" "body of the fallen god" "rocks thrown out behind you" tales. Those are just my thoughts on it. I certainly don't claim to have an answer...LOL
I personally don't find the "dust of the earth" particularly interesting because, let's face it, amongst all the countless human communities of the time, and given the huge human imagination, and the religious diversity thereof, *somebody* *somewhere* was bound to produce something slightly less ridiculous.
Especially when you consider some African creation myths where the creator vomited the world into existence or, another one where the creator masturbated and ejaculated the world into existence--I kid you not!
Also, note that if a belief system said humans came from the sea, THAT would be pretty spot on, according to modern science! So I would be careful with that...
Well if we start to decipher emotions from science perspective then we'll end up being Nihilist. And if we neglect science for the sake of slowing down or to live by faith then we're back to medieval age. Those who are aware of "Cognitive dissonance" know how to move ahead of this science vs religion puzzle.
Just my applause, I guess. It was pretty clear to me that the person who started the thread wasn't interested in discussion and just wanted to rant. (And hey, that's cool.) But it sparked several fun-to-read exchanges, and several folks have posted some really witty things. I wasn't being sarcastic, but sincere: this thread sure has been amusing.
...how could anyone believe that the Creator could not create such a magnificent creation...let alone, that there was not a Creator?
part of that Creation was the intelligence to create...man was created "...a little less than the angels.." with the purpose to create and understand the creation...and have "wise dominion" over creation
I believe there is confusion with evolution...souls evolve according to God's plan...humanity has a soul, animals do not have a soul like humanity's. humans could not have evolved out of animals. Someone created the concept of evolution of humanity out of animals...that is ultimate confusion of the concept of an evolving human soul.
The KJV is full of thousands (perhaps 20,000) errors and mistakes in translation that COMPLETELY ALTER its meaning. It is generally considered by scholars to be one of the most erroneous translations of the Bible. It is imperative to read it with a Strong's Concordance handy or find a different Bible.
It has little to do with Shakespearean or modern English, and everything to do with people who EITHER didn't understand the original languages (and thus could not express the ideas properly in English) OR who DID understand the concepts but changed them for their own reasons.
See the problems caused by a simple mistake like using the word "day" instead of "age" or "period of time" in Genesis. People actually think the book says that the world was created in 6 24 hour days rather than in 6 AGES. *sigh*
Indeed. I do believe that. Otherwise, the "days" of the week wouldn't even be relevant, etc. I do understand, of course, that God's "timetable" over-all is not the same as humans'. But if one is to believe that it took so long to create the earth, etc., it would point toward "evolution" in effect. And indeed the God I know is not one who has to stop and think about what He's doing; He is the One Who has all Power at His disposal, thousands+ of angels at His command, and Who with one word can create or uncreate whatever He wants to.
P.S. I do use the Strong's Concordance, mostly for references, not so much for the language translations.
The New Testament was not written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek. But its authors were not in general eye-witnesses to all events in any case, so ultimately even the original stories, sayings and teachings (ie as written in the original Greek) could theoretically have been distorted in some sense.. certainly in the same sense that a Greek text might get distorted in some way on its way to English
Also Adsense Strategies there were documents left out of the New Testament because they conflicted in some way with Catholic belief. There were also bits and pieces added to authentic documents to make said documents fall more in line with the religious politics of the day. Hence the New Testament went it was released was geared to a particular audience and to the ideas and ideals of a particular church. In other words manipulations if not distortions were there from the start.
No one should ever imagine that when they read the Bible they are understanding what is written in the way the authors intended. The time and culture that produced the Bible is long gone. The real value of the bible and also things like the works of Shakespeare, Greek Myths etc is that they have universal themes and are rich enough texts to trigger profound reflection. Anyone trying a literal reading of the Bible is wasting the opportunity that it offers.
I see your point Will Apse. We can barely relate to the culture that created the Bible. History gives us some insights and so does archaeology. We know that the roman emperor who gave his stamp of approval on Christianity had previously had his wife and son murdered. He started a new family but that's not really the point. He was ruthless and basically saw Christianity if properly managed as a way of cementing his rule over his empire. And this is the person who approved of plans for the way Christianity was to be for at least the next two thousand or so years after his death.
So we are back to the monkey trial and to trying to give the boot to Darwin...Creationists strike again. Nope. Don't let real science get in the way. Don't let modern DNA testing that tends to prove the validity of evolution theory stop you. Let's be truly arrogant and ignorant. Hey there are even Christians that believe in the bible and in evolution and can see how science and religion don't necessarily have to clash. But let's not bother with them. To the caves and fortresses! Back to bronze age thinking! It's only the future we'd be chucking away along with common sense.
Martin Luther didn't care much for those indulgences. I would like to have one though because now they would have historic value. Great way the church had for making money. It ended in tears though and the protestant revolution. The pope of the day, though, was one of the nastier and more self indulgent of popes. He was also known to molest children. Maybe he should have written out an indulgence for himself.
Well, in my response to Brenda, I just meant that this was at least logical... I mean, if you are going to be filled with the Holy Spirit an' all, then I guess in a way it is less important which version of the Bible you are reading... because you've got a guy helping you... But, obviously, one has to believe in a Holy Spirit in the first place to accept this idea. I just thought I'd acknowledge the logic of the statement within the worldview she holds.
I think that we may have been having something close to the same idea. I can believe in the Holy Spirit, but in doing so I would have to also believe in A lieing spirit. I "try" to keep an open mind. Never did believe in a EITHER-OR THE OTHERconcept. I want my bread buttered on both sides if possible.
...Just simplify it all and assume we are all "holy" in our own right to exist. Plus, this would cut out on all the reading, preaching, propaganda, arguments, debates, and turmoil about religious matters, etc. Besides, it might actually save a few trees, bullets, bombs, and shovels.
First of all, the moment we get saved, the Holy Spirit is within us. Secondly, we can go to the Word and find out how to test the spirits. The Word says that every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and those which do not are not of God. Meaning that gnosticism and any other unChristian spirits are not really of God. Any other religion can be tested that way----if it honors Christ as the God that He is and follows Biblical principles/interpretations/doctrine, etc., it is true; if not, it's a false teaching and is antiChrist, as the verses following that in 1John tells us. Christianity is about Christ. Christ is about God, for He is God and was THE manifestation of God in the flesh. There is no other Holy Spirit, no other true God than the God of Christians, the God of/as Jesus Christ.
I've got a question for you, Brenda, just out of curiosity: I have read before, in the past, that Christianity didn't reach Greenland until year 1000 A.D. Christianity was legalized somewhere around year 314, 315; not sure of the actual date. Now, is that a good thousand years of burning, or at least 700 hundred years where everybody in Greenland was destined to torment in the inferno of Christian hell, or was that a period of years & years of free spirited existence? Just wondering, since I'm still learning about this Jesus-type stuff that so often involves death, chaos, love, hate, and madness...
You totally missed the point; and I mean totally! Greenland didn't accept Jesus because they never heard of him - during that time frame. It was a "hell joke"... Which side are you on? I didn't know, until just now, Greek One is a Christian! LOL! Dang bro, don't ya suppose to be kneeling before a statue of Zeus or something, before & after each thunderbolt of adultery? Ha-ha!
funny you bring this up. i actually was confused about this as well and sought out some knowledgeable people to clarify, just to be clear.
the short answer was that those people actually did believe in higher powers, but it was not necessarily god or whatever. but the answer was that since they believed in something higher than themselves, it was enough. don't know if any of this is true, its just a theory.
Yes, step 3: We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
You probably thought of the 12-step program because of the term "higher-power" which I believe was coined there to make it appear non-religious. I've been to several meetings (NA) myself to support my mother, and it doesn't do a very good job at making it secular. Although I did find it interesting the overwhelming number of individuals in the program that had turned to Buddhism when entering the program - my mother was one of them.
The steps are the same in Narcotics Anonymous as well.
Jerami, you said you want your bread buttered on both sides. I believe you want to straddle that slippery fence. You can't have it both ways. You'll slide off into the abyss of confusion, if you haven't already.....
Concerning my bread being buttered on both sides; And not "always" believing that it has to be Either-OR ...?
I do not have a problem with ... In the beginning .. The spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters and Life abounds and evolves. THEN after the earth settles down and similar life forms to MAN finds the conditions compatible; Man is then created. Thus the missing link is explained. Wa La .. bread buttered on both sides.
I personally think that when/if a person is truly filled with the Holy Ghost the "need for HELP" in understanding scripture would be negated cause you would already have the word of God within you. When the truth is within there is no need for any outside force to "Interpret" the word of God. You will not know how ya know, ya just know. For almost 2000 years Humanity has been taught to trust their interpretations of the word of God. False teachings!!! When we can learn how to cleans our mind from these interpretations; our understanding will be as clear as the sun coming up in the morning. I admitt; that is just one of hundreds of opinions. I believe this, I don't know why I believe it, I just do.
Evolution as fact is a collection of observations... The history of earth's biology is billions of years long, it once held animals that no longer exist, and animals that currently exist did not exist earlier in earth's history. Traits are passed down between generations of creatures, the attributes of populations can change over time.
These aren't theories, they're things we see. Like how when we drop something it falls.
The theory of evolution is a theory that explains and threads together these explanations. Like how gravitons might be responsible for gravity.
But whether or not gravity is accounted for by gravitons, things still fall when you drop them.
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...