Christian Discussion
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago
0The disclaimer for this forum says it's for never-ending threads, etc., and it doesn't appear in the Hubtivity Feed.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to use it at your will for the glory of God.
This thread will not self-destruct in 5 seconds.
Maybe it will last indefinitely.
God knows!Christianity has been corrupt and morally bankrupt ever since people started listening to Paul instead of James. Or in other words, since less than 30 years after it even began.
You say that like it's a true thang.
Since you seem to think James is correct, please give some examples of James's work, and then tell me how you think Paul's works contradict James's. Cite Book, Chapter, and verse please.It only took until 325 AD for Christianity to turn into a money-soaked bureaucracy interested in making more money and controlling the populace than any real spiritual pursuit.
E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Otherwise known as, "Gnosticism gives the filthy peasantry the urge to actually seek knowledge! We can't have that! Ban those scrolls now!"I'm not worried right now about gnosticism nor the Nicene Creed's history.
I'm interested in the writings of the Apostles of the Bible.
What things do you like about James's writings?It's not necessarily a matter of liking James' writings. It's a matter of principle. If Christians claim to follow Jesus, and Jesus basically gives James unquestionable authority in the continuation of his teachings and ministry that should be held up as the pinnacle of Christian doctrine, then why in the flying fsck are people listening to some lying Roman ass-kisser who says "Oh, don't listen to that James guy. He's a loser. Everything he teaches is dumb"?!
Cite Scripture please.
Where did Paul say not to listen to James?Interesting how you knew I was referring to Paul!
But Jesus says that he came to preserve the law (of Moses), not to change it. And the law (of Moses) was to be followed by everyone who wishes to honor God. So that means that both Jews and Christians should still be following the 613 commandments laid out in the Torah, but while the Jews believe the Messiah will come, the Christians believe the Messiah was already here. And it would logically follow that James would also uphold the teachings of the Torah.
And then Paul comes along and says, "Oh no, you don't have to follow any of those 613 commandments! Just believe in God, and that'll be gooooood enough!" before scurrying back to Rome and reporting to his superiors.
Also, see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Paul tricks his audiences into thinking he's one of them, and so he converts people to a soft, safe, weak-assed Roman-approved version of Christianity in which the Romans are the good guys and overthrowing them is a sin. So yeah. Paul was a spy. His time in "prison" was more likely protective house arrest, and no Roman documentation of his execution has ever been found.Ehh....it was you who first mentioned Paul and James. So hence my line of questioning.
Paul was a Roman citizen, but also a Jew, from what I read.
So you think he had some ulterior motive besides simply claiming both sides of his heritage for the purpose of bringing souls to Christ?So you think he went through all the persecution, with being attacked and imprisoned and all that, just for.................what purpose?
But Jesus says that he came to preserve the law (of Moses), not to change it. And the law (of Moses) was to be followed by everyone who wishes to honor God.
Jesus never said that. Jesus death did not imply that.
If we refer to matthew 15 where jesus says. "he has come to fulfill".. let us go to Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, .. for more clarity on this matter.
Jesus is saying that what He has come to fulfill are the prophecies concerning himself. Jesus did not come to fulfill Daniels prophecies and prophecies that were not concerning himself. Jesus came to fulfill prophecies concerning himself. He did not come to destroy the law, that was not his mission, he came to fulfill prophecies concerning the messiah. The Law perished and the festive holidays and all rituals when Jesus died on the cross, this was actually a by-product of Jesus death, an end to the Law of moses, by way of a new dispensation. Now a new dispensation cannot be called new if it is very much made up of the Old dispensation now can it? Obvious facts, perceived in the overview of all that was that was being done during that time. Jesus went to Tabernacles yes, but did he partake? NO. He cried aloud during tabernacles, "anyone who comes to me shall drink living water and never thirst again". Why did Jesus go there? because that is where all the people were gathered. Optimum mission time. He spent his time healing on the sabbath not partaking in their services.
I don't know where got the word "preserve" from. Destroy does not mean preserve in any language. If you are talking about preserve recall that people do not put new wine in old bottles but new wine in new bottles and both (the new wine and the new bottle) are preserved.
1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
This is what is called a window of opportunity. Paul as we notice in acts 21 took a vow at james request. big mistake one would think but Paul did this so he could at least speak to them. He gained entrance and an audience to debate his points, at his own peril, often. Otherwise why would James put Paul up to this vow? Was James thinking of not letting Paul speak and Paul took what james asked him pretty seriously. Now recall in the first part of acts 21, agabus, four prophesying daughters and his close friends are all saying,.. "Paul don't go to jerusalem!" But Paul went. One of the reasons i think that God chose Paul was because of the qualities of service that Paul had before his conversion on the damascus road. Paul was a very accomplished person, who once he set his goal on something was tenacious as a bulldog.
So how you infer this statement: "and so he converts people to a soft, safe, weak-assed Roman-approved version of Christianity is beyond me, Paul had no such doctrine, ever. If you care to read what Paul preached about you will see that your inference about Paul is hogwash. If you notice how many times Paul was nearly beaten to death by the jews and still he went to them.... admirable, crazy but admirable. I also believe that God picked Paul because he was both a roman and jew which is very handy in some situations, it saved him a beating or two and gave him license to travel all over the place in occupied rome, dual citizenship is even in our times, a good thing to have.
btw during Pauls lifetime there was no roman approved christianity or did you forget the persecution led by rome against the christians.
Ya know i've heard a lot of people who still cling to the OT as the "way to go" put Paul down and call him a false prophet but that is just their way of justifying what they do, its dishonest, because you cannot glean one inkling of proof or even persuasive evidence for any of that baloney.Maybe because you referred to Paul, dumb ass.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.Actually, Jesus said ...
Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
fulfill - bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).
If the laws, like the ones regarding who you can and cannot have sexual relations with, what you can and cannot eat, much in the same way one would control breeding and feeding habits to realize a particular bred outcome, were to serve the purpose of realizing the birth of Jesus from that particular bloodline, then this would make sense. It would mean those who followed the law before had made it possible for Jesus to be born. In that way Jesus' arrival 'fulfills' the law. Meaning they were necessary to follow to realize that end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
Because free will was introduced into the world through Adam, it is possible to become unaligned with God and the natural world. It means one has to freely/willfully choose to acknowledge God as the authority. And because the introduction of free will meant the world of man was no longer totally in God's control, laws like these were necessary. For God to realize a desired end in a world where free will exists, then these free willed beings must be commanded to do what must be done because they no longer 'naturally' realize God's will as the rest of the natural world does. They have wills of their own that are separate from God's.
Simply believing Jesus was the 'son of God' and was raised from the dead after three days acknowledges God as the God of the natural world because He is capable of this. It's an acknowledgement of God as the God/creator of the natural world. This, I think, is how belief in Jesus aligns one with God. Like cells in a body adhering to the DNA code of the body, belief in Jesus aligns one with God through that acknowledgement. This acknowledgement I think is what makes it possible to enter into God's kingdom after death, just as free will makes it possible to be misaligned and not able to enter into God's kingdom after death.
This is why I think Paul referred to Jesus as the 'last Adam'. Jesus was meant to align free willed beings with God which allows them to enter into God's kingdom. A disconnect that first began with the creation of Adam. The creation of Adam/Free will is what I think made Jesus necessary.
There really isnt much in James writings at all, in fact, after close inspection of what James wrote i wonder now if the book of James should have been canonized at all.
Oh no; personally I find huge huge nuggets of information and edification and advice in the book of James, all of it Godly!
Hey, thanks for the reference to Acts 21. I've never quite understood it; your take on it is interesting and I'm thinking on it.yer welcome. Paul had good intentions of course, but look what happened to him. He did not even get to speak, centurions had to rescue him.
James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
James 2:19 Thou believes that there is one God; thou does well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Two very troublesome verses from my non belief in the devil perspective. I believe that james was actually saying devils exist, but that is not a belief that God would have his people adopt.
James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
No one else coins the term law of liberty. Law. To james the law was a liberty. Liberty does not in this case mean freedom but rather a cermonial appeasement. James was written very early, about 49ad, approx the same time galatians was written, so James never had the benefit of reading any of the gospels or many of pauls letters. If Pauls letter was written first then james must be in response to it, or even if the other way around. Paul links liberty directly to Christ, James links it with the perfect law. hmm.
James 1:27 is OT to the maximum! Deu 24 speaks a lot about widows. Assisting the fatherless and widows are according to james pure religion and undefiled, which is an impossible definition to apply and call it accurate. Many are not called to help the fatherless and widows, but James makes it a work by suggesting that all do it and then they will have pure religion... a works based theology. Sure it a great idea, we all should do it but that's just not feasible.
James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Exodus 22 speaks lots of how to treat a neighbour.
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Completely OT. Notice in 2:1 james actually mentions Jesus (notice also the Lord is in italics which means it was added. James didn't even call him Lord really... but james mentions Jesus but not in a salvation way but of an example to treat people without favoritism. James doesn't mention anything about salvation or grace, but james mentions works many times.
Also the holy scriptures are the OT. as there were no NT written yet, except maybe galatians, maybe.. The ROYAL law ACCORDING to the SCRIPTURES, ye DO well... James is talking about the law of moses.
i could go on but i'll leave it there, unless you want to read more.
There is some good stuff in james, absolutely but its not in the same class as Pauls letters or the apostles gospels.
The book of Acts is awesome from cover to cover, so rich.Okay, so let me get this straight------
You don't believe the Devil (Satan) exists?
Is that...ever existed? or exists now?
And while I know that James emphasized works, I interpret the line about "pure religion" as helping anyone who truly needs it. Even in this modern day, there are many widows and fatherless children; we are to show compassion to them and offer them help! I doubt that Jame's urging was meant to stop ONLY at literal widows and fatherless children. Remember he also adds "...and keep himself unspotted from the world". We are to be an example of how to live one's life. We are to be not of this world, even though we must live in it. I suppose nuns and monks come to mind first when one reads that passage. However, we must take the Bible as a whole; and there are places that talk about spreading the Gospel; that is a "work", in whatever ministry one undertakes, even just being a witness for the Lord and how He can save people from their sins. One doesn't have to be a nun or monk, nor distance themselves from society in an akin manner, in order to set himself/herself aside from worldly things and help the widowed and fatherless. So I see no reason that that verse cannot properly be applied to and by every Christian yesterday and today.
....There are no italics in my Bible (the KJV) when Lord Jesus Christ is mentioned in James 1:1.
What version are you using?
In Chapter 2, verses 14-18, James talks about how faith without works is dead.
Do you not agree with that?
It's an admonishment, I believe, for Christians to actually illustrate their love for others instead of just saying they love them.
We can pray for someone, say, to be warm and comforted, but if we have a blanket or a warm place for them to stay, we should give them those things ourselves instead of praying for God to give them those things. God is not to be used like a "genie". We are to be His hands and feet and His mouthpieces at times. Many times!
I just don't see any contradiction between James' and Paul's writings in content nor intent.well, yknow, rewording to make scripture appropriate is whatever it is. I still think it important to understand and recognize what the author was actually saying, but whatever works for you.
Faith does not need works to exist and be effective in the christian life. A christian can sit in a room until the day he dies and just worship God and be accepted in Gods eyes. In the big picture, its our relationship with God that counts. Not how many or even what we do. I agree that faith can make accomplishing seemingly unaccomplishable tasks possible. Take ananais, in Acts 9, (not the one married to sapphira) this ananias was told to go to Paul, then called Saul, you can read the rest.
Once people start thinking they have to do works they enter into a religion based works agenda, which christianity is not supposed to be. It doesn't matter how many works i do for my church or my neighbour or how many street corners i sit at and hand out fliers etc.. Love the lord your God not work for your salvation. Sometimes people get good feelings about what they have done "in the service of christ", some peoples good deeds are what keep them afloat spiritual speaking but not actually... Its a fine line and perhaps too complicated but i think you get my points.
and there are places that talk about spreading the Gospel; that is a "work" And yet we do not just run around and accost everyone with the gospel, we do in fact wait for the inspiration and direction of the Lord to guide us, even give us the words to speak, and this is proper and right, but to just run around and without the lords guidance is not biblical procedure. There is a difference between works of/in the spirit and works of/by the flesh and james of course is not talking about any old works, james is referring to the law of moses.
and no the devil is not another name for satan and his minions, whom do not exist, ever existed or were ever fallen.I'm curious then-------
Who, in your opinion, is the "adversary" in the Bible in 1Peter 5:8?the key to understanding vs 8 is in vs 9. remember that this is greek and the word used is diabolos; a traducer, false accuser, slanderer adversary. It is not satan or it, for example use only i say this, would have said satan, so it is not satan. Remember the times these christians lived in, persecution, false accusations, slander was everywhere. If you go to the interlinear bible you can notice that the phrasing is as follows: be sober, be vigilant that the plaintiff of you adversary (diablolos). A court case, tried criminals of the state.
Devil as we gentiles are programmed to understand it is not implied in the untranslated book of peter. To us its a click word which causes us to just insert 'our' definition.
The term as a roaring lion is interesting also. kind of an out there phrase. Curious to note that there are two interesting definitions in the OT of lion:
Proverbs 28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
Proverbs 20:2 The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provokes him to anger sins against his own soul.
Also if we take note of 1 peter 1, strangers is the translation where the word better defines as expatriates according to the interlinear: one who is banished, withdrew or fled from ones home country. These are diaspora jews, so OT reference would not be lost on them, but on us, absolutely.
1 Peter 5:13 mentions Babylon which is metaphoric for Rome. Speaking out against the state as in John revelation letters brings immediate death sentence without question. A letter speaking thusly would establish ones guilt.Satan is referenced many times throughout the bible. I've not run across anyone before who says they believe the bible is the inspired word of God, yet questions the existence of Satan and his demons. Are you a first for me, or do you not believe the bible is the inspired word of God?
Diabolos, being a Greek word, is of course only found in the New Testament. Exploring the use of "Diabolos" should suffice to show Satan is referenced. In fact, of the 38 times Diabolos appears, context indicates only 2 instances where it clearly does not refer to Satan. There are a few more instances where, although it appears clear to me Satan is indicated, the wording would allow for debate.
"Diabolos" tempted Jesus, sowed the tares in the parable of the sower, put into Judas' heart to betray Jesus, oppressed people who Jesus then healed, possesses the wiles which the armor of God is to protect against and presents snares to mankind.
We are told "Diabolos" has sinned from the beginning, and that Jesus came to destroy his works. Michael, the archangel, contended with Diabolos, yet did so respectfully.
Diabolos was cast out of heaven with his angels, (those who chose to follow him), and he set about deceiving the world. We are told angels rejoiced when Diabolos was cast out, but are warned "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth...for "Diabolos" is come unto you, having great wrath, because he knows he has but a short time."
Diabolos ends up bound for a thousand years, and ultimately is cast into the lake of fire, which was prepared for him.
Here we have just looked at the New Testament use of the word "Diabolos," which represents only some of the bible's references to Satan. How do you reconcile all these examples with your teaching that Satan and his demons do not exist?bBerean What you have done is follow old school and a catholic strongs concordance which mentions satan, hell and an immortal soul G5590. Instead of going through all the instances you mention I will just say that proper belief in God never excludes the OT, which are the holy scriptures. Every conclusion a christian makes toward any belief about anything concerning God has to be backed up with the OT. We cannot ever discard OT teachings which do not support any ethereal beings floating around because we all sleep and are not conscious and there's this thing about sleep being until a resurrection. The idea that God created one in three bad angels is just embarrassing to the christian and really needs more thought.
Do you really think Jesus just walked into the wilderness alone? Do we forget the pharisees JOB was to scrutinize any man who claimed to be a prophet of God? So you place the book of revelation at some time in the future when diabolos gets cast to earth? Kinda contradicts a few other christendom teachings doesn't it? When Gods kingdom is active on earth do you not think metaphorically satan will be bound? Satan will be bound in all people because the glory of God will be present.
Once a person can eliminate the need or perception of a literal satan and devils and fallen angels, all of which cannot exist then the rest will fall into place.
Good luck with this.
What does Catholicism have to do with the Christianity of the bible? Sounds like your issue is with Catholicism. We might find something we agree on yet.
Very discerning bBerean!
I too am curious."What does Catholicism have to do with the Christianity of the bible?"
Absolutely nothing. The Christianity of the Bible died off when the last of the Essenes did.Dude, you're not going to learn about Christian doctrine from New Age books. Study scripture and use other scripture to verify.
In order to have a more complete view of Peter, James, and Johns teachings vs.Pauls teachings, it is best to keep in mind that Peter, James, and John wer teachers of 'the Way' to the believers in the church at Jerusalem. Peter, James, and John taught 'Kingdom' doctrine to Jewish believers. Paul on the other hand, taught the 'mystery' dispensation of the grace of God and the 'Blessed Hope' of the Rapture to the Gentile nations and the 'Blood of the Cross' ie.(death, burial, and resurrection) as atonement for our sins. This is not 'Replacement' Theology, because after the diaspora, the message of Pauls 'mystery' gospel of grace is what everyone is to follow during this Church Age.
After the Rapture of believers from this age, the focus will again be on the Jews and their Temple worship. As I've heard it said, "The Tribulation is for the Salvation of the Jewish Nation." It will ALL be clearer in the not too distant future, and if you've not accepted Jesus as you LORD and SAVIOR, you;ll have seven years under extreme wrath of God to understand.The extreme wrath of God? Is that the same loving, forgiving God? Seven years of extreme wrath from a God seems harsh and unforgiving just because one didn't believe without evidence. I wonder, if a God does exist will he look kindly towards those who threaten others for their own gain?
How is the extreme wrath different from the normal wrath? In any case - seven years sounds like a deal to me.
Revelation 6: 12-17
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"
Revelation 9:6
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXT47A1O9R0
That is all I can think of.
It wasn't a corruption as in 'people instigating false doctrine on purpose'. Departing from the Mosaic Law and the rituals thereof was a big pill for the jewish people to swallow. The top religious institution at that time did not help the scenario either, much in the same way catholicism does not help today.
The jewish people were confident in Moses. They were confident in the Law. The time for change occurred because it had to happen and it had to happen for many reasons.
But to get indoctrinated people to change their minds is quite the undertaking. It would cost many people their lives, homes, family, careers and more, this is why Jesus did so many miracles and people believed.
From Jesus ministry onward people have been figuring out what being a christian means to them on a personal level. Some have done well although we may never read of them in the newspapers or know them personally. Others may only go so far then become selfish and twist the bibles words to suit their own wants and this is where what you say comes into play. Corruption, a detour from the intended path.
And here's where you can thank God for this new and better way that Christianity offers you - like them and all people - find out for yourself what God wants of you. And doctrine will fall into place.
Sounds easy.... well it won't be... but it will be possible.I like that definition
"Corruption---a detour from the intended path.
I do know that whatever is good, or starts out good, will be corrupted by someone somewhere sometime. It is human nature.
However, there is a Spiritual nature that we can receive which keeps us on the intended path, or at least helps us get back onto the intended path. His name is Jesus.
You are right, brotheryochanan; all things are possible with Him.
You did not come to this conclusion on your own. It is something that someone told you, and it is not true.
"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."I would suggest you read Elaine Pagel's Revelation I am reading it now and it is very interesting. Historically it breaks down how varied the teaching of Christ's message were in the beginning. from your topic I think you would enjoy it.
Amen.
Good point, proof of Paul's legitimacy in his ministry for the Lord.
Lamentations 3:26
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the Lord.
Proverbs 17:28
Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.
James 1:26
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless
Matthew 6:1-34
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.You should try it sometime. As it is, you leave no doubt.
While I no longer subscribe to any religion, I must say that I am grateful every day to what I did learn in my Catholic upbringing.
First: That there are moral absolutes and they are simple. There is right and there is wrong; there is good and there is evil.
Second: That I have free will and that free will gives me the power to decide, to choose to do what is right and what is good.
Third: That there is much more to universe than we can know if we only know religion OR science.Interesting - tell me something that religion has shown you.
In addition to what I already mentioned: That there is something beyond me; that there is much that I cannot know and probably never will know.
Interesting - you needed religion to determine some moral absolutes - can you tell me 10 please? Good and evil, right and wrong are human concepts. You needed religion to tell you there are things you don't know? Like what?
Never mind.
You request reminds me of the old joke: Define the universe and give 10 examples.So - you cannot answer the question? Therefore you have no moral absolutes to show me, therefore your claim was untrue. Interesting way to claim to be having a reasonable discussion.
An absolute and unyielding sexual morality which denounces the rape and sexual molestation of children as unequivocally immoral, wrong, and evil.
Is that satisfactory?Thanks - now show me where the Catholic bible taught you this because I think you are not telling the truth about where you learned this.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."You know very well that modern Judeo-Christian ethics and/or teachings do NOT embrace the concept of rape and/or payment for rape that is suggested by the quotation from "Deuteronomy".
You know very well that there is no "Catholic Bible" and that Catholic educational and moral traditions are derived from its catechism, papal encyclicals, canon law, and theories of justice defined by such Catholic scholars as St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus among others.
Your example is utterly meaningless within the context of modern religious education and/or religious teachings associated with the Catholic Church.There is no Catholic bible huh? Fine - we can ditch that and go modern if you wish. So - guess you missed the recent cover ups of child rape by Catholic priests. The latest round of sexual abuse cases is coming to Australia now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24104988
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-30/f … se/4924674
Do I need to mention Ireland? The Pope's hand in the cover ups and other recent cases? Your self righteousness is utterly meaningless in light of the facts.
But - hey - great job on ignoring who I was responding to with my first comment.You asked me about the source of my morality and that source was, and remains, as stated: The teachings of the Church---a church to which I no longer belong and only because of its teachings on one specific issue and that would require me to engage in hypocrisy (something else the church taught me was immoral) in order to remain.
The teachings of the Church do not change because of the actions of some. The teachings remain intact.
To attempt to conflate what is written in church doctrine with what is done by priests is, again, a meaningless effort and one no different than claiming, for example, that because President Nixon looked to the US Constitution and sought "prior restraint" of the press in an effort to protect himself from criminal prosecution that the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the US Constitution themselves are now vacant and without merit.Right - so nothing the church does means anything. The Pope can cover up child sex abuse and that doesn't change the fact that the church is hypocritical. And the teachings of the Church are sacrosanct - thus teaching that using condoms is sinful is OK with you, and - I guess abusing children by teaching them that what is in the bible is true is also OK? Odd that you are comfortable with one form of abuse, but not another. Why is that?
You have not shown me that the source of your morality is the church. Because I think child abuse is wrong as well, and I don't get that from church teachings. I think you are simply defending your irrational beliefs. I mean - the church teaches that the gospels are historically accurate. Teaching this lie to children is a form of abuse. Why is that acceptable to you?
"First: That there are moral absolutes and they are simple. There is right and there is wrong;"
This is something that I've thought about quite a bit, and have concluded that, for the most part, is incorrect. That there are almost no moral absolutes (if any) and no simple ones.
Can you give a few examples of what you would consider to be a moral absolute?The sexual and physical and psychological abuse of children is absolutely wrong and immoral. There is no possibility of the existence of any undefined moral space.
Rape is absolutely wrong and immoral. There is no possibility of the existence of any undefined moral space.
Predatory violence and abuse of any kind (whether committed by individuals, groups, state actors, states, or non-state actors and non-state entities) is absolutely wrong and immoral. There is no possibility of the existence of any undefined moral space.We define rape and/or sexual molestation to include sex with anyone under 18. Yet many cultures (including our own in the past) commonly marry and start families at 14-15 - an age we now consider to be rape. Not very absolute, then.
Rape - See above. Beyond that, rape in Muslim countries seems to often be either ignored or encouraged. Certainly pre-arranged marriages (common in the world) condone and encourage rape.
Predatory violence and abuse. Not sure what you mean here - does slavery conform to that? Because it is widely practiced throughout the world.What you are describing is called "moral relativism" and it is the opposite of moral absolutism. And it is, essentially, irrelevant to the point I made. The fact that rape exists and is endorsed by some societies or the fact that slavery exists and is endorsed by some societies does NOT lessen the intrinsic evil of either.
And no, there is no "we" in terms of definitions of rape in the US. Laws very from state to state.
In New York State, for example, statutory rape is narrowly defined and is not necessarily rape simply because a minor (under the age of 18) is involved. Sex between an adult and a minor, in New York State, becomes statutory rape when very specific conditions are met including whether or not there are 3 or more years of age difference between the adult and the child.
In New York State sex between a 16-year old and an 19-year old is not considered rape (if consensual), but sex between a 16-year old and a 20-year old is.
In New York State one cannot marry without permission of both parents if you are under the age of 15, but in nearby Massachusetts if you are under 18 you need a court order to marry, and yet, in also nearby New Hampshire a female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married with the permission of one parent.While I agree with you, it can be seen that even the bible endorses both slavery and rape. If the bible is morally wrong in this regard as it is thought by some to be the word of God and God should know better. Should we not understand that the bible can't be the word of God if it endorses what we think is moral absolutes?
Ephesians 6:5 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Colossians 3:22 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies."The fact that rape exists and is endorsed by some societies or the fact that slavery exists and is endorsed by some societies does NOT lessen the intrinsic evil of either."
If it is not society that does the defining, who gets to define what "intrinsic evil" is? The people of the U.S.? The Judaeo - Christian belief system? The pope? You?
I submit that if it is not by a huge majority of people worldwide then it is not an absolute. It is a relative, just as you say.You subscribe to moral relativism. I do not.
I believe that some things are absolutely wrong and immoral and evil AND that they are not lessened in their wrongness, immorality or evil by the fact that some people or some majority of people think these things are acceptable as the cultural and social practice of some.
So you're position is then, that if the majority of a people vote to legalize rape, then rape is moral or at least lacking in any intrinsic immorality.
If the majority of people vote to legalize slavery, then slavery is moral or at least lacking in any intrinsic immorality.
If the majority of people vote to legalize the execution of people because of their religion, or sexual orientation, or disability, or particular political worldview, then execution of people because of their religion, or sexual orientation, or disability, or particular political worldview is moral or at least lacking in any intrinsic immorality.
This is everything that is wrong with the world in which we live.Your position is then that you above all other people are qualified to set morals for everyone? That the "right" set of ethics and morals is the one you espouse regardless of opinions from anyone else?
Can you define why that is? What it is about you that makes your opinion superior to all others?
Because it seems to me this is one of the major things wrong in the world; everyone thinks their way of life, their morals, are superior to everyone else. And will often kill to enforce their own moral code. It's not so much that different people have different morals, it's that everyone thinks theirs is best and should be used worldwide.If you cannot or will not accept the intrinsic immorality of rape and slavery or the intrinsic immorality of the execution of people simply because of their identity---genocide, then there is nothing more to say.
If you really believe that the majority of any given society has the right to define things like rape and slavery and identity-based execution---genocide, as moral and that the people who argue that these things are absolutely immoral are nothing more than self-righteous arrogant jerks who think they can set universal moral standards, then there is nothing more to say.As you have totally ignored the question, I will repeat it:
"Your position is then that you above all other people are qualified to set morals for everyone? That the "right" set of ethics and morals is the one you espouse regardless of opinions from anyone else?
Can you define why that is? What it is about you that makes your opinion superior to all others? "Absolutely nothing. There is no possible way for me to discern that rape or slavery or genocide is wrong. My opinion is meaningless and is nothing more than my opinion. Since it is my opinion and is not that of every possible majority or society it may be discarded as invalid by those who do not share it or who find it problematic in any way.
I have no credentials and no qualifications with which to discern what is, or should be, understood as intrinsically wrong or right or moral or immoral.
The world should be a moral free-for-all in which we all set our own rules; discern what is right/wrong, moral/immoral and on our own terms. We should harass and harangue and ridicule anyone and everyone who dares suggest that there may be moral imperatives.
We should all engage in moral relativism and too damn bad about the rape victims, the slaves, and the victims of genocide. They could have moved out of the place that found it moral and right to rape, and enslave, and commit genocide.
Is this better?Well said! It is always a good thing when people recognize that they are not superior to others, that their opinions are no better than anyone else's. Tolerance of others, what they think and how they live is a good thing in general. It is a major part of how we live together in peace.
Of course, to live in close proximity to other people, a social order is required. People cannot be too different from each other and still live in peace. Society in general must then be able to define the morals of the group. One day perhaps we'll have a world wide society, but until then morality is most definitely relativistic, not an absolute.
Did I not think you spoke in sarcasm I would feel better...So, basically what you are saying is that moral relativists are responsible for the rape/slavery etc? And you wonder why your religion gets mocked? Really? No wonder this belief causes so many fights.
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.
Moral relativism, which I don't think you truly understand anyway, aside... What exactly is the difference between getting your "morals" from religion and getting your "morals" through logic and reason...or laws...or science... or even the latest issue of Cosmo?
If you can word the answer so it isn't semantically the same as saying "The Bible is right because it says it is" or "God is right because the Bible says he is" then you get a lolly.Well, I am waiting to find out which specific absolute morality issue prompted mbuggieh to switch to a different cult.
A point well worth noting: "The Media, the Church, Democrats and Republicans have sold out to the Devil" http://shoebat.com/2014/01/26/media-chu … old-devil/
This is not surprising as it is predicted in the Bible as the End draws near.Ms Dee, Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article and right on. Nothing new, Amen. As you mentioned it has been in the making for all of time. Let us tighten our belts of faith and put on the whole armor of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesian 6:12) May the grace of God empower you in His strength and might dear sister. Love, SKye
Praise God the Holy Spirit who adorns me with wisdom from heaven above that is fully pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, unwavering, and without hypocrisy.
Until God comes, give special attention to public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching.
Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth And makes us wiser than the birds of the heavens?
Blessed is the righteous man whom speaks truth, O Lord, And whom teaches Your law.
Praise be to God and all that he created.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Zelkirro,
my Bible speaks of Paul's struggle with his conscience and his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Paul wanted forgiveness and redemption. He got it. And the Lord wanted Paul to be a witness for Him. He got it.
I think Paul took everything very seriously. He knew he was partly responsible for Stephen's death, and the persecution (and perhaps deaths?) of many others. He is a great example of how the Lord will forgive even the sin of murder if one repents and gives their heart to Him.
I'm still trying to find passages that say Paul contradicted James's teaching. Haven't found it yet.James' teachings = the Old Testament's teachings, except "the Messiah is here" instead of "the Messiah is coming".
The Old Testament states that all males must be circumcised to prove their love and obedience to God. And hey, didn't Paul say circumcision was a load of crap?No, he didn't say that.
What he said was that God is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that God had justified Abraham before Abraham was circumcised; therefore, physical circumcision doesn't make a person justified.But God still commanded it to be done, anyway. And surely that's what James was teaching, as well.
Are you going to put more trust in Paul than in God, Abraham, and James?James taught that faith without works is dead.
But I can't find anywhere that circumcision is "works".
James spoke of works as being helping someone in need, feeding the hungry. Matter of fact, one of the most awesome passages is in the book of James:
James 1: 27:
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
I don't think physical circumcision figures into that. James doesn't mention it that I can find.
So, yes, James thought on the same line as Paul did.
He even mentions Abraham's justification in 2: 23.
By the way, I will say yes in a way Paul did say circumcision was useless (he meant useless to some people)..........he calls it "nothing" in one particular verse...so in a way you were right on that; I just call it "nothing" instead of a "load of c_rap" as you did. lol.
I can call it "carp"; I use that word sometimes instead.
No biggie.
Paul was very outspoken, that's for sure.
I rather like the way he said this-------
(Philippians 3: 8--
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ."
Paul reverenced and loved the Lord. I have no doubt of that. Everything else was nothing to him. I'm sure James felt the same way. Amen and hallelujah! I see no contradiction there at all, nor in any of their teachings.Yes in a sense. Abraham, spoke to the Hebrews not the gentiles. James ran a compromised church (Acts 21) having thousands of jews who are ZEALOUS for the LAW, so james' book is compromised. Paul spoke concerning Gentiles, whom are different than Jews and hebrews. You see, what is problematic is that gentiles for whatever part of their lives before Christ had NOT GOD. They did not rehearse and learn torah from a child upward. Now God has included the gentiles under a dispensation or covenant, made with the blood of Jesus, into His people, therefore, forgiveness of sin is applicable and grace desirable and a tossing of the OT law irrefutable.
Paul is good for us gentiles, that was his mission and he did it well. He made a few blunders but he taught a sound gentile doctrine and God speaks to us all.
But we need to notice that Pauls letters are directed solely toward problems happening at that time. These letters are not in the avenue of shall we say, Moses Law, which was for all the jews. Paul is concerned with, yes, new dispensation proprieties amongst the Gentiles.
God is concerned with every Christian, born again whom embrace the resurrection.
So screw abrahams law (so to speak), ignore james for the most part, learn from paul, but above all, listen to God.If the old covenant was done away by Mashyach and we walk in the new covenant, do we also forfeit the promises Yahuah made to Abraham? Christianity, or maybe I should say, some teachers of Christianity are notorious for leading people astray with this dog-fight between the old cov and the new cov. They teach that "Jesus" has done away with many aspects of the old cov... except for tithing. The conditions of all the covenants of Yahuah are binding forever. There were several covenants, as well as punishment reserved for covenant breakers. Yahuah's covenant was so important Israel had to carry it with them at all times. Gen.15:1-21 establishes His covenant with Abraham. VS.10 shows the actual cutting of the flesh, which is what the Hebrew word for covenant means (mul-H4135). Vs.17 shows the actual passing between 2 pieces of flesh. Gen.17:1-14,18-21 gives fine tuned details to what people refer to as the Abrahamic covenant. He Also tells that His third covenant will be established with Isaac. Chap.17 irons out the final details for the never ending, everlasting covenant: circumcision (H4135). To keep this set-apart covenant was so important, Yahuah said anyone not cicumcised breaks (H6565) His covenant verse14. Circumcision was a command, not a suggestion. Note vs23 shows Abraham 'doing' what was commanded. Ex.19:1-8 was about obedience. Remember, Abraham was in obedience and he guarded the Turah (Gen.26:5). To say all we must do is love each other (or just Him) or to say the Turah is done away with is directly in conflict with the covenant. Ex.24:4-8 to understand the true life of those living in the covenant, we must understand that this covenant has been sealed by blood before we existed, and we (our forefathers) have said we will obey (not just believe). This covenant was never about love and grace, but it was about obedience to Him and esteeming Him alone as Alahym (mighty one). Many do not understand, although His love is unconditional, His covenant was conditional. Take a look at the renewed covenant (grace,faith) there are conditions, requirements. No one has or ever will be "saved" on grace/faith alone. Who gave Paul the authority to change His laws. Show the Scripture where this was done. Matt.4:4, the words of Mashyach. Paul????
The promises made TO Abraham will continue and Abraham will receive those and has already received some of those. The promises made to Israel will continue to both physical Israel and spiritual Israel. The NT is a continuation of the OT in that the same God presides overall. There is no conflict with Moses being of God and Jesus also.
Tithing is good and desired with 10% but it is not law now and everyone must give as their heart gives them permission. Tithing must like much else never become ritualistic.
Also remember that these types and shadows are to us, just that. The spiritual application that we can draw out of each scenario is relevant and pertains to the new dispensation.
The OT was sealed in blood and so was the NT. There are quite a few covenants ordained in the OT, can we not have another one by Jesus? If there was no need to send someone to the gentiles then someone would not have been sent, but there was a need, obviously.
The old testament was always about love and grace, take david for example, why was he not put to death for that incident with hezekiah and bathsheba.. because he repented, not by giving a sacrifice, he did not rush out and offer an animal.. he repented by sorrow and tears and words, which is a type of the NT established in christ.
Do you forget the passages in isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel that say how God is fed up with burnt sacrifices and offerings.
What about this verse? Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. God has always placed emphasis on the heart and sinlessness and it is the much more so now since Jesus. The destruction of the temple so many times and this final time should teach the unimportance of sacrificing animals today. Do you sacrifice animals? Then the torah is of no good to you anyway in that literal sense, but spiritually we all sacrifice our lives.Turah no good? Mashyach made the sacrifice. He is High Priest now . No need for animal sacrifices. Deut.4:13, 23-30 (all of chap.5), 9:9-15 the cammandents are part of the covenant and should be guarded. Deut.7:9-13 keeps His covenant with those that keep His commands... Ps.103:17,18. Matt.26:27,28 Mashyach gave His shed blood as a covenant (G1242) to symbolize the renewed/set-apart (G2537) covenant...Mark14:23,24: Luke22:20: Heb.9:16-28, 8:6-13. Praises of the covenant Ps.25:10His ways are kindness and truth, to those who guard His covenant. 25:14 make His covenant known to those who fear Him. Jer.32:36-41, 50:16-21 the wicked should not even speak of His covenant. Ps.89:34,35, 105:4-8, 111:5,9 does not profane or forget His covenant. Deut.17:2-7, 29:9-29, covenant breakers have always been severely punished by slavery or death. Josh.7:10-26 is against covenant breakers until they repent. Isa.24:1-6 the earth is defiled because of covenant breakers. Jer.11:1-11 covenant breakers are cursed. Jer.34:17-22 covenant breakers are given over to their enemies; He reiterates the walking between 2 pieces of flesh. Isa. 42:1-8, 49:1-11 in a favorable time, Israel will be for a covenant to the restoration ruined inheritances. Jer.31:31-34 the day is coming for a REPAIRED covenant with Yashar'al and Yahudah (and only with Israel)...(Heb.8:6-13, 10:16,17). The gentiles must be grafted in. Your beloved Paul even tells you, the gentile takes on the way of the Hebrew, not the other way around. If you think for one minute He will kick out a branch of the bloodline and let the foreigner in under different rules, you are sadly mistaken. Saying all this to say, simply, His covenant, His commands still stand. Nothing has changed but the High Priest. Of course this is my take, just as what you say is yours. Yes , He is love and mercy. He gives His love and blessings to whom He wants ( David payed for his mistake). But the OT is about OBEDIENCE. Ask the Hebrews (and a few others I might add). Who is right, who is wrong? Not interested, just sharing another view point. You seem to be a mixture, something or other and Paulite (he's dead). No sarcasm intended. I believe ( and try to follow) in the words that come out of the mouth of Yahauh the Father and Yahusha The Son, they both LIVE. I hope you are enjoying the conversation as I am. Gotta go, the snow is piling up and I must prepare for the Shabath. So I won't be able to continue until tomorrow evening. Shalum. BTW, we do agree on tithing.
Sorry. That should be mercy and blessing. He gives His love to all.
When you quote the OT you must remember that what is said will always pertain to the OT because they are still under law. John must diminish but I Jesus must increase, why was that, because the law will soon be set aside for the new covenant. Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: A new covenant is not made up of old parts. New wine (covenant) cannot be put into old bottles.
Of course yashua was the last sacrifice. Last sacrifice does not mean that only that part of the OT law was set aside. That which goeth into a man does not defile the man, jesus words, but that which comes out of a man.. and Jesus is speaking about food if you read the following verses in context. So now food and sacrifice is gone.
Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Now the feast days are gone. What is left?
Nothing of the law of moses is left. No sacrifice, no festive days, no food laws. Gee. That about wraps it up, except for the actual laws.
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Now the laws are written in our hearts..
Nothing is left of the mosaic law, nothing.
I appreciate your discussional abilities, sorry for my matter of fact tone, its just the way i communicate. Some think it harsh.
shalom to you also. Enjoy the snow, we have none here. Its been really mild all winter.Sorry to have taken so long. No need to be sorry my friend. Your matter of fact is what we are talking about. A matter of facts. Who are "they" that are under the law? Anyone who calls him/herself a believer is still under the law. You are saying we can eat anything? Mashyach never said that. We can eat pork? Folks misinterpret that verse. If that's the case then you are saying we are not under the 10 commandments either? Looking at the state of the world I could almost agree. Matt. 5: 17-20... "until heaven and earth disappear,not one jot or one tittle by any means will disappear". Neither as vanished. And He puts a stamp on it. " Whomever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven". Careful my friend, be careful. This new covenant you speak of is not even in effect. In Matt.26:27,28 Yahusha explains His blood of the covenant. His blood represents the covenant. The Greek word used here kainos (G2537) and the Hebrew word used in Jer.31:31-34 for covenant (chadash,H2318) both mean new ,repaired, renew, rebuilt. In the sense Yahusha is repairing the breech that the children of Yashar'al made. That's what the Greek word kainos means, you're making it new , because you are repairing. If we are on a ship (covenant) and the hull is damaged ( breeched), what is going to happen if we don't repair it? Bad news ( Titanic), it has to be repaired. There was a rip, a big hole that needed to be fixed. It's the same hull. Same covenant. Yahusha shed his blood for us, to repair the breech we made. Heb.8:6-13. People say there was fault in the first covenant. But read on. Yahuah says "for finding fault with them". The people He found fault with. You is I and I is you and we are we and we are them. We are the ones He found fault with. The covenant was faultless. He says He will renew the covenant with Yashar'al and Yahudah. With these two houses only. No one else. Together these are the twelve tribes, that/s who He was establishing His covenant with. How can you, a gentile, become part of the remnant and not follow His commands? How can part of the remnant remain part of the remnant and not follow His commands? It ain't gonna happen. With this renewed (new) covenant it is still about the law! Read Hebrews. Still about the law. Always has been, always will be. He says " no one will be needed to teach his neighbor about Him." Does everyone know about Him? We are still in breech. There are many who have questions about whether we are still under law, do we keep His Sabbath, His feasts, His Name? But we know Him. Is the law in our mouths? Do you ever commit sins? Absolutely. Why? Our hearts and minds have not become like that stone tablet, where He took His finger and inscribed the Turah to us, where it has become part of our inner being. We're trippin'. No one has to tell us to breath. It's a natural. What about blinking? These are laws Yahuah as set into motion. Unfortunately, His Turah have not been set into motion in us. We struggle with this. " I know I shouldn't eat this, but it tastes so good." If we had His lwas in our minds and hearts we wouldn't be saying " I know I shouldn't be doing this, I'll try and be strong." If His Turah was in us we wouldn't think like that. Question: If Yahuah has forgiven our sins and unrighteousnes, why are we still in diaspora? If He no longer remembers our crookedness, our wrong doings, why is the capital of Yashar'al inhabited by gentiles? Why is the land of Iraq, Jordan etc, still inhabited by all these other people? If we are in a new covenant, why are we even discussing this? We are not in that time yet. Yahusha came to repair that breech. He paid the price, but we still have a ways to go yet. Yahusha is the covenant. He is the link that brings respect to the front Heb.9:16-28. You believe what you believe. I do the same. We live or die by the paths we choose.
Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Paul said the same thing.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Anybody who reads this, Christian or not, I highly recommend two books
I Am Roe
and
Won By Love
both by Norma McCorvey (known as Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade).
I dunno how I managed to miss out on those books til now, but glad I finally read them!
They're both like a mirror into the life of a "whosoever", a would-be abortionist/lesbian/drug-using/hate-driven but victimized/confused person who eventually found Love and Truth.
Christians, does that remind you of anyone?
For once we all were sinners, and are still, except we "whosoevers" including "Jane Roe" are now covered by the blood of Christ. Amen. Although they often focused on different situations and scriptures, Paul, James and all the apostles' teachings were cohesive. Brenda knew you were talking about Paul, not because your insults correctly described him, but rather because you had just referred to Paul specifically in a previous post in comparison to James.
Wow. You either have to be very confused on scripture, or purposely misrepresenting it, to come up with this. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are just confused. Jesus' teachings in the first part of Matthew 5 go against the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, which they would have people believe were part and parcel to the law. Knowing His opposing those traditions would infer to some He was also opposing the law, Jesus clarifies that is not the case with the verse I suspect you are referencing, but misusing:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Jesus makes clear He did not come to destroy the law. It remains to this day as the schoolmaster, leading people to Christ by showing their need for salvation. For any who refuse the salvation Christ offers, it is the law that will condemn them. Jesus instead came to fulfill the law. He kept it, making Him without sin and therefore able to pay for ours. Jesus did not say He came to perpetuate the Law.
Galatians 3:24-25 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
Finding genuine common ground with their audience is a hallmark of an effective speaker. Far from "tricking" them, Paul was simply and sincerely establishing rapport.
You needn't be a historian to be aware that Rome opposed Christianity during Paul's entire life. In fact, as Jesus' following grew, there was a crescendo of persecution against Christians by Rome. It would be nearly 300 more years (313) before Christianity was even legal in Rome, and another 67 years before Constantine's twisted version, (attempting to hijack Christianity), was made the official Roman religion.You're adding so much to this topic, bBerean. I love it! Your info about Constantine caught my interest, so I went to search some info on him. I was impressed with the fact that he made sure he was baptized like Jesus was before he died, but yet it isn't clear whether he really knew what salvation was about or not......
Thank you Brenda. This should clear it up... Constantine was Pontifex Maximus of the Pagan church until the day he died. Trying to marry the two religions for power and control, he was only committed to the new blend, not biblical Christianity. Even if he fully embraced Catholicism, it's view of salvation is much different than that of the bible.
You're right about that.
It bothers me that most Catholics don't seem to understand what being born again is; they seem to think that joining the Catholic Church is what saves them.....How could ANYONE not understand what born again is? The cheesy fire and brimstone fliers are everywhere from public toilets to strip clubs.
It might be time to consider that everyone understands born again just fine, they just think it's bunk.
Someone thinking your beliefs are silly doesn't really imply ignorance on their part. It's somewhere in there, but not necessarily on their side.Why don't you define being born again, then, Melissa?
I'm curious to hear what it is about it that you consider "bunk".
And note that I said "most Catholics". I do know some Catholics who understand what being born again is; but indeed that's not a usual teaching of the Catholic Church at all.Well first there is the baptism bunk.
Then there is the personal relationship with Jesus Bunk.
Then there is the all I have to do is ask for forgiveness and I'm going to heaven bunk.
Then there is the "receiving Jesus into your heart" bunk. This part is specifically bunk because it for some reason always involves a preacher-generally before collections- asking someone to repeat some silly words in front of a bunch of people who have also repeated those silly words.
The phrasing is also bunk, I was born just fine the first time. My soul doesn't need some melodramatic ceremony or life changing epiphany. The whole thing was a silly little couple of verses that weren't even meant to be literal at the time of their writing. It's drama, and it in no way serves Jesus, it just serves ego.Ah......so....you don't understand it after all.
And maybe you won't, until and unless it happens to you.
And baptism isn't what makes one born again...I was a member of a baptist church Brenda. I pretty much nailed it exactly on the head.
You being vague doesn't change that.
I understand just fine. Maybe it's you who doesn't?
Oh I did forget the part when you stand up and scream I accept Jesus as my savior... and a whole bunch of groupies start saying Amen every 10 seconds. There are some tears and then you are officially welcomed into the "I'm better than everyone else" club. Then you get the jacket.Let me give you a "silly little couple of verses" as you said, probably a quite different set of verses from what you referred to, but which you should know if you were a member of a Baptist church....
John 3: 3-7:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him 'How can a man be born when is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'Ye must be born again.'"
(FYI, being born "of water" simply means being born in childbirth (water of the womb).)
Jesus then goes on to expound upon the way salvation works--------His sacrifice, his ability to forgive sins, the difference between light and darkness, etc.Nope, those are EXACTLY the verses I was referring to.
Well, good deal then.
It is simply your understanding of them (or rebelliousness against them) that causes you to call them "bunk".
Those Scripture passages are words from Jesus Himself.
Just because you choose to call them "bunk" doesn't make them so.
I'm pretty sure he'd be quite disappointed that you call His way "bunk" and mock the people who follow His way. But hey that's your choice.You really have no idea what being born again means do you? You can't define it, you can only tell me that my version is wrong.
Because there is no definition Brenda. You can search that whole bible and you wont find it.
You are so sure of yourself, but you have no idea why you said that you accepted Christ as your personal savior, except that's what was told to you was becoming "Born Again"
I want to talk to God, I go sit on a rock by myself and talk. You KNOW that that doesn't mean "Born Again" but you will not be able to tell me why.
But I'll let you try
And I wasn't calling his words bunk Brenda, I was calling your rituals to prove you believe in them bunk. We've had this conversation before Brenda. You really aren't Jesus.You're wrong about something. I do know what it is.
And no I'm not Jesus! I've never claimed to be! So I dunno why you'd even say that, unless you're just bent on criticizing me personally!
But you're right about something too------in some ways, being born again is a mystery! Not easily explained. Wait---easily explained but not easily understood unless, like I said, it happens to you.
Do you think Jesus went to all that trouble to condemn Nicodemus without giving him a way to understand? No he didn't.
Jesus referred to it like this------
John 3: 8:
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whether it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Nicodemus still does not understand, even though he is supposed to be a "master of Israel" well-learned in the Law. Again, this is where Jesus expounds to Nicodemus about how he must recognize Jesus for who He is, and must believe in Him to be saved. He's telling Nicodemus that he must believe in Spiritual things, specifically Jesus Himself, not just in the rule of Law and natural things. He says:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (v. 18).
You know, Melissa, I've probably given my testimony several times around here (and got mocked for it by some people). You yourself have heard it I believe.....
That's why I really would like for you to read both of Norma McCorvey's books; "I Am Roe" and "Won By Love". Norma has a story that's probably more parallel to your life. From what you've said before, her viewpoint and the conclusions she arrives at during her early life are similar to yours, while mine are not, even though indeed I was just as "bad a sinner" as Norma in my own way!
Please read those two books. Not just the first one, but both books. Together, it's a story of a woman's life to which I think you might can relate. She too seemed to think that Jesus was just a name, his story just words on a page that had no influence on her.
There is one way that my life has been like hers though. When I was saved, I knew I was saved. Salvation comes instantly upon repentance; but the subsequent journey is often progressive (haha that's the only way I can call myself a "progressive" at all!)..........the born-again person doesn't become perfect at that moment; we're simply counted as "perfect" because we've met the perfect Lord, been covered by His holy blood; the journey is one of great hope and peace, yes, but sometimes mistakes, sometimes rebellion, sometimes temptation that we aren't sure we can overcome; and a whole myriad of human problems that we must try to overcome; we have to keep striving for that mark of ultimate salvation until we die! but in the end, we will overcome them with His help. Only with His help.
Please read the books. You will see what a powerful witness any unbeliever can become after being born-again. No matter what that person's sins and temptations are, no matter how far removed from the Truth they seem to be or are at that time. And you will see how any sin, no matter if it's murder or advocating murder, can be forgiven by the Giver and Taker of Life. It doesn't matter who leads you to Christ; it only matters that you come to Him.Brenda, we seem to be on the verge of having a real conversation here so I'm going to be as tactful about this as possible.
When you say "She too seemed to think that Jesus was just a name, his story just words on a page that had no influence on her."
You are assuming that I am less of a Christian than you. You have no idea whether that's true or not. I don't believe in the ritualization of evangelical Christians. I don't believe that someone needs to decide whether they are saved or not and I don't believe in going through a ceremony with a prescribed prayer to prove it.
"Born again" implies some traumatic or dramatic (however you look at it) life changing moment. That seems a bit... much. Sometimes people can quite quietly and quite calmly get about their faith. I don't need any set words to define my faith. Those terms really are for ego only, in my mind.
Nor do I need to be "saved". Either Christ died for my sins or he didn't. Eitherway it's already done. Either I am "saved" (From whatever it is I needed saving from) or I am not.
I am very much believe whatever you like and I'll believe whatever I like kind of person. I am fine with you believing you need to be saved or born again. I am fine with you coming up with your own personal viewpoints of what that mean, but I am always going to jump in when you start apply those things to other people/groups of people.
You think I'm not a Christian or Christian enough or whatever because I don't have the same opinions as you. It's not your judgement that counts. But please don't assume you know my faith because my opinions on abortion and gay rights are different than yours. My opinions are mostly based on Romans 14:4. It is the verse that most grabbed me. If other verses are more important to you than so be it.
I feel no need to be mystical or say God speaks to me, because he doesn't. But the bible guides me. If that's the way God communicates with me, then that is his plan. He knew you needed something big and organized to find him. He knows I needed something small and personal.
He know I needed to know him quietly, and you need to know him loudly. He knew I needed to let everyone live their own life. That's why he showed me R14:4. So while you believe I'm not a Christian because I'm not evangelical, I would really appreciate it if you left that decision to God. I think he would probably appreciate that as well.It's not because you're not "evangelical" that I don't believe you're a Christian. At least not "Evangelical" as in a particular church. But indeed all Christians are "evangelical" or should be! We're all called to "evangelize" the world in whatever capacity we can!
It's also because of how you talk. For instance, you said "whatever it is I need saving from"..............?
A Christian totally understands that indeed they needed saving from their sins!
Since you don't even want to admit that mankind is in sin and needs the Savior, then, no, I can't imagine that you understand what it is to be a Christian at all. We all have to know where we came from before we can even appreciate where we are.
And the Bible is not just one verse or one set of verses; it must be taken in context and as a whole.
And Jesus must be seen as more than just a one-verse prophet who supposedly told you to judge your own sins. He will be the one to judge you and me both and everyone else. He's the One who DIED to give you the opportunity to choose Him, to choose Life over spiritual death, to choose heaven over hell.
But hey, if that's how you're determined to look at it, there's nothing I can do to change that. I can only give it my best shot and request that you consider the true meaning of being a Christian; not just labeled of the "Christian" faith as opposed to Bhuddism or Islam or whatever, but of being "born again".
I "need to know Him loudly"? Eh......not quite sure what you mean by that, but then how would I know, since you've placed that definition upon me without even knowing my personal relationship with Him...........
This seems useless. So I'll leave it where it is.
Just consider reading the rest of the Book please?
And the two books by "Jane Roe".This is your downfall, Brenda. And for everyone like you, who regards him/her self as representative of a fictitious "god," that serves your ego and your need to be important.
You and christian believers like you poke your noses into the lives of other people, with the presumption that what you believe is better, superior.
In modern-day terminology, christianity sucks!For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
To some Christianity is foolishness. But for many it is a reason to live.
We are sorry for you...Saved from what? What will it be like "up there," when you are dead and gone from this hell of a world that your god has supposedly made? Will you have lots of friends? Will you have your financial independence which you so passionately seek?
I suppose you will find no perverts there; no molesters; no homosexuals; no one of undesirable character. It will be pure, and nice and quiet and gentle. No one to bother you? Then expect to be there totally alone, because no one in the world will fit your desired attributes.
How about getting to know some real sinners, tending to their lowly, human needs, without for one moment judging them according to your own biblical precepts? Try giving your love unconditionally, without seeking to convert them.
Me neither!
What a load of bunk! Where's our jackets??
LOLOLBrenda Way to go girl. You are still fighting the good fight in the forums. You know as all true Christians know; until born again one will not understand. It is by Grace through Faith that we come unto Salvation. God Bless you girl for keeping on. I landed on this question today so came over mostly out of curiosity. Not much has changed in the forums and we will never know until heaven how many might have been touched by our witness in Christ. For me, for now the 'clanging symbols' got to me. I pray for those that can not see, daily. I pray for you precious child, Brenda. Keep on u will We both will in HIM! Phil 4:13 Glory to God. My Love, In Christ Skye.
Its easy to see why religions cause so many fights. They tell each other to do it. Peace bro.
Exactly, all they talk about are swords, shields and armor, and battling.
Maybe, they all envision themselves dressed up in authentic Crusade garb, slashing the non-believers to pieces.We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Most nonbelievers are simply pawns of those powers and to those powers against which we wrestle. Yet they're precious souls to us because they're precious to the Lord.Wow...
My faith is so peaceful...
I don't wrestle against anything.
I don't think you're doing it right.I'm sure you don't "wrestle against anything".
Because you don't care.
That's not "peaceful", it's apathy.I'll admit to some apathy on my part.
I am almost always apathetic about what complete strangers do that doesn't affect me in the slightest.
I feel no need to "wrestle" to make everyone else believe the same thing as me.
However, my faith is very important to me, so it's pretty cool that it's not some great combative struggle. I feel sorry for those who feel they need to "battle" the world for their faith. Those are the types that fly planes into buildings, bomb abortion clinics and make signs saying how much God hates *insert minority here*You know what, Melissa?
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt by even conversing with you.
And almost every time, you deliberately say something personally insinuating and nasty.
Is that how you like to be seen? As a rude crude accusatory person toward Christians? Well, that's how you set yourself up to be viewed. What do you have against Christians anyway? I haven't ever done you any wrong. So I can only assume that you just don't like Christianity.
And don't even talk to me about abortion clinic bombings, when in fact the people inside those clinics are killing innocent babies. If you're gonna point fingers at people who murder, then you should point your accusatory finger first and foremost at the abortionists. Then and only then will you have a right to condemn the abortion clinic bombers.Having a bad day Brenda?
See, this is where that apathy comes into play. Your statements seem vaguely defensive. I don't really get defensive over my faith.
Like I said, I don't think you're doing it right. Ones faith should make one feel whole and at peace. It shouldn't be fighting words.
I love my relationship with Christ. Not sure why yours seems to make you so angry.Hey , Brenda, I know you don't need anyone defending you, but I still wanted to speak. Melissa, I don't see Brenda as angry. She is so in love with Christ it makes her passionate about it and it bothers her when it seems that others (especially other Christians) don't show that same passion.
Brenda, Stay on fire for Christ. It does you good.I'm very passionate about my religion. I'm just not passionate about HER view of my religion. That's what bothers her.
She believes she has the only version of Christianity and those who don't believe exactly like she does aren't Christians.
She's passionate alright. So are the folks from WBC. Does being on fire for Christ do them good?Fair enough.
Yes, I know. I've been told
No, But I wouldn't put her in that same category.Thanks for trying, Deepes Mind.
But Melissa holds to a belief that's so obviously not Christian that it ain't even funny. Yet she gets upset with me because I don't call her a Christian.
That's her business if she wants to be proud of her religion, but she shouldn't try to change the definition of Christianity. She can't have it both ways, no matter how much she would like to. LOL.
If I can find it, I'll pull up her description of her religion........I thought the Puritans, with their witch burning, defined Christianity and how to behave.
Or was it earlier, during the inquisition, that the definition was confirmed? You know - where all Christians knew to accuse their neighbors and turn them in for torture to bring them to God?
Yeah sure, but since all of that stuff is just fantasy, the only fighting you do is with people.
No, we are not pawns, we are the people you initiate fights against all the time.
We don't care about your fantasy lord and want nothing to do with him. Just stop fighting so the world can enjoy a bit of peace.It's not as much fantasy as it may appear. Look at it like this (and you've said it yourself), when you are debating with people, you are not attacking the person, you are going after the belief and principles. The first part of this scripture is basically saying the same thing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians that actually don't follow this in that context, but that's how I look at the scripture
"Principalities: The Principalities are shown wearing a crown and carrying a sceptre. Their duty also is said to be to carry out the orders given to them by the Dominions and bequeath blessings to the material world. Their task is to oversee groups of people. They are the educators and guardians of the realm of earth. Like beings related to the world of the germinal ideas, they are said to inspire living things to many things such as art or science."
Why would Brenda want to fight the Principalities?
Now that I think about it, perhaps this is the perfect Christian song:
Powerwolf - Raise Your Fist, Evangelist
skye2day, thank you so much! I welcome your prayers on my behalf! Yes, it seems nothing ever changes..........but if even one person comes to the Lord through something we've said, it's all worth it. It's even worth it even if nobody gets saved, because we're still doing the will of God; but I'm an eternal optimist and truly believe that the word of God never returns void. And like you said, we may never know in this lifetime, but someday our journey will be over and we will rest in true Peace with Him, Amen! It is so good to see other Christians who continue so strongly in the Faith. God bless you too my sister-in-Christ! Love you.
Hi everyone. I will not enter into the religious debate, because you all know where I stand and that has not changed.
However, having looked into Zelkiiro's profile, it says he writes ".... usually about stuff pertinent to me exclusively."
I have been entertained reading it all, thanks Zelkiiro.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
By the way, I do want to say that I put this thread in the "Freeform Discussion" (the Sandpit) because the rules for that say it's for long threads etc. that don't show up in the Hub Feed..........
but apparently the management moved it to "Religion and Philosophy", so that's not my doing..... brotheryochanan,
First let me say I agree with much of what you post. I am curious, however, how you determine what portions of the bible you accept, and which you dismiss. It seems you make yourself the editor. How do you justify that? Examples that prompted this comment are your dismissal of James, and unbelief in Satan.Its just reading it and hours of searching the scriptures. i don't really dismiss james i just don't bother with it that much. The book showed me other things that i found valuable when i read it the way james meant it. And the satan, delusion is just obvious to me, couple that with fallen angels - really? seriously? That actually started the whole journey. Genesis 6 when the sons of God took wives, which the church says are angels mating with humans. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are AS the angels of God in heaven. Angels don't marry. Sons of God are clearly human. Now what else is the church wrong about i asked myself. Angels can't fall, its impossible and to think they rebelled, lol. It just never made sense that there could be a satan and reading the scriptures I realized that it was just inference that put him there. When when i compared the post babylon exile books, 2 kings and 2 chronicles, to pre exile books 1 kings and 2 chronicles there was a striking difference which made sense about satan, having to do with zoroastra and i found more. Then when i studied about hell, that was the easiest to decypher of all. Satan can't be presiding over the spirits of people who died and are buried since there has been no final judgment yet and we all sleep until the resurrection.. etc...Its a good study, all the jots an iotas are still there.
brotheryochanan, I was reading the comment above and agreeing with it completely and then scrolled back up to see who wrote this.
"Now what else is the church wrong about i asked myself ".
Indead And when was the first time that the church taught something incorrectly "I ask myself"
The sons of God came down (not fallen) from heaven to the earth and took physical form and made babies
Is it not also taught that we are ALL sons of God?
I kinda feel that I am a son of God who has come down (not fallen) from heaven to the earth and taken human form and I did make a couple of babies. And a son of God came down and took the form of that baby which I made."Is it not also taught that we are ALL sons of God?"
Not in the Old Testament, it isn't. In the Old Testament, humans are pests and God's the exterminator.Or better yet, humans are pests and God's an angry Samuel L. Jackson. He's just about had it with these melon-farmin' humans on this melon-farmin' planet!
He's a patient God.
But just how patient? You're smart to think along those lines you posted...........
The Word says He will not always strive with mankind.
A Day is coming when the Lord will split the Eastern sky and appear to take His children home.
And no, we are not all sons of God (His children). He will divide those who are from those who are not.You better hope he doesn't decided to separate the wheat from the chaff... I think you might be surprised what pile you land in.
Christ-like is not a term I'd use to describe anyone on these forums, you are certainly no exception.What I wrote is the same as separating the wheat from the chaff.
And I'm sorry you think so ill of Christians on here, Melissa. But I can't help it if you choose to be so aggressively insulting toward Believers. There are quite a lot of them around here, really. Just because you personally wouldn't "use that term" to describe anyone around here doesn't mean the term Christian or "Christ-like" isn't completely applicable to those of us who Love the Lord. Indeed, it is very and verily applicable. Sorry again to burst your liberal bubble! lol
But of course, Brenda, as a grown adult, you know that's just a fairy tale, right?
Even as a little child I already knew the Bible was true, and I knew what was a fairy tale and what was not. My parents didn't raise a fool, because they weren't fools themselves.
As a little child, I thought I could peddle my three-wheeler down the freeway as fast as a car. And, it worked. Little did I know at the time though, they were all slowing down for me.
Well, see there?------you did it.
Unlike me, you did it without even knowing the score.
"Lucky" you that there were people looking out for you, huh?
I always knew there were people lookin' out for me.Your religion all seems pretty self-serving for your mind, to me Brenda. Just something to make you feel good about things, something to share with like-minded others and give you a sense of belonging to the club.
Incestuous. That's the word which comes to mind.Ugh. Maybe that's what came to your mind, yeah, I see that.
Sure hadn't occurred to me, so you're the one with that dirty thought! LOL
- SirDentposted 10 years ago0
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
For anyone who might be interested. - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Well, this is an interesting discussion for sure.
I agree with a lot of what brotheryochanan says, and a lot of what Robert04 says, but I disagree with some of what they both say! ha.
I disagree that there is nothing left of the Mosaic law,
and
I disagree that we're not yet in the New Covenant. Interesting discussion Brenda.I have very little to add -suffice to say that agreeing to disagree as was stated earlier can allow this forum to not turn into yet another "they" say "I" say debate. Regardless of how you choose to believe it should be acknowledged that you are a women who stands behind her convictions which is admirable.I was born into a Catholic family and baptized shortly after birth for me it wasn't a matter of not knowing the "being saved" ideologies nor was it a choice on my part. I was taught no further baptism was necessary as my "Christening" was my welcome into the practice of faith. It is a private matter as to what I believe now as an adult-I have God or "spiritual principles," in my life today-regardless of my family's practice of faith when I was born.
Hi Laura!
I have a lot of thoughts about Catholicism, some of it based on reading about it, some of it based on seeing it in action, some of it from stories from ex-Catholics, some of it from current Catholics, some of it from reading my Bible. Some of it good, some of it bad!
At this time, I will say this-----I have a dear family member who I love more than anything. He asked me what I thought about his decision to join the Catholic Church, knowing that I really didn't approve, but knowing also how much I respect him for the man that he is.
I told him I advise him to make sure he knows the Lord personally, to know what salvation is about, to know what being born-again means, first and foremost, before he even considered joining any specific Church, any denomination. I asked him if he Loved the Lord, if he was born-again, if his soul was saved, if he had given his heart to Jesus.
Because THAT is what matters most!
I told him that I would prefer he not join the Catholic Church (he knows I find many of their teachings in grave error), but that that decision was his.
He said he's saved, has given his heart to Christ. We talked about what that means, and how just joining a church isn't what saves a person.
He joined the Catholic Church because his wife is Catholic.
I can do nothing else but continue to Love him, be proud of him for wanting to live in harmony with his wife, be glad that he has the inclination to live a Godly life instead of a secular one, and pray that he grows in the personal knowledge of the Lord and His word as time goes on. The Lord can and will shape him and his life for His purposes, that I sincerely believe. He uses the willing vessel to do just that. And I ask the Lord to help me to continue to find words to say and things to do that will strengthen my loved one, edify him, and give him wisdom to discern Truth in the midst of religion.
Sorry so long. For some reason I felt like telling all that..........
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Happy Easter!
I like to call it Resurrection Day!
HE IS RISEN!!!
Thank the Lord for His great sacrifice, that all mankind can choose eternal Life! - SirDentposted 10 years ago0
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Amen Sir Dent.
There's a lot of stone-throwing around here, at various times. I think a lot of us will be dodging stones 'til we die. But hey we're in good company. I'm reminded of the disciple Stephen whose literal life ended sooner than he would've liked, I'm sure, but oh what a wonderful place he's in now! Not to even mention the rest of Christ's original followers. So Christians today can surely stand up to name-calling. Countin' it glory.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
There seem to be an increasing number of groups like the one via the link below. AMEN that there are more things being done to combat the propoganda of liberal activism! And some of it's coming from people who've personally gone through the situation and come out with HOPE and redemption!
I personally know people like this. I think it would be safe to say that MOST people know someone who has dealt with homosexual temptations and has succeeded in "coming out of" that lifestyle! I admire their strength so much, and highly respect them.
http://www.myexgayjourney.blogspot.com/ … group.htmlYes, but unfortunately, believers whine and complain about their freedoms whenever someone tries to do something about combating Christian propaganda. They obviously will not concede any freedoms to others.
I don’t know which is worst Brenda left winged Christian Liberal activists, or hard line right conservative Christian fundamentalists.
Well, that's the thing--------I'm not sure either of those categories are really Christian. That is, if you mean the extremists on both ends who twist the word of God for their particular sect's sake or for political reasons. Or who embellish falsely upon it, turning into a cult like "Christian environmentalist" tree-huggers or like Westboro Baptist or Jonestown etc.
Cult? That is what the Jews called the Jesus movement after the day of Pentecost. Christianity with all its thousands of denominations and different belief systems in its own definition is a cult. There is no one who is right 100% in their beliefs, and to say "I am right and you are wrong" is to call yourself a liar, for only God knows the real truth about everything.
Hmm...
There are indeed basics, fundamentals, that I can and do and will say are 100% right; and though they may be few, they are critical to Christianity.
But no, I doubt I'm 100% right about everything.
Just on the points that truly matter for salvation etc., who God is and what humans are, who Jesus is, His sacrifice, etc.
How can I say I'm right? Because it's in the Book, and those particular basics are clear and easy to know. Some Scripture passages are open to interpretation as far as literal vs. spiritual etc., but some are not.
Cult?
....there are some supposed-Christian denomination that I consider "cults", for sure.
but basic Christianity isn't a cult, unless it's simply taken in the most basic definition! ha. Which is simply a specific belief system that worships a specific person (in this case, we worship God/Jesus/Holy Ghost). "Cult" is usually a derogatory reference. I consider a cult to be a religious group that indoctrinates its members into worshipping something or someone other than God Himself. But hey, maybe I'm unclear about the definitions that are used nowadays..........The only different between a cult and a religion is the number of followers. Christianity began as a cult - a small sect of judaism. Now it's a religion.
You do the same thing, Brenda, from our perspective.
Who's the "we" that "our" refers to?
Who do you claim to be speaking for besides yourself?
Your perspective in regards to me is wrong, period.
Nowhere around here have I ever given anyone any reason to think that I hate anybody, including homosexuals, and you're wrong to intimate that I have. Nor do I hate science. Evolution?.........whatever! Evolution is not science, and is simply an ignorant unproven theory, so it's odd that you'd put that in the same category as being the recipient of hatred. LOL.
Now.......liberal activists?..........people who deliberately mock and mislead youngsters and attack conservatives and try to personally denigrate and abuse conservatives, Christians, and children?.............Well, nope, I don't even hate them. But I've had to sometimes pray for Love for them. A person can do that, in case you don't know. At least, Christians can. Christians can pray for wisdom and for Love for anyone. Willingness is crucial to Love and to salvation.
I dunno if nonbelievers have those tools..............It requires willingness to use self-control, and when we can't find enough of that, we can depend on the Lord to endow us with it.
Shall I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your ability to guage human actions and reactions, or should I assume that you're just tool-less in that regard and are here to insult me, therefore gauging you as not worth continued discussion about me personally and the issue of hatred and love. You do have a say in the matter. Or I'm hoping that, somewhere, you do have that ability. What say you?You have no idea what a scientific theory is, do you?
A scientific theory is the step just before a scientific law. And to give you some perspective, here are some other scientific theories, some with less backing evidence than evolution:
- Heliocentrism
- Cells
- Relativity
- Plate Tectonics
- Kinetic Theory of GasesOh, I imagine cells are legit, and relativity, but whichever ones have less backing evidence than evolution, for sure aren't science either; only empty unproveable theories based on conjecture, not scientific data that leads to truth beyond reasonable doubt. I doubt that those have less evidence than evolution anyway! lol. It occurs to me that I have no reason to believe what you just said! Because you've already shown that you're willing to believe theories as long as it comes from someone who calls themselves "scientists" even when they veer far from scientific proof in areas!
I think the difference between us is that I'm talking about true science, while you're talking about theories.
You're right that I don't know much about "plate tectonics" and etc., but I have common sense enough to know that biological evolution isn't correct. And that's what we were talking about here, isn't it?----biological evolution, as in the universe sprang out of some little unknown blob of unknown nothingness or "somethingness" that's indefineable and unproveable, including the birth of the human species from some kind of ape ancestor that came from....where?? LOLOL. I'll tell ya what----I've watched some science shows, and they were cool. I said actual science! But I've also seen some that were ridiculous, and they were narrated by people who stated the theories as though they were fact, when they were the weakest, silliest theories anyone could come up with!
While you're at it, tell me where that first little blob of atoms or indefineable nothingness came from?
haha. Well, no, don't, 'cause you can't! 'Cause then you'd have to figure out where THAT came from, and then where THAT came from before it. And so it goes--------"science" has been given a bad name by fake scientists who are only theorists, and silly ones at that. And even true science hasn't figured things out as far as the beginning of the universe, but at least true science actually admits it (they) don't know. Whereas false science worships the silly inexperienced Darwin who went to an island and misinterpreted what he saw there, espoused a theory that was totally baseless and collected a following of fools simply because some other people thought he was smarter than other men! Matter of fact, I feel like I should defend Darwin just a teeny bit, though, 'cause I don't think he really made a concrete "theory", even; from what I've read, he simply suggested there may be some connections between different species..........it was other people who picked up on his suggestions and started saying they were facts............amazing how some people will develop hero worship and take theories for granted without even using their own brains to figure out whether the "hero" is right or not.give it up Zelkiiro - I've been down that road with her before. She won't listen, no matter how slowly you try to explain it. She doesn't even accept the fact that human beings are a part of the animal kingdom - or that we're mammals. I've tried to explain to her the difference between the layman's use of the word theory and the scientific use of the word. She doesn't care. She doesn't care that most Christians accept "micro" evolution because it's easily witnessed. She doesn't care that germ theory is just a theory, or understand the difference between a theory and a law - and how a "theory" is the graduation point of science. Goddunit must be true, cause the bible says so. Beyond that, she isn't interested in learning anything.
Wrong again.
I understand the difference between a theory and a scientific law. It is evolutionists who do not!
Like I said, biological evolution is your point here (as usual), so why are you lumping real science into it, in a feeble attempt to make me seem uninterested in both? It's feeble theories that I'm not interested in.
If you have something actually "scientific" to discuss, and you want to put forth that information with facts included, then do so.
If not, then looks like we're talking about the big-bang-causes-nothing-to-turn-into-something-and-apes-became-humanoid-and-finally-humans-popped-outta-something's-belly-or-big-toe-or-excrement-somewhere-long-long-ago-in-a-bed-of-seaweed-or-something-we-have-no-clue-about-but-we're-sure-it-happened-'cause-look-at-how-animalistic-humans-are-to-this-vewwwwy-day....
Oh hey, maybe I will get interested in theories after all!-----they're good for laughs anyway; it's always fun to laugh at silly things! Most of the time anyhow.
So, you don't appear to be too happy being on the receiving end of being called a hater. Perhaps, next time you accuse others, think back to this post.
Strange how you missed the entire evidence, both literal and contextual, that debunks your accusation.
Well, whatever.You said nothing that debunked anything, you accused me of being a hater and when the accusation came your way, you blew up. See how that works?
"Blew up"? What do you mean? I can and do sometimes get adamant and defensive (when called for), but that isn't blowing up. Are you referring to where I told Melissa I didn't want to talk to her? If so, that wasn't blowing up. LOL. That was simply telling someone who's got a habit of being rude and crude and mean to me, that I didn't wanna talk to her.
You referred to the term "hater" too. If I hated anyone, I'd most certainly not be civil to them. Sometimes, it is the greatest civility to not talk to them anyway! But that doesn't mean I hate them. And I do have a tendency to.......(oh God forbid!)....stand up for myself when I'm falsely accused. I can even get angry about someone's hateful attitude or hateful words without hating them.
See how that works?I'm not mean or hateful Brenda. I'm certainly not crude.
I'm blunt, honest and occasionally sarcastic. I don't feel any particular need to agree with you when I think you're wrong, and I'm certainly not going to kowtow or simper at you when I have a point to make. If that's what you consider rude... well I guess that's your problem
But hey, whatever. I still think you're riding that persecution train. I treat you like an adult. If you want me to treat you like a child by coddling you and stroking your ego, you really do need to be either very elderly or very young to get that treatment from me.Yes Brenda, I see how that works, it's the same for all of us, that's the point being made here is that you and SirDent need not call anyone haters and we won't call you haters, either. Yes, that's exactly how it works. Thanks.
Odd how you compare incomparable things to each other.
But whatever. Not my problem if you can't see the difference; it's been explained time after time after time.............come to think of it, the Lord explained things time after time after time after time............but I'm not always as patient as Him...........2Co_4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
Indeed.
Pray, if you will, for patience for me, Sir Dent. I always can use more of that.
So odd.........I once, in a women's Bible Study, was told that we're not to pray for patience! I asked the woman who said that, to show me where the Word says that. She couldn't answer.
Do you know of any reason a Christian shouldn't pray to have more patience? Any Scripture that you know of?Jas_1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
Jas_1:4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Patience comes through trials.Yup. But do you think that means we shouldn't pray for patience?
We're not, after all, praying for more trials. We already have, and will have, trials.
So........is there anything you can find wrong with praying for more patience during our trials?The Bible tells us to seek God about all things. Nothing is too small and nothing is too great. There is nothing specifically pointing to praying for patience, but generally speaking we should pray for patience.
Every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of light.In my experience, praying for patience only brought more trials.. That's when I learned that praying for patience doesn't yield the warm and fuzzy peaceful feelings of patience but more trials as opportunities for me to be patient on my own..
(NOTE: not angry about the extra trials because they did teach me how to become more patient)Well, I can retract my request for you to pray that I have more patience, I suppose.
I imagine I'll be praying for it myself though. Maybe not as much as I pray for wisdom. We all can use more of that, and it's one of my most frequent and fervent prayers.Wisdom is good as I think patience is a bi-product of it.
Wisdom is great to pray for. Trials bring wisdom also for those with teachable spirits. Information is great, but is pretty much useless without revelation.
Right.
As in....there's a difference between simply seeking knowledge and seeking wisdom.These days people are tripping over knowledge superpowers would have killed for a few decades ago. What scares me is the lack of wisdom folks have to wield it.
Yes.
But please elaborate.
Knowledge as in........nuclear power? Medical advances?Everything in general. It seems as knowledge is freely disseminated the value of that knowledge is not appreciated and at the same time morals, maturity, responsibility and accountability on average is declining. All kind of scary, don't you think? It is kind of like horsepower. I come from the motorsports industry. We would see responsible kids learning to ride, respecting and maintaining their equipment and stepping up from one product to another until one day they came in for that liter sport bike. They rode according to their skill level, which is scary enough, but they appreciated and respected what they had and live to be old riders. Another kid would decide he wanted the baddest, fastest thing because now he was interested in bikes and either came into some money or had folks spoiling him to spring for it. He was what we called, (and we did see them coming a mile away)...a statistic.
Yes, it is all kind of scary!
I fear for the youth of this generation.
And....maybe moreso for the generation after that, if the earth stands that long.
Because there may be only a remnant of the teachings of the wise old sages that we grew up with....
Well.....you may be a lot younger than me, I dunno. ha.
But I remember when my Daddy's "contract" was his word and his handshake. And he lived up to it, and expected the other person to also. Nowadays, ya gotta have a 10-page written Contract that's notarized and formalized, but which is subject to interpretation and a dozen loopholes. Seems there's a "loophole" for everything.All through the Bible, God kept a remnant. His Word will always be preached, until Christ comes tot ake His bride to heaven. Even after that, two men will proclaim the gospel of Christ to the world and be killed.
Amen.
Do you consider those two men to be literal men, Sir Dent?
Or a symbol of sorts?If you look at the things they do, one will be Moses and the other Elijah. The plagues and the miracles performed. They will be killed and left in the street to rot and the world will rejoice over their death. In three and a half days, they will be raised from the dead.
Why Moses and not Enoch?
Just asking.
I haven't studied this extensively, but I've heard it preached about several times......(by, incidentally, preachers who I found were in error on several things!) So these days I take most Pastors' word with a grain of salt, and consider any regular truth-seeking-Bible-reading Christian's interpretation to be just as good as most Pastors'/preachers'.....so I often ask questions like this of any Christian, whether they're a Pastor or not.......Because of the things they do. Moses was the one whom God used to bring the plagues upon Egypt. Elijah is the one who caused it to not rain for three and a half years.
There are a lot of preachers who preach without the anointing. There is only truth in the anointing no matter who is preaching.
Oops. I attributed a post to the wrong person.
Sorry about that, Sir Dent and Deepes Mind.Praying for wisdom is great because once wisdom comes through revelation patience follows because you become more secure in what your next move should be.
You calling me a hater and me calling you a hater are exactly the same thing, Brenda. They are indeed directly comparable.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
There's also this organization. I'm sure there are others.
http://exodusinternational.org/about-us/do you know that the two founders of exodus international (that my mother forced me to go into when I was 14) later left the organization and married each other - and they're both men? They have come out en-masse with statements that gay conversion therapy is not only ineffective overall, but it's also harmful to the people subjected to it. Just sayin'.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/ministry-ex … rnational/I'm sure that it doesn't work for everyone, just like any therapy or course of teaching and action. A lot of anyone's recovery from addiction or problems is willingness to be helped and to help themselves.
Apparently the group is still up and running, no matter which leaders may have fallen by the wayside. At least they offer the hope that is needed for people who are struggling with homosexuality.
As far as harmful........there's no way it could be harmful unless they personally attack someone either verbally, mentally, or physically. Your link worked, but not the video in it. And the written statements show no attacks against gays nor ex-gays; they simply call it what it is.
I find it odd that a homosexual person would try to debunk the honest efforts of people who've been exactly where they are themselves and have come out of the confusion and dilemma! I would think that they especially would be really really glad for them!http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the- … ve-therapy
Oh but it is harmful, and independent, scientific and psychological studies have confirmed it.
Why should I be happy for people who have been told that being who they are is an abomination, and they need to change in order to be equal to other people again? Why should I be happy that gay people are so desperate for acceptance that they willingly give up a part of their identity in order to pretend to be something they're not? Could you force yourself to be gay if that was the norm? Of course not. It's similarly silly to think that a gay person could just choose to be straight.People hate Christ. This is why they dump on anything that is good. Christ said, "The world hates me, it will hate you also."
Many will justify their lifestyle in their own eyes anyway. There really is not much point in even discussing anything with them.You're right, Sir Dent.
I just believe, and know from seeing testimonies, and from my own personal experience, that a person will often recall about being witnessed to, years later even sometimes, and it will change their lives then.
I doubt that right now she even entertains the notion of how Christianity can be a lifelong struggle against addiction and all temptations. But maybe someday, looking back at what one's life was before, the truth will set a person free. And even one soul is precious to the Lord.
I love this song. It's about a Catholic monk and by a Catholic. And ya know I don't approve of many aspects of Catholicism at all, nor even the priesthood they apply and the monasteries, but this song illustrates how every Christian struggles with temptation on an ongoing basis.
"We Fall Down"
by Bob Carlisle
http://youtu.be/8nsUbPFDktYNobody claims to hate Jesus. If he even existed at all, he was probably an okay guy who fought to incite revolution against the Romans. And hey, the Romans deserved every bit of spite they received.
What people do hate, however, is hateful religious dogma that perpetuates ancient superstitions and laughably-outdated worldviews. And that's exactly what Christianity and Judaism and Islam are.Yes, it's easy to make up fabrications about others and then use that false premise to make sure you don't talk to anyone and keep your mind closed.
No one here has every stated they hate Christ. Why would you say that?Words don't have to be said in order to be true. You abhor the Church and Christians. You hate them and do all you can to make them miserable. You can go back over your own posts to see if you want.
Enough said.- Sorry, but no one here has stated they "hate" the Church or Christians, that is another lie, SirDent, and if all you can do is make up lies to defend your religion, that is very sad indeed and shows exactly the reason your religion causes so much conflict.
ATM, that is certainly the impression you usually give----that you hate Christians and Christ and the Church all around. So no wonder people believe that. From the abundance of the heart the mouth does speak.
Notice that your impression has nothing to do with anything I said, hence you are just making it up in your own mind.
Because you made it up and others follow suit?
Kinda like your words when you talk about homosexuals and how much you hate them? How much you hate evolution? How much you hate evidence and facts? How much you hate science? Etc.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
"We fall down, we get up
We fall down, we get up....."
I know that Christ is the One who is able to keep us from falling. Praise Him! But I have fallen before, which is a testament to my own lack of strength and perseverance, not to His because He has no lack.
And I also believe that He can pick us up. And He will, but we must have the willingness to let Him help us get back up. That's how I see it about places like Exodus International---the hand is there to help people up, but without their desire to be helped, they're probably not gonna be helped!
Reminds me of something my Mom used to tell us kids. When we'd fall down, if she could tell that we weren't seriously hurt, we'd be crying and expecting her to come help us up. She'd say "Come here and I'll help you up!" lol. We gotta reach out for Him, be willing to accept His help.
"And the saints are just the sinners who fall down...........and get up".
I also have a friend who describes her former life as an unbeliever. She'll say "Yep, I used to do that stuff too, back then. I acted like the heathen I was!"
Naysayers would say that she was insulting people by calling them heathens. But indeed she's only describing what she herself used to be as well! That's how Christians are----we know where we've been, and we understand what it's like to be unbelieving and sinful, but we're sooooo glad to have come through it all, and we hope beyond hope for the same redemption for any other person. Oh hey, this is pretty funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIrHwHYtQxo
People seriously still believe prayer is banned in schools, apparently.Okay. I watched it up until the mean creepy bigoted guy started joking about miscarriage and baby-killing. Then I shut him off. Click. It should be that easy to shut his mean mouth. It was sufficient enough to make a judgement call that he's a fool and a liberal bully, and very very misguided; it's like he's still a juvenile, very immature.
Apparently The Thaw ticked him off. Why? I watched The Thaw the other day. I know why. He hates Christianity, and he's bigoted toward Christians. And he's bully enough to mock young people who stand up for what's right.
Ya know what----he's also a coward. Confused, and cowardly. He fears the truth. Cowardice is no excuse, however, for his horrid behavior; and he can't hide any of it under the guise of "comedy", 'cause he ain't even funny.So, can we conclude, just like you did, that you really hate that guy?
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
As far as the teens who made The Thaw, I pray that their zeal is tempered with prayer, humility and Love, and their actions with wisdom.
"Lord, help these children in Your spiritual army to remember their armor as they begin their service for You; clad them with the 7 tools necessary for battle------truth, righteousness, the gospel, faith, salvation, the Word of God, and prayer. In the mighty Name of Jesus. Amen." - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Wanna read a real "scientific" book?
Try the Bible.
I bet you don't even know how much science is in there.You mean the same Bible that fails to explain ring species?
The very same Bible that attributes plate tectonics to God's wrath?
And claims the Earth took 5 days while the many, many billions of stars, other planets, galaxies, quasars, pulsars, etc. which are infinitely more complex and incomprehensible than Earth took one third of a day (the other two-thirds being dedicated to the sun and moon)?
And claims that the Earth has corners?
And claims that 1.9 million species of animals, along with 8 people, were able to ride on a boat that was two-thirds the size of the Titanic, which held a maximum of 2300 people?
And claims that whales are fish?
And claims that 13-foot-tall humans existed? (King Og of Bashan, Deuteronomy 3:11)
Surely you can't be serious.Surely you can't be serious if you think that description of the earth means the earth is square! Do you not even understand metaphors and etc.?
Is that the problem----you can't discern between literal and symbolic?
Amazing.
Umm....let me see if I can explain some science, combined with language, to you.
The earth has been labeled as having a North Pole and a South Pole, correct?
And directions, as in North, South, East, West.
So there's no reason to be in shock when the Creator of this earth mentions "corners" of it.
Shoot, people have always mentioned "corners" as long as I can remember, as in the four corners of the world, from so-and-so's little "corner of the world".........etc. Yet not one of those people that I know have ever thought the world was flat, square..........
And as a writer, how can you not understand that kind of metaphorical references and other figures of speech?
Or is it just immediate blind revulsion when the Bible is referenced?
I'm really curious.Alright, let's suppose for a second that the various instances referring to Earth's corners are, in fact, just plain old metaphors.
That still leaves the other 6 tidbits I've mentioned for you to try to explain away.No, it doesn't leave just those.
It leaves your proof of biological evolution!
Really, I don't have to be on the defense here.
The burden of proof is in your corner now.
Maybe we can trade off, I explain one thing, then you explain one.
Tell me how something can come from nothing. Or else tell me (with proof, either factual or common-sense deduction based on the facts as we know them) what that "something" was that first existed that led to the universe coming into being?Well, that's easy: It can't! B-d-b-d-b-b-b-that's all, folks!
I'm pretty sure it was a tightly-packed super-heated atom that could contain itself no longer, and so it expanded and cooled. But I'm not a scientist, so I can't even begin to understand the physics and math involved. All I know is that we can trace the event back to mere milliseconds after it occurred, but everything before that is a total mystery. Even if the answer turns out to be "Joe Pesci did it," it would make more sense than "An omnipotent super-being who invented light before any conceivable light sources existed did it."You had it at "It can't!"
And then you ruined the truth by saying "we can trace it back to mere milliseconds...."
So....try to explain that. What makes you think it can even be traced to that? With proof, please.
Or better yet, tell me where that "tightly-packed super-heated" atom came from in the first place? What made it heat up? And from what source did THAT heat come from?While he's typing that post up... Maybe you can type one up on where an omnipotent and all-powerful being came from. What made HIM? And what made the thing that made him?
With proof please.
And you might find this helpful on how an atom can create heat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fissionNot interested in being tag-teamed.
Zelkiiro, I reckon, can think for himself.
Not interested in humoring you Melissa.
Am interested in a legitimate discussion. With the person I was discussing with. Or 'most anybody else except either one of two people who persisted in falsely labeling me even after the discussion was over! Which, one of was...you. Nor with anyone who's so callously insulting toward conservatives in general as such things as you say in other threads.
So. You can yakk on to yourself, or listen and learn.
For now, I'm sleepy. That's a fact. Not literally proveable to anyone else outside my direct vicinity, but proveable as in all probability by common-sense deduction even to someone besides myself, considering time zone, biology, my personal experience, their personal experience, history, my history, their history, language interpretation, human nature; And am retiring for the night, in all assumable probability and scientific theory.Oh Brenda,
I'm challenging of both conservatives and liberals... religious and non religious. Anyone who's argument doesn't make sense to me. That IS a legitimate discussion.
I'm equal opportunity. Get off the persecution train. You asked how an atom could produce that much heat... It's called fission. It's pretty well established. Specifically, I believe he's talking about spontaneous fission. If you actually study up on it, there is an obvious angle you can work against it that doesn't require religion. It would probably be stronger to the scientific minds than "God did it." You might actually not lose an intellectual debate. You likely won't win, mind you, but maybe you won't lose.
Otherwise, I'm asking you to produce the same argument you are asking him to present for your side. If you can't just say so.You're misunderstanding what I asked.
I'm looking for the answer to how the very first thing came into being, whether it's an atom, or heat, or cold, or whatever it is. I'm not asking for a rundown of how an atom heats up! LOL. or how gravity works; gravity etc. are facts that have been proven to exist. Those aren't even critical to this discussion. I want to hear some "science"-oriented person tell me exactly where the very first tangible or proveable thing came into existence. Especially a pseudo-science believer, a theorist of sorts, since I already agree with and appreciate real science. That answer hasn't been put forth by anyone yet except Bible believers.
While I do not have time for, nor interest in, a never ending tit for tat, I'll go ahead and address why your remaining 6 points are not the smoking gun you hope them to be.
Ring species is yet another example of those searching for ways to remove a creator from the equation by taking observations regarding the incredible adaptability God engineered into organisms and spinning it as though it were evidence for macro-evolution. They should simply be in awe of the Creator. "Ring species" does not represent one kind of creature becoming a different kind of creature. It just illustrates diversification and adaptability.
Please show me where in the bible it says "acts of nature" are always indications of God's wrath? Would it make sense that a Creator could utilize attributes of His creation to impose wrath? Certainly.
Your concerns here presuppose a limitation to God's abilities and power. Without that presupposition, spending two seconds on a galaxy or an hour on a flower is really not an issue. Do you have a creation vs time itemization chart that needs to be applied to establish validity?
Earlier I referred to the amazing adaptability God has engineered into organisms. This is how breeding is done, (we would have a Chihuahua-less world without it). There needed to be one of each kind of animal, and preferably they would be very young for the sake of room, provisions and maintenance.
Not sure of your reference here...sounds like semantics. Perhaps you are referring to the "great fish" that swallowed Jonah? If so, there are several possible explanations, none of which negate the story. First, as I stated; semantics. Interesting that on one hand detractors would claim the story is impossible, and on the other say it had to be a whale. Second, if we are talking about the God who created everything...He could certainly sustain a man's life in any situation. Third, if He wanted it to be a comfortable 3 days, not being limited by anything, I suppose He could simply whip up a custom 2 bedroom fish with built in air processing, climate and humidity control and perhaps a nice transparent membrane to enjoy the seascape. Shoot, we could probably build a nice one, but unfortunately we lack the flair or ability to add that nice touch of having it be alive.
I know there are many claims of giants, and have not explored this thoroughly, but considering we have examples of giant critters and vegetation of all sorts, I hardly find the possibility incredible. If giants were common enough to spur all the myths, yet still very rare, does your not having a skeleton to view prove they didn't exist? How big of skeletons have been found? Again, I haven't researched this because it doesn't really matter.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
It's called thinking. Science is based on facts and evidence, not symbols and metaphors. The Bible is obviously not a book of science, then, so why would you even say that?
On an off subject, the Bible even gets things as small as plant identification wrong.
There are bible verses that have plants growing in places and in ways that they just don't. I was going to write a hub about it, but it would be the least read hub... Ever.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
(Job 38: 4-7)
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
(Job 38: 31)
"Seek Him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is His name."
(Amos 5: 8) Love is the GREATEST "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is love." I Cor. 13:13
- SirDentposted 10 years ago0
“He led them forth by the right way.”
- Psa_107:7
All through the Bible it is declared that God led His children by the right way. God will never lead anyone in the wrong way. If you are struggling with something in your life, be assured, God will lead you out if you seek Him and His glory.
God is a just and righteous God. He is not a god of the dead but a God of the living. My Pastor has spoken many times about how God is not the god of denomination nor the god of an organization. He is the God of people.
In this day and time we live in, it is hard to stay on the right path. Many false teachers are out there teaching wrong ideas and doctrines. We must search God our for ourselves and follow after Him. Jesus stated in John 14:6, "I am the way." Jesus is the right way. there is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we shall be saved. He is the chief cornerstone, the very one that Israel rejected.
Walk the path that God has laid before you and you will find His glory. He is the leader of those who love Him. - SirDentposted 10 years ago0
Mat_7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Complete Verse:
Do not cast your pearls before swine... because they have their own pearls, and they are nicer than yours.
They will trample them beneath their feet because they are inferior then they will rend you because you are insulting and condescending...
Geez no one ever get's the verse right.
And why does everyone care so much about solidified oyster snot? Is that what God is saying, that our wisdom is the equivalent of irritating shellfish mucus?
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Amen to both posts, Sir Dent.
Very encouraging. Wisdom exudes from those Scripture verses. - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(John 3: 16).And so, he created evil for man to fall into, and then he formed a corporeal aspect of himself, allowed said aspect to be tortured and slaughtered so that humanity can enter Heaven in exchange for their free will, and is now sitting around and watching his "beloved" creation suffer until he feels like burning, starving, and eviscerating every man, woman, and child on Earth for three and a half years before he flat-out wipes out humanity and imposes a tyrannical regime for 1000 years.
Sounds like a nice guy.Free will isn't given up at all.
You do err in saying so.
Actually, it's free will that allows us into heaven, when we use that free will to choose to Love the Lord. Some people, though, use it to hate Him.
Who wouldn't Love a man who was sinless, perfect, and who gave up His life for them? .........I guess it would be those who choose not to Love, huh?
Love is a choice. Given mankind's fallibility, it's a difficult choice sometimes, but nevertheless a choice.A god who tells his chosen people that it's better for an angry mob to rape your daughters (offer them freely!) than to rape your guests?
There are several possibilities as to why Lot offered his daughters. One of them in particular I'm sure you won't like, if you're as liberal as you seem to be.
But I perceive that you are much too angry to discuss this rationally.
Perhaps another time.I fail to see the love in the inmage of god you worship.
So where is the love of this image of the god you worship if 10s of billions are eternally roasting in a torturous flame for being born a babe?
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
The love of God has no bounds. It seems you believe punishment to not be of love. Whom the Father chastises, He also loves. There is a way out of hell but we have to choose to follow after that way.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Condemned already because they don't believe. They love darkness rather than loving light simply because their deeds are hidden in darkness. In fact, those that love dark hate the light. it is hard to do hidden things in the light. Darkness is their cover.
You can spin it however you want, but truth is truth no matter how you and/or others try and twist things around. God is God and He is always righteous. Nothing He does is bad or evil.I believe punishment should fit the crime. I believe punishment is corrective, not vindictive. I believe punishment bennefits the one being punished. I believe that cruelty and injustice go hand in hand. I believe what you call truth is another man's lie and vice verse.
So you do believe that they who live by the sword should die by the sword?
Those who live according to the flesh shall get the rewards of the fleshly man. Those who live by the Spirit shall get the rewards of the spiritual man.
God asked Job, "Where were you when I created everything? Where were you when I hung the stars on nothing?" (paraphrased)
How can we question the Word of God Himself? Are we to teach Him how to do things right?
Came back to add this: 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.1, yes!
2, yes!
3, The word of God is His Son Christ Yeshua, not scripture, and it is not God I question. It is the false beliefs of Christians that I question.
4, what day is that?3. I see now that you believe in God but don't believe the Bible. (Correct me if I am wrong) Can God go against His own word? Do you believe God is unable to keep His Word throughout all these years?
4. I really don't know what day that is. I do know it will be after the rapture of His bride and probably after he comes back and sets up His kingdom, possibly (probably) after the millenial reign. A new Earth and a new heaven because the old were both defiled with sin.
Your problem dent is you dont know how to have a proper discussion and I will show you why as I correct you because you are wrong.
3, I believe in both God and scripture, but you like the pharisees like to twist my words. Yes I believe in the bible. I just dont believe in your understanding of it. You read the bible the way you are, but dont read it as it was meant to be read. No, God will not go against His word to anyone. Especially His word to Abraham that all families and nations will be bless through him.
4, That day already came 1943 years ago as Christ prophesized to His diciples in Matt 24 and 25. You interpret scripture literally and you get help from your false teachers. they mean no harm as I am sure they are sincere in their teachings. Next to the hell doctrine, the rapture doctrine is just another false teaching.Clarify everything you said with scripture. If you can't, you must be wrong.
You talk about false teachers. Who anoints false teachers? Does God anoint those who teach falsely? A preacher either has the anointing of God or he does not. I will take the anointing over no anointing any day.
Do you spread the gospel of Christ? It seems to me all you do is go against everyone who does not agree with you.
God does not mince His words. If He says it will happen, it will happen no matter who says it won't. So many say they are a child of God but they refuse to heed His Word. You cannot be a Child of God and a child of satan at the same time.
Jesus spoke of the rich man in hell who lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham with Lazarus in his bosom. Many say it is only a story, but Lazarus did die, did he not? The rich man was tormented and asked for a drop of water to cool his tongue. Either Jesus lied or He told the truth.
This same Jesus, in like manner, will return. Why will he return? Will He return to take His bride home?From the outside looking in, I can see that this debate is getting ready to get a little heated, so do you mind if I interject? None of us here are in a position to tell any others who is right or wrong, especially when it comes to scripture. If I may remind you both that the bible is not just one book that talks about God and Christ, it is actually a compilation of several books, each with different authors. Each author is writing and giving their book based on how they see God.. Basically, each one had their own relationship with Him. With this in mind, each of us gravitate toward the books and parts of the bible that resonates best with what we are looking for when we are searching for God and in our individual relationship with Him. Ultimately, It is difficult to say who is or is not following or teaching false doctrine (at times), because we can all find scripture to back it up. The only difference is when we look at the scripture and apply it in context to what is being said at the time it is written. The same word may not always have the same meaning in two different books. Ultimately, we will have to work all of that out and figure it all out when we pass on and get to His throne.
Ezekiel 26:
1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:
3 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.
5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.
6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord.
7 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.
12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.
15 Thus saith the Lord God to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.
17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
19 For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
Now here's the important verse:
21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God.
So, we all know this is Tyre (a.k.a. Tyrus a.k.a. Sour) in Lebanon. And God said that it would never be found again. Except God was totally wrong, because here it is.
I agree with Deeps, I can provide all the scripture I need to back up my point, but it does not matter what I post, because you are determined to believe in hell.
I was once determined to believe in hell Deeps, until I found the teachings of UR, so your point is invalid.
I wasn't making a specific point.. I was just saying that we're going to believe what we choose to believe regarding the bible and as Christians we cannot pass judgment on each other for what we pull out of a specific chapter of the bible
I agree partially with what you said. Partially I don't. God is revealed, never explained, never described. Earlier in this thread we talked a little about knowledge. Knowledge is great, but is, in fact, useless without revelation. God has revealed Himself to many. Not all will have this revelation.
Who can reach God besides the One who is sinless? Job mentioned a longing to see the daysman, someone who could touch God and touch man at the same time. That is Jesus Christ Himself.Awesome! Thank you Sir Dent!
"daysman" is a title for Him that I hadn't paid attention to.
My sidenotes in the Bible say, yes, "mediator", and my Concordance lists these defining words----
appoint
argue
chasten
convince
correct
dispute
judge
maintain
plead
reason
rebuke
reprove
It all fits, because He is all those things and more--------our Advocate, our Judge, our rebuker, our reprover, our "maintainer" (He can "keep us" from falling)..........He is an amazing amazing awesome Lord!
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."
(Luke 9: 26). - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Betrayal Continuum
Shake your fist
and point your finger
at Him who created Life
in the beginning
Shout your oaths
hurl the insults
have the audacity
to think you're winning
Spout atrocities paid for
with thirty pieces of
silver, time after time
and time multiplied
Do your worst
and do it now
O Judas cloned
from an ancient bribe
Ignore the Son
who gave His life
that you might Live
one day with Him
But choose ye soon
if so you must
before your mind
and eyes grow dim
For then you will have
no longer choice
as days slide by
in serene denial
Your hardened heart
will no more lend
itself to Love, nor
anything worthwhile. - SirDentposted 10 years ago0
“Rise up my love, my fair one, and come away.”
- Son_2:10
My Pastor has spoken many times about those who love God. One question he has asked is, "Have you ever tried to be with someone who didn't want to be with you." God calls out to those who love Him, but it seems they are no where to be found. (Lamentations 1:19 I called for my lovers, but they deceived me: my priests and mine elders gave up the ghost in the city, while they sought their meat to relieve their souls.) "Where are my lovers?" is what God is asking. They used to meet at the gate and prophesy and proclaim the goodness and mercy of God. They would state how God loves them and that they love God also.
In our daily walks, we must continually praise God and declare Him to be Lord of our lives. We need to be diligent and do not be as those that Jeremiah wrote about.
Soon, Christ will come again and say, "Rise up my love, my fair one, and come away with me, for judgment has come to the Earth." The rapture is imminent and will soon come to pass. We must be ready to meet Him or we will be left behind. - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
I found a huge list of names and titles for God. Wow. This is just the "A"s.
(I especially love the "Ancient of Days", the "Amen", the "Author and Finisher of our Faith", and the "Advocate".)
Abba, Father
Abhir (Hebrew)
Adam, The Last (or The Second Adam) (Greek: eschatos Adam—1 Cor. 15:45; Romans 5:12-21)
Adonai (Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי or A-D-N / Greek: Κύριος, or Kyrios)
Advocate or Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1—refers to Jesus Christ who is an advocate for his followers to the Father)
`Akal `Esh (Hebrew—meaning: “Consuming Fire”—Deut. 4:24)
Akrogoniaios akrogoniaios lithos (Greek—meaning: “Chief Cornerstone”—Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6)
Almighty, The (2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8; 19:6)
Almighty God (Gen. 17:1; Ezek. 10:5; Rev 19:15)
Alpha and Omega (“The First and the Last,” “The Beginning and The End”) (Rev. 1:8, 11, 21:16, 22:13)
All Sufficient (2 Cor. 9:8)
Amen, The (Revelation 3:14—refers to Jesus Christ)
Ancient of days (Hebrew: `attiyq yowm—Daniel 7:9, 13-14, 22 / Aramaic: Atik Yomin / Greek: Palaios Hemeron / Latin: Antiquus Dierum)
Anointed One, The (Acts 4:26—refers to Jesus Christ)
Apostle, Chief (refers to Jesus Christ)
Apostle and High Priest (Heb 3:1—refers to Jesus Christ)
Atoning Sacrifice for our sins (or Propitiation for our sins) (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 4:10; 2:2—refers to Jesus Christ)
Attiq Yomin (Aramaic) (Daniel 7:9, 13, 22)
Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2—refers to Jesus Christ)
Author of Eternal Salvation (Heb. 5:9—refers to Jesus Christ)
Author of Life (or Prince of Life) (Acts 3:15—refers to Jesus Christ)
Author of Peace (1 Cor. 14:33)
Avi (Hebrew—meaning: “Father”—Psalm 68:5; Mal. 2)
Avi-’ad (Hebrew—meaning: “Everlasting Father,” “Eternal Father”—Isaiah 9:6)
Avinu (Hebrew—meaning: “Our Father”—Isaiah 63:16)
Avir Ya’akov (Hebrew—meaning: “Mighty One of Jacob”—Isa. 60:16)
A son over his own house (refers to Jesus Christ—The Church is Christ's house.)
A Star out of Jacob (refers to Jesus Christ)
A stone of stumbling [to the unbeliever] (Isa. 8:14; 1 Peter 2:8—refers to Jesus Christ)
A sun and shield (Psa. 84:11)
A very present help in trouble (Psa. 46:1)
A witness to us (refers to Holy Spirit)The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán(god) and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root - "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made." Other school of thought believes that the word comes from Sanskrit “gau” meaning cow considered sacred. Refer Hathor in Egyptian mythology.
Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus"(a mound of earth and stones raised over a grave or graves), "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".True, it shows how the present "god" is also a product of evolution, from a mere talisman (or) idol to the whole powerful creator of the world.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that.
But I maintain the opposite anyway. If, that is, you're talking about God himself, and not some useless man-made idol (whether literal or figurative).
God is not the product of evolution at all.
He is the Author of evolution, actually. Just not evolution the way so-called "scientific" minds and unbelieving minds have defined it.
I wrote a hub on it. And indeed the insight in it came from that original Author of the universe.Eh, he said God is a product of evolution.
I disagreed. It wouldn't matter HOW or WHY he thought God was a product of evolution (which is what I referred to when I said I didn't know exactly what he meant by that), I would still disagree with the statement that God is a product of evolution.
There. Explanatory enough?
Hopefully.
If not, then I assume you're just in a mocking mood......not a rare thing for you.I was laughing at the way the statement read... which was basically "I don't know what you're saying, but I'm going to argue with you anyway"
If you can't see the humour in it, I'm terribly sorry. You're missing out on a few chuckles.
And I think if there's anyone who needs a few chuckles...Okay, then if that's why you were laughing, I can see that it might look humorous.
I was going by your posts on other threads where you seem to be very upset this evening, even more than usual.
Your sense of humor isn't anymore evident than mine!
I have a very good sense of humor, when there's something that's funny.
But usually......these forums are full of threads that are serious discussions.
So don't assume I don't have a sense of humor.
I'm just very particular about the kind of things I laugh about. I've seen too many people online and in real life who make fun of really serious things, and I've never liked that.I'm very rarely upset when I post Brenda.
Honestly, it's a matter of being tired at the end of the day and being concise. I'm getting my point out but I'm not really too interested in blowing sunshine while I'm doing it.
I swear I'm really not emotionally involved in most of the threads I post in... I'm just discussing things.
I make fun of a lot of things, because laughter is a good way to break the tension and seeing irony in things is a good way to put life in perspective.To me, that sounds like you don't really care about the subject(s) nor the impact of your own responses in threads.
Okay then.One can care without becoming upset Brenda. The impact of my words is whatever it is. Making it "pretty" isn't going to change what I'm saying. I state my opinions. I'm not sure why I would need to go out of my way to make sure no one was offended by them... I guess if they are offended by me being blunt but not offended by me blowing hot air... what I'm saying doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, the discussion really isn't all that important to them. Their own sensitivities are in the front seat, not the matter at hand.
Unfortunately for you, the god you talk about is a product of evolution, an evolution of human thought(the meaning and origin of the word make it clear). He started out as a talisman, a good omen for hunting, then the natural forces added which later became anthropomorphed, then the bringer of victory in wars, the one that keep racial purity (as in ot), then the idealised morality and ethics as in NT.
If you are a normal person, you have never seen or heard from god and all you know about god is taught you by your "elders" and then your own interpretation of your 'experiences' based on that assumption, isn't so?I once was a normal person, yes.
But once I accepted Christ, I became a "new creature"! LOL. I became a "peculiar" person, one who has a Supernatural Spirit within my heart and soul.
Oh my! I guess I "evolved"! lol. But indeed, in the purest sense of "evolution", as when God supernaturally put His own spirit into the body of a "normal" woman named Mary.
Woohoo! Praise the Lord!
As far as my Faith being a product of what was taught to me "by my elders"........hmm.......my "elders" taught me the Truth of God, the Bible, who Jesus was and is, all the things I needed to know. But I wouldn't believe that way if I hadn't had a personal experience of meeting the Savior. And like I've said before, there are many children who've been raised the same exact way, yet some of them will choose to not believe as the others do. I have family members who are avowed atheists. It's a matter of choice, really, after the Spirit leads us to Christ. You seem to assume that human teaching is more powerful than the Spirit. Not so. Of course, when that human teaching is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it's very powerful.
I am very grateful that my "elders" taught me the Truth. Just because you and others want to try to insert doubt into the equation by saying I only believe because my elders taught me, doesn't sway me one bit. Matter of fact, it reminds me, as I said, to be hugely grateful that I was raised in a Christian home. That's a good thing. Not a bad thing at all. Naysayers try to convince a person that it's "indoctrination" or "mind control". Hmmm.....let me see.......if it was some kind of false teaching, and I was under some form of human "mind control", I'd probably have been a casualty in a Jim Jones scenario, or some such horrid nonsense.
Praise God for His inspiration in my parents! Thank God for my parents! And even....thank God for naysayers trying to convince me I'm just indoctrinated, because adversity tries the mind and heart and soul, as we were warned that we will all be opposed and tempted by nonbelievers, AND the fact that naysayers are adamant means they're actually intent on this subject, which can lead them eventually to the Truth.
I love my parents so much! I thank the Lord for loaning them to me for as long as He did! They were wonderful examples, by their teachings and their way of living for Jesus; I am Blessed to have had them.People who see things which are not there, or claim to be guided by non existent beings are not considered normal. Accepting christ? Do you understand what you say? You are not accepting christ, but the people who told you about christ. It means you started accepting whatever others told you about bible,then what is said in bible as true, that is, you delegated the act of thinking to someone else and chose to accept what they say irrespective of the merit/truth of what they say.. But people who do not think for themselves are not considered intelligent. But of course, children does that(that is intelligence for them)) and parents generally say stories to keep them amused and guide them, but usually they out grow such stories and become responsible for themselves, though not all do so. Some remain children all their life. Not that it is a problem, for ones happiness is to be defined by oneself, but the adult world usually mock them and never take anything they say seriously.
As I already told either you can believe the stories parents says(some parents say the story of yeti to make their children behave but when they grow up they know it is a false story but still continue to behave good, that is being responsible [and those who do not usually end up in jail] but some continues to believe in the story of yeti that comes to punish them even unto adulthood. Children need stories while adults use brain) or you can think rationally. And of course, once you make an assumption, all the experiences can be used to 'rationalize' that assumption, just like a muslim or hindu does, rationalizing their respective "experiences" as proof of their god. Just like you chose to "accept" whatever is told in bible as true(for only when you believe the one who told that the bible is true, you can accept bible as true and then only you can "accept christ"), they chose to "accept" other books. Without being indoctrinated in islam or hinduism, you can see the contradictions in that religion, but being indoctrinated in christianity you cannot see that in christianity, just like other religious people cannot see nonsense in their own religion while can see that in others.
Again as I said, either you can be blind and "believe" any stories told you and claim it is not 'blindness' and 'indoctrination' and rationalize anything that comes in your way to fit that stories or you can accept that it is stories and behave 'normally' without the stories and be responsible for yourself.
Nothing happens to those adults that continue to believe that yeti that come to punish. And "mind control" is not like that is shown in films, its about changing the minds of people to keep them blind to contradictions in what they say and defend them in spite of all the "evidences against the contrary" and every religion and cult are adept in it. If you check the forums you can see muslims come and justify their religion and how it is peaceful(they rationalize, give new meanings, change context and use all the logical fallacies[ which they themselves cannot see but is easily visible to all others]) to show how they are right while all the arguments of christians and atheists alike is of no use. The same is true with you. You have already formed the "conclusion" without even bothering to ask what the "premises" are and are never willing to logically analyse what you say and cannot see the fallacies in your argument, while those who are not "indoctrinated", can easily see the illogicality of your arguments. It will be interesting to note that those muslims who come here to argue and proselytize and reject all arguments put to them, also claim that they are not "indoctrinated" or "blinded".You seem to be going on an assumption, one that you insist upon believing yourself! lol.
The proof of a Creator is all around me. And all around you! Yet you think my belief is illogical?!
Let's see.........I've never seen any literal proof of a "yeti", so...you're correct in assuming that I don't believe in the "yeti" stories.
I never saw the Easter bunny, even though that myth has been perpetuated for a long time (but as the myth that it is). So......very early on, I saw proof that there IS NO real "Easter bunny".
Etc etc etc.
That's normal thinking.
Here's some more normal thinking-------
I've never seen any proof that the earth, nor the microscopic forms, insect forms, animal forms, or human life forms, ever came from "nothing". They did indeed have to originate from SOMETHING! Yet no scientist, nor pseudo-scientist, nor theorist, has EVER provided any proof of what that something was or is!
What I HAVE seen proof of is the Creator! HIS handiwork abounds on this earth, and in the skies. We see nature, trees, flowers, bugs, animals, seas, mountains, etc etc etc.............and last but certainly not least-------human beings. Each the same as the others in many ways (which is proof of an intelligent entity that created mankind) but also unique.........each of us is unique in many ways also, from our personalities to our fingerprints and other ways (which is ALSO proof of an intelligent entity that created mankind).
That IS normal thinking. It may not be AVERAGE thinking these days (even though I might debate that too), but it is perfectly normal thinking. There is no other plausible explanation for the fact that you and I are here right now "speaking" to each other (albeit through a machine), that we are living breathing thinking feeling creatures who each will eventually die physically just like EVERY OTHER human being has died over the course of their lifetime (well, at the end of that lifetime! ha.).
Is that the problem you have with my belief-----------that you think I haven't thought it through logically??
Well, let me tell you that I have! And it's the only thing that makes any logical sense at all!
If you prefer to stay confused, if you prefer to not ever zero in on the Truth, if you prefer to believe that maybe....just....maaaaayyybe.........the first human came from an ape or a piece of slush or whatever, and that THAT thing came from a previous piece of slush or algae or ape-like thingy, or whatever, and that THAT thing originated from yet ANOTHER indefineable piece of something or other............then believe it!
But I will not. I prefer to know the Truth as best as ANY human being could ever perceive it based upon human knowledge and experience. And that would be.......what??............belief in an intelligent, powerful, awesome CREATOR.
That is my God. I wish He were yours too! All you have to do is believe and accept His son Jesus.
Well.............wait a minute...........I think first you might have to throw away the seeds of indoctrination that you've been showered with----------ya know, those myths, those theories, those totally-unproven-and-without-even-natural-OR-spiritual-merit-or-proof ideas that have been somehow implanted within your mind.
Belief in a Creator IS THE most logical conclusion that any human can ever come to!
Think, man!
Where have you ever seen proof of anything BUT a Creator?
Never.
I am compelled to say that it's apparently you who hasn't thought this issue through logically.
Now, here's where the logic might have a hard time reaching people's brains----------the man who died and then ROSE AGAIN!
Ah.........that one, I can see a bit how it might sound illogical.
But not when we remember that that Creator (whose handiwork is all around us, who actually.....gulp...........think about this slowly now------has the power to CREATE a man from the dust of the earth, to create the whole world, etc.........)..............of course (quite logically) then has the power to raise that man from the dead if HE so chose! Which He did of course. How awesome is that?!
.....I doubt you're following this.
But oh my, if only you'd just for once really start thinking logically..........When the person to whom the communication is intended does not clearly grasp what is said, I think it is the fault of the former and hence I consider myself failed in communicating to you what I intended.
So let me try once more, you say you have proof of the creator, but I didn’t ask for any, I asked you to clarify the contradiction in what you said.
Yes, that is normal thinking, you have not seen yeti or easter bunny of tooth fairy (or whatever myth that is prevalent in your area) but sometime in your childhood you believed such stories but as you grow up, you understood it as stories and let it go.
I assume, from your “The proof of a Creator is all around me”; you have not seen this creator. All you have is proof that a creator might exist. But according to you, you know nature of the creator, that this creator is the one described in the bible. How did you know? Why you choose to believe those people who said the creator is like the one that is described in bible and not like the ones described in so many other books?
“They did indeed have to originate from SOMETHING!”, I agree with you whole heartedly, something cannot come out from nothing.
So it turns out that ‘creator’ is your explanation for the presence of the things that are now and you also say that creator is an “intelligent entity” and here comes the illogicality of what you say, the contradiction (you are contradicting yourself here). You say each human being is unique (though we are grossly more similar than anyone assume) and such uniqueness cannot exist without the help of an external being. For that, you propose an extreme “unique” intelligent entity that has to be present. A simple though intelligent human being, you say cannot come by itself, but a more unique, more intelligent being can come by himself? You know how much intelligence it is needed to design a building or bridge, so how much intelligent should be (hence how much complex) the entity that can design intelligent human beings right up to the finger prints?
The logical contradiction is this, you propose every complex thing was created, and then you say not every complex thing is created. See either complex thing are created or they are not created, it cannot be both and that is the contradiction
See Brenda, I didn’t say humans came up from ape or algae for all I know humans might be eternal for if a simple human animal cannot be eternal, how can a complex, intelligent, powerful, awesome CREATOR can be eternal? After all your contention is that intelligence need to be created.
You mean "believe that there exist an "intelligent, powerful, awesome CREATOR."? But once you accept that as your first premise, won't there be confirmation bias?
Certainly it does, if rising up after three days is ‘death’ why rising after 12hrs or 6months is not death? Again I assume you have not seen the ‘creator’ dying and getting up again, (you do not believe scientists who say humans are evolved) then why you believe those people who say the creator did all these? After all they are not the only sect or group that say such things!
Why a creator did chose to raise one man? And what has it got to do with anything? How did you know it was the creator who did that? When you cannot trust people who know very much compared to the authors of bible (the authors didn’t know leprosy is a treatable disease), what made you trust these ancient superstitious people?There is no proof of any creators, that is entirely false, let alone illogical. You're free to show us all the proof, of course, but we already know you can't.
No, you never saw proof that the easter bunny was not real. You are saying you never saw the easter bunny, which is exactly the same thing for gods, too.
No, that is not normal thinking, that is an appeal to incredulity.
That is actually not thinking at all, that is pure ignorance caused by your religious beliefs. You have not seen any creators, you have observed the results of evolution, which is a fact.
You haven't thought anything through, nothing at all. You don't even know what logic is.
We don't believe in your nonsense, we understand science.
But, your beliefs are myths, the same myth as the easter bunny. Why would anyone with a brain in their head accept them?
We know you don't understand anything scientific and reject all theories and facts which may jeopardize your religious beliefs. And, all other scientists.
You see, I pointed out before that you worship a man, even though you yourself said we shouldn't be calling anyone who is a man a god.
It is utterly ridiculous, let alone illogical.
That is childish and immature to believe such nonsense.
- SirDentposted 10 years ago0
Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
The eyes of understanding. Did you know your understanding had eyes? Until those eyes are opened, we cannot see nor know what is revealed to us through the scriptures and the Holy Ghost.
I also love the first verse posted as it pertains to wisdom and revelation both because we had been discussing these over the last few posts. I just noticed that wisdom is a spirit. Our God is an Awesome God. wis·dom
/ˈwizdəm/
Noun
The quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise. The soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of such experience, knowledge, and good judgment.- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
This is a cool video. Amen and hallelujah to its final message.
http://youtu.be/Ji58kU-ebiY You might take that to some Appalachian Pentecostal church in the mountains. They might like handling it. Me, I'm not Pentecostal. And most certainly not of that particular snake-handling sect.
However, I do know how to recognize the hissing of Obama and his forked tongue. LOL. Me and other Christians are endowed with quite a skill in that area, a gift, really, that so many Americans don't have............
Edit-----
LOL. Where'd your snake picture go?
He went POOF! I like that.
Now ya see 'im, now ya don't! Bye bye Mr. Snake! LOLOL.I chose not to be overly offensive so I removed it.
You seemed like you were having a rough day.
*Shrugs* I'm not a big Obama fan. I've seen pictures of his tongue though.... seems pretty normal to me.Wait a minute now.
It's good that you chose not to be offensive, but don't blame me for it, like you were taking pity on me.
I would hope you did it just for the sake of not being offensive.
but....ahem...okay; whatever.
I haven't seen pictures of O's tongue. I've heard him speak. And quite often, at various times, his voice reverts back to a sort of hissing. Reminds me so much of that fake Christian woman who lauded the fake Christian preacher during the Florida so-called "revivals".............didn't you ever see her?.......
It was Todd Bentley's ministry in Lakeland Florida, and he (laughably, but many people actually believed in him!) told people that God told him to kick a woman in the nose, all kinds of creepy stuff. Some people supposedly from the "Eastern European Nations" came and prayed over him and said they wanted to give him the keys to Eastern Europe.......... Ultimately, of course, he was exposed for the false prophet he was.
Here's Stacy Campbell, while (I think) Todd Bentley is layin' on the floor after being "slain in the Spirit"............I reckon it was a spirit alright, just not the Holy Spirit.
http://youtu.be/macIFwHROaMNo, I tend to stay away from anything with the word "revival" in it. I have horrible memories from youth.
I've never heard Obama hiss any more than any other politician. Like I said, I'm not a big fan so I have no real desire to come to his defense but objectively, I find most politicians snake-like. Regardless of political affiliation.Obama is much more composed and sly in his speech than Stacey Campbell. But the hissing is there. Once detected, it's obvious from there on out.
Hey, I was raised around good revivals (some of which were Pentecostal).
But these days, I also tend to shy away from anything with the word "revival" in it! LOLOL. At least until I know what's up with it.
After seein' what some modern churches call "revival", it's a smart thing to do! I have horrible memories of that event in Lakeland just from the youtube video! Kinda like watching in horror as two trains collide, but ya can't do anything about it. But it's always good to be able to recognize false stuff when ya see it.
As far as the issue of speaking in tongues, that's a big discussion/debate. Not for me, because I see it in very simple terms like the Bible explains it. But it gets very deep when differing denominations get to discussing it......
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
I'll make it real simple for you.
Tell me where the very first "thing" that EVER existed........come from?
I don't care if it's an atom, an insect, a subatomic particle, a........whatever IT IS (lol)..........tell me, (if you want me to think along your terms).........WHERE did THAT "thing" come from?
If you can tell me that, logically, with any sort of proveable idea at all, and how that "thing" could generate other things, especially humankind, all without any power to think on its own or to create anything else, then we might be able to have a discussion where I'll think you have at least one little iota of a real logical theory about this issue.
Tell me where the very first "thing" in existence came from. Please.The current theory is that all matter was compressed into the singularity. There is the multiverse theory that explains much of what your asking for, but I have not the time or the desire to explain it to you.
But when you don't have an answer to something do you investigate or do you just say a God did it and don't question where he came from?In other words, you don't know where the first thing in existence came from, nor even what "it" was.
Yet you don't know where God came from either...
If you can accept God always was why not accept so was matter?Because there are too many things that exist which are so obviously not the result of random "nothingness". You are one of those, just like all humans. Do you seriously think that you resulted (and your ancestors resulted, and their ancestors, and so on and so on back then) from some original little piece of whatever or nothingness?
And that is the thing--------nobody knows where God came from. There is just a world of evidence more for His existence than for some nameless unidentifiable "particle" which, even in the pseudo-science and science fields, bears (according to those supposed "experts") absolutely NO resemblance to humankind.
I suppose mankind has always asked "Where did we come from" and the other questions y'all are asking.
I'm fairly sure that, given the supposed knowledge and intellect of modern scientists, they would've come up with some proof by now if there was any proof of where the first "thing" came from that they project such generative power upon.So where did God come from again?
And not nothing... matter rearranged.
Either way from dirt.I don't know where God came from. Neither do you.
From all knowable evidence, He just was and is and always will be.
The burden of proof here is not upon me at all.
You and others who claim to be so logical and so knowledgeable and intellectual (and of course so totally unindoctrinated! lol) are the ones who mock Christians and want to challenge us to answer for you. I urge you to seek the Truth yourselves, both logically and spiritually. After all, there is plenty of proof around in both those ways.
I ask again.
Where did the first "thing" that exists come from?
And if you say (as is correct) that that would be God, and nobody knows where He came from, then okay, you're correct and we're both on the same thinking level there.
But if you say "it" is something other than God, then the burden of proof is still in your corner.
Where did the first thing that existed or exists....come from?Actually, I have no idea how we got here... and neither do you.
The creationist's believe we were created from a God, but can't explain how HE got their, yet mock those who don't believe... are insulted by the possibility that we evolved from primates yet don't have a problem with us being made from dirt.
The scientists believe a ridiculously complex chain of events happened, that frankly I don't understand... nor do you. I can't argue because I have no real idea what they are saying (and either do you). Since I don't understand it, I can't say one way or another whether I agree.
Personally, I don't care. I seriously do not give one iota of a crap. I just think it's funny that no one has the answers but wants to argue that they are right.
It's ridiculously arrogant and obviously ignorant... it can't help but be ignorant since no one knows.
Given that no one knows, it amuses the hell out of me to watch people tell each other they are wrong.
What I DO know is that the environment can create organic from inorganic (it's been done) So they score there. I do know that we are animals, and we are primates... So score one for them too.
So that's what I KNOW. I BELIEVE God exists. I try to keep that in perspective.LOL
Sorry, but I don't even wanna go there. Silly pointless circles and claims of knowledge don't interest me.
What I'm interested in hearing is the answer to the circular question------
Where did the very first "thing" come from?Sure, when you tell us where God came from.
See how fun that is?
Just say you don't understand Brenda. It's more honest. The answers they give won't help you because you can't grasp them.
You also didn't understand half the things in my post. Your ears are closed because your ego is running you. You lack humility... and the eye of the needle isn't getting any bigger.Sure I lack humility........in front of you and other humans, specifically ones who only want to trounce on the Word of God and aren't really looking for answers.
I am humble only before the Creator and my brothers and sisters in Christ who DO like to sharpen iron with iron, and anyone who really is seeking knowledge (without all the insults!)
You're not humble before any of those that I can tell..... So........don't blast me! LOL
Oh my........"the eye of the needle"............?
Are we getting into a phrase fight? LOL
Here's mine-------"...the writing on the wall."
Your turn.That's hillarious... since you have taken it upon yourself to define who Christians are.
I'm exceptionally humble. I have already said I have no idea how we got here. I'm not claiming to have knowledge I couldn't possibly have.
You need to find Jesus Brenda. I'll pray for you. I hate to see a sister Christian guilty of pride.Uh oh.
Just when I was about to apologize for missing something in one of your previous posts that could actually be a point of logical discussion...........you go and drop the insult bomb on me again.
Hmm.... I wonder if that's the result of me just not being fast enough or of you being so adamant about insulting me personally.....? Maybe a bit of both. But you're still accountable for it, since mine was an error of mind and yours was an error of heart.........
Oh well. Tell ya what----if and after I get back to a frame of mind to wanna discuss with someone who constantly wants to insult me..........I might point out the sentence that interested me and back the horse up Nellie. LOL. If not, then no loss probably anyway.Me saying I'm going to pray for you is insulting?
That's an interesting statement.Hey, Melissa, The insult wasn't about you praying for her. The insult was telling her that she needed to find Jesus. The insult here (from what I can tell) is you telling a fellow Christian that they need to find Jesus because by definition a Christian is someone who tries to live by the example that Christ set out. So that means that more than likely Brenda has already found Christ. This could be seen as being as big of an insult as telling another Christian that they serve a different God than the one in the Bible. We all have our prideful moments. The key though is to continue to try to improve ourselves and getting out of our own way
That doesn't matter, what matters is the evidence that supports our universe, but doesn't support childish beliefs.
Sorry, you've made the claim about God being the first thing, it's up to you to supply the evidence.
Yes, it is, you are the only claiming evidence for a creator, yet you haven't offered a shred of that evidence. Where is it?
When one willfully denies facts and evidence, they deserve to be mocked.
You have no proof whatsoever. The proof is in science.
In essence, those are the facts, Brenda. Sorry, that you don't understand facts, but we already know that.
Let's see. We can start with a constipated dot which would have to defy all known laws to exist, and then create those laws when it exploded, and with that present endless problems just to get this thing jump started so matter would even be present. This, of course, still says nothing about life or sentience or...well, pretty much anything.
Our other option is an intelligent, all powerful creator, which would pretty much explain it all. If we were to apply logic and reason, which would we pick? Remember, you can't prove or disprove either.
You can't explain the dot or creator's origin, but one can intelligently plan, design and create, the other would have to rely on a nearly infinite sequence of happy, but precise accidents, all without a plan, motive, method, purpose or reason. One way there is a God who does it all, the other way there is exploded "who knows what," without even a plan to organize into particles, but we mentally skip right to life existing and say evolution takes it from there. How does a creator become the bigger fairy tale in the minds of so many, unless simply to deny accountability to that creator?bingo
well said
now if they'll just tell us where the constipated dot came from, and where the thing that that came from....came from, and then where the thing that THAT thing came from........came from, we'll all be so enlightened.
I haven't heard a lucid answer from 'em yet, nor even a logical one.
I think you hit upon why they won't answer about the Creator. They choose to live in a dream world where they don't have to answer to anybody about anything. It is rebellion, pure and simple. They choose the elusive constipated dot over the one Being who Loves them so much that He died for them.........So instead of saying "I don't know" you place your faith in a God who has never been seen and has no proof for his existence because it's a nice tidy explanation.
Which is why cultures had lightning gods... to explain how lightning was formed before they knew the actual reason.
Not saying you are wrong... I'm saying it's the exact same thought process. You might want to remember that. Cultures have ALWAYS created supernatural explanations for things they didn't understand.No.
There is indeed proof for His existence. I've named lots of them already.
It isn't the same thought process.
Just because knowledge about lightning was gleaned doesn't tell us anything about where that even originally came from.The only things you've named are all part of evolution, we already know that. You have provided nothing to support your claims.
Actually, no Melissa. I have more proof personally than anyone has a right to, but for those who deny the spiritual world even exists it is pointless to provide what I know from experience, and am told in scripture, ends up just being fodder for confusion to them. So instead I appeal to logic, by pointing out that there are very few choices, and one of them makes far and away more sense. Everything your logic builds on depends on that first assumption, and the only way to avoid starting with an assumption is to not muse on our origins at all. We have no choice but to assume a starting point, and which one you choose matters. Amazingly, the one so many choose is the least plausible, and I contend it is because that one pretends to avoid accountability to a creator.
Yet your proof has never been shown to those who don't believe. It is weak proof indeed if it unable to convince them.
Your logic obviously fails their standard of proof. It also fails mine, and I am a believer.
You simply cannot prove the existence of God in any way that is concrete to everybody. Therefore you are going on personal experience and beliefs... which is a damn fine way to make a decision for yourself. It's a lousy way to make anyone else believe.
I am a Christian and I feel absolutely no accountability to God. There is nothing in this world I feel I need to account for. I don't think a non-believer is trying to avoid accountability to God or really anything related to God... how could they? They don't believe he exists.
The reason that your answer makes sense is because it is easy to understand. God did it is a much simpler concept that some of the others that are being thrown out... however "There is a man in the sky throwing lightning" also is simpler than the science that goes into lightning as well. That doesn't mean it's correct... just easier to understand.Please reread my last post. I am not offering my personal experience as proof to anyone, which I clearly indicated. As for the logic, we start on equal footing with neither premise having the physical proof, so feel free to dismiss mine as nonsense, but if you do you must walk away from the others as nonsense as well for they are on no firmer footing. Which is why I said the only way to avoid starting with an assumption is to not consider our origins at all, in which case, why are folks discussing it in the forums? Because they have made an assumption and built their belief on it, whether they call it that or not.
I absolutely agree with everything you just said.
What I was arguing was the impression that they are somehow wrong in their beliefs... the statement of trying to avoid the accountability of God changed the tone of your whole post.
It implies surety in your beliefs that somehow makes those with other beliefs wrong. If you truly believe that no one knows and that your beliefs have exactly the same chance of being wrong as theirs, then I don't believe you would have made that statement.
Quite honestly, the statement is a bit holier-than-thou.I understand how it could be taken that way. I won't lie by making apologies for what I believe, or pretending I don't have absolute confidence in it. I realize that kind of confidence is often taken as an effront to those without it. Funny thing is, most of those "open minded" folks we see in the forums appear to me to be no less resolute in their beliefs. What I don't understand is why this is such a point of contention. Folks have no problem pointing out all the ways they believe I am wrong. I have no issue with that, nor am I offended. Conversely, why would they be?
You can have absolute confidence in something while still admitting there are no concrete reasons for others to have the same belief. (If there were, they would have the belief... am I making sense?)
I believe that you are correct, that there are some that take joy in picking apart other's beliefs. I just think Christians should be held to a higher standard so I'm more prone to jump on a Christian who has gone prideful than a non-believer. After all, they have no rules about that... we kinda do.
I can also admit when they have points while it doesn't seem possible for some other Christians to do the same (not saying you). To me, that is stubborn blind faith... which I don't think is the point of Christianity.
Personally, I don't necessarily see a reason that both predominate ideas about how we got here can't co-exist as haven't seen any evidence put forth by the non-believers that God wasn't involved...just that he didn't have to be. I'm cool admitting he didn't have to be. I don't have to believe that God is a micro-manager to believe he exists. Plenty of things happen without his direct interference.Yes, you make perfect sense, although I might use the term "quick and easily understood" instead of "concrete."
I think being confident in a belief others don't share or understand is often incorrectly considered prideful and arrogant. It is seen this way because they cannot comprehend how else you could hold to a view they feel is indefensible. Ironically, I often feel exactly the same way about them and their views. It doesn't mean we can't enjoy exploring the disparities.
I enjoy the points made by those who are genuinely trying to discuss things. I am learning to ignore the trolls and those with trollish approaches, not really discussing. Stubborn, blind faith is not the point of Christianity, but belief in God will continue to be viewed as such by many.
I can see the views co-existing, as anyone is entitled to whatever they want to believe. Like it or not though, truth is absolute so everyone won't be correct. Of course we each have our ideas about who is right and who is not. Interesting conversation can happen along the way.
I don't agree. Your post is flawed, both in logic and in premise.
First, the two sides don't start equal; there is lots of evidence of the big bang, enough that we're pretty darn sure it happened. There is zero evidence, on the other hand, that a God reached out and made stars and planets, everything we know of. That there is also zero evidence He did NOT do that is irrelevant; there is still no evidence that He did and thus no reason to jump to that conclusion.
Earlier, you said that there are only two possibilities, Big Bang or God. Without proof of big bang, it is just as reasonable to accept God, but you have left out thousands of other possibilities. Possibilities that there is just as much evidence for as there is for God.
You also, and this is difficult to put into words, seem to feel that our universe is exceptional. That there had to be an intelligence producing it because it ended up producing us. This is a fallacy; there is absolutely no reason to think that there is anything special about our universe, our sun or planet or even us. There could be billions more, with vastly more intelligent beings; we don't know. There is no reason to think that the best set of physical laws, giving rise to the best universe possible with the most intelligence, is what was produced by either God OR the big bang.
No, you have no proof of your beliefs.
Sorry, but the "spiritual world" has never been shown to exist. In fact, science prohibits such a world from existing.
Yes, but what makes sense does not support your beliefs. You are certainly not appealing to logic by claiming sky daddy creators.
Lets see 13.77 billion years ago God started the universe from one area expanding out instead of it just being (he has the power to do both you know). Modern humans show up 200 000 years ago which is but a blink in the time taken to get us here. God gave us some books to read about him a few thousand years ago which he forgot to properly explain the universe, thus man spent a few thousand years thinking the earth was the centre of the universe. Turns out the universe is much bigger then ever imagined and we are on in the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies each with billions of other earth like planets. And you think your God made all this for us. Arrogance?
Simple, ALL the facts and evidence do not support gods in any way, they only support the laws of physics, which you don't understand.
Do tell
How does the theory of evolution support the laws of physics or even the laws of chemistry for that matter?Even if he does say, will you listen? You accepted the conclusion first and your premises follow from that conclusion instead of being the other way round. You reject all that does not fit your conclusions, including your own premises.So, why ask?
It's the other way round, the laws of physics and chemistry support evolution.
Does it? The laws in physics are consistent yet evolution seems to be consistently changing.
How so? I see evolution as a pretty constant force applying to all life, although the forces will vary according to environment.
Or are you referring to our understanding and discoveries as to the results of evolution - the various species that continue to be discovered?How do the laws of physics cover something that changes from one species to another, there surely is no constant there?
Do you understand how a gamma ray or chemical reaction can and does change DNA? That's physics, chemistry and evolution all rolled into one action and is applicable to each and every species. Seems pretty constant to me...
So evolution is all about chemical reactions and gamma rays then? So how many of these events did it take to get where we are today?
How in the world could I or anyone else count them?
More relevant is why you would ask such questions. You know the laws of physics are invariant, you know that it is impossible to count, or even know of, every individual change in every organism since the earth was formed. Why ask such questions then?Ahh. I see.
You will either accept that we KNOW mutations happen, that we KNOW animals adjust to their environment, that we KNOW species come and go, or not. You will either accept that we KNOW some animals have very definite characteristics very close to others, or not. You will either accept that we KNOW environments change, or not.
And you will either put all that together and accept that animals can and do "morph" into a different species, or you will not. Neither you nor anyone else will ever see one animal give birth to another species as proof of evolution (unless maybe you watch a horse give birth to a mule...) - until such a time as you are willing to study the precepts and evidence of evolution with an open mind you will never find any proof you will accept.There is without doubt a link between all animals but to say there is proof they evolved from each other without proof is just the projection of another theory without direct evidence.
Adapting to an environment is totally different to evolving into another species altogether.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI
This should give you some help.. And I'm a Christian that understands thisThe didn't evolve from each other, they evolved from common ancestors.
Yes, and if you decided to actually spend the time to understand evolution, you might would understand the difference.But you cant explain it so how do you expect people to understand how these things just happened?
Skin colour, height and your name didn't just evolve someone gave them to you?Someone gave him skin color and height? Who would that be? Your invisible friend, or his parents?
If his parents, that would seem to indicate that he matches one of them. As my two children don't match either my wife or I in height, that seems to be a fallacy.Usually his parents or grand parents or great grand parents etc etc. Non of my ancestors have ever been known to be an orangutan so why do i have red hair?
Prove it then.
You can as Darwin did come up with some theory as to why you think my ancestors could have been orangutans but you cant prove it,You and the orangutans evolved from a common ancestor. The color of your hair is rather irrelevant to that fact.
So, you're asking someone to explain what Darwin took a huge book to explain, let alone the mountains of rigor completed since then?
Who?Did Darwin eplain anything? He certainly threw up a lot of questions with his theory.
They didn't even evolve from common ancestors.
God made the animals.
God made the first man and woman.
He made them separate from the animals.
It is simply a confused attempt to back "evolution" when someone says mankind has a common ancestor(s) with the animals. It's possibly a step back from declaring that we came from apes! LOLOL. But still not good enough to make sense. Kinda similar to all the predictions of the world ending, then when that year came and the world didn't end, the false prophets simply named another year farther into the future. And the blind followers say well okay then and still believe the fools.But Brenda, we know that isn't even remotely true.
In fact, you would have far more credibility if you simply argued in defense of the relevant concepts of your religion without having to argue against common knowledge, let alone the facts and evidence of science. There isn't a person on the planet who could make those statements and not look the total fool because evolution is a fact that cannot be refuted. We certainly don't want to consider anyone here a fool, but if they say things like that, they give us no choice.Yes, Genesis 1 does say that God made animals and then made man and woman together. But then Genesis 2 says God made man, then made the animals, and then made woman...
Which is it?I don't understand why this is so hard to follow. Part of the Bible simply recaps what was said in a previous verse, or explains it, etc.
I suppose people who are looking for "contradictions" will continue to pick and pick until they THINK they found one.
If you've read both chapters, you'll notice that Genesis 2 says God made the animals, then He made Adam, and then when no suitable mate was found for him among the animals, He made Eve from Adam's body.
If you're talking about Genesis 1: 27.........that's just a preview or whatever ya wanna call it........just a simple statement, not a minute-by-minute nor day-by-day account.
The first section of Genesis 1 does give the day-by-day account.
Genesis 2 elaborates upon the time frame and explains why God made Eve.that's simply not true. The genesis accounts are in different orders, and different things happened. They cannot both be true, so which one are you claiming is?
Genesis 1:
light & dark/day & night
sky
land & seas
plants
the sun (keep in mind that there has now been evening and morning several days without the sun) & the moon
ocean life & birds
land animals
man - male and female together
vs.
Genesis 2:
there was no plants, animals or human beings & no rain, etc.
formed man
created Eden & vegetation & put man in it
the animals were created and presented to adam for naming & to find a suitable helper because it was not good for man to be alone (notice, how god initially thought that an animal would be a good helper for adam & only after it didn't work did he consider creating a human woman)
god created eve out of adam.Actually, Genesis 2 starts out talking about the 7th day when God rested from His work of creation.
So.........to expect that a different story follows in the succeeding verses is rather silly. It simply recaps and then elaborates on what God had already done.
Eh........and as far as helpmeet among the animals.......God apparently gave Adam a choice, and Adam (quite wisely) chose to not mate with an animal.so in one story, animals come first and then human beings. In the other story, human beings come first and then animals. They're mutually exclusive, so you have to pick one. Which one is it?
Furthermore, if Adam was not supposed to mate with animals, why did god present them to them as though a helpmate could be found among them? Shouldn't god have known better than to even suggest it, and create human beings as male and female like he did all of the other animals - like he did in Genesis 1?"all of the other animals"........
eh. That doesn't mean that people are animals.
And although I said apparently God gave Adam a choice, I'm not exactly sure that He presented the animals to Adam specifically to see if he would mate with one of them. He did present them to him for him to give them names, etc. I think it simply says that a helpmeet was not found. Chapter 2, verses 18-20 are most likely not in sequence of actual events, remember. I think it was simply obvious that no mate would be found for Adam amongst the animals.
Sometimes people try to read waaay too much into what is said and written. The overall context of the Bible is key to understanding it when ya have questions. Later verses in the Bible speak against mankind lying (mating) with animals. So.......if you're looking for some tidbit of Scripture to condone beastiality, there is none. Nor is there any that upholds the idea that mankind are animals at all.
I don't deny any evidence to DNA and fossil records i asked how you and others came to the conclusion that they all just happened along. How many chemical chain reactions and how much gamma radiation would it take and how can you be so sure of dates.
Of course you deny fossil records and DNA evidence; both are pretty plain evidence of evolution for anyone studying the subject and wanting to learn.
It takes, at a minimum, one gamma ray starting one chemical chain reaction to change a species into a different one.
If you want to understand how we determine dates, there is plenty of information available on carbon dating, geological dating, etc. You can get a good understanding, even a detailed one, as to the "hows" and "whys" although actually doing it yourself is going to take more than you would ever put into it.I know both DNA and fossils exist i cant deny that but because the basic building blocks of life are there it doesnt mean all animals evolved from a common DNA it only proves that all forms of DNA have something in common.
Radio carbon dating was devised by Dr Willard Libby who made many assumptions, in the main his assumption that the atmosphere of the earth has always remained constant, he decided to ignore the nonequalibrium state as a an experimental error, this could throw the calculations out by billions of years.
As we know assumption is the mother of all mistakes.As are yours, you have not given one piece of provable evidence to support your case yet you wish me to believe all the assumptions of others.
I don't wish to teach you anything because you have no interest in learning anything.
Well i have certainly learnt a lot from you.........
So you think it's a coincidence that humans and chimps share some 96% of our DNA while humans and cockroaches share very little?
If you don't deny the DNA or fossil records what does time have anything to do with it. People much smarter than us understand that humans and chimps diverged millions (millions) of years ago. Wether it's 1 or 2 million years ago is irrelevant.
You can't be serious. That's like saying why does a log change to a pile of cinders because the fire is constant?
- What does one have to do with the other? Do you have any idea what you're even talking about?
Right, evolution is all about constant change. Skin colour, height, you name it.
What problems? Please describe those problems.
Evolution explains those things.
You picked a childish fantasy over scientific explanations.
Yes, and the latter has mountains of evidence to support it, but there no evidence for a creator.
Because, the creator makes no sense and is merely one of millions of fantasies we can imagine that have nothing to do with evidence and facts.
I just told you it was the singularity. Now what's your explanation? The God that doesn't need creation created everything?
You tell me where God came from. Please.
And don't even start with the "God always existed" nonsense, because it's, well, nonsense.
(Hint: The answer is "from superstitious and fearful people circa 1500 BC.")Not nonsense at all.
It makes much more sense that God always has existed than the idea that some "thing" simply came outta nowhere, and with no purpose nor intent nor obvious power, simply, somehow, caused every other thing to show up, including humans.
Why not just say ya got no clue?! lol.As far as I've ever seen there has never been any serious discussion on the origination of the singularity that produced the big bang - why would you say it came out of nowhere?
But worse - if you think about it a God that is eternal and has existed "forever" is almost completely free of any sense at all. The concept of infinity, or "forever", may be useful in mathematics but has no meaning in the real world.Of course it has meaning to people in the real world.
Otherwise, no one would even discuss it.
Where did the first thing that ever existed come from?You see? If "eternity" has meaning at all, there was no first thing. No matter which one you point to, there was something else earlier.
We discuss it as if "eternity" means "a very long time" but it doesn't mean that at all.Right. I think. ha.
Eternity means for ever and ever and ever, unending............If eternity last forever moving towart the future why can't it be traveling in the oposit direction; or in every direction for that matter. Not saying it does but who says it can't?
Edit ... it's 2:45 and bed time, I can tell by how delusional I am becoming.So Ain't I right Brenda, you think your Easter Bunny is real?
So, looking at the time before present, can you see how the question of a first anything is nonsense? No matter how far back in the past you look to find the first, there is still something ten times as far back, 1,000 times as far, a million times as far. Always something further back in time, without end.
She can't understand that, and if she ever understood that she would do all she could to forget it, for if she ever acknowledged it, the basis of her life will crumple and she will have to start all over again, a horrific task.
It is a difficult concept to get a grip on. Eternity, or infinity in any form, is not within our daily lives - we have no reference for the concept outside of pure mathematics. While infinity is extremely useful there (calculus is based on the infinitely small) the math itself has no connection to any reality we know.
If I may take a moment to interject with my favorite explanation of eternity ever... (Please pardon my self-indulgence...)
“I mean, d'you know what eternity is? There's this big mountain, see, a mile high, at the end of the universe, and once every thousand years there's this little bird-"
"What little bird?" said Aziraphale suspiciously.
"This little bird I'm talking about. And every thousand years-"
"The same bird every thousand years?"
Crowley hesitated. "Yeah," he said.
"Bloody ancient bird, then."
"Okay. And every thousand years this bird flies-"
"-limps-"
"-flies all the way to this mountain and sharpens its beak-"
"Hold on. You can't do that. Between here and the end of the universe there's loads of-" The angel waved a hand expansively, if a little unsteadily. "Loads of buggerall, dear boy."
"But it gets there anyway," Crowley persevered.
"How?"
"It doesn't matter!"
"It could use a space ship," said the angel.
Crowley subsided a bit. "Yeah," he said. "If you like. Anyway, this bird-"
"Only it is the end of the universe we're talking about," said Aziraphale. "So it'd have to be one of those space ships where your descendants are the ones who get out at the other end. You have to tell your descendants, you say, When you get to the Mountain, you've got to-" He hesitated. "What have
they got to do?"
"Sharpen its beak on the mountain," said Crowley. "And then it flies back-"
"-in the space ship-"
"And after a thousand years it goes and does it all again," said Crowley quickly.
There was a moment of drunken silence.
"Seems a lot of effort just to sharpen a beak," mused Aziraphale.
"Listen," said Crowley urgently, "the point is that when the bird has worn the mountain down to nothing, right, then-"
Aziraphale opened his mouth. Crowley just knew he was going to make some point about the relative hardness of birds' beaks and granite mountains, and plunged on quickly.
"-then you still won't have finished watching The Sound of Music."
Aziraphale froze.
"And you'll enjoy it," Crowley said relentlessly. "You really will."
"My dear boy-"
"You won't have a choice."
"Listen-"
"Heaven has no taste."
"Now-"
"And not one single sushi restaurant."
A look of pain crossed the angel's suddenly very serious face.”
~Good OmensWow! A Terry Pratchet fan? How are his other books, as good as this one?
I'm gonna say yes, even though Snuff and The Nation aren't as good as his others...
I love Pratchett... a lot... it's sad watching him go.
Yes! Does that mean you get it?
The idea of a first thing is nonsense when we think of that thing as being some inanimate nonintelligent bit of fluff or slime or stone, whatever, yes. Because, as I've been asking, if we define that indefineable thing as the first thing, then the question always arises as to WHERE did THAT thing come from, then? And yes, the circular reasoning just goes on and on and on, as you said.
So, no, this doesn't throw me in the least.
God was the first "thing" that ever existed.
I've been asking atheists and evolutionists and nonBelievers where the first "thing" came from. Since they aren't willing to admit that God was the first thing, and that He created the first "thing" thereafter, then they have no logical nor spiritual answer to the question. They are totally stumped. Which is conclusive evidence that, aside from the Creation story, nothing makes sense either logically nor spiritually.Unless it's the other thousands of creation stories from other faiths... Including the Muslim version.
Actually, that one's kinda fun to direct the atheists toward.Oh really? There's no good reason why any Christian would wanna direct atheists toward Islam, a false religion.
Do you think the atheists are naive enough to believe in a man called Muhammad? Just a man. He didn't even resurrect; he just........died.
I must have more confidence in their abililty to reason spiritually than you do!! LOLOL."Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"
"Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
That sounds like there was a unity and then some kind of explosion at the formation of the Universe to me... According to the Quran.
I think that's kinda neat since the Big Bang theory wasn't really around in the 600's."Willing or by compulsion"?
Oh my.
(sigh)
Any comparison to Islam's theory about the "Big Bang" and Christianity's Truths is.........just confusion.
Now.........there is one thing that's relevant, possibly.
The roots of Islam, from what I can gather, began in Bible days from the history of Ishmael and his lineage. God spoke to Ishmael and his mother. But from there the history veers off onto the wrong path. Muhammad (or however his name was spelled) somehow derived the beginnings of a whole false religion out of the idea that Ishmael's descendants were recipients of God's inspiration instead of the correct lineage.I think it would be a bit more impressive to an atheist than the every living thing on a boat smaller than most of the freighters we have today or the whole four corners of the earth thing... Scientifically speaking.
Although not likely much more impressive... still.
I'm not going to get into a whole discussion with you about the roots of Islam and how false it is, mainly because we still haven't managed to come to a meeting of the minds on the roots of Christianity. I don't think that we should be discussing the origins of another religion when we can't agree on the origin of our own.True!
Especially when we don't even have the same one!Sure thing hon.
Actually, it's what you've defined yourself, if you'll remember.
But Brenda, Jesus was just a man, too. Atheists are not so naive to believe people rise from the dead other than from a George Romero film. That little tidbit gives Muhammad the upper edge in regards to credibility, even though atheists still consider both Islam and Christianity false.
I don;t see how God is more logical than anything else as the first thing. After all, how could something omnipotent ever not exist?
I don't think He ever didn't exist.
He just always has been the first "thing" around.........Sounds like you're saying God existed forever. An eternity before He created earth.
But if it took God forever to create mankind, then he hasn't finished yet - "forever" isn't over and never will be.
And if He has NOT been here "forever" than from what did He come? What was there before Him?
The fallacies of considering eternity, or infinite, are many and varied and they all point to the impossibility of such a thing.
OR - the big bang created time, but God's "universe" (He is not of this one - he can't be as He created it and thus had to exist "before" the universe did) has no time. All time in our universe is the same to Him; Yesterday is today is tomorrow. And, most likely, all spatial points are the same as time and space are inextricably interwoven and time seems to be just another dimension, very similar to the 3 spatial dimensions we all recognize. Again difficult to explain in English, but the concept might be valid as well as generally agreeing with Christian beliefs (not so sure about other belief systems). God is everywhere and everywhen. At the same moment He is speaking to you in your prayers He is also destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and watching His son die on the cross.
Why is it not humans?
Or why should there be a 'first thing'?
Which is more probable, a non intelligent thing existing forever or an intelligent thing existing forever?
Intelligence needs organisation, so if god can exist forever, why not anything else?Not sure what you mean exactly.
But God is divine, immortal. Humans aren't.
Humans (individually) don't exist forever. Unless we count our souls or spirits, which I believe are eternal.
Humankind collectively may be thought to exist forever as we continue to procreate, etc., but the Bible debunks that theory when it says the earth will melt with fervent heat one of these days........Except by the time the Earth comes to an end, humans will have long since found a way to efficiently travel through space to other planets. The only certain end for humanity is the Heat Death of the universe.
Ah.....you've brought up an interesting point. However, it's not a given that people will ever reside on other planets.
But indeed, God is all-powerful. IF humanity is still alive and when/if people actually live on other planets, then I'm sure He will know how to deal with that! No one can hide from the Maker of the Universe. He made us; He can take us out anytime He decides to.
Ok then, human souls. Human souls are eternal and they created the body, so what did god create?
Also do I get to choose what are created and what are not, just like you do? If you can posit an intelligent eternal being (god), why can't I posit an intelligent eternal race (human), for after all, creating the universe need so much intelligence that a collective one is better than a single one?
If there is a book about easter bunny and I believe all that is said in it and used it to predict future and use my experiences us confirmation biases, can I still claim as you do that the belief(that easter bunny exist) is entirely logical?
Why should the first thing in existence should come from anything else, why shouldn't it be eternal?
We know one thing, the earth and universe is here.
You say these things need to be created, so let us put it in the proper format,
P1: everything need to be created
P2: The one that created everything is called god(or creator)
C: Hence god is the creator of everything.
Valid logic, now,
Is god a 'thing'?
If god is, then according to P1 god is created
If god is not a thing, then the opposite, god is nothing.
So it turns out that P1 is not true. Things are not created. If things are not created and things are here, then what does that mean?So, because science has yet to answer that question, you automatically resort to invisible sky daddies as an explanation. You must also believe the sun orbits the earth, which is also flat.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
To the Lord of Heaven and earth.
http://youtu.be/1CBNE25rtnE - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Uh oh........
She's insulting someone else now, not just me.
(sigh) I guess it's a lost cause........I do take issue with that... I in no way shape or form insulted bBeran. I like him too much.
Aww.
Now there's one point I won't argue with you----
I like bBerean too.I'll make that unanimous with the three of us
I would make four, but I think you'd find a lot more than that in agreement.
How come we don't have a blushing emoticon. I need one. Thank you all. Melissa and Wilderness, I will be addressing your posts as soon as I can carve out some time to give them appropriate consideration.
No rush, bBerean. My post probably doesn't really belong on this thread anyway as it's more about logic and reason than religion. Just felt like discussion on reasoning processes and how people differ.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Nope.
This is my "version" of God, the One who Loved me and you so much that He made an offer we shouldn't refuse.
What are you talking about? He, according to Christians gave up nothing as he didn't even die did he?
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
God is Spirit.
But God put a part of Himself into a human body.
Jesus was God in the flesh.
So, yes, He gave up his life for your sins and mine.
Jesus had a human body, so he felt pain. Lots of pain. Horrible pain.
And if anyone understands pain at all, they have to know that it must've been horrible to go through what He went through, with no painkillers, no comfort, no relief.........just a constant flow of blood and gut-wrenching pain.
I have severe rheumatoid arthritis. Sometimes I'm in such pain that I just cry and have to suppress screams. I understand pain. But I have options; I know I have access to pain pills that eventually will kick in and make my day bearable; I know I'll be able to go to a hospital where, if need be, they'll knock me out basically until they can otherwise help alleviate my pain. Jesus had no earthly options to alleviate his pain. My pain is nothing compared to the continuous and excruciating pain He went through.
Jesus had a spiritual option though. He could've ended it and lived physically. Matter of fact, He could've chosen to never even accept the mission. But His goal was to fulfill the mission He was sent here for. His goal was to give humans the chance to live eternally in the Spirit.
For Him, it was all or nothing. He chose to give His all. To have given up in the middle of the mission would've been to set the mission for failure.
The fact that He was God only makes it even MORE an act of compassion and Love, since He could've stopped the whipping, the crucifixion, the dying, that He endured; He could've stopped it at any point in time. He didn't have to do anything for you or for me, or for the sinner down the street, or for the people who killed him, or for anybody. Yet He did. That is Love.I still maintain, after over 15 years of biblical study that the death of jesus (if it happened historically at all, since there is no corroborating evidence for it from unbiased historical sources) cannot be considered a sacrifice. In order to sacrifice something, you need to give it up. Permanently. Jesus chose to come to earth. He chose to die. And after 3 days, he rose again from the dead to sit forever at the right hand of god. God the father didn't give anything up except a temporary displacement. Jesus didn't give anything up since he got his life and his body and his place in heaven back. And I don't see how an all-knowing, all-powerful god being couldn't come up with something better than a human sacrifice to make everything that HE put in place all better again.
I don't think I'm gonna be able to help you understand this if you're not willing to seriously consider His pain..........
but I will suggest you think on this----------
What is one thing that most humans cling to for dear life?
Well.....LIFE...........human life; namely their own lives.
Humans hold that dear.
And while there are humans who are certainly willing to give up their lives for others (think...military, or loved ones who would, if they could, trade their own lives for the sake of their child's or etc..), the point here is that, in general, we cling to life tooth and nail.
No, Jesus didn't get his natural life back!
He died at a relatively young age for a human. The Bible says that during His temptation in the wilderness he was tempted in all ways known to mankind. Do you not think that, in an earthly sense, he would've wanted to have lived and experienced pleasant things and taken pleasure in a long life? He could've been wealthy and famous and engaged in a myriad of human pleasures.
But he chose to allow that life to be ended.
He got His supernatural life back, yes, Amen!
His point was to show that it is the Spiritual life that is more important (and definitely more lasting) than the human life; that the thing that we hold most dear is the thing that He was willing to give up in order for us to have something else which is much more dear------eternal life. Our bodies are not eternal. Our souls are.his BODY was raised from the dead - so much so that mary magdalene was not permitted to touch it as he had not yet ascended to his father. Jesus, according to christian tradition, was fully god and fully human - he knew what was expected of him, and he knew the plan and he went through with it BECAUSE he was fully god and fully man. He got his body back - the disciples were able to touch the wounds in his hands and feet.
I'm imagining that you think that other religions that focus on human sacrifice are barbaric and/or cruel. The aztecs ripped the still-beating hearts out of their victims every day so that the sun would continue to rise. Christianity is little more than a death cult, worshiping a dying and rising sun (son) and commanding its followers to eat his body and drink his blood. Human sacrifice is abhorrent to the god of the old testament, so much so that it was a crime worthy of death - yet he turns around and does the same thing with his own child? What kind of schizophrenic god is it? Do as I say, not as I do - and god, in his infinite and perfect wisdom couldn't come up with a better plan than the trial and error comedy of one failing after another in the bible than impregnating a young woman, growing his son to the ripe old age of 33 (life expectancy in a1st Century Judea under the roman occupation was rarely more than 50-60 years) and then brutally torturing and killing him - just to raise him from the dead in 3 days and declare everything "all better" as long as you took EVERYTHING on faith with no proof and said the right prayers and believed the right things. It's ridiculous to think that a perfect being couldn't come up with anything better than to send himself to earth in order to sacrifice himself back to himself to appease himself for rules that he himself put in place.Once again, what Jesus did was for the benefit of mankind.
Yes, His body walked again on the earth as He presented Himself to the disciples, etc.
He had to give them proof that He had risen from the dead! That was the whole point of rising again!
But no, He didn't reclaim his human existence here on earth. He could've lived for years and years. He longed to return to Heaven where He came from, to be with the Father.
We can have the same ultimate thing-----------we can go live with God in Heaven. Yes, IF we accept the sacrifice of Jesus and give our hearts to Him.
I don't know how else to tell you. I don't know how else to try to convince you. All I know is what the Bible says and what the Spirit in me confirms to be Truth.
The Word says many will not believe. It says that some will not believe even if one were to rise from the dead. Indeed, that came true. Jesus died and rose again. And many still will not believe........The time to believe in something is after you have verifiable proof independent of your own preconceived bias. Do you have any that you can demonstrate that any of what you're claiming is actually true?
But wouldn't that no longer be belief, but knowledge?
Where is the logic in any of of these?
You said you are logical but failed to logically explain
1) why the universe should have a beginning
2) how a complex intelligent organism can exist eternally while a simple universe cannot. (Here you are contradicting yourself, you say more the complexity more the chance of eternity, so what do you say about aliens who are more intelligent than humans?)
3) you suddenly jumped from creator to Christian god(from myriad of gods) without explaining how you made that leap.
4) you said the whole powerful creator has to choose a specific group, showing he is partial and not just.
5) you say this whole powerful being, just to forgive humans, sent a body, got it tortured to a coma, failed in his own prophesy and moved and got away in secret. More like a human who suffer from inferiority complex and lack of confidence, where is the logic in accepting such stories? (And if he 'longed to' return, what did he sacrifice, a few hours of wakefulness? )
6) why you chose to believe the authors of bible are telling the truth.?I believe the Bible because it is the only explanation that makes sense both spiritually and logically, and because I see proof all around me, and because I have His Spirit in me.
God doesn't have a beginning; He simply is the beginning.
But the universe should have a beginning simply because it exists, and we see things that exist all around us; and we see things end all around us; we know they began somewhere.
Some of your other questions are rather mixed up, stated confusingly, so I'm not gonna try to unravel those right now.A: The universe should have a beginning because it exists so....
B. Things that exist have beginnings.
C: God doesn't have a beginning so...
D:.........
Can anyone complete D for me?D.
DUH. God isn't just a thing, nor a created thing. I'm pretty sure that difference between Him and us and Him and everything else is simply a given in any Spiritual and logical conversation. But hey, if not evident to everyone, then, there it is, I just explained it.
Not my problem if some people cannot properly combine logical and Spiritual thinking. But it does kinda shock me that they can't, since it is and always has been a capacity exhibited by many many humans. We are all logical, and we are all spiritual, beings. Not necessarily Spiritual as in the Holy Spirit, but spiritual as in we all have spirits and we all have the capacity to think logically as well.
Melissa beat me to it. God doesn't exist, hence he doesn't have a beginning, fine.
Your first paragraph is a contradiction, more correctly it should read "I believe bible hence I see proof for it and that is the only explanation I accept(though I don't know the logic, but I insist it is logical)".
The last one also is little problematic, you see things coming together and going away (example, different things come together to make human body and when human die, the things go away do not end), that is you see organisation ends yet you say another organisation, god, is eternal. But it is not the organisation, but the things, matter, that is eternal.Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, but I'm fine with saying "Just cause I do."
Oh I know you "believe" in god, but I haven't seen you making such blatant contradiction.
Nope I don't feel any need to prove to anyone, including myself, the correctness of my beliefs.
I think people who are trying to "logic it out" are simply trying to prove their beliefs to themselves by proving it to others. They need others to believe to "know" they are right. That's why churches (and cults) are so successful.
Lots of people all standing around going "Am I right, George" "Yep you're right Bob. That means I'm right too. Right?"Thanks, I wanted to say these too, but somehow the words were not feeling right when I wrote and hence I deleted it leaving only the first part.
Indoctrination works very well. It stops people from thinking.
Confirmation bias. No, there is no logic in the bible and there is no proof all around you of anything in the Bible.
And, it is science that is trying to answer that question. The Bible has already failed miserably in that regard.And yet you claim God exists. Making the claim that everything that exists has a beginning and then claiming God exists but doesn't have a beginning is a whooper of a contradiction.
It's obvious that I was talking about things, not about God, as having a beginning.
But if it makes you feel any better, then I admit I could've perhaps defined that a little better, for the sake of people who either don't get it or else who want to pick at my words in the hopes of finding contradictions that don't EXIST. LOL.
Hey. What's a "whooper"?The exception is the contradiction.
Watch..
No human can jump over 10 feet except 1.
See the contradiction. Once you make one exception you can no longer make the claim that everything that exists needs a beginning, because of course everything includes your concept of God that you claim exists.
So if one thing needs no beginning perhaps many things need no beginning or perhaps everything needs a beginning?
Whopper = real big like. I spelt it wrong. Stupid dyslexia. A Whooper is a bird. LOLUmm... no.
God is the exception.
God is different from just "things", and is different from humans.
So, yes, I presuppose (if that's the right word) that God needs no beginning.
I see nothing wrong with that, because His immortality, divinity, seemingly-impossible-attributes, etc. are all part of the very definition of God.
Oh, okay on the misspelling of whopper. Everyone can make mistakes. And I didn't know a whooper is a bird, so thanks!!Why only you get to prescribe exceptions, why can't I?
You put forward assumptions then yourself say it is wrong then ask us to believe you.
This is what you say, everything except god is created. Why the exception? Well it is because otherwise my theory is not full, you know wink wink! Lets forget all that have a coffee and just accept god is the creator.
Obvious, god is not a thing but the opposite- nothing.
This counts as one of your usual arguments..LOL
- SirDentposted 10 years ago0
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.funny, those verses would imply that god doesn't really want me to believe in him without evidence if he's going to "blind the minds those who don't believe"
Really a loving, accepting guy.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
By the way, if we're gonna go by the atheist or evolutionist way of thinking, then you might say that everything needs a beginning, yes.
So......in that case, I'm still waiting for some atheist or evolutionist or scientist or pseudo-scientist or theorist to tell me the answer to that anyway!-----Where did the first thing that exists come from?
So, the end result of that thinking is still the same...........no one knows.One of the current line of thinking is the multiverse theory as it appears to answer many question, but yes that's a good question. The problem is you put yourself in the same position when you claim a being that defies all known reason created everything. The same question still exists, where did he come from and what was there before the universe and how can something have always existed and yet we can find no evidence for?
I agree those are good questions.
They can only be truly answered to each person's satisfaction.
I maintain that there is a preponderance of evidence both spiritually and logically to uphold my conclusions on it, while there definitely is no real evidence in either category for the opposite view.
After all the questions posed to me, and that I've posed to my own self, I am satisfied. I have Faith.Again you divert.
The question is simply this, why do you say contradictory things (like glass is empty and full at the same time) and ask us to believe you.
Now you say you have faith, that was not what you said earlier.
Who told you things need a beginning. No person in this world has seen a thing coming out of nothing. But all of us have seen organisms that are born and die. In fact there are no organism that do not die(except may be a few jelly fish - then they are simple organisms, not as complex as god..). The first thing, the only thing is all the matter that is present. It is a THING, not an organism as you claim it is. Things DO NOT NEED beginning, organisms do.
But again, first thing, beginning, creator are all your argument, aren't they?Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight I think; your words are kinda confusing for me.....
Are you trying to say that since I believe God doesn't need a beginning, then humans and animals and trees and other things don't necessarily need a beginning?
If so, then I will, yes, reiterate my argument that God is different from those other things, hence He does not need a beginning, but we do.
And I'm not asking anyone to believe me! I am asking you and anyone else to consider what I believe, to think outside of the box that insulates you from spiritual (and literal/logical) arithmetic.No I am not saying that, but you are saying, because humans, animals and tress need beginning, universe needs a beginning.
Those other beings. A cockroach is different from a human who might be different from an alien who might be different from god. But all these are organisms, that is have "organization" in their body and it is your argument that an organism needs to be created. Then in the next sentence you contradict yourself by telling me that organisms do not need creation. "Things" like hydrogen or sodium do not need beginning, but any organism that can think and make decision needs a beginning (and according to you, your god thinks and make decisions).
No Brenda, you are asking us to believe you. It is really not even a question of logic, it is a question of the clarity of what you state. You contradict yourself. You say the glass is empty and full at the same time, which any one can agree is false. First you make a statement without contradicting yourself, whether to believe you comes only later.
By spiritual do you mean being vague, nebulous and contradictory, at least that is what I get from what you say?Must be a loss in communication, 'cause I don't know how you've derived contradictions from my words.
By the way, organisms are life forms, living cells, etc....
Stones and light and other solid or gaseous forms aren't "organisms" per the definition.
Yet all those things, yes, and organisms like human life, need a beginning, because they had nor have no power of their own to exist or grow.
By spiritual I mean that intangible invisible trait or status (or however it can be defined) that makes us "who" we are, that we know exists but cannot put a literal finger on it.You first said everything need creation, then said everything does not need creation.
Then you said every organism need creation, then said every organism does not need creation.
If I use an analogy, you said the glass is empty then said glass is not empty, that is called contradiction.
Heard of "eternal"? Things are eternal. They exist, they do not grow, organisms do though. according to you your god is an organism - it can think and make decision, and according to such organisms cannot be eternal. If they have to be created, the materials that make up god has to be created and as there is none to create that god cannot come into existence.
That is our awareness, but that is just the function of the brain. Burn a few areas of brain you will looses all awareness.I don't think it's just the function of the brain.
Some people are "mean-spirited", while others are "sweet-spirited".
Doesn't look like the brain is the location of spirit at all.
Matter of fact, that's why I said it's "intangible".
Like the heart. There is a heart in our bodies that pumps blood; it's simply an organ that lets our body function or makes our body function. If somebody has a literal heart attack, that simply means their literal heart malfunctioned.
Then there is the term "in my heart" etc., that we use to refer to our feelings etc. Yet those feelings aren't literally in our literal heart. A person who gets a heart transplant doesn't develop a different "heart" as in feelings, spirit, etc.That will not explain the contradiction.
A person with right left dissociation be, one side suicidal and one the opposite - alien hand syndrome.
A person with a stroke can be entirely unemotional or overemotional, another's personality can change entirely, another may ignore one half of the body, another will be happy always after the stroke, another might die laughing while another will be sad always......
"mean -spirited", "heart"(feelings are literally in our brain though -in the form a few chemicals stimulating some parts of brain) are figurative, description of a persons's personality and personality is entirely dependent on brain as stroke patients show. Personality is intangible as it is the totality of the behavior of a person - that make as who we are. So where is the spirit?What is spirit?, will also do.
Good question? And you have no answer?
So we are back to our initial discussion. You made the conclusion first or you believed the persons who told you 'there is god'. All the rest of your arguments were mere justifications to hold on to that belief.Is that what's bothering you?----that I believe in God?
Certainly not, it is that you do not practice what you preach, that too in public. That you say do not lie, but lie yourself, knowingly or unknowingly.
And you do not believe in god(that also is a lie), you believe your parents(or whoever told you there is god) and the authors of bible.
So either say "I believe god exists(though god's existence has nothing to with anybody's beliefs)" or "I believe my parents/guardians/priests".I'm sure Brenda believes in God.
And a person can't lie "unkowingly'.Neither Brenda nor any living "normal" human being have heard from god to believe him, all anyone can do is believe other humans who talk.
Thanks, I should have said unwittingly, I meant that though she doesn't know it as a lie, is still a lie.This riddle doesn't involve jesus or fish
nor a triangle, but a circleThat's why I answered it with another for you to solve and the answer you gave was not correct.
PS: funny numbers in bible are just that, funny.Did you ever wonder why those numbers are in the bible?
And yet if a person get an injury to the head not only can they become unconscious, but can develop permanent brain damage which can and sometimes does change personality and ability. Gary Busey is but one example. When the Brain is shut down so are we.
Brenda, Amazing how much thinking this topic has encouraged.
Indeed.
Until the usual naysayers like Melissa B. show up to distract by making things personal in an effort to denounce followers of Christ.and you're not making it personal right now by calling another hubber out by name and pointing fingers?
there's a word for that. It starts with an h and ends with ypocrisy.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
While America sleeps, they "save the trees and kill the children"..........so true.
http://youtu.be/5A8nsql1zi0
"While You Were Sleeping"
by Casting Crowns
Oh little town of Bethlehem
Looks like another silent night
Above your deep and dreamless sleep
A giant star lights up the sky
And while you're lying in the dark
There shines an everlasting light
For the King has left His throne
And is sleeping in a manger tonight
Oh Bethlehem, what you have missed while you were sleeping
For God became a man
And stepped into your world today
Oh Bethlehem, you will go down in history
As a city with no room for its King
While you were sleeping
While you were sleeping
Oh little town of Jerusalem
Looks like another silent night
The Father gave His only Son
The Way, the Truth, the Life had come
But there was no room for Him in the world He came to save
Jerusalem, what you have missed while you were sleeping
The Savior of the world is dying on your cross today
Jerusalem, you will go down in history
As a city with no room for its King
While you were sleeping
While you were sleeping
United States of America
Looks like another silent night
As we're sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children
And while we're lying in the dark
There's a shout heard 'cross the eastern sky
For the Bridegroom has returned
And has carried His bride away in the night
America, what will we miss while we are sleeping
Will Jesus come again
And leave us slumbering where we lay
America, will we go down in history
As a nation with no room for its King
Will we be sleeping
Will we be sleeping
United States of America
Looks like another silent nightIf you're gonna post Christian song lyrics, at least have the decency and the courtesy to make sure it's from a group that doesn't completely suck. Observe:
Candlemass - Samarithan
One day I saw a man
dressed in rags, with a staff in his hand
begging for a penny to survive
How poor a man can be
I gave him hospitality
a room, a bed and lots of food to eat
Still I hear his last few words
"I can never return what you've done
but heaven will remember and repay"
Fifty years had gone since I saw him
I was dying and I'd soon be dead
Three angels stood in front of my bed
The first one she said to me, don't be afraid
I will give you immortality, and grace for your soul
The second had eyes of gold, she gave me my wings
The third gave all wisdom, an angel could give
...to me
One day I saw a man
dressed in rags, with a staff in his hand
begging for a penny to survive
How poor a man can be
I gave him hospitality
a room, a bed and lots of food to eat
I joined with my destiny, eternally
I knew I was born again, an angel to be
A vision beyond my dreams, called me by name
So in devotion I spread my wings, to heaven I had came
...to stayThanks, I did observe!
Nice sentiment, but humans don't become angels in heaven! And those aren't Christian song lyrics really.
Most Christian groups would know that, surely. Now, I have heard a few Christians who thought their loved ones who had died were now angels in heaven, and it's sad but yes some Christians even perpetuate erroneous stuff without thinking.
Still, doesn't sound like that group is a Christian group; the overall impact of their message, sound, and style doesn't relate to the Biblical info about being born again.
Nice try. The first few passages seem to be setting the stage for a great message! But then they veer off-road like a car driven by a drunken teenager. So I'll still go for Casting Crowns. Maybe that's why you think Casting Crowns s_cks, 'cause they do carry a valid Gospel message in all the songs that I've heard."Valid Gospel Message" is an oxymoron.
Sorry, couldn't resist.Yeah, I'm having flashbacks to the South Park episode where they decide to become Christian Singers.
That pretty much sums up how I feel about Gospel music in general.
Alright, let's try this one out, then:
Theocracy - I Am
I am the light upon your path when you have lost your way
I am the footprints in the sand the ocean’s tide can’t wash away
I am the shelter from the storm that rages on and on
The incorruptible foundation that the wise man builds upon
I am the bread that feeds a starving man upon the street
I am the bounty on the table in the palace at the feast
I am the rain upon the earth after a scorching drought
I am the quenching of the thirst you never thought you’d be without
I am the melody that weaves its way inside your soul
I am the symphony, the masterpiece, the actor’s greatest role
I am the poetry that speaks to you with every rhyme
I am the songwriter who seems to write your life in every line
I am the simple truths that shaped your world from your birth
I am the vast volumes of knowledge spanning all across the earth
I am the whisper of the wind you feel, but cannot see
I am the alpha and omega, first and last, eternally
I AM
You cannot see me
I AM
The resurrection and the life, the doorway and the vine, I AM
I AM
You cannot touch me
I AM
The bread of life, light of the world, long before Abraham, I AM
I am the trusting child whose simple faith is ever sure
I am the parent’s love, unchanging, unconditional and pure
I am the loyal friend whose heart will never let you down
I am the hand that pulls you back into the boat before you drown
I am the thunder and the glory and the blinding light
I am the still small voice that tells you what is wrong and what is right
I am the sacrificial lamb a guilty world reviled
I am the father ever waiting for his lost and wayward child
I AM
You cannot see me
I AM
The resurrection and the life, the doorway and the vine, I AM
I AM
You cannot touch me
I AM
The bread of life, light of the world, long before Abraham, I AM
I am the heart of the righteous desire and the fourth man you see in the midst of the fire
I am the giver of life and the promise of Israel
I am the hope of the lonely and lost in the blood running down to the foot of the cross
I am the breaking of chains and the tolling of freedom’s bell
I am the notes that eternally ring in the music too holy for angels to sing
I am the fire on the altar consuming the sacrifice
I am the three and yet I am the one in the grace of the Father and death of the Son
I am the one who redeemed you by paying the highest price
I am grace and mercy, I am sacrifice
I am endless glory, I am light and life
I am long-awaited hope of Israel
I am longing sated, prophecy fulfilled
I am from the beginning of time, and I am sustaining the system of life
I am symmetry, reason and rhyme, and I am conviction that cuts like a knife
I am the author of order and flow
I am the Father of Lights: watch me put on a show!
I am the seeker of all gone astray
I am the keeper of souls ‘til the end of all days
I am power, I am glory, I am love’s unending story
I am justice, I am honor, I am hope and living water
I am righteous, I am holy, I am three and one and only
I am sovereign, I am faithful, everlasting, I AM that I AM
(insert egregiously long solo here)
I am humility, the one who laid it all aside
Traded a crown of kings for a crown of thorns, betrayed by human pride
I am humanity, took on your curse and all your pain
I am divinity, eternity, forever I remain
I am your guilty scars, as Roman soldiers tear my back
I am the crimson stain that washes all the souls faded to black
I am the one who bled in silence and endured it all
I am the Word who spoke no word, with a thousand angels waiting for my call
I am your covenant
Your hero in these bloodstained pages
I am your guilt, your sin
Your debt fulfilled for all the ages
I step into your shoes, your substitute
Your sacrifice
Your raison d’etre
Your second chance
Your breath of life
I AM
I am the joy of angels dancing in the streets of heaven
I am the sinner’s prayer for mercy and a past forgiven
I am the lamb upon the altar dying willingly
All hope that was
All hope that is
All hope to be
I AMI love the fact that they've tried to show who God is! He is the great I AM, yes!
A couple of things are bothersome. On a site, they posted that they intentionally tried to make music that was "unfriendly" to regular Christian radio. I dunno if they meant it in such a negative way or not.....
And although many of the things they've listed as attributes of God are true, I'm not sure that they can truly say that God IS the "trusting child" etc.
The line between Biblical truth and misleading metaphor can get a bit hazy. A lot of a band's effectiveness is what they say about God when they're not onstage too.
Over-all? I like the song.
There is just something I can't quite put my finger on........maybe because metal is kinda irreverent in its tone, and even though it's well-intentioned to draw people who maybe won't listen to "regular" Gospel...to Christ, I see no reason why (if they're seeking God) they wouldn't just as readily listen to other genres of Gospel. Will they be drawn to Christ, or will they only be drawn to the band members because of their progressive style of singing?
You may say I'm over-analyzing this, but it really is important. Music is powerful. Words are powerful. I think words and music put together are extremely powerful.
For instance, I want to ask you what it is that draws you to this particular group's work as opposed to Casting Crowns which you cut down.
?
And............does this group's work cause you to feel drawn to God? Because I don't think you've ever said you wanted to be drawn to Him at all............Because Casting Crowns are dull, dry, boring, bland, and take no risks whatsoever while Theocracy is huge, bold, sweeping, and epic while being musically adventurous, and their lyrics are actually imaginative and creative even if you don't subscribe to their religious philosophy. As one reviewer put it, Theocracy are "for believers and heathens alike."
With Theocracy, I can appreciate songs like "Mirror of Souls" because they use Christian mythos and ideas to weave together interesting ideas and original metaphors, sometimes giving us something truly profound and memorable, all the while setting up very memorable symbolic imagery that resonates with the listener, whether in the affirmation of one's religion or in the satisfaction of hearing a good story.
Casting Crowns just talks down to you with typical shame-on-you preachiness and erroneous claims about, well, everything.I see.
So, in other words, the message is different because of the way it's delivered. It leaves the "heathen" (as you put it) free to enjoy the music without actually seriously considering the depth of the message.
Is that right? It's "religious philosophy" instead of specific direction toward Jesus; correct?
In other other words, it doesn't challenge you to make a choice about Christ......
Wait. I see you edited to post some other things...........okay....
Have you ever listened to some of the other Casting Crowns songs like "Stained Glass Masquerade" and "Did Anybody Hear Her" (I think that's the title....)
?
And what are the "erroneous claims" you mentioned?Oh, trust me. I have. My mom follows them (forgive the pun) religiously, and she's always playing their albums in the kitchen CD player, along with Austin's Bridge and the Gaithers.
- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Slow Fade
by
Casting Crowns
http://youtu.be/0wo26sCH-Fw
Be careful little eyes what you see
It's the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings
Be careful little feet where you go
For it's the little feet behind you that are sure to follow
It's a slow fade when you give yourself away
It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
It's a slow fade, it's a slow fade
Be careful little ears what you hear
When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near
Be careful little lips what you say
For empty words and promises lead broken hearts astray
It's a slow fade when you give yourself away
It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
The journey from your mind to your hands
Is shorter than you're thinking
Be careful if you think you stand
You just might be sinking
It's a slow fade when you give yourself away
It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
Daddies never crumble in a day
Families never crumble in a day
Oh be careful little eyes what see
Oh be careful little eyes what you see
For the Father up above is looking down in love
Oh be careful little eyes what you see - Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
Even if the healing doesn't come
by Kutless
http://youtu.be/SiYAUNJPrMU To be fair, however, the Gaither Vocal Band did release Lovin' God and Lovin' Each Other in 1997, and while it has an unintentionally hilarious title, it is probably the only Southern Gospel album that is not only decent, but actually really good.
I forgot all about those. Listened to part of the first again, and I nearly fell asleep. Dull as dishwater.Even though Masquerade is about how fallible all Christians are, and Does Anybody Hear Her is about regret at not paying more attention to a girl who needed to be shown the love of Christ?
I've heard the Gaithers quite a bit, but I don't think I've heard those songs you mentioned. I'll have to look 'em up!
I have no witty intro for this, but I feel it's at least partially relevant:
Orphaned Land - All is OneSorry, but I listened to a couple of their songs, and the music is so tinny, and the lyrics so hostile, that it irritated all my sensibilities and culminated in boredom.
I half expected a snake to start wiggling out of the video screen, because that's the feel and tone of the videos---------snake charmers trying to fascinate the hearers.....Oh?
Wait, what? Tinny implies a lack of bass, and the bass is totally audible.
Wait, WHAT?!
"An ancient promise in an orphaned land
A clenched fist becomes an open hand
Armed forces spill their blood on holy sands
Again and again we fail to see that all is one"
I am failing to see the hostility here, and when they're not thematically retelling pivotal stories from the Old Testament, that paragraph is pretty much what their songs are all like.
Because spreading a message of peace and understanding through the use of intricate, intense melodic folk metal is the epitome of boring, I guess.
If you want hostile, though, how about THIS.
And even then, I'm not 100% that it really even is hostile...- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago0
This one is raw and realistic. It challenges you and gives ya a choice just like Jesus does.
http://youtu.be/F3fIWE9KxFY
Related Discussions
- 67
"Christianity" vs. "Roman Catholisism"
by Dave Mathews 3 years ago
Christianity I see as the following of and the belief through faith, in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the acceptance through faith that Jesus is God.Roman Catholisism embraces most, but not all of Jesus teachings but not all, and then interjects different teachings into the Roman Catholic...
- 934
What Defines A Christian?
by Melissa Barrett 9 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is that not all Christians believe the same thing, and not even members of our own...
- 33
Is Christianity a Good Worldview and Religion?
by Paula 11 years ago
There are many worldviews and religions in the world. Sometimes it seems like it is just a matter of picking one over another. Everyone has a worldview, and a philosophy they agree with most.I think, its a good idea to examine our own worldviews, and see if they stand the most critical...
- 47
"Catholicism" Christian?
by qwark 13 years ago
Is catholicism the antithesis of the concept "christian?"
- 1620
Christian Discussion
by Brenda Durham 12 years ago
I've noticed there's a zillion threads about Christianity and other beliefs, etc. (Well, not a zillion, but ya know); and I think they're all hugely interesting. But haven't seen one that's specifically labeled for Christian discussion.Someone please point me to one if...
- 19
Christians - being Christ-like
by Madeline Perry 3 years ago
I wonder if people took the 'religion' out of Christianity and started to live life according to Jesus' teachings, then people's opinions of Christians would change?Many wars have been started over religion, but I want to ask you, did Jesus kill anyone? I don't recall Him doing so. Or did...