Christian Discussion
Not to be too self-centered here, but I should probably share this before I get into trouble. Hope no one is offended.
I go to open mic night on Wednesdays, and I usually tell a couple of one-liners ("Yes, I am just another pretty face" and "I'm only in it for the money" usually get the biggest laughs.)
So tonight I did this bit: "I'm a drummer in a band called The Lightning Jumpers. I have a friend, you know one of those friends you've never met, they live several states away, but they're on FaceBook. Anyway, they saw me playing drums in a posted video and she said, "You're cute, for a drummer." (Several people crack up at this point.) So I said, 'I'm an ugly hairy mountain bear, and you've heard me growl, so don't you forget it!' Then she said to me, 'You're cuddly, like a panda bear.' And I told her, 'It's just like you to see things so black and white.'"
Got big laughs and a few groans.
In any case, hope I didn't offend anyone.
(I'd, like, offer to share the profits of the joke but this is Open Mic night.)I'm glad it got you laughs
You could at least buy us all a round of whatever we're drinking. I'll have a coke please Chris, I love that you shared that.
And that you seem to be doing well. Peace, brother! And may the laughter and love continue.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago
0Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.Are you feeling hated and persecuted by your enemies?
Funny, how you say you used to cavort all the time, drinking and fighting, but now are a good, upstanding Christian, and look down your nose at others, sort of like the reformed smoker constantly harping at other smokers.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Proverbs 3:24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet
Good night everyone. - SirDentposted 11 years ago0
John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Jesus wept. John 11:35
Maybe still does. At moments such as these.Well, I've noticed (and correct me if I am wrong) that you tend to post scriptures as a rebuttal to a previous post without replying directly. The problem is, sometimes when someone uses scripture in an attempt to rebut, without opening a dialogue, what they do is support the argument they think they are rebutting.
Everyone interprets the words differently. People are more alike than they are different. We fail to see that because we get caught up in our own idea of things without attempting to find the similarities.Scripture speaks for itself and needs no interpretation. Believers are to be apart from unbelievers meaning they are not alike.
I don't post scripture to rebut without addressing the post I am rebutting. I post scriptures to try to keep the topic on track with the title of the thread. Sometimes it is also to give a break for those who seem to be getting too emotionally charged in their posts.Cutting and pasting biblical drivel makes you look righteous as well. Don't forget that.
Odd - I thought you used scripture to interpret scripture - now you say it does not need to be interpreted. One of those statements is untrue.
Save me a seat by the fire,Stop winking!
People who wink at wrong cause trouble, but a bold reproof promotes peace. Prov 10:10Yes Mark, iron sharpens iron and scripture interprets scripture. All scripture stands and is given by inspiration of God and is used for teaching, doctrine, reproof and correction.
That is a blatant contradiction. It either stands alone - or where it obviously contradicts itself - you have to choose the one you prefer . Therefore scripture does need interpretation. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Save me a seat by the fire.
You're joking, right? You don't really think the English words mean exactly what they say, according to dictionaries? There are no parables, no metaphors that need interpretation, no cultural differences to work through and the translators always got it perfect.
You are joking?Did you really think he was joking or was that just added as an extra measure of scoff in case the fact that you disagreed wasn't enough?
While there are literalists in this world, believing all the bible says while ignoring reality or pretending it is not what it is, I did not put SirDent in that category. HE does, though, with this post.
It's strange the way the dynamic is here. Is a question asked for clarity? No. An accusation is waged and a verdict decided before the defendant even has a chance to answer the round of accusations being fired at him. It seems to me, offering patience and withholding assumptions is vital if true understanding is to be gained.
Funny how that is a one way street.
I don't mind it. If it seems to me that they are only trying to stir up strife I just ignore them and move on.
How can you say that? Do you not wish to understand the mind of your conversation partner? Do you not wish to understand what it is they are trying to communicate?
SirDent, with that post, plainly says that every word of the bible is true without any interpretation or changes. That makes him a literalist, refusing to coordinate the bible with reality.
But if the meaning isn't what the words say (and he waffles in another post with "interpretation" being replaced with "revelation") then he DOES find that the meaning is not what the words say. Which in turn means that no one really knows what he actually means with all the quotes, so there is no real reason to try and decipher them all.
Whether they got it exactly right or not makes no difference. It is by revelation that the Word of God is shown not by man's interpretation.
Explanation is not the same as interpretation.How long did it take to form the universe, man and all?
Was the entire land surface under water in Noah's flood?
Did a man live for days in the belly of a fish?
Literal readings of the bible are worthless. Without value until the meaning of the words are changed to match reality, but when you then claim "revelation" instead of "interpretation" that is even worse. They both mean the same thing - scripture does not mean what it says - but one implies a make believe creature gave you the interpretation. Which is of course why no two people even interpret it the same - they all have a different god talking to them, don't they?Oh dear, I take it the writers of the bible didn't want you to have any knowledge at all. As everything we know of the universe and earth conflicts with everything you think. It's right there in the legend at the beginning with the tree of knowledge. If you stay away from knowledge you will please got and by into this load of crap. Well done sir.
Intellectual dishonesty? You keep saying tree of knowledge when it is in fact the tree of knowledge of good and evil Are you doing it on purpose? I know we all make mistakes from time to time.
If no one can come to god other than those who are chosen by god (this sounds a lot like predestination) how is it moral or just to torture and eternally punish those who are not chosen? They couldnt do it on their own. God didnt select them. Why should they be punished for not being one of the chosen?
God calls out to all. Some heed Him, some don't. Everyone has the opportunity. After all, that is why Jesus came to live and die as a man, so that all have the chance to be saved.
If that were true, you would not need to spend so much time self righteously preaching at us. But - great job on the condescending tone.. Very nice. I was almost persuaded that you hear something that I choose to pretend is not there.
It isn't predestination, per se, but predetermination. Those who heed the voice of God and follow after Jesus will be saved. Those who do not, will not be saved. God made one way and one way only. He did not change the way at any point in time.
Confusion started when people started claiming there are multiple or different ways.Do you mean different faiths? Because there have always been other religions.
Different faiths outside the faith of believing in Jesus Christ.
Then, respectfully, if we're talking about the Abrahamic religions... the confusion kind of started with believing in Christ, from a historic standpoint. I mean the Jews were kind of there first.
All through the Old Testament it is written, The Lord is the Savior. Even before Jesus was born, He was alive.
Well that's a lengthy discussion that would encompass a whole bunch of theological theories.
I'm not a trinitarian and I don't think we'd get past that point...I agree that it would certainly be lengthy. I am a trinitarian and nothing will change my mind about that.
But - you got it right - right? Well done you! Yay for you!
I know who Dr. Lamb is... though why she needs an alternate acct. I don't know. I'm not sure who you are, but I'm still working on it. I need Alka Seltzer Plus then I'll be ready.
Actually, pretty sure Lamb is a guy. Sorry, you guessed wrong.
I am who I am.
Save me a seat by the fire.You can't use a tagline at the end of every post. You have to be sparing with it. Did Arnold say "I'll be back" at the end of every scene? No, that would have been crazy. Also, switch it up maybe. Something a little light-hearted would be nice.
She likes to play amateur sleuth with guess the sock. Apparently, I am Dr. Lamb. Although she's never directly accused me because she knows she doesn't really know. I think she might be wavering between me and JM.
Both wrong.Think longer... it works on several levels. If you are only getting one of them, you are missing most of the fun.
Yeah, Im only getting one of them... from there on out Im imagining dirty insinuations... which I dont think you intended. I don't want to go to the dark place and I don't feel good.
Yeah, you're not really my type, nothing dirty intended. Really. Nothing.
I always thought doctor lamb was A Troubled Man/Encephaloidead when he wanted to play nice.
I guess you missed the infamous melt down. Dr. Lamb left a seething msg. with a few choice words that I've only seen one other person on this forum use. And the post was full of a lot of ageism, mostly towards two others and a little towards me. I don't think ED would use ageism against anyone.
You're too slow. Already looked it up. I guess i don't do a good job of judging ages. I assumed you and Melissa were the same age group.
Wish I'd seen the infamous post.I committed the crime of "looking every bit my age." I guess that is something to be ashamed of. I wonder if it's ok to look your age when you're 25 or 65... I don't know, but apparently it's a bad thing when you're 45.
What? That was in the infamous post? Someone making derogatory remarks about pictures of hubbers? They must have been drunk. How embarrassing for whoever.
They ripped Eric and Kathryn apart and said I was a "tw*t" and I think a "resident sex kitten." The weird thing is, Dr. Lamb had made a kind post the page before, then went a little nutzy out of no where. I don't know... Im not fond of the duplicate acct. thing. Say what you wanna say, admit to it, and deal with the consequences. Too much hit and run stuff. Not impressive.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that Dr. Lamb is a duplicate account and not just an individual person. Shame on me for giving a new hubber the benefit of the doubt. How silly of me.
Does everything have to be a new opportunity for consternation? Is it not possible to disagree on something without a sarcastic post mocking the imagined adversary?
That's really weird. I don't mind the duplicate account thing. It impresses me, a bit. I couldn't keep up with which persona I was supposed to be playing at any given time. It's just bored people with way too much time on their hands. Whoever is doctor lamb must have thought they were posting under a different avatar at that moment.
Dont know... it was a week or so ago. Water under the bridge.
Did he apologize? He seemed fairly even tempered. I'd be surprised if he didn't do the right thing by offering some type of apology.
Nope, just kinda spazed then kept going like nothing had ever happened. lol
edit: are there two z's in spazzed? huhThat's what troubles me. Pointed rudeness, for rudeness sake here; at times. I suppose the anonymity of the internet helps people forget their manners.
The funny thing is how ppl say over and over again that it's not personal. They don't dislike you and they're not being unkind to you. It's only that they disagree with your beliefs... but they forget we've heard endless insult after insult and we know exactly what the intent is.
In the case of many of the few insults I've seen directed at you, I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, whatever you say Melissa. I'm not interested in arguing.
Then you probably shouldn't have made it about you, then complained because it was personal. The drama is annoying. If you want to know why it happens, there it is. You make everything about you, so when somebody disagrees, it's personal... not because they made it that way, because you did.
People stopped trying to have rational conversations with you a long time ago because the butthurtedness was just so all enveloping... We just assume when you speak now, it's time for the Beth Show.I'm relaxed, you have no idea how relaxed I am.
Yet another misconception that if someone isn't vomiting sugar-coated platitudes they must be angry. I'm just honest.
I see it. But, what do you do? The last time i commented someone suggested I get bigger underwear.
I used to work with a girl who was treated unfairly. I felt sorry for her because it was wrong. I stood up for her because it was the right thing to do. Later, she became part of the back stabber group and the behavior patterns were suddenly acceptable. Because they weren't directed at her. I learned a valuable lesson in human nature. People, in packs, will play to the lowest common denominator. They enjoy it.I guess in the end, we are all responsible for our own underwear.
See that's another thing. You say you see a group mentality, I don't. I see people thinking that if more than one person disagrees with them that they are being "ganged up" on.
That really is a Jr. High mentality. There is no pack here. It exists along with persecution delusion.Do you think they enjoy it, or just go along with the pack just so they won't be the one "picked on"?
Oh, I think not wanting to be the one picked on is high on the priority list.
Again, not in Jr. High. Does your world really work like that? I'm honestly curious.
Not so sure about that.
Looks pretty Jr. Highish to me. Most of adult society does.Where the hell do you people live? I honestly thought that this kind of mentality only existed in soap-operas and bad romance novels.
I'm the only one of the four of us having this conversation that doesn't see it. That's a distinction.
Edit: Does that mean I'm being ganged up upon and picked on by a pack?I had kinda dropped out. Why didn't you notice? I thought this was the Beth show.
I figured you were doing your nails or something... or a tragic accident had rendered you incapable of typing.
Good to know. I'm not feeling particularly Alpha though... should I be peeing on somebody?
That is just sick. Seriously. Although it did make me smile.
I keep getting rejected by Melissa. If I was on fire, I fear she wouldn't spit on me.
Don't be silly. She'd spit on you. Even if you weren't on fire.
There. Don't you feel better now?Oh, I'd spit on you. I'm that kind. I just wouldn't pee on you. I think that kind of thing should be reserved for committed relationships.
Then I've accomplished half my goal anyway.
I will agree that being the odd opinion out doesn't make you in the minority at the moment.
I used to think like you, but then i took an office job. Man, were my eyes opened. I was so happy when we started this business. People can be vicious, for negligible gain. It's quite sad to watch.
I honestly don't care what people think of me. All I care about is what I think of myself. But, I do appear to be in the minority. Do you honestly think people don't act in certain ways to be part of a pack? Are you that naive?
I guess I must be that naive... or I haven't been exposed to those types of people in adulthood. Most of the people I know in real life could give a crap less what anyone else thinks of them... least of all their friends.
When my wife went to work in a manufacturing plant a few years ago she used to come home with the craziest stories of backbiting, backstabbing, cliques and nasty little comments from her fellow employees. I was totally aghast, having never seen that kind of thing, but eventually found a couple of loners in my employee group doing the same thing when they could. An overgrown Peyton Place, I thought.
Now both my kids, and their spouses, are reporting the same kind of thing. A bunch of little kids, all trying to be mean to each other and all crying when it inevitably happens to them. Sad to see purported adults behaving thusly.See, I'm not saying I can't be mean... just saying I don't need group approval or backing to do such.
That out of the way, even when I saw it in junior high, it was the girls. (At the risk of being called a sexist). The guys never seemed to be bothered with it. By the time we got to high-school, it seemed like everyone had outgrown it and had more important things to occupy their time.I don't necessarily think you are mean. Just self-confident, and opinionated. I think someone in you're position might not notice that people have a pack mentality, simply because you've probably never had to jockey for position.
I've never had any particular desire to jockey for that position... However, this will blow your mind... the "pack" that I'm most often accused of being in, if it had an alpha female (which it doesn't), damn sure wouldn't be me. That distinction would go to the sweet, quiet blonde who loves everyone and would think twice before saying boo to a ghost, just in case she hurt it's feelings.
I'd agree women are worse. But, when i worked in an office I kind of understood why. If a woman acts that way management doesn't react. If a man does, they do. I think society expects childish behavior from women.
I think women do that because men and women are different. Men seem to have bonding that most women don't. Women seem more likely to be trying to impress the guys.
I don't see it as women naturally being that way as much as it is women were raised to be that way. Reacting to the environment.
I'll be honest. The need for validation most women display makes me gag. It is so beneath their potential.I used to work at a country club. Men in a group of just men talk about issues. They have rituals. They are totally different than women. They don't want women invading their "guy space".
Women in groups of just women get bored with no guys around. They gossip, talk about guys, and other people.
Maybe this is just a rich people thing, but I don't think so. Guys watching a football game together talk football. Girls nights out is about flirting with guys.Maybe that's my issue. I wasn't raised around women. I was raised around guys. The women that were around couldn't have cared less what anyone thought and certainly felt no desire to group together.
They say shallow people talk about people. Ordinary people talk about events. Great people discuss ideas. I guess that makes most women I've observed in groups shallow people.
An unconscious instinct for women to find and keep a good mate/father for the offspring.
Men don't biologically "need' a mate. They can father hundreds theoretically and walk away from the situation. A female can only have a few, and need someone to bring home the bacon while pregnant or with small children.Funny. I brought home my share of the bacon when pregnant and raising small children.
You could be right, and it could be a combination of things. But, i do think women use excuses in order not to be independent and strong. It's a crutch, not an evolutionary imperative.
Our strengths are our weaknesses and our weaknesses are our strengths. Women, being more often gifted in their nurturing and interpersonal capacities are the ones more often gossiping about people and bickering with one another. Men, more often gifted in "things" (technical, mechanical, building, etc.) often lack interpersonal sensitivity and more often fall into the "dead man zone" of TV watching, video game playing, etc.
As far as I've observed (without specifically looking for it), I'd say men and women talk ideas about equally.Judging by your assessment of the sexes, i think you just called me a man.
We can see by your profile pic, that's clearly not true.
There will always be greater within group variation than between group variation, so it makes perfect sense for you and many others to fit into either group. You were making a judgment about women being shallow. I don't think it's so much a matter of shallowness as a matter of their general strengths and weaknesses. The tendencies still exist.
I think society pushes us into molds they think we should be in. I think the tendencies you describe exist equally in the sexes. Some men fit your description of female strengths and, vice versa. I think almost every aspect of society drills the stereotypes you are advocating and society rewards those who most closely fit the stereotypes. I think attempting to force people into boxes is one of the reasons we run across shallow people. They spend so much time attempting to fit that mold they don't pursue their potential.
Some of that is true. Society does try to push us into molds.
On the other hand, though, there are real differences in men and women. Biological, scientifically proven differences that DO effect how we behave.
Men and women are not carbon copies of each other. There are true differences. Equal in intelligence, etc, but in different ways.This is an absolutely true statement you make, Emile, R - "Some men fit your description of female strengths and, vice versa", and that is exactly what I was getting at when I said the within group variation will generally be greater than the between group variation.
Studies of infants have been in favor of biological, genetic differences in the tendencies of males and females. This is not to deny the individual differences, and I personally have no issue with females who have more masculine tendencies or males who have more feminine tendencies (in many ways I prefer the more feminine males when it comes to friendships). God created all uniquely, and I do not think either men or women should be limited in their occupational or recreational pursuits.
You say, "I think almost every aspect of society drills the stereotypes you are advocating and society rewards those who most closely fit the stereotypes". Historically this is true and still is to some degree. Yet I've seen a new type of "drilling" and "rewarding" going on, at least in the United States in recent years. Men are still rewarded for masculinity, but now women also are rewarded for masculinity, and in what I consider a subtle new form of misogyny, femininity is no longer valued even in women.
Such statements/judgments as the one you made regarding women being shallow as suggested by their talk focusing on people, shows a lack of appreciation for the feminine qualities. The message now in our day that pushes women to be more like males is in effect saying, "the male qualities were better than the feminine ones, and for you to be equal you must possess the more traditionally male qualities". So now many women, internalizing this subtle misogyny, look down on femininity and even women in general, but they must make sure that THEY THEMSELVES at least are the exception and fit the more male stereotype. In studies the majority of girls have now tended to say the other girls are all more feminine than them, and they uniquely are the "tomboy", because the "tomboy" is now the esteemed one.
I am in no way trying to say there is anything wrong with being a tomboy or a masculine female, if that is in fact how God created someone. I am rather saying that femininity is of equal value to masculinity, and rather than embracing this new subtle misogyny, and putting down the women who possess feminine strengths and weaknesses, we should uplift and esteem them for their own strengths.I tend to agree with you on this.
Feminine strengths are often looked at as weaknesses.I think I'm going to limit my response to your last paragraph. I agree. We should accept people for who and what they are. No matter. I've always told my kids and employees; and anyone who complained about someone not being exactly as they would have liked, that the world would be an incredibly boring place if everything was the same.
But, I do wish women had more self esteem and were more secure in themselves. But, I can see the advantages gained by not better displaying these traits. And that is the crux of my complaint against my sex. These behavior patterns appear more calculated than inherited. We make excuses so they can continue.
But, there are no "packs" here, there are only individual people from all over the place participating on a discussion, individually.
That's generally what I see too.
Once I remember very vocally defending someone against something unkind that was said about her. That person happens to be my friend. While that partially precipitated my response, what actually motivated it was that the insult and unkindness wasn't right and was uncalled for.
Another person does the same thing, but because it is for someone who is NOT their friend, it is the right thing to do. On my part, that person might insist it's my ''pack mentality'' that drives my actions.
Nope. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Labeling either as such makes me simply a human being who doesn't believe other human beings should be treated poorly.Wow. Interesting response. Primarily since the last time our paths crossed I was commenting on what I thought the right thing was and you suggested I change my underwear.
Funny how things only make sense when they work to our advantage.Or, conversely, funny how some people misinterpret situations based on their own issues.
I remember it differently. But I personally think our idea is the same. I said if we can't handle the regular ins and outs of disagreements, we need to put on our big girl panties - meaning to act like adults. Actual insults and derogatory remarks, especially when they are not warranted are a different story. Two people sharing similar opinions with one who does not isn't bullying or ganging up on anyone. Being deliberately sh***y to someone is different, yes. But defending a friend for the right reason is no different than defending a relative stranger for the right reason. That's what I meant.
It's no secret that I have concerns about your friend who I consider a troublemaker, but I do believe that you, Motown2Chitown, are more often than not attempting to be a peacemaker (doesn't mean you don't slip up, we all do). It's not easy on these forums based on the general approach by many others, but I just want to encourage you to keep being a peacemaker.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9I appreciate that, Cat. I do value peaceful discussion and an environment that is relatively free from strife. I freely admit that I hold a great deal of loyalty to my friends, and do not shrink from that admission. They never have to wonder whether or not I agree with them, and believe me, I don't always, but they also never have to wonder if I will come to their defense if I feel they are being unfairly treated or insulted.
I value honesty above anything else in a relationship...and in every day communication. I'll never shrink from offering my honest opinion on something. If it isn't right in the eyes of my Lord, I've no doubt whatsoever that he will deal with me.
I don't always agree with the things you say, but you have a right to voice your beliefs and opinions. Certain things may raise my hackles a bit in that I find them to be way far off base. I'm sure you see that in my words occasionally as well. But, I've no problem discussing it...I'm not here to change anyone's mind unless I truly believe they are traveling down a dangerous road.Continue acting in love, Motown2Chitown, that's what is most important. "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).
God's perspective is not our perspective. He gives us his word, he gives us wisdom and understanding, he gives us revelation through his Spirit... yet he has not given any person all wisdom or revelation, so no person will say all things well. "Let God be true and every human being a liar" (Romans 3:4).
Once again, the Evangebee attempts to justify their own shortcomings by assuming we have all inherited their personal problems, therefore we are included in the shortcomings, passively aggressively.
And, what we usually find are the ones who believe the "pack" mentality runs rampant here are the ones who more often have said ridiculous or offensive things thus naturally compelling a bunch of people telling them just how ridiculous and offensive their remarks.
You'd think that if one was told by many that their remarks were offensive, one would look at the remark rather than complaining about packs of wild talking monkeys.
The word of God itself offends you, Dr Lamb. How then can any Spirit-led believer not offend you in a "Christian Discussion"?
No, I think he's good with Christ for the most part. It's some Christians that offend him.
There's a distinction.I wasn't aware that Dr Lamb professed to be a Christian. Sounds familiar. Hmm...
He doesn't.
And it should sound familiar to profess to be a Christian... you do it all the time.If Dr Lamb does not profess to be a Christian, then why would you assume he was "good with Christ for the most part"? I think this character needs some work.
His character is just fine. Maybe yours needs some work.
Very few people are offended by Christ's words. Christians, however, quite another story. Once again, there is a distinction.There's also a distinction between someone having multiple "characters" who they currently post as, and someone having a new account because it just so happens that the exact one who posts simultaneously under various accounts is also the same one attempting to get all the Christians banned from the forums! I'm thankful, Melissa, that your admitted report against Sir Dent was unsuccessful in banning him!
My name is Catherine, I am sometimes called Cat. I am posting in the forums only as Cat333, and I am being 100% myself.Well, if I were trying to get all Christians banned, I would be getting myself banned as well. I only have one account, sorry I know you REALLY, REALLY, want me to have more than one.
I reported Dent for personal attacks, for the first time, after he made several against me and I was growing weary of it.
I'm sure you are 100 percent like you are in real life. That's what scares me... and the reason you might want to take the advice you gave Dr. Lamb. You know, about working on his character.
And none of this has anything to do with anything I said. You seem to do that a lot.Since I know you've made at least one other report against a believer, I suspect Sir Dent and the other Christian are far from the only Christians you've attempted to ban or had banned from the forums. Yet I suspect you've never reported an unbeliever, no matter what they've said, have you? It's interesting that you're trying so hard to have Christians banned; I haven't had anyone banned, and I've been called some pretty nasty things on here by unbelievers, as well as the one who professes to be a believer. You must really want to limit the number of believers on the forums.
Just out of curiosity, Melissa, what are your thoughts on the Apostle Paul? How many characters are there, and how many have been banned? Is much of your goal summed up in Dr Lamb's post: "You'd think that if one was told by many..."
I know there are several respectful or sincerely questioning unbelievers who participate in the Christian discussions along with the believers, but are there even but a couple of trolls who viciously slander Christianity on these Christian forums, or are many of the Christian-bashing posts that appear to be coming from several different characters actually coming from one and the same?That's nice dear... Yes, we're all the same person, I'm not a Christian, the world is out to get you and everyone is being mean to you. Being banned has nothing to do with one's own behavior and instead is a giant conspiracy made by Satan to suppress the "True" Christians-which are coincidentally, only the Christians that behave as you do.
When you get over yourself, what particularly would you like to discuss about Paul?
But, you already admitted to being JCSimonelli and created this account because that account has been banned for four weeks.
No, she couldn't be. She renounced CJSimonelli's faith. She specifically said she wasn't a Mormon. So if she is, then she lied somewhere along the lines... and she's lying now. Surely such a spirit-led Christian wouldn't do such a thing....
(you wouldn't happen to be able to permalink that post would you?)Yes, I am replying to my own post... I found the link myself.
http://cjsimonelli.hubpages.com/questio … #rc_152526
Wow, you would renounce your own faith to try to make us think you were someone you were not. Wow, again.
Both socks are Poes aren't they? Seriously, you've been caught, come clean.I replied to someone who made a comment to the question, and made everything very evident, so it is not as you say.
I have never been a Mormon, nor have I ever indicated such. Either you are confusing me with someone else entirely, or you are intentionally slandering me.I'm sure I could find that post as well...
Are you saying it's slandering someone to call them a Mormon?It is slander if it is false. Please do search the forums. A Mormon has very different beliefs than a Spirit-led Christian.
Slander? I believe it's only slander if it's an insult or a defamation of character.
Mormons aren't spirit led Christians?Or, conversely, anyone can look at the 12 threads you started about evolution and find it themselves. I don't feel like playing Easter Egg hunt. Just like you twisted every way you could to deny you were CJ, now you are twisting here. Guess the approach of "I'm not guilty unless I'm found out" works for you.
I believe I've been very clear, no twisting whatsoever.
You will not find one place where I ever said I was a Mormon, which I am not and have never been. The only ones who ever suggested such were you and JMcFarland.
I am not a Mormon, I have never been a Mormon, I have never said I was a Mormon at any time. I've made it clear who I am, and no never was anything said about being a Mormon.
I'm not simultaneously posting as one person, pretending to be what I'm not. I've made everything very evident.
Actually, you can't post simultaneously because your other account has been banned. By creating this account and posting while the other account is banned could get you permanently banned from HP.
My time here is short Encephaloidead/A Troubled Man/Whoever else you are.
You're not really in a position to blast sock puppets, since you are one - and you're breaking forum rules by creating a new account to cover from the one that got banned for insinuating that someone was the spawn of Satan. Why don't you just accept the ban and stay out of the forums for the duration? that's what everyone else has to do or risk being banned permanently for breaking forum rules and creating an alternative account.
I'm not covering anything.
I've always sensed my time here is short, so what will be will be.
If someone is posting as numerous posters, all coming against Christianity and Christians in the Christian forums, and is actually claiming to be a Christian as herself, she should be exposed. Troublemakers are revealed as such.Yes, but here's the thing, I've never had a bad word to say about Christ. If Christians acted like Christ and Christianity followed his example, I wouldn't need to point out the flaws.
So if you want to say your actions and beliefs are in defense of Christianity, you probably are right. Just don't claim they are the way of Christ... because they aren't.
If that makes me a trouble maker, so be it. My Christ... yeah, he was a trouble-maker too.You have come against the word many times, Melissa, so you have come against Jesus, who IS the Word in the flesh!
Nope. I came against you. You are neither Christ nor the Word. Don't ever think you are close to either.
Are you, or are you not - as has been sufficiently demonstrated - posting under an account because your main account was banned for at least 4 weeks? That's covering for something.
What proof do you have that anyone is posting as more than one poster themselves? And how are you in a position to condemn that, when you yourself are a sock puppet of your main account, CJ Simonelle? Or are you under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is, in reality, the same person? What a ridiculous idea, and a completely unfounded one.
I'm still waiting for your to prove that i ever called you a name. If you can't, since you've ignored the request 3 times now, I'll just note that you do not, in fact, practice what you preach, that you have no proof, and you're slandering me (by your own definition) and your words mean nothing, and can safely be ignored and disregarded.Again, how are YOU so sure about anything regarding Melissa?
I'm not coming into a Christian forum to come against Christianity, which is the definition of trolling.
I've tried to uplift my brothers and sisters-in-Christ. There is only one person I have tried to reveal as one who is not what she masquerades as.So you ask my friend how she is certain about anything about me and in the same post accuse me of masquerading... when you wouldn't know me from Adam.
Nice!
Another personal attack by the way. You keeping track?
In addition, she didn't say a damn thing about me in the post you responded to.When did I say anything about Melissa in my post? Do you want to try actually responding to what I'm saying, or do you just want to create straw men and talk about things that I never said? Or is it because you CAN'T respond to anything I've actually said? Why is that, do you think?
The name of this forum topic is Christian Discussion. A discussion implies a conversation about topic. In an open forum environment, you cannot control the conversation or exclude anyone who disagrees with you. We are discussing issues we have with Christianity. That is a christian discussion. And now, you're implying that anyone that you either 1) deny is a Christian, regardless of what they say about themselves 2) aren't christian, but came here for a discussion about Christianity - is a troll. Which can be construed as a personal attack.
You're not a forum moderator. You have no ability to exclude anyone who you disagree with. That's what open forums ARE. Maybe you're as uncertain about what a forum is as you are about what constitutes a personal attack. Interesting.
Since I've asked you 4 times now to show me where I've called you a name or even tell me what name I called you, I'm going with the fact that you can't, because i never did. That means you lied about me. You slandered me. Which, according to you, makes you not a Christian. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't see that there's much more to say, do you?
Ok, so here we have Melissa (a professed Christian) that speaks out against the actions of other Christians and you assert that she is ATTACKING Christianity and you are exposing her as a troublemaker.
But here we also have YOU (a professed Christian) speaking out against other Christians, but you are DEFENDING Christianity as a holy and righteous child of God.
How does that work exactly? How is it that one is a troublemaker and the other is working for God when both are doing the same thing? Because the good one is you? From my perspective it appears that we either have two people working for God or we have two troublemakers. Any claims of anything else indicates a double standard and hypocrisy.
It seems you are exposed
You think our job here is to get specific Christians banned. LOL. Who would be have to laugh at?
I'm sure finding someone to laugh at wouldn't be too big of a problem. If worse comes to worse, and there's no one left to laugh at, we can always laugh at ourselves:)
I think that is one of your goals, Dr Lamb/Melissa - to silence those who share the scriptures.
Yep. Again, I don't like that Bible thing... that I read everyday. I don't like that Jesus guy... whom I pray to every day.
You are so persecuted... it must be your faithCat, posting Scriptures is not against forum rules. Personal attacks and hate speech are. I think the problem here is that you feel as though anyone who criticizes or disagrees with your posts or calls you out on your words or behavior is personally attacking you. They're not. If I say "that post was stupid" that is not a personal attack against the poster. If I tell a poster that THEY are stupid, that is a personal attack. You see attacks and enemies in every single criticism and disagreement. I can say that I think some aspects of Christianity are stupid. I'm not attacking Christians, and Christianity cannot be offended. Beliefs cannot take offense to something, as they have no feelings. If you chose to be personally offended by a criticism of your beliefs, that is your choice. It doesn't mean that you were attacked. No one is trying to silence Christians. The sane freedom that gives you free speech gives us the right to free speech to disagree. I doubt that you think you're attacking atheists when you disagree with them. Wit would you assume the worst about us?
Sorry, I never used any of those against you. Try again.
Too much compassion, too much intelligence, too much knowledge of the scriptures... I see they are themselves.
Oh yes, and I lack those things because I disagree with you.
The whole point was that they also had disagreed on some things, yet they never attacked.
Like when you tell me I hate you? That may be defamation of character my dear. You could very well be ruining my reputation.
Or the MULTIPLE times she has told me that I'm not a Christian.
When I confronted you I specifically said that your attacks against Christianity were giving the impression that you were not truly a Christian; I never said anything definitively. I had previously questioned your motives. Alternates who are unbelievers and bash Christianity would make it pretty evident, wouldn't they, leaving little room for question.
Yeah, see, that's a personal attack.
It's also a lie.
So, it's also slander, technically. I didn't attack anything or anybody.You did lie about me, saying I am a Mormon, and that I was lying when I said I was not. I have not lied about anything, including who I am.
Well, we'll let everyone else be the judge of whether being deceptive in action is the same thing as lying. Does the spirit tell you it's fine?
And if you are saying that I attacked anyone or anything, then that is a lie. That's what not-truths are.
Edit: By anything or anyone, I meant you or Christianity.Well, if she got the Mormon thing wrong then that's an error. It doesn't go against your character like calling someone a hater does.
Upon reading the thread, I did get the Mormon thing in error.
I apologize to all Mormons for assuming that CJ was among your number. I was very wrong and I apologize for the unfortunate slander.I found the post that I got the Mormon thing from.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118835? … ost2520033
I didn't realize she was quoting from an external source. but once again, I just ASKED if she was a Mormon. I didn't accuse her of being one. It was a question, and if I was in error, then I was in error. Why is that slander?That was me too. I admitted I was wrong and apologized to the Mormons.
Thank you "Dr Lamb" for knowing in advance that Melissa "got the Mormon thing wrong" and smoothing it over as merely error on her behalf, so that you could pave the way for her to shortly thereafter reveal as herself that she did in fact speak incorrectly. I like the way you work together.
I've never seen her attack Christianity. I've seen her question your interpretation of it. Are you able to see the difference dear?
Did you edit who you wrote this as? Maybe I imagined it. Maybe I just hear Melissa's voice coming through too clearly when Dr Lamb speaks now, so I thought it had been her at first. Anyway, Dr Lamb, Melissa's the one who calls me "dear"; it's not fitting for your character. Again, you need revision.
LMAO, seriously? That's what you're basing your theories of identity on? Dear?
I've seen half a dozen posters use "Dear". So we have "dear" and "twit" as the smoking guns.
Deepes Mind, Mo, Emile, and Wilderness, for example, have all disagreed with me on some points, but I have never considered myself to be attacked by any of them. When people use name-calling, false accusations and slander, this is attack. Why would you defend such behavior?
What name have I ever called you cat? I did ask if you werea Mormon, but asking a question is hardly slander or name calling. Why don't you prove it?
The teachings of Christ as described in the bible is pretty cool. The OT is hogwash. Just because I think Christ was a cool guy doesn't mean I think we was God.
Yet Jesus was fulfilling and reinforcing the 'hogwash' OT. Interesting.
That's what Christians believe. I'll ask you the same question I was asking Beth. Are you comfortable following and worshiping the homophobic, racist, sexist God of the OT? I'm sure you wouldn't follow a human with those qualities, why a God?
I will answer your question with the question it deserves.
Have you really never read my stuff before?Yes, that was sometime ago, and I have the attention span of an 8 year old.
Should we all go read everything anyone says before addressing them with a question?
Did you read all of my stuff before you ever started addressing me? I think not. Nor did I ask you to.Your point is valid and well taken.
Nevertheless, Rad is not addressing me for the first time, nor is this particular question one that we've never addressed. More than once.
Part of the problem (on my part) is that every time I drop in on this conversation, (and it may literally only be a couple of hours) there are two or three whole new pages worth of comments and postings. I can't keep up with what's going on. I don't even know if all the stuff I've posted has been responded to. And there are a lot of things I don't respond to. And half the time when I do say something, it's somehow out of context.
You all are crazy...just kidding. But I just don't have the time to keep up like I used to. I ain't no spring chicken no more...
I don't find the book offensive at all. I do find some of the interpretations offensive. Yours in particular.
I'm sorry "Dr Lamb", but the role of the one who finds my interpretations the most offensive has already been fulfilled by Melissa herself. Also, you have too much hatred for me, it's not fitting for your character, who doesn't have enough reason (leave that for Melissa, whose resentment is at least understandable). Your forum character needs to be revised a little for believability.
http://cjsimonelli.hubpages.com/ is that you? LOLOL
I have no hatred for you at all. I don't even know you. You're projecting. I guess you assume others hate because you do.
I've found it's the ones who both 1. Imagine there is a pack and 2. Are jealous that they aren't in it.
Again, Jr. High.
Yes, because I am the only person who knows the word twit.
Sorry Beth, I only have one account. Although I did enjoy the show and the opinions expressed by Dr. Lamb warmed my cockles.I didn't say it was you, you said I said it was you. I didn't share my opinions. It doesn't matter one bit what I think. It doesn't change anything.
According to the original definition, yes, proudly.
Unless it s a believer doing it then you will give them the benefit of the doubt. Got to stick together in the fight against the heathens.
I haven't seen any believers ripping anyone to shreds under a fake account or otherwise. Stop winking. lol
No - I Understand this is a one way street and no believer would ever do such a thing using scripture.
You're going on your morning fox hunt now. Don't forget your dog.
Is it pissing on your door? It's a tad parky here.
You're absolutely right about that, I have had conversations with incredibly intelligent kids, teens and young adults, while attempting to understand people in their later years the drivel that oozes from them. Age doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with anything here.
Actually, Jesus got it right. I just happened to latch onto Him
Since many people understand the scripture to mean different things; your statement is proven to be patently false. What you are saying is that those who don't agree with you are unbelievers. They are simply unbelievers in your belief. As are you, conversely, a disbeliever in theirs.
You chose to place yourself in a not alike category. In a step above your fellow man category. I'm not sure that, in any way, follows in line with what Jesus was hoping for. As a matter of fact, I think there are multiple sayings attributed to him which were specifically arguing against this mentality.People don't understand scripture because they do not have understanding. I could explain to you how to use a nail gun to fasten lumber together but that doesn't mean you have understanding of it. A person will never have understanding until they put it into practice.
Rom_12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
It is not a step above unbelievers. Just not the same.Let me get this straight. You are now claiming better understanding of the written word that everyone else. And are demonstrating the will of god by your actions and words? And you don't see why this comes across as self righteous and divisive. How poorly you understand.
Save me a seat by the fire.Not claiming to be a step above? You are joking. Right? You understand scripture. Anyone who disagrees doesn't. You are tuned in to the creator of all things. We aren't. This makes you beloved of God and us not. This gets you into heaven. We get hell.
Sounds like a claim of a step above to me.Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
The world is all unbelievers. Not a step above, just different.
There is a lot about this statement that is true and profound. But If I may interject a couple of things here as to a slight (but important) issue with this statement for others. The first thing I would point out is the fact that a lot of times, a person has a tendency to teach something as according to the way that they learned it themselves. As a result, they often fail to consider the learning style of the person that they are trying to teach. As a result, the teaching and learning process become more difficult due to some communication barriers. A second thing (related to the first) is that a lot of time, people want to simply TELL others how something should be done, but they do not always SHOW them. You can explain the use of a nail gun to another person as much as you can, but what if the person you are trying to explain it to speaks a different language? This is an example where you would have to show them how to use it in the best possible manner.
This same scenario applies to the bible as well. A lot of people have a tendency to try to teach people about God and Christ in everyday conversation but when someone doesn't understand, They go back to the Bible itself to get the scriptures. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, because that is a good move, HOWEVER, where some of us lose people is where we fail to show them with our own actions what is meant by what the bible says. The issue with that is that we then write a lot of people off with statement that are basically the Christian equivalent of calling someone stupid, IMO.True dat.
I have to say though if you are here to evangelize and are afraid of losing people you may not want to be very quick with your advice of showing people rather than telling people about your love unless you Got the showing thing down well yourself.Point made, but even the most practiced person makes missteps at times. Which means nobody is perfect. It is in learning from our mistakes (even in the attempts to apply them) That we gain the experience to teach others. Unfortunately, at times, people are so focused on the error that they ignore the lessons given.
Sometimes the error should teach more than the original message. Sometimes that is the more important lesson.
Absolutely. The error does teach plenty more. Which is why the personal error and the lesson gained can be (and usually is) used as a teaching tool to teach another not to make the same error
It always helps if the "teacher" has learned that lesson first. It's a pretty good idea that the teacher actually have more wisdom than the one he/she is trying to teach as well... and that the "student" actually 1. wants to learn and 2. believes that the "teacher" is qualified to teach. Sometimes one can overestimate their own wisdom and try to teach those more knowledgeable than themselves. That is often offensive.
And I can agree with that as well, But if the student feels that the teacher is qualified enough to teach a lesson that they are willing to listen and maybe learn, then that is between the teacher and the student. especially if the teacher feels that the lesson may no longer be applicable to a past experience, but can definitely be carried into a future one. there can be little offense in that. It's like in a relationship. You may not be able to repair the relationship after a breakup, but you can carry the lesson into your next one while teaching another that may be close to making the same mistakes to avoid them
That makes no sense and reflects as much on you as everyone else, whatever it means.
But, you don't need to explain how the nail gun works because like the Bible, we can read the instruction manual ourselves.
That is not true, a person can understand something without putting it into practice.
What you're saying here seems to directly contradict what several of your fellow believers are saying. Some say that you cannot possibly understand scripture without the spirit. You're saying that scripture stands on its own and needs no interpretation whatsoever.
If I open the Bible and read it, I understand the words because I can read just like believers can. Yet believers tell me that since I no longer believe, I somehow magically cannot understand the words I'm reading. Either scripture stands alone and needs no interpretation, as you're saying (if that were the case, there would not be 40 thousand different denominations who can't seem to agree on what it says or means) or it needs interpretation, and different groups interpret it differently, which explains the denominations.
That being said, just because people may interpret it differently than you do does not make them automatically wrong, and you automatically right.As I stated in a previous post, to truly understand, it must be put into practice.
You can search every discussion on HugPages and you will never see a post where I said I was right. God is the One who is always right.
I only write what I know to be true. I don't know it all but I do have a little knowledge. If I am speculating on something, I say it is my opinion or my speculation.That's not a problem, it only is a problem when you refuse to listen to others who have more knowledge than you.
I'm responding to you because I love you, but here's my general take on the whole multiple interpretations thing...
I'm not sure why it would be so hard for Christians to accept that the Bible was written in such a way that one gets the message that would most help them on their own spiritual path. As such, it's going to mean different things to different people because no one walks the same path/has the same needs.
It's entirely possible, to me, that all interpretations are correct and none are. That's kind of what I understand the whole "living word" thing to be. If you want to call the personal forces that drive those interpretations the "spirit"... then have at it.
That being said, there are certain interpretations that are more dangerous than others, and that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Lamentations 3:22 It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. - SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Off for a few hours though I may get to check in for a few minutes from time to time.
John 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. No one can find God or go to God unless the person is called out by God. No man can come to me except the Father draw him, Jesus said that.
==============
me .... That is what is written ! and I see no reason to disagree. I feel like I was called as I am sure many do. It is also written in Isiah (Don't remember where); that God gives faith to those he chooses to give it to and he doesn't to those which he chooses not to.
According to these verses, I don't think that a persons lack of desire for it has anything to do with whether we get it or not. And I don't think having faith in God makes us any better in Gods eyes than those people that he didn't give faith too.
If hell is a real place and people who do not have faith go there; it was predetermined as to who is going to hell when God chose to not give faith to that person.
===================
Without revelation, no one can go to God.
God does not give His wisdom or revelation to those who reject not only Him but His son also. You can believe or not believe but it doesn't stop me and others from believing and it doesn't stop me and other from KNOWING who God really is.
- - - -
me ... This last paragraph is your understanding which you have reached according to that measure of faith which was given to you from God.
How can I judge anyone properly according to "MY" level of faith and or wisdom. If I am to be judged by anyone; it should be according to my level of faith and wisdom' not theirs.
Maybe, when God judges us, he uses the curve method; cause ... to those to whom much is given, much is expected. in return.- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
Regarding teaching...anything, not just spiritual things...the best teachers I've ever had were the ones who never stopped learning. From everyone and everything. They are perpetual "students."
And how often does the "student become the teacher." We humans are forgetful beings. Often, children remind us of the most basic and fundamental lessons. Be nice. Share. Take naps. Remember the book from years ago "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten?" None of us is post-graduate level where God is concerned and we are constantly learning, from him and from each other. I think we forget that. A lot. - Emile Rposted 11 years ago0
All these posts about teaching. I don't remember seeing a request for it. I thought the forums existed for an exchange of ideas.
Seriously,I haven't seen any posts by anyone (myself included) such would warrant anyone to respond with 'oh, teach me. Please.' Maybe, we need to attempt to get over ourselves?You do realize this level of bonhomie you've acquired when responding to me is freaking me out?
It's that whole 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' kinda thing... I don't know, but it does my heart good to see you two getting along. I'm having an Avon party tomorrow and I want you both to come.
Is that how you really see life? In terms of enemies and allies?
Wow. I just have people I like and people I don't like.And, prepared you should be, for the decision you make may be one of deep regret.
Think about it.
If you choose the path of a Christian and believe you'll indeed be seated next to God and Jesus in heaven for an eternity with all the self-righteous, self-promoting evangelist wannabees.
Knowing that now, living in hell instead, amongst us all of us atheist heathens doesn't sound so bad, does it?Wow. Neither option is appealing. I wonder if there is a limbo option.
How about being with God?
I mean the way ED has it set up, it's like trying to get you excited about going to Disney Land with your mother in law... When was your mother in law the goal? Disney was the goal... if she's there, and her heart and mind are made new? All the better, but hanging with your mother in law for all eternity was never the goal.Well, I don't think of an afterlife in terms of being around those I liked or disliked. Honestly. My parents believed they'd end up in eternity with their first spouse. It created a bit of a problem at my Dad's funeral since he wanted my Mom's ashes in his arms and his wife he married after Mom, died did everything she could to head that off at the pass. I was torn between wanting what Dad wanted and what I'm sure my Mom would want as opposed to doing what would make someone living happier.
After death......we'll look back and say 'Seriously? I thought that mattered? Sheesh, was I an idiot.' If God is, everyone will be however they will be. This silly idea that what we think matters in the long run makes no sense to me.For sure. The things we make priorities now, would be seen as folly on the other side. I think that's the msg. a lot of believers keep trying to get across. "God's ways are not like ours." He has a different perspective. We really just don't get it yet, but one day we will see clearly. He promises that.
I am clean once again. I must brave the world and bring the babies home. Be well, all y'all.
Man, I'd have a blast with my MIL at Disneyworld. But I'm blessed with a terrific MIL. I'm probably unusual in that regard.
Going to Disneyland with a jealous, fast tempered genocidal maniac doesn't sound like fun. And I'm not talking about my MIL.
True, but being with a kind, caring person who allows people to make their own decisions and accepts them as they are would definitely be a good thing. And whether she's like that or not, I'm not talking about your MIL either.
We have a few Christians saying we can't get to Disneyland unless we sign up first. So much for making our own decisions. Come with me to heaven or burn in hell, but it's your choice.
The choice is between 1) the One who designed you, gave you breath, sustains your life, gives you innumerable good things, loves you even more than any person has ever loved you, waits patiently while you mock and rage against him, designed a way in Jesus for you to be free to come into his holiness, suffered tremendously and died for you, gives you the opportunity to become his child and inherit that which is so much better than the best of things on earth that you can't even imagine how wonderful it will be, the one who yet and still offers you the undeserved gift of eternal life, or 2) the one who hates you because you were made in God's image and made to be his child, who deceives you and convinces you that he is on your side, who looks to destroy you in every way imaginable, who wants your worship but gets it slyly without your knowledge or consent, who accuses you before God of every wrong thought or action you've ever had even if he was the one pushing you toward it, who as the prince of this world blinds your eyes to the Truth Way and Life, who will only hate you even if you remain faithful in following him, whose fate is the lake of fire designed for him and all his demonic forces, and who hopes you will join him in a world void of God, and thus void of all the goodness and mercies of the Lord of the universe.
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20
If God is as He is depicted in the Bible, I wouldn't want to be with God, I would much rather be in Disney Land with my mother in law.
Yeah, while I admit the general company in hell would probably be better (not to mention the food and music) Sorry. I really do believe in Christ. I think of it as the family reunion I go to to see the really cool uncle, even though the rest of my family are tw*ts.
I don't really believe in a literal hell though. Not really trying to get to heaven either.
Eh, if I agree with something someone says, I agree with it. If I don't then I don't, doesn't really matter if I like the person or not. Don't get too freaked out. I'm sure you'll say something I disagree with very soon.
I think our Totally Kissable Lips Racy Red is your color.
Sorry, I don't really do make-up. Always kinda figured my face was my face, adding paint to it doesn't really change it.
You have a very pretty face. I've always thought the same thing... like... why do we have to slather crap on it to make it acceptable? Men don't have to do that. And Im not one of those ppl who run around going, "If men don't have to do it, why should we?" But in this case, it just doesn't make sense... why are they ok just the way God made them and we're supposed to be sub-par without it? It makes no sense. And of course, like a lot of women... I still wear it. Shame on me. I don't sell Avon, I hope that came across as a joke. lol
OK. The world hasn't turned topsy turvy. That's a comfort.
I've already set aside some Avon Instinct for Her shower gel for you, Emile. I think you'll really like it.
I've got to go with Melissa on the make up thing. And, perfumed things make me think I'm going to suffocate. I'm neurotic, I know.
So, you're an Avon lady?No, I was just joking. What I am is sick. I think I need some meds. lol
I gotta go pick up my kids from school soon and I need to hop in the shower, but I feel like death...
Notice that the preacher often cannot follow through with his own logic? If the first statement were true, the second is either redundant or it implies the first statement is false.
S'cuse me, we're having a serious conversation here. lol
This one contradicts himself constantly. Scripture does not need to be interpreted. Except it does - either by using scripture to interpret scripture or being led by the Spirit. Thank the Lord I don't live in a time where this would have got him a seat on the council.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Isaiah 24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.
What are the Lord's ancients? That doesn't make any sense to me.
And how do you shame an inanimate ball of hydrogen or confound a big rock?
No interpretation allowed...I'm not sure what the passage is supposed to mean. I was HOPING for an interpretation:) I'm wondering what it might mean metaphorically.
It has to do with his "glow". It's just saying he's going to be really bright.
You know, that kind of implies that the Jews are going to be in heaven... right?
Yes, it is as you say, Melissa. Jews will receive salvation and be given eternal life. They come to it later than the "gentiles" (the rest) because it was through the Jewish nation's rejection of the message of the cross that the way was opened up for all the rest of us, which was God's plan from the beginning - he calls from every tribe and nation.
"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob"… (Romans 11:25-26)Which, of course, means that the Jews will be saved without faith. They will actually see a shining glowing Jesus as proof.
Edit: They will also be in heaven before believing. Just saying.
I don't think Sir Dent was ever saying interpretation of scripture wasn't allowed, nor do I think he was contradicting himself as people have been saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sir Dent, but this seems the basic idea:
The Spirit himself gives revelation of the meaning of scriptures (He's the one who guides us into all truth). When God's children read scripture with the Spirit as their guide, they will be given understanding of the scripture (though even this is a gradual process).
Although a person with the Spirit may give the interpretation of the scripture to one without the Spirit, even then the person without the Spirit will not understand because it is "spiritually discerned" and cannot fully be understood without the Spirit. Some may ask then why even give the scripture at all. Going beyond the fact that the verses are also for the believers to read, here is why they are still given to unbelievers (and without interpretation), even though unbelievers cannot interpret them without the Spirit -
We cannot judge who God will bring into his kingdom (this is different than making a determination of present status based on present fruit). So because God's word is living and active and will accomplish all that it was intended to accomplish, the Spirit himself may come to the unbelieving one who reads the word and then give the understanding of the word, and himself lead the unbeliever into the truth, so that thanks to the Spirit and the word that was given, the unbeliever now becomes a believer.No - he was saying this:
Which of course nullifies all the other self righteous stuff you just posted. Which is it? Does it stand alone or do you need "special powers" to interpret it to say what you want it to say?
Such as Paul saying women are not to try to teach men?
Save me a seat by the fire,
Additionally, a lot of people, including Christians, have no problem whatsoever understanding and following those rules and never get banned. If you keep running intoa problem, instead of looking for a grand conspiracy, perhaps you should start examining your words and behavior and take personal responsibility rather than offense.
Thank you for your sincere, heartfelt advice, JMcFarland. Who said I "keep running into a problem?"
You did, by admitting you were currently under a four week ban, and outright assertion that someone is trying to ban and silence all Christians. If you think it's slander to make false statements, and that statement is so false as to be downright funny, aren't you then guilty of slander?
Especially since her four-week ban was for telling someone that he was the spawn of Satan.
Did Christ ever tell someone (other than the holier than thou religious leaders) that they were the spawn of Satan?.
No.. and if he would have, it wouldn't have put me in mind of the MP Holy Grail witch trials.
How would YOU know, JMcFarland, that the statement about Melissa was "so false as to be downright funny"?
Anyway, I said who says I KEEP running into problems? That would imply she is making repeated reports; do you have knowledge of such? If I've already seen her to make a couple reports against Christians in my brief time on Hub Pages, I'm thinking it's likely she's made many. I see that Melissa fights with or at least contradicts almost every Christian on the forums. Since she appears fond of both instigating fights (just take a brief look through the threads) and reporting Christians, it suggests she instigates fights so as to get Christians banned.I reported you because you said that someone was the son of Satan.
Seriously, you consider that MY FAULT?
Next time, and here's a clue, don't call someone the spawn of Satan. And he damn sure didn't instigate.
Jesus, take some personal responsibility. No one can be banned unless they break the rules. If someone reports that, then it was STILL YOU that personally attacked someone... Apparently every reasonable person thought it was pretty severe as well, as 4 week bans don't get handed out very often.
Oh, btw, I've reported exactly one personal attack against myself. I will report the hell out of personal attacks against others though.Someone who claims God is dead, etc., etc. IS carrying out the work of their spiritual father, this is truth, whether you like it or not. There are only two Spiritual fathers, and those who carry out the acts of darkness make it clear who there father is.
THAT! That right there. That is why I disagree with you and everything you stand for. THAT is not the Jesus I worship. That is a personal attack. THAT is why you got banned for 4 weeks. Not because you were reported but because you verbally attacked a completely innocent person who just happened to disagree with you.
If that is what I have to be for the Christian community to consider me a Christian, then no thanks. I'll just keep following Christ. YOU are nothing like the Christ I know. You're damn sure a Christian though.
I know that I've only been banned once. It was for 24 hours. A 4 week long ban doesn't seen typical of a first ban, unless it was really, really severe. Although, I never called someone the spawn of Satan, so I wouldn't know the banning limit for such a post.
Christians are always crying personal attack, and several of them have told numerous people that they were going to report their posts. Yet the posts didn't break the rules, and as such, no ban was put in place. They report other Christians. They report Atheists. They report Muslims. So what? Not every report results a ban. If the post in question goes against the forum rules, the user will be banned. Why are you so insistent on not taking responsibility for your posts, and recognizing that, if you were banned, perhaps it was because you broke the rules - not because of some grand conspiracy against you? You were banned NOT because someone disagreed with you, but because you broke the rules. That's all.
I have many people on the forums of all beliefs, and I don't report people often, if ever. We talk. We disagree. But none but a select few assert that I've ever personally attacked them.
Prove that i've ever personally attacked you and called you a name, and I'll apologize. If you can't, I'll assume that you made it up - bearing false witness, and your words should not be trusted if you're not willing to hold yourself to your own standard.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
1John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
1John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.Sir Dent, I get what you are saying, I really do. My brethren are all people. If it is a sister or brother in Christ harming that person, then it is also my responsibility to show compassion to the one being harmed, not the harmer.
Seriously? You and I go head to head more often than not; so I don't think it is out of the range of possibility that we would disagree on this point. Your brethren are all people? Wouldn't that statement encompass the one you have labeled the harmer? By labeling them the harmer (in the context of Christians lashing out at what they label unbelievers) aren't you putting yourself in a similar position? Sure, you can justify it in your mind by claiming the moral high ground but, there again, aren't you doing the exact same thing as the 'harmer'?
I'm not implying one shouldn't point out what one considers harmful behavior patterns. But, if we react with similar behavior patterns to the actions we consider harmful to some, what is gained in the end? A great deal of contention, but little else.Other than yes, I am taking the moral high-ground on this one, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you seriously see me lashing out? Could you explain why? Do you seriously see me behaving in a way that harms someone? Could you explain why?
Warning: If the answer is anything remote resembling "But you aren't polite and sweet." Then don't even bother.Isn't that the gist of your problem with those you say are 'harmers'? They aren't polite and sweet? Seriously. Who gives a rat's behind where one person thinks the other may be in the end? Isn't that the primary harm done by those you label 'harmers'? They don't think someone is right with God? How does that harm anyone unless they chose to be harmed? I suppose if the Almighty were holding one or the other up so we could all hear better there might be an argument for more harm being done; but I'm pretty sure everyone made their own little soap box.
Their moral high ground stands on a different hill than yours. Be king of your hill. Enjoy it. They enjoy their little hill. Why scuffle around in the sandbox when you've got a hill?Actually, the gist of my problem with the "harmers" is that they believe they are polite and sweet. They believe they can wrap hatred up in a candy-coated brick of "Gods love" and beat someone to submission with it.
The primary harm done by religious bullies is the continuous systematic erosion of the self-esteem and happiness of the one being bullied. In addition, these zealots also spread their message, like an infection, without any regard or responsibility for who they might hurt.
The way I see it, if you are OK with that and don't see any need to stand up to try and stop it... then your fence-sitting is part of the problem. Don't forget to dust your soap-box off, btw.
What is gained from trying to stop harmful behaviour patterns?
Are you the kid in the school yard that sticks up for the bully when others are attempting to prevent someone being bullied by stating that only a great deal of contention will be gained by preventing the bully from continuing?That was my general understanding of her post as well, but I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I wish I could say that made perfect sense. I'm sure it does to you. However, I don't wear blinders on a daily basis.
If the only result from addressing contention is to spread the contention it sounds to me as if we've just created more 'bullies' as you label it.You're right. We shouldn't do anything.
Point proven.You don't think those who spread hatred towards homosexuals or unbelievers are doing anything wrong?
No, they are just responding to their own emotional needs.
They're OK, I'm OK, You're OK.Of course. But, we should respond with as much right as is humanly possible. Right, all the way around.
But, that isn't the point. Melissa attempted to imply it was her Christian duty to label harmed and harmers; because all people are her brethren. I would think it was her Christian duty to find a compassionate way to deal with all of her brethren. Not just the ones she chooses to show compassion toward.Melissa implied no such ******* thing. Emile might of implied it, but Emile is good at failing armchair psychology.
Melissa implied the point that being Christian gave you no particular right to insult non-believers and that being chastised for standing up against a bullying Christian rather than ignoring their behavior because they were the same faith doesn't float.
Melissa was also compassionately dealing with her brethren... by defending them against someone who was calling them the spawn of Satan.
If Emile didn't feel that needed defending, then Emile might want to spend her time sitting on the fence in contemplation on that issue.
I hope you're not including me in this, Rad Man, as I've not spread hatred towards homosexuals or unbelievers. I've confronted one person who calls herself a believer and either is not in truth, or is giving the impression that she is not for an unknown reason. I respect that unbelievers simply don't know God, and it's not for me to know which ones will one day, so I stay open to the idea that any unbeliever may one day be a brother or sister. I also understand that God loves all people and we all are sinners apart from Christ, and all are undeservedly declared righteous through Christ.
Many blessings to you, Rad Man.
I'll give you an example. Something happened to us the other day.
I don't know what precipitated the event, but our company Facebook page had a guy come in. He posted horrible ethnic slurs. He thought they were against us, but we aren't the ethnicity he seems to think we are. I don't monitor the page. My son called to tell me what happened. He tried to respond to the guy, ignoring the slurs, but the guy kept responding with more. Others jumped in and attacked the guy for his comments. My son, feeling sorry for the guy because he was being ganged up on at that point; banned him so the conversation would then be deleted.
He called me and told me a little bit about what had happened. I called information to get the guy's phone number and called him directly. I didn't comment about the racial slurs, I simply told him I understood he had expressed some concerns on the Facebook page and I was hoping I could have the opportunity to address them. He told me he was fine, all his concerns had been addressed and complained that people had misunderstood his intent; he had simply wanted to let us know what others thought of us.
I later saw the comments since my son had taken screen shots before the conversation was deleted. The comments were hateful and horrible.There was no way to misunderstand the intent. But, what could be gained by responding in kind? The only thing you can do, in the face of such contention, is take the high ground and pull as many along through example as possible. Responding with what can only be construed by the viewer as a negative emotion, to something which causes you to feel a negative emotion spreads the negative emotion.I'm hoping it stays wise. When I called information to get his phone number Verizon texted me his address and phone number. The men in the family have badgered me for it. They want to go by and see him. Their feelings were hurt pretty bad by the comments.
I would burn the address. You don't want to lose someone cause they're imprisoned or worse.
I will, at some point. When the shell shock wears off. Right now, I'm still thinking of sending him a follow up letter. I know it won't do any good calling him an aryan racist redneck because, judging by his reaction when I called he already knows he is. And is at least rational enough to be embarrassed by it.
I went to a church I loved for years that was very multi-racial. The leadership was almost solely African American. I remember we were discussing racial issues one day and the pastor asked how we addressed racism. I told him I thought there was racism that stemmed from both ignorance (simply being under exposed to other races) and racism based on hate (actively trying to hurt others with word or action). You can educate the ignorant, but if the hate-filled are not willing to listen to reason, your words will fall on deaf ears. I'm sure it's worth a shot, but be careful. He sounds unwell.
Yes, very wise to allow someone to post racial slurs with no consequences and to ignore the feelings of those who were offended. Very wise to teach your children that those who spew racial obscenities should be tolerated and protected from their own actions.
Melissa. I was the one offended. My spouse and his family were offended. However, allowing people to attack an obviously demented individual doesn't show compassion for that individual. My son took the highest ground available and I am very pleased with his behavior.
Are you sure you are up to speed on the definition of compassion? Showing compassion for only those you agree with isn't really a good display of compassion.You didn't say he was demented, you said he was a racist.
If he was demented, your responsibility was to help him find treatment. Not to shelter him from the effects of his dementia.Sorry. I consider racism to be somewhat demented. We are all brethren, you know. If you can't see that; it's a problem.
I consider it to be asshatedness. Dementia is a psychological condition that requires medication and treatment. Asshatedness requires someone to tell you that your an asshat and for you to have the desire not to be an asshat.
Thank you , Melissa, for clearing that up.
Some of the nicest people I know I've met in mental institutions.
OK. He was an asshat. But, attacking him isn't the only way to get the point across to him. Not being an asshat in response works better, imo.
And, you are thinking 'hey, I'm not an asshat!' (you are referring to you, not me)
But, we are all asshats to some degree. It's better to assume the best in someone else. Attempt to understand how they traveled the road to asshattedness. The more you understand the person you are dealing with the further away from asshattedness you find yourself. And the more they feel that they are understood the further away from asshattedness they can move.
Racism isn't "demented" behavior. Or a result of being mentally ill.
You guys try to be such sticklers.
Demented - definition (one of many):
entirely irrational
I consider racism to be entirely irrational.I am mentally ill. I don't want to be grouped in with people who are just a$$hats. I can be one, but not because I'm crazy.
Don't worry Jane, she just boxed herself into a corning and is trying to find a way out. She will do the right thing and apologies to you any minute now.
Seriously? I don't feel boxed in. What am I missing?
I was talking about Emile, but she has apologized to Jane, so we can move on.
I'm not sure where you saw an apology; or you are just making sh#t up again?
I was saying I was sorry she didn't understand. Not saying I was sorry for anything I had done wrong. You really are grasping on this one. Might be well advised to just let it go.
So the sorry wasn't a sorry that you took offence, but a sorry that you don't understand. One is saying sorry and the other is well saying sorry.
She seemed to accept you apology. Can we move on now.
You really simply don't have it within yourself to admit a mistake. I get that. If it would make you feel better for us both to pretend you are right; you're going to be disappointed. I'm not pretending anything simply for your benefit.
If you have a valid point....now's the time to offer it.
Or not...sorry, Emile, I missed a post in there somewhere...didn't mean to get in your stuff.
I'm sorry. One can be demented concerning one topic without being labeled mentally ill.
That's fine. I don't like the word "demented", so the racists can have it.
I prefer crazy:)Hm. You know, you're right. I think I'm crazy and people close to me call me both crazy and artist; interchangeably it seems.
I guess, it's good to be crazy.Do you make the dolls like in your avatar? Do you use Prosculpt or something else? I haven't made one for years. I like painting better, but I'm not that good at it. I'm better at sculpting because I can make tons of mistakes and "redo" a part I don't like easily.
I wish I still had something to show. I quit doing that several years ago. I've been thinking about starting again though.
Plus, if that's Emili's work in her avatar, my work doesn't even compare:)
Ive been trying to read where you saw that Emile makes sprites. How interesting that would be. And yeah, if she made that one in her pic. she should probably be working for Spielberg.
I don't know if she does, still waiting for her to answer:)
I just guessed that she might, because the avatar pic is there.I wish I could have seen it that large before I grabbed it. I had no idea she was half naked until about a year after.
Surprised you got away with it what with all the anti nipple Nazis here.
No. Not my work. I simply loved the look of her. Her hair could be mine. On a good day. A really good day.
I'm definitely no sculptor. I like working with wood on the scroll saw. Do mosaics, find weird stuff in the woods and turn it into something wild. I love painting on gourds. I say I'm no good, but I don't see a great deal of difference in my efforts and the stuff I see in the shops. Which either means I'm not so bad, or they aren't as good as they might think.
Read my response to Jane. One can be demented on a given topic without being affected with dementia.
I suppose, at this point, you are going to insist I only use a limited definition of your choosing with which to argue my point. Sorry. No can do.
By the definition of demented.
entirely irrational: completely unreasonable or lacking any sense of the consequences of actions taken
The gentleman (i use the term loosely) appeared entirely irrational in regards to the racist remarks he made. His argument was completely unreasonable. And, he appeared shocked at the response. Which means he lacked any ability to foresee the consequences of the actions he took.Just a thought Emile.
Given that the OT and the NT to a lesser extent divided people up by their tribes with God have a favourite and sometimes ordering the death of others, would you consider that God demented?No. I consider it irrational to attempt to convince oneself that a God of everything would be a respector of individuals and single some out as special.
So that's, you don't think that a racist God would be considered demented only racist people?
You don't think a God of everything would be a respecter of people and said God wouldn't have favourites?
I'm confused. Would you please clarify?I'm not sure what it is you don't get here. I don't think a racist God could exist. Seriously. A being that hated certain color individuals? How would that work, exactly? Wouldn't a God who made creation and then said 'Damn. that's good!' not be able to make that statement so unequivocally if it held things he hated?
I think, a God of all creation would be the God of all creation. Equally. If God exists, reality would appear to support that. Do you see a God treating anyone better than anyone else here? If so, what evidence do you have to support that belief?Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.…"
Acts 10:34-35What does he do to those who are not scared of him? Treats them the same as those who are scared?
Guess you need a new dictionary to look up the meaning of "impartial."?I trust God. I can see Him much more clearly than I can you.
But the bible says to fear him - that is what you said. I see you didn't answer my question?
I do fear God. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.
What was your question?Yes - your fear is clear. The wisdom? Not so much.
Question was - What does he do to people who are not scared of him? Seeing as he is impartial.What does He do to them? Do you mean what happens to those who reject Him?
They remain separated from Him for eternity. I'm sure you've heard this before.
Those who reject Him, reject Him forever.I've rejected God before.
Now I love Him with all of my heart and soul.This the god that hates homosexuals and unbelievers?
Ah - you should make sure the Christians know that.
Ah - so He treats them differently? Guess you do need a new dictionary after all.
Impartial. Look it up.That isn't even remotely true. People reject religions and then come back to them later in life all the time.
I was talking about eternity. Once someone has rejected Him, and they stand before Him in eternity, they have already rejected Him, thereby having the rejection last forever.
You have no idea about that, you're just making stuff up again.
So forgiveness is out the window. I guess we can pencil in malice as another character trait and since malice kind of lines up with jealousy it makes perfect sense.
Judas went into eternity when he hanged himself. Peter was still alive when Jesus came back from the dead.
When you die and pass on into eternity, you do not have another chance at redemption.
More propaganda designed to persuade the masses to step in line. Be a good slave and you will be the first to get into heaven.
Sorry, but repeating that doesn't make it true.
How do you explain Leviticus 12 (just started another thread about it)
or Leviticus 20 13
or all that scripture that tell the Israelites that they are God's chosen people?I have 3 children born to me. I have one child thru adoption. There is no difference in my love for each of them. I show no partiality.
I had no doubt about wether you are a racist or not. I'm simply wanting to know why you follow the words that promote racism, homophobia and sexism?
My post answered your question. The Israelites are God's chosen ppl, but He has grafted any and all into the vine of His family that believe on His son. He loves us all the same. Natural or adopted.
He has those that were chosen, but He shows no favoritism. You have to read *all the Bible to understand the full nature of God.
What about people who don't have Bibles. Do you think they can find God?
I do. I believe God reveals Himself to those who do not have a way to know Him.
Once when I was sharing the gospel in Africa, I went from hut to hut and village to village. I shared the gospel with a family in a remote village in a hut in the middle of no where. They told me that God had told them in a dream the night before that I would be coming the next day. God's will will be done. No man can thwart it.Yet, you said we can't understand the full nature of God without the Bible. What if we NEVER can?
We will not understand God fully until we are face to face. A toddler knows his dad as well as a 16 year old does. They both have the same dad, they both love him, but one knows him differently than the other. Is one's love for his dad deeper than the other? No. They are just at different places in their relationship with their dad. In many cases the 2 year old may be closer than the more mature child. God does not leave us fatherless. He pursues us out of love. That's why when you seek, you will find. How could you not find something that was already pursuing you?
How do you know you will understand God fully? What makes you think so?
He may be beyond our comprehension.Dearest Jane, everything I believe, I believe b/c the Bible tells me so. I don't make it up to suit my needs. This verse is how I know.
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.I didn't suspect you did:)
I was just wondering why you thought the way you did. I'm not challenging your beliefs. Just trying to understand.I didn't think you were challenging at all. We just hear so many different perspectives on this forum. I wanted you to know, what I believe, I believe b/c it is biblical... not b/c a man told me, not b/c it makes sense to me... I believe b/c it is the word of God. If I base my beliefs on anything other than this, I have nothing to stand on.
You just contradicted yourself, we can also read the Bible, so your claim about understanding God fully is irrelevant.
No, I was talking about maturity in the Lord. One can walk with him longer than the other, but that doesn't change the intensity of the love for the father.
Nonsense, there is nothing more or less you can know or understand than anyone else who has read the Bible.
You are grasping. I am obviously the only person around right now, so you have focused on me. Im going to do... anything else.
Chris, are you claiming to have some kind of divine or superior ability to understand the bible?
I am claiming, and have claimed often in the past, to have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit, which is to have experienced God. It does put the Bible in a different perspective.
Does your Holy Spirit tell you to exorcize demons out of young children? Someone else claims theirs does, and I'm not sure you're both taking about the same spirit at all.
I'm not sure either. I haven't read the posts of this other person.
JMcFarland - I hope you're not referring to me and putting words into my mouth, as I said nothing about "exorcisms" (that was your friend who brought up exorcisms). I referred to scripture in which Jesus cast out demons in response to the faith of the parent.
I wonder if she can back that up with evidence? I guess not.
Beth had been sent, they provided affirmation; what would she have to question? The Spirit leads us into all truth. She has the gift of discernment. She knows what to question and what to embrace.
But I have been sent to tell you and others that you are mistaken.
Cat333 wrote:
Beth had been sent, they provided affirmation; what would she have to question? The Spirit leads us into all truth. She has the gift of discernment. She knows what to question and what to embrace.
Rad Man wrote:
But I have been sent to tell you and others that you are mistaken.
Sorry, Rad Man, but any of us with the Spirit of God recognize this to be untrue. Yet any wisdom we possess is not from us, so we get no credit; it is the Spirit of God that gives wisdom and discernment, and leads us into all truth.Just as you are sure the spirit has not contacted you or Beth, I'm sure the spirit has not contacted you because you have no evidence of any spirit but your word. So I'm as much likely to be telling the truth as you.
Once you are led of the Spirit, you will recognize the Spirit.
I could open another account and within minutes have you agreeing with everything I say because you think you recognize the spirit.
Okay, you're on. I think I generally recognize those who are led by the Spirit and those who are false prophets (doesn't mean I can tell if a person is saved or not, but I can tell whether they speak the words of God or not). But if you can make all your points in line with the Spirit, then I may actually fall for it.
Unless someone can explain the "Spirit of God", it appears to be just another way to say "mental disorder".
It's interesting how many of us faithful believers become mentally ill by your standards, isn't it?
Actually, these standards:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/s … w.kpbs.orgWe can say it this way if you prefer - It's interesting how many of us believers become mentally ill by human (or popular) standards. And the closer we get to God and the more we are filled with his Spirit, the more "insane" we become! Mental illness must be so much more prevalent than one would think.
Has Beth given people here some reason to think she would lie about such a thing? (I believe it was Beth?) I don't know her well but what I have observed of her, she doesn't seem to be lying about things in general that I have seen. Is there some reasonable reason to assume the worst about her, that she is lying about that story? How would she provide evidence of people's dreams anyway?
She may or may not be lying on purpose. Is it reasonable to believe someone is telling the truth when you have never met that person and they have motive. Do you have reason to believe I'm lying? Is that how we should study the universe? Without evidence, well she said that we can fly if we pray first so jump off the tower?
I was just pointing out that to ask her what you did about evidence of the dreams from the African people she visited, it has to be assumed she or they were lying. It was curious that was the first response to her story, but I wonder if you ask someone in your own family if they were to tell you a dream, if you automatically assume they did not have that dream. I could be wrong, but I bet you wouldn't doubt them when they told you the dream.
I was wondering if there was any precedent other than someone's beliefs they hold, for some reason I wasn't aware of worth doubting Beth's intentions or that of the people she had just met in Africa.
She may not be lying at all, in response to the first sentence.She may have been telling the truth or I may be telling the truth. Do you have any reason to assume I was lying?
Hmm, why do you ask me if you were lying? About what?
I am asking why the automatic doubting in this case, when people usually don't automatically doubt anyone's telling of their dreams to anyone. It is strange for that to be an automatic response. What does that have to do with you lying?I think that the question is why you would just accept the story without question, just because it lines up with what you believe. I see believers exhibit this type of acceptance for miraculous or convenient claims all the time, yet when an atheist makes a similar claim, they are often met with skepticism.
Asking for evidence is not outside the norm. I don't believe claims without evidence - especially extraordinary claims. Is the claim that they had a dream extraordinary? No. But I know from my own experience in the mission field in Africa that indigenous people often told us what they thought we wanted to hear. To be clear, that doesn't automatically mean that's the case here. But it doesn't mean that it ISN'T either.
I'm less likely to just accept miracle claims from any one of any faith because they're extraordinary, and nearly impossible to prove. For example, I had a friend tell me the other day that god healed her cancer. She didn't mention that she had undergone chemotherapy for a set period of time, and that the cancer dissipated immediately following that course of treatment. Often these miracle claims are impossible to track. Even where evidence is possible, it's never provided. It seems that those looking for miracles will accept a miraculous cause without question despite any other circumstances that contributed. Some of us are just more naturally skeptical.
Lastly, I'm completely blown away by your assertion that someone "seems" trustworthy. You don't know this person. You probably wouldn't know them from Adam if you passed them on the street. How do you determine that a perfect stranger is trustworthy based on what they say on a relatively anonymous internet forum? Or does she seem trustworthy because she happens to agree with your beliefs?That one gave me pause. What claims do atheists make that we believers demand an explanation of? Serious question, I just know that I've never demanded proof of you or ATW as why you're an atheist, but perhaps others have.
Well, for instance, being told that she was never a believer was one. Christians not believing that atheists have morals. Christians not believing that the atheists know anything about the bible because of the "spirit-led" crap.
It happens Chris. You may not do it, but other Christians do.As a Christian, I don't claim to know if those who "fall away" were ever in truth believers; I've stated in the past my belief that God will seek and return home all who were ever in truth his.
I also believe that nonbelievers can be very "moral" people. Some people have more inclination toward good than others, believers or not. When an unbeliever who had a greater tendency toward evil becomes a Christian, he is a new creation and may not be recognizable. In this way, it brings much glory to God, because we see that God alone has caused such a change in the evil person. If a person tends to be good, they too will be a new creation, but we might not see as great a change.
It is the Spirit who gives us wisdom, understanding, and revelation, and respect for God "is the beginning of knowledge", so on this one point, I concede. Yet there is no lasting offense in this if it is considered that if the unbeliever becomes a believer, they may quickly surpass current believers in wisdom and understanding. No one can be looked at as who they are today only, but who they may become.
"Spirit-led crap."
You really want me to riff on that one? I've been thinking about it.LOL, it's crap in the context it is used in for the most part on these boards... as a way of dismissing anyone's view point but the person using it. The "You can't know what I do because you don't have the "spirit". In that context, yes... complete and utter crap. The spirit was never intended to be used to win arguments.
But if you want to riff, feel free. I took a four hour nap today, my family is unconscious and I'm boredWell, as I've said many, many, (many, many, many) times, this is something I've seen on both sides.
My side tends to take the attitude "You've never experienced the Spirit so you can't know." Yes it's dismissive. It's designed as a short-hand answer when people genuinely don't understand why something that they have experienced (feeling the Holy Spirit) seems to beyond other people. (And before anyone gets started here, I have experienced the Holy Spirit, this is not a new claim on my part. I've gone into it at some length other places and may do so again some time, but not right now.)
The other side (and since these are the two I've tangled with most often, I'll name them: getitrite and A Troubled Man, although certainly there are others) can be equally dismissive when they say "Your superstition doesn't make any sense." Believe me, I've experienced it often enough. And it helps nothing when their default position is to punctuate their correspondence with
To sum up: "You're spiritually dead" vs. "you're brain-dead." Gosh, I just feel so loved either way!
I do think that believers do themselves a disservice (and pastors who reinforce this certainly don't help) when, as Julie has said, we start talking about how unbelievers could never have been believers and can't know the Bible and/or have no morals. It betrays a certain lack of sophistication in thinking, but just to make sure that everyone is pissed off at me, I will reiterate that a lot of unbelievers are no more sophisticated in their thinking and certainly no more gracious or generous in their general deportment.I think it's more aggressively used than that Chris. I think it's used, by some, as an excuse to discount any opinion that doesn't match their own and as a reason to be divisive and superior. I say this as a Christian that has differing viewpoints from fundamentalists... so my view of it is a little different.
It is used, on me, to apply the "Not a true Christian" crap. They are no more led by the "spirit" than I am. But since we disagree, then obviously I'm not in the club. It's pretty obvious in that case, that their "spirit" is really just their own opinion that they try to put weight on by backing with God. I would expect that that translates into their conversations with atheists as well.Yes, you will hear non-believers stating that your beliefs don't make any sense when you say things that don't make sense, such as having experienced the Holy Spirit. That kind of statement, although not common amongst grown adults, I've never seen anyone call you brain-dead. But, more likely, people will probably ask you to seek professional help as that appears to be a mental disorder.
How can you expect others to be "sophisticated in their thinking" when you say childish things?I just knew you would feel compelled to jump in and make my point for me. Thanks, but I really am handling this fine all by myself.
Feel free to take that up with Cat. It's her go to crap.
But I wasn't talking to Cat, I was talking to Melissa.
No offense, but whatever deal you have with Cat is your deal. I will deal with her (or not) according to where I'm led.
What you said there is along the lines of what I thought. I am not giving Beth some benefit of the doubt. If any atheist told me a dream or of a dream of someone else, I wouldn't demand evidence for a couple of reasons. One, unless they are liars in general, we tend to believe at face value the dreams people tell us. Two, you can't provide proof for a dream anyway.
No, I am not skeptical of atheists or anyone that tells me their dream. Here is what I said, I think you misread it or something?
"I am not giving Beth some benefit of the doubt. If any atheist told me a dream or of a dream of someone else, I wouldn't demand evidence for a couple of reasons. One, unless they are liars in general, we tend to believe at face value the dreams people tell us. Two, you can't provide proof for a dream anyway."
I said I WOULDN'T demand evidence from an atheist, if they told me their dream, or a the retelling of a dream told to them. I don't have good grounds for rejecting someone's telling of their dream. UNLESS, they have been shown to lie about stuff. That was my point really in responding to any of that.Okay, sorry, I must have misread. So we should believe someone even though their story seems unreasonable as long as they don't have a history of lying.
No need to apologize, its all good and understandable. Did it seem unreasonable to you, the dream? If so, why? It could have just been a coincidence too, and you don't even allow for that? I don't claim to know what the real actual truth was, just commenting on the part I noticed.
I am asking people to consider that we don't ever tell a person that tells us a dream, "nah, you are lying." Why do we do that here and ask for proof? I think it is a sign to not ignore why the behavior change in this case, that goes against what is normally done by the same people. It was just an observation, and I am sure Beth is annoyed I responded to her story at all by this point, lol. I just thought it curious.I didn't feel like your motives were negative at all, that's all that matters.
Aww, thanks Beth, I am glad you understand, or I think you do
. I totally can admit that I can run with things to the 'enth degree and as it goes in these kinds of forums, that can happen sometimes as we see. I can sometimes go as long as another person wants to talk about stuff. There are a few faithful here too, that I can see.
That's the thing. I do allow for coincidence. It seems to me that a lot of believers don't. That's why I commented on the whole dream thing Beth said to begin with. She's convinced that it was some kind of miracle or assurance of her beliefs. She didn't present the story in a way that sounded like coincidence ever occurred to her.
That's part of the problem. I see a lot of believers jumping to the miraculous without considering other options. I've been told that god planned people's vacations or kept them skinny. Anything that seems to answera prayer is accepted as such, without regard to other alternatives. That's why I'm skeptical about miracle claims. It's easy to pass on anecdotes without verification, or give god credit for just about anything. It doesn't make miraculous claims true, however. There is no need to accept extraordinary claims as absolutely true without evidence. Even if they cannot be explained naturally now doesn't mean they never will be, and I don't see a justifiable reason for jumping to a supernatural explanation. Absense of evidence is just an absence of evidence. Not proof of a more extraordinary claim.How can there be any convincing evidence of the miracles and healings to an unbelieving ear? When you look only to disbelieve, then you will assume whatever lines up with that disbelief - you will even assume people are lying or delusional. So, for example, if someone has pain for 13 years, then has a supernatural out-of-body experience in which they are healed, then has been pain-free for 14 years, this true supernatural healing will be dismissed by you as either a lie or a delusion (as if delusion can cause the absence of pain). Again, isn't it striking how many believers are "delusional' or "mentally ill"?!
I never said believers are mentally ill. You need to address things to me that I actually said.
You do realize, don't you, that many many different religious beliefs have miracle claims, right? So how do you explain a Muslim's answered prayer? Or a Jew's who denies Jesus? Or a Hindu? Or one of the multitude of other religions? Do you believe all of their claims as willingly as you believe the miracle claims of another Christian? I'm assuming the answer is probably no. You're skeptical to the claims of all religion's miracles but your own. I'm just skeptical about all of them.
If a believer of any religion is saying that god worked outside the laws of nature to heal someone, there should be demonstrable proof. Medical records. Scans. Tests. Yet none are ever EVER presented.Occasionally there are physical evidences of miraculous healings; sadly, this occurs far too infrequently considering the untapped power we have through the Holy Spirit.
A major thing affecting our studies is that they are looking only at those who seek medical treatment, who we might even say "rely" on the medial treatment rather than God. Now I have come to no conclusions about seeking medical treatment, but when I have an ailment, the Spirit within me always seems to say, "You can go to the doctor if you want, but you know that I can heal you." How many healings are occurring amongst those who SOLELY rely on and have faith in God as their healer, so that no medical documentation is even recorded?
As I mentioned to Rad Man, none of the studies can really determine true FAITH for healing by either the one to be healed or those praying for the sick, the gifts of healing possessed by the ones praying, God's will, the Spirit's leading as to what should be prayed for, etc. Without this knowledge, which is impossible to ascertain, the studies become meaningless.
As for healings amongst those praying to false gods rather than the One True God, I would not necessarily rule out supernatural healing, as the demonic world has supernatural powers as well (though far more limited than the power from the Holy Spirit). From such powers comes the popularity of "witch doctors". But I can say that I would rather be sick and die and go to God than embrace physical healing from a demonic source, whose purpose is to confuse and lead many astray from the True God.Where biblically does the devil have the power or the inclination to answer prayers that are attributed to a god? Are you saying the devil is all knowing? If not, how would he hear the prayers of people? What motivation would the devil have to heal someone, knowing full well that they would give God the credit? How do you know then that the devil isn't answering your prayers, and you have been deceived? The only thing you can say is that you believe god is answering your prayers - the same thing that people of other faiths would say. You're no different. Just empty assertions, beliefs and no proof that your assertions are true whatsoever.
"Where biblically does the devil have the power or the inclination to answer prayers that are attributed to a god?" We see several glimpses of the supernatural powers in the demonic realm throughout the word of God - Micah 5:12 (they practiced witchcraft and were able to tell fortunes); Acts 16:16 (the slave with an evil spirit was able to tell the future, so that once the evil spirit was cast out of her and she no longer had this power, her "owners" were angry); Matthew 24:24 - ""For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."; 2 Thessolonians 2:9 - "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie.". Further, the Greek word sorcery (found in the bible; e.g., Rev. 9:21; 18:23) is pharmakeia or pharmacy, and it referred to the use of medicines / drugs with the use of witchcraft, including spells.
You can see from some of the above verses that the devil's motive in the witchcraft / witch doctors, sorcery/pharmaceuticals, false signs, etc. is to deceive, support his own lies, confuse the truth and the Way, etc. The glory is not being given to the One True God in such cases, but is unknowingly being given to the devil, who is behind all false religions, prophesies, signs and wonders, etc.
I am absolutely not saying the devil is all knowing in any of this. The devil may or may not "hear" the prayers; the scriptures do not specify this. Even if the spiritual realm MAY be able to hear what goes on in the spiritual realm (Not going to say anything definitively here since this is an area of debate and since I have nothing concrete from the word of God, so that I am not even sure myself), nevertheless, hearing that which is unspoken and is in the spiritual realm is far different than being "all knowing", which requires understanding of what is heard, knowledge of motives not even known to us who do the thinking/speaking, knowledge beforehand, etc.
You ask, "How do you know then that the devil isn't answering your prayers, and you have been deceived?" Romans 8:16 - "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God". Understandably, this is known to the believer, but has no way of being determined by unbelievers who do not yet have the Spirit to guide them into all knowledge and wisdom, or give them the gift of discernment. Yet there is no room for boasting on the part of the believer, as any wisdom was provided to them by the Spirit and is not their own doing, and as the unbeliever may one day become a believer who surpasses them in wisdom and discernment.Cat, you seen to put the devil on equal footing with god. Equal in power, equal in authority which makes all of human life a tug of war between two forces. A god that is all powerful, all knowing and all loving would use humanity like pawns on a chessboard, with life itself is the battle between one primal force and another. There is no example of the devil answering prayer. In fact, the devil only has the power given to him by god. The Bible does not portray them with equal powers at all. You're just making it up.
I can say a few silly words like abracadabra and tell you that people will argue about Christianity on the forums tomorrow. I'm not practicing witchcraft. I'm not telling the future. The is no little demon sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear. Your mentality was responsible for sending thousands of innocent people to the stake to burn as witches. You're on the fringe. I know plenty of Christians that would be appalled at your demonic beliefs and implications.
You say you have the spirit of God, and quote scripture as if that proves something. The Devil can quote scripture. False teachers can quote scripture, too. It is only your assertion that you have the right spirit, and others have the wrong one. Unfortunately, there is no reason whatsoever for me or anyone else to take your word for it above anyone else's. Especially given the example of your actions, your disregard for the rules and your baseless accusations on those who disagree with you. There is no way to prove you're correct.The devil absolutely is NOT equally powerful to the all-powerful God - as I said, demonic supernatural powers exist but are very limited compared to the power of God! "Greater is he that is within us than he that is within the world". The devil's days are short and his doom is certain!
To deny the existence of the devil and demons may give a "feel-good" version of religion, but does NOT line up with the word of God!But you are incapable of proving that the devil exists, just like you are incapable proving that a god exists. You have stories and verses, but neither of them are actual proof.
Why would I believe in your devil and your demon haunted world when I have no reason to believe in your God?Then, God should easily be able to get rid of Satan once and for all. But, since it's all an impossible fairy tale, obvious slip ups like this are common place. The fantasy has no bounds of magic.
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10) The devil's end yet awaits the appointed time, Encephaloidead, but it is coming!
Um, if someone tells me after the fact that they dreamt about that plane going missing, I'd tell they they were full of it. If they told me the day before that they had a dream about a plane going miss tomorrow, I'd be amazed. No need to be gullible.
Actually, I wouldn't doubt an atheists dream either. Why would I, unless the person has shown to lie about things in the past? That suggestion doesn't make sense to me. Of course anyone CAN lie about dreams. The question I am asking is two fold. Why in certain cases do we demand evidence for a dream from Africans in this case as if they, or Beth were lying in this forum for some other reason. She would be having to go against her beliefs to do so also. So my question seems more than fair, to say, "Does she normally lie about things, or normally does she tell the truth about things?" If a child told their parent a dream, or a friend to a friend, its not normal to doubt it automatically as false or a lie, until its proven. We just don't do it.
Which leads to the second point, how do you provide evidence to such a skeptic for a dream? This is the stuff that takes place that can't be materially measured anyway. Thus the going back to the character of the person in question. Why start almost maligning the character of someone now, when they have done nothing but report what happened? Sure, we can talk about possible reasons why a person "might" lie about a dream. There seems to be extra emphasis, very obviously given to the skepticism where normally none would exist. Its just not the normal thing we do as human beings to people in general when they share dreams. What if I said to my coworker at work, "But can you prove you dreamed that? I will believe you when you show me evidence?" The point is, the content in THIS case. It evidently creates automatic ultra skepticism in some where it shouldn't be, so it seems a bias is being shown. If it were me doing it, I would want to have it pointed out. No, I don't assume atheists or anyone is lying about telling me about their dreams. Beth isn't getting any extra benefit of the doubt here, for the reasons I shared. Unless something isn't quite right, people don't walk around telling lies about their dreams to others. Thus my asking if she lies, and admitting I don't know her well.
You are blown away by my views on this? Do you know her to lie? Do people tell you about dreams they didn't really have? What kind of evidence can she provide to Radman from the African's subconscious mind? How do you get that kind of evidence? These are questions that would apply here.
God alone is truth and tells all truth; all humans are "liars" (intentional or not) to varying degrees. But the more one walks with and is led of the Spirit of God, the more truth you will find in them. An unbeliever is not necessarily "lying" intentionally, but they have yet to have their spiritual eyes opened so that they can see truth. Because of this, believers can more readily believe those in whom we see the Spirit (by virtue of their reliance on the word and their fruits that are in step with the Spirit), but will regard with skepticism the words of anyone without the Spirit who is only as trustworthy as humanly possible without the Spirit (and that is far from trustworthy, whether the deceit is intentional or not).
That's odd, what we observe here is the complete opposite, that we find less and less truth in those who more zealous.
Okay, that's interesting. Do you think homosexuality is a sin for gentiles given that he only instructed the Israelites to kill Israeli homosexuals?
Do you think girls are less clean than boys?Would you kindly site the verses so I don't have to look them up?
Here's the difference between you and me Rad Man, you don't believe in the sovereignty of God. You look at God backwards, thru human eyes and try to make him fit inside of man's rules. What you don't realize is that He made the rules... all of them, those you believe in and those you don't. What you think of as advanced thinking, isn't. Until you understand that God created mankind, He loves mankind and He wants to save mankind, you will not believe that His ways are best for mankind.
Why didn't you answer my questions? You've said that homosexuality is a sin, but perhaps only for the Israelites?
Did you read Leviticus 12 and does it make sense to you?
Yes I use my own mind and eyes. It's all we've got. If we were made in God's image our eyes and minds should suffice.
When confronted with scripture that shows God to be homophobic, sexist and racist, instead of understand that your version of God couldn't have written any of that you chose instead to assume he did write them and assume it's beyond our understanding.The verses you posted didn't mention Israel, only homosexuality.
If you believe God to be homophobic, sexist or racist, then yes, He is beyond your understanding.Further, can you please help me understand Leviticus 12. What is wrong with child birth in Gods eyes. Why does giving birth to girl take twice as long to be cleansed and cleansed from what?
Did you perform these rituals when you gave birth and if you think this scripture is directed to just Israelis then why is that scripture directed towards Jews and not the part about homosexuality?
It's not me that has to sort this all out. It's you, as I understand that the bible was written by people who were racist, homophobic and sexist. That's why it there.B/c a woman's blood represents sin in God's eyes... or is it that child birth is a reminder to God that all man are born with a sinful nature and that they chose sin over Him in the garden? Or... is it that everything that is born first is considered cleaner b/c it is representative of Adam being born, the first of all mankind....
The point is, we don't have to understand God's purpose for everything, only trust that He is good. The moment we believe there is sin in God, *we are in sin. So, no you don't understand all of God's ways Rad Man, but b/c you have not placed your faith in Him, you're not able to content yourself that all is well and God is good, He is *always good.That doesn't sound sexist to you?
Doesn't explain why given birth to a boy is any cleaner and does't explain why it's a sin. It does however sound like something written by someone very sexist.
That's indoctrination. You are taught to not question, because questioning will open your eyes to what's really going on. How can some be good and sexist, racist and homophobic? This should be a clue for you that the OT was written by people with these traits with the help of no good God.Those examples aren't accurate... I offered them to prove a point... that we don't know the heart and mind of God, except that He is love. We don't know the things of the realm He inhabits. We are not equipped to judge Him, nor should we ever think we are qualified.
Do you drive 100 on the freeway? If not, why not? Were you indoctrinated that the speed limit was 70? Maybe you disagree with that law? Does it matter what you think? No, it really doesn't. You are required to obey the law or take the consequences for your actions. You can tell the judge you didn't agree with the law and see how far that gets you.Why again do women that gave birth to girls need to cleans twice as long again. Do you believe a women's blood is less clean than a mans? Should men receive blood transfusions from women?
- That would be one of your most blatant contradictions.
Okay, good. We are on the same page. Now what do we do with all that racism and homophobia in the bible?
Funny. I don't see Christians, as a whole, believing that the Bible would support racist and homophobic stands. That leads me to believe that people see what they want to see and racism and homophobia is not solely a product of religion. A very small percentage of the religious right is vocally promoting their racist views.
The question now is, why are you so focused on attempting to make it appear as if the Bible is the sole reason they have these views? If that were the reason, wouldn't it seem logical to assume the majority of Christians would share them?
One other thing. What does it matter what I think of the Bible?You are right Emile, I don't care what you think, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that the bible is responsible for ignorance or racism. I'm simple showing people that it's in there and wondering why people think a God would do that?
So why did your son ban him? Why not just let him continue? Clearly he was being a bully, why not let him continue?
Because it was unfair all the way around. He attempted to be a bully, but didn't succeed. Why let others come in and bully him in response? They thought they were defending us, but the more important thing was they were attacking him. He had lost, because that type of mentality will always be in the minority.
He was wrong. They were wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.That's called peer response and it's a very important societal natural consequence. That's how people learn that their behavior is unacceptable.
Well sure, Peer response. I'm an ass and let's see how many of you can be an ass to my assiness.
I don't strive to be a peer to that mentality.Good for you.
Once again, if you ignore it nothing gets fixed.
Did the others who were responding to the racial comments (I assume that's what you meant) also get banned.
I curious as to what the comments were and what were they about. I respect your privacy but my I'm still curious.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
I'm done, Melissa. Move on to the next of the many you fight against.
Then you have just reaffirmed my faith in Jesus. Bye-Bye now!
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
it seems we have a spammer on thread but I can't see the post until I hit reply.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Well, let's see if this post pushes it out to where we can flag it.
Sure you can. There is no God required for love.
The second part shows how manipulated you have become.I am more than capable of both love and compassionwithout a god telling me I should. I don't hate people, even when people behave hatefully. I don't hate Christians, even though I disagree with them. I've always had Christian friends. I have Muslim friends too. I have diverse friends, and I can feel empathy and compassion for complete strangers without ever having to ask a god for help.
Good for you sticking to your guns and obeying god's word. How many homosexuals have you killed today? Lewis was a moron of the highest magnitude. The only thing he could do well was wring money from the sheeple.
[img]http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8815387_f248.jpg[height=600 width=600 /img]
I wish Beth all the luck in the world that she someday learn those traits, if that's the way she wants to learn them. Whatever helps.
"Because of the increase in wickedness the love of most will grow cold, but the one who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 24:12
If Dr Lamb is not one of your characters, Melissa, then I apologize to you. If he is, you can answer to the Lord about it, as you can also answer for any of the things you've spoken against his bride, and I can answer for my many sins as well. If you are covered in the blood, as I am, then we have our answer already in Jesus' sacrifice for us.
Blessings to you, Melissa. I'll say no more about anything I see you doing.If you look through the threads you see that many of the believers at some time or another question this one who calls herself a believer yet speaks against Christianity and fights with all the believers. In the end they realize that it only makes them appear to be the same as she is, and so they stop.
If you are referring to Melissa, you should stop. You are already behind. Don't dig the hole deeper.
That's interesting Cat. I often see you tell other believers what a real Christian is. Just as you are doing now.
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
You know, I try to see the best in everyone. Sometimes I fail miserably, but it's in my nature. Some of my best friends are often people others can't stand because they think they're jerks. But I can find good...always.
But that does not mean, under any circumstances, that behavior that truly harms a person physically or psychologically should be accepted and left alone. It needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.I'm all for defending others. But, we have to be realistic. If someone pulls a baseball bat out of the trunk of a car in a parking lot and attempts to hit the next person innocently passing by; that is one thing. The best reaction is to attempt to disarm the individual to protect others.
But, let's say there is a husband abusing a wife. It's continued for some time. Does simply stopping him from hitting her address the problem? Shouldn't we also attempt to understand why she allows herself to remain in a position to be harmed? Isn't their's a co-dependent relationship?
That's my point, in a nutshell when discussing psychological harm in the arena of adult interactions . As adults; we are all, in some manner, responsible for psychological harm. We harm, allow ourselves to be harmed, inflict harm when attempting to stop what we perceive as harm. We can start attempting to determine the degree of blame for the harm caused; but there would be no harm if we didn't believe it to exist. If we didn't allow our feelings to be hurt.I can agree with most of that. But I think we end up excusing away a lot of things that way and no one really ends up taking responsibility in the end. We do need to hold each other accountable - to a point. But beyond that pointing out to others what might be objectionable, or having it pointed out to us, the individual being brought to accountability needs to then figure out how to keep their own numbers. We're saying something very similar, even though not identical.
- Rad Manposted 11 years ago0
Perhaps you didn't read the entire page. At the top of the page it says specifically.
20 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites:
it goes on to list punishments for said deeds.
then.
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
And then there is Leviticus 18
18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:…
then.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.Yeah, I read what you cited which was 20:13.
Ok, I read the whole thing. It is God's law for His ppl. concerning what is clean and unclean. I'm sure He would know what is spiritually clean and unclean better than we.So, since all these laws were written for Israelis do you still think homosexuality is a sin?
So you are good with following a racist, homophobic, sexist God because he must know better than you.
You have mistakenly labeled Him that way. That is not who He is.
Someone who has a favourite race is a racist.
Someone who hates gays is homophobic.
Someone who thinks women are less then men and dirty is a sexist.
I don't think God is any of those things as I don't think the writer was a God.This is what you don't get:
God doesn't love one race more than another, read the WHOLE bible. One is just naturally His. Remember how I mentioned adoption?
God sent His son to pay the price for our sin so that we might be forgiven and live with Him in paradise. That includes every gay person, you and me... every single sinner. He loves all of mankind.
He is not a respecter of persons. He loves women as much as men. For whatever reason, a woman's blood made her unclean... you don't have to get it. You can ask Him about it when you stand before Him, though I doubt you'll even remember that question at that point. Jesus came to replace the old laws. Read the bible as a whole, Rad Man.Which is it Beth, follow his laws or else or we all get forgiven anyway? So anyway I guess we can do away with the OT then. Does that mean you will no longer say that homosexuality is a sin? Can you imagine a God asking for lambs to be slaughtered to appease him?
You have to confess your sin to God and ask to be forgiven in order to be forgiven.
Homosexuality is mentioned in the NT too. You can't do away with the OT, it's all a part of the same God.It's interesting that you think God made us by design and yet mades some of us homosexual. Who's error is that? It seems to happen naturally in nature.
Anyway, so according to you all we have to do is repent when we see God so we are all good. You can continue with following your God's homophobic, sexist and racist ways if you like, but I suspect if their is a God he will wonder why you would think so poorly of him.I dont think He made some of us homosexual, but Ive shared my beliefs on that matter before in full.
We would need to repent before we saw God, wouldn't we. Believing in God while looking at Him takes very little faith and He requires faith.
Ive already explained that my God is not homophobic, sexist or racist. Ive spoken on it endlessly here, it is you who has chosen to see Him that way.
This conversation has lost merit as far as I can see as it is now being spun, which Im not interested in participating in. Thanks though for the talk.Then why are some of us homosexual?
Why? Why does he need us to believe he exists without showing us. Sounds like something someone might tell you when they are lying.
Yes you told me that we are to stupid to understand that homophobia is not homophobia when God does it.
Difficult question will do that?
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
This discussion has taken off really fast it seems. I am trying to catch up.
I see a lot of talk is about how God treats those that are His and those that are not His.
How many of you would favor someone's else's children over your own?
How many would favor those who spit in your face over your own children who love you?So - God is no better than us? Excellent. God favors those who are scared of him over those who think for themselves. You win after all.
Sir said,
"I see a lot of talk is about how God treats those that are His and those that are not His.
How many of you would favor someone's else's children over your own?
How many would favor those who spit in your face over your own children who love you? "
As an idea, how is that a bad idea? What is a more reasonable and realistic idea to you, the opposite of those things? Nah.....Reasonable and realistic? Well - how about there is no god that favors one group of his children over another? What say you?
You were seeming to have issue with what Sir Dent said, which is what we usually see in reality with human families in the example given. I was curious what you thought was more reasonable if his comment is not a reasonable one. Otherwise, it stands.
If you want to discuss existence of a possible god, we can do that too. Or, we could discuss why a spiritual father ought to act so opposite of how we would, etc.No - you asked for reasonable and realistic. I answered. Guess that is not what you wanted after all.
I especially liked the whole "spitting in the face," thing. Very reasonable and realistic.
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.The idea, being a Father or a God even, that ought to treat everyone the same no matter how badly they are treated is an idea that doesn't hold a lot of merit. To show otherwise you would have to show how it would be the opposite, which would be rather hard but I didn't choose that stance. I don't think you really believe it either if I had to guess, so I asked.
Bad ideas don't make people's views cause fights, usually its the bad ideas and what comes with those, that do. So I disagree with that. What I believe, would end a lot of fights, even if people don't believe and accept it like I do, but just characterized it correctly. It is often not done that way, and it does cause fights.The idea of treating a god in some way shape or form that upsets it is ridiculous. Sorry - did you want reasonable and realistic or not?
Just so we are clear - not believing in it is "spitting in its face"?
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.Why is the idea of upsetting a god, ridiculous? Yes, reasonable and rational is always what I strive for.
The idea of a human parent getting upset, is normal, why wouldn't the same be true for this god? Keep in mind, the spitting part that you had an issue with, was done to his son Jesus repeatedly when on trial for our sins, and the spitting was the least of the wrongs that he didn't deserve. I am in keeping with where the conversation is at currently, adding in an example. In that scenario. God shouldn't be upset?
Yes, I think it is less reasonable than not. That is just going with that one example.You can't just laugh, as that isn't an argument. Show how what I said IS not reasonable or rational. That is how it is done with reasonable and rational people, and I trust you are one as you seem to esteem it as a way to be.
Sorry sweetie - you have to prove the positive.
Show mw how a god is reasonable and rational. Especially one that takes sides.
Little wonder this religion causes so many fights.You never made a case, just showed your distaste for what we observe in reality with humanity, that was then attributed to god. Then you said some things you couldn't back up. That is fine, but Sir Dent's point stands until you prove another idea is more reasonable or rational. That was all I asked. When it can't be done, and I am not surprised, you can't just laugh it off and have that work. Life isn't like that.
Then saying others cause fights? Let us be fair now.So - not able to prove god treats those who "spit in his face" different to those that "love him" then?
Lets be reasonable - prove to me this god exists first. Then we can talk about making a case.
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.Proving to you that God exists has nothing to do with you showing how what Sir said was wrong. Nor, how your last statement makes sense.
Of course it does. Sorry you don't understand.
He is not ATM. I knew who he was when I first saw his nick. I won't tell though because I think it is rude to do so.
So, you're saying that because we don't accept Jesus is the same thing as spitting in His face while being crucified?
That is reasonable and rational?
Is it not reasonable to expect a perfect God to not be homophobic, racist and sexist?
Is it reasonable to think childbirth is a sin and giving birth to a girl is more sinful?
Aren't we all God's children? After all, if he made one he made all.
What you're really asking is if I would only favor those children that agreed with me and lived exactly as I said for them to live.
So the answer would be I would still love them the same.You give a different scenario, and have his question be a somewhat different one, but if it was as you put it with those differences, I imagine many would answer that they would love them the same.
How is it different again?
Edit: Ok, I get it, so we're not all God's children. I guess that's a different discussion.
However I would say if he made one of us, he made all of us. So we are.Did I miss where you asked that before?
Here is what Sir Dent said,
"I see a lot of talk is about how God treats those that are His and those that are not His.
How many of you would favor someone's else's children over your own?
How many would favor those who spit in your face over your own children who love you?"
You said,
"Aren't we all God's children? After all, if he made one he made all.
What you're really asking is if I would only favor those children that agreed with me and lived exactly as I said for them to live.
So the answer would be I would still love them the same."
So the example changed from what Sir Dent said, not having all the children be the parent's but belonging to others, "Not His..." he said. He was talking about how you would favor someone else's child over your own, unlikely, nor does it make sense. If another person's child spit in your face, you would treat them all equally? Really? Then, you change it from how they are treated, to if they are loved. The example put the way you put it, would cause that to be a more agreed upon response. The other one, to side against it just isn't reasonable or rational. I could ask you the same as I did to RA, how is the opposite of what Sir Dent said, more reasonable? Then you would have a case. I could be wrong, but it stands as I see it for the reasons given.No, because in this case, I refuse the assertion that we aren't all his children.
However, would I treat a child that spit in my face any differently if they were mine or not? No.It is still a different situation then. You are discussing or debating a new point was all I was pointing out. Which is fine, but its good to be clear when things change up a bit is all. Many people still love a child that spits in their face. Many probably wouldn't disagree with you there either, especially if a young child that was upset, etc. If parent's didn't there would be lots of kids that were unloved.
At one point during Jesus' ministry He said this; "John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil," when addressing the pharisees. This, in itself, shows that not everyone is God's child.
God created Adam in His own image and His likeness. After the fall of man, Adam and Eve procreated their children in their image and likeness, which is a state of sinfulness.I would see that as fathering a child then giving it up because it didn't please you. Then beating it (sending it to hell) when it didn't do as you say.
Sorry, if he made the human race, we are all his. If we did something wrong, maybe he should have raised us better.So you are saying you don't believe those words I posted above from the bible?
I don't believe Jesus was speaking literally. Do you? He was saying they were evil. Do you think he was saying that they literally were the children of Satan? Because that's a whole other discussion.
Those who are led by the devil, belong to the devil. I believe Jesus meant it literally.
You believe that they were actually fathered by Satan? You think that Jesus was literally saying that their mothers were seduced, drug into bed, and gave birth to his children?
That's literal.
You seriously believe that Jesus meant that?
Or is it more reasonable to believe that he meant they were evil?
Because from my reading of the Bible, Satan never created any children. He never created anything... so he can't be the father of any human being. God LITERALLY created us. He is LITERALLY our father according to the Bible.
Edit: As an aside, he never actually said that they were evil, just that they were doing the devil's work by not accepting him.It is a spiritual thing. The devil was their spiritual father. Now for the whole verse. John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
I have other translations also if you want me to post them. They all say the same thing.No, I agree what the bible says... I just don't think it means what you think it means... actually, it's not even that so much as I don't believe it has the same implications that you think it does.
If I go by your interpretation , then every Christian who ever says "God loves you" has lied. You interpretation leads to exactly what the Atheists say it does... That the only people who are his children are the ones that cower before him. That would mean he rejects the others that won't.
Or that he is a father that only loves those children who do exactly what he wants.God loves them so much that He gave His only begotten Son for them. That is true love that cannot be matched by any man woman or child. That doesn't mean He will reward them for their wicked ways. He gave man freedom to choose.
More self righteous twaddle. 13.8 billion years and he gives his lolololol"Only son" lololol for 3 days?
It is shameful to scoff in the face of a God who loves you.
Sorry - you are not qualified to say things like that to me. It is shameful to speak as you do. Please keep your judgements to yourself in future. Thanks.
God rewards the wicked individual through casting into the flames. For the righteous he rewards them with ever lasting life. So it is written. So it shall always be.
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."Wow, that sure does seem wicked. Hope you enjoy heat.
Rad Man - God loves you despite your false ways. For he, the Creator, provides everyone with love regardless of their faults. Rather than worry about my heat, you should learn to focus on your own relationship with God. Mine is a righteous path that will provide me with ever lasting life.
And, the wicked are those who actually used their freedom of choice?
Using one's freedom to choose does not equate to wicked ways.
"If I go by your interpretation , then every Christian who ever says "God loves you" has lied."
What do you mean?Well, if I disown my child every time they disobeyed and then say they belonged to my enemy, I would say that doesn't equal love.
Honestly, if you saw a parent doing that to a child would you say they were loved?
How can you love a child you have disowned? How can you say you will only be their father if they listen to you? That's not love.Do you reward your children when they disobey you or do something wrong?
By throwing them in a pit of burning fire for all eternity? No. I'm trying to teach them... not to punish them for not listening. There's no learning from that. Pure punishment, which is just vengeance. I've never felt the "vengeance" emotion towards my children.
You didn't answer the question. It was not about punishment but reward. Do you reward your children for disobedience?
You didn't answer mine: Is not burning in hell a reward?
Deleted
See, it's really not...
Because in this case not rewarding them is exactly the same as punishing them. There's the distinction that's being stumbled over.
It's like saying "If you do what I say, I will reward you by not boiling you in oil"Now see - as much as it says it wants reasonable and rational - that is a lie. Apparently it is "OK" to lie for Jesus.
See, I'm not sure whether I should "lash out" or not... could you explain that a little better for me so I know whether I'm the liar or someone else is?
Not you at all. It is lying about wanting a reasonable and rational answer. Apparently lying for Jesus is acceptable.
If a persons says something that isn't true, like calling another person a liar when they haven't lied, and even asked repeatedly that it be shown where and how they lied, then what is that? When a person keep repeating something that is demonstrably false, what is that?
It would appear that a person that would engage in that, would be actually lying to themselves, not just to others about another person. (Actually, and literally lying to themselves.) That is something else that I don't think is reasonable or rational. Speaking in general here, as we can't really know who the "it" is, that you keep referring to.You asked for a reasonable and rational response. When I gave you one, you made it clear that was not what you wanted and completely ignored what I said.
This is why your religion causes so many arguments.These are your responses though, you never actually gave a response or rebuttal of any kind. So there wasn't even anything to reject, other than the calling people liars for Jesus. That isn't a response at all. Open to you showing me though, or repeating, and saying you can't go back and find it a page or two back doesn't count.
It is like the repetition of mantras almost, about my religion causing arguments, or lying for Jesus, when neither has been shown to be the case. Not even remotely shown to be the case. It seems a firm belief and faith in the unseen, which is very ironic!There was something to reject. Please stop lying at me. It insults my intelligence and is the reason your religion cause so many fights.
The only reasonable and rational response was that your god does not exist. Not that it burns people in hell for not believing in it. Or as Dent called it "spit in his face."
No wonder this belief causes so many conflicts.About to be done reading your posts altogether. What did you share? A restating of your beliefs, ideas?
Dents idea stands, that favoring your own kids over those that aren't yours and that break your rules makes more sense than not. Show how that isn't more reasonable. You couldn't, no one could, and you dished out all those multiple posts about calling people liars, liars for Jesus, calling me "it" several times, and more. Do you care to stop? If you don't, I care to stop reading all your posts. I am not asking much, just reasonableness and rationality, and some logic. I have stopped reading the posts before of someone here that used their real name, and discussed very very similar to you. Its not a threat or anything, just tired of leaving every time because people can treat others like this here.I honestly don't care what you do. Not sure why you chose an androgynous user name and avatar if you want to be called "he" or "she". Not a big fan of reasoning things through huh?
A god is not reasonable. Especially one as pathetic as to pretend some of its children are not actually its children. It either fathered all of us or none. Listen to yourself - ones that break the rules by not believing get punished? Ones that claim to love it get treated well? Really? This is reasonable? They, is for male or female if its about truly not knowing. For those with inquiring minds and ability to look at profiles, a mother is a female too. If it is still unclear after last night when it was made clear again, I am a female.
It doesn't seem reasonable to debate every point, WITH "a god is not reasonable- response", and if people disagree with that as a response for everything, then call them liars for Jesus, "it", liars, causers of problems, and over and over with your sad face, or laughter face depending. That equals no debate at all. No discussion at all. Just giving people a hard time for not believing the same as you, essentially. The insults don't count for debate, they never have, never will.
People have a number of options of how to deal with this protected treating of others. They can leave (which many have and do), stay until they snap in response then get banned, (or not even snap, just state what people are doing, like trolling) and get banned for a month or so. Behaviors get modified, through manipulation and negative and positive feedback (kudos, or poor treatment, a form of punishment and reward). Severe accusation campaigns are waged as we see all the time, through exaggeration and twisting of what is said to unrecognizable degrees. Or, people can stop reading certain people's posts, and not as a form of a tactic where its a last defense when you can't come out ahead in discussion, but also don't want to say something to get yourself banned. (Only to come and discuss later with the person that was "done with.")
I have seen many responses to this same allowed treatment of others, that disagree with the worst offenders views. I understand my idea here is different, but I can do it and stick to it.
A "God is not reasonable" response to all debates doesn't work, even IF the debate is whether or not a god existing is reasonable, as that is just a stance, an assertion, a belief, etc. People obviously care about you and everyone that treats others poorly here, or else they wouldn't try to help you to step up the debate and discussion, or carry on at all. Or perhaps it is something else, I don't know. I can only control my own actions, though it can't be said I didn't try, and try hard.
My hope would be that this could one day become a place where true debate and discussion could be had, where people share ideas and the best ideas win but for legitimate merits, not because of tactics. That isn't how it works in reality, and truth stands no matter what anyway, no matter how much people get treated certain ways for expressing their ideas. If this isn't the case, its a big game and why do that? What would be the end result, what is the goal there? God still either actually exists or not, and no one then gets to REALLY discuss those ideas on their merits, not ever. Wasted time, in the truest sense. Only a "fake" version of what appears to be happening, would be happening, not actually discussing ideas rationally.
Mocking, laughing, and lying about others and their views, is something for people to engage in that don't care to really discuss the merits of ideas they may not like, nor a way to defend the beliefs they hold. So really its a game of wills, and how long people are willing to put up with it, and how long and tenacious those are the dish it out until people get banned or leave or succumb out of weakness. None of which showed the possible faults with their ideas. Succumbing in that case can look like a few different things.
So I am at the point of asking myself, do I want to discuss and debate with someone any longer, that truly has no intention on debating or discussing at all? There is no reason I can think of to do that, when the result is what I have seen again and again. It would be a form of insanity almost. Discussing with the ability to be in the wrong, but also being willing to acknowledge it when/if you are.
As for the children and illegitimate, those ideas were fleshed out and talked through. If you are basically telling me that anything I could say in these forums is suspect, because I believe in God w/out the "approved" qualifications (as we totally see,) then you are telling me that you don't care to discuss points at all. Its a prejudice against views in that case, if its the case.
If you are telling me that you don't care to really discuss points at all and that I have to take what you dish out to me like you did these last couple of days, then the ball is now in my court. What else would I do in this case? Change my views to stop the poor treatment? That isn't going to happen. Changing of views with people that care about truth, comes about by showing them how your views are the true view and better than the other views. Legitimately show, not by "beating them over the head" kind of showing and all the other tactics we see. Treating people like that can give you false results, and no lasting satisfaction for holding poor views that need defending in such ways. The ones that you "win over" won't be won over legitimately.
To answer your points, giving a mischaracterization of the god in question and then going after those points, fails. Not because I say so, like some insist works, but because it logically fails as a method. God can create humanity, and then also speak on what is going on spiritually in this case. Others pointed this out, and I thought you were paying attention to the discussion. Its a spiritual scenario, in that context, which we were discussing things in. Some are his children, and some very clearly were not. He showed how to become a child of God, and allowed for others to stick with their choice. Properly understanding what is being discussed is worth the time, but rejecting an idea because of a completely different point doesn't make sense as a response, esp then followed with the treatment.
You couldn't fault me for not taking what I think is the best option, all things considered, right? Patience and good arguments, and not giving back in kind has not yielded a positive response as of yet. (Not just with you, with some others too.) There may be someone that DOES truly want to discuss ideas, and test them all hard to see if they are good or bad ones, including my own of course. If I am too busy being called a liar when I haven't lied here (and more), I may miss out on a great conversation somewhere. I am sure you understand that.But - a god is not reasonable or rational. Especially one such as you propose which is not actually a father until you do something irrational like believing it exists without evidence.
What I suggest is that you NOT ask for reason and rationality in a response. God requires faith - not reason. Sorry. Doesn't the bible explain this to you?See, there wasn't even enough time to have read that. I admit it was long.
What you say there is a different debate. We weren't discussing it, and if we did, I don't think we would still be discussing it, because you just restate it. That is showing your view, that is all. Not showing why its a meritorious view. I have one of those, a view. I totally think it IS rational and reasonable, and it also requires faith. SO then we can begin the discussion on that, but yet we can't, and not because I am not willing to legitimately. We all already know you don't believe in God, and don't think that is rational at all, and worthy of mocking every single day. That isn't the problem, the knowing of that. The problem lies elsewhere. I posted a gigantic post explaining it there if you care to know why.
I don't think he exists without good reasons for thinking so. That idea is so outlandish to you, you seem to not be even willing to discuss those ideas, and I am not guessing there, it is what I have seen. If God is Spirit, or at least in part, then he DOES get to speak on the topic of spirituality, even if we don't approve. Its not illogical I mean. Its like being able to discuss a sub topic for the ideas within it, that is what some are doing here sometimes. Just the discussing of it isn't committing you to then believing in it or anything.
I can and will ask for reason and rationality in responses. We can know what is true about the world, by searching out what is logical, factual, reasonable, and rational. Don't ask me to not do that, or else you would be going against what you supposedly esteem. It should be more than easy for you to SHOW how a point in a discussion is unreasonable, irrational, etc. So please do it. That you can't and resort to this other stuff is evidence for my side, which I am sure you don't want.
There are verses definitely encouraging the using of our minds, testing things, as well as having faith. Its not just faith though, (though some here say so, and I know you like that very much.) and even Jesus didn't just say they needed faith, he showed them. Saying it is faith only, or that faith is only allowed (thus mockable), and that is what the scriptures teach actually isn't being true to the scriptures. It could be you are just sharing another belief of yours about my beliefs. If you just had faith in Jesus and died today, it would have been enough, if it happens to also be true. Many people that can't defend the idea one iota, could absolutely be on a right track and going to be with god when they die. If its true, that is how truth works.
Taking all the word is better in these cases than a verse or two that speak on faith. It can be done, but part of a picture doesn't show the whole picture. It also isn't fair when the whole picture is being judged on a small part. Its illogical and unreasonable.But god is not testable. Nothing "spiritual" is testable. You have no "good reasons" for believing a god that will punish those who don't believe in it exists. You have faith. Faith and logic and reason are polar opposites.
Of course - you could show me something testable regarding your beliefs and I will test it and see. Lets do that shall we? Tell you what - Show me something testable and we will test it together. Fair enough?I believe we should be able to test for God and we should be able to test for which is the correct version of God. These tests have been done and have proved that prayer statistically doesn't work.
Depends on what kind of prayer it is
Certain kinds of prayer are effective and have been shown -scientifically- to be so.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61046/I've supplied the links before, and I'll do it again if you will look at them subjectively.
I think you mean "objectively." And yes, I promise I will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/healt … l&_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on … ory_prayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer
Top three google links. But of course you may tell me God doesn't work that way.First article was interesting but it really didn't say anything that I didn't already know. There were, by its own admission, things that the study could not take into account.
Wikipedia article was interesting but again, mainly served to show not only the limitations of the studies that were done but also what seems to me to be the inherent limitations of such a study at all.
I think the 'Efficacy of Prayer' article stated it best:
My question to you would be (keeping in mind your previously administered 'test' of asking people to pray that God would tell them what street you, Rad Man, were on in 1980 and concluding that the lack of proper response (according to your expectations) was proof of God's non-existence) after reading these articles (and possibly others,) have you concluded that prayer never works? Sometimes works? Only works under certain conditions?What I find interesting is that prayer has not been found in any study, including religious studies like the Templeton study, to be any more effective than chance. If there was one religion - or even a particular denomination of that religion - where a bigger percentage or prayers were effective more often, it may appear differently. What would the implication be, for example, if there were no Mormons in hospitals, or at least a disproportionate number. That more Mormons were healed than any other group.
The Templeton study showed that people who were prayed for who knew they were being prayed for actually had more complications than the other groups. I found that interesting. Performance anxiety perhaps?Quite possibly. People of faith (no matter what faith they have) are no less susceptible to performance anxiety than non-believers. My questions to Rad were actually designed to further define the parameters of the discussion, not to be and end in themselves.
As I think I've said here (although I might not have) I know people were praying for my wife and though it made us feel better, she certainly she didn't survive. Nevertheless, there's a lot of things we don't know, some of which no study can show.If we are prayed for, but have no faith for healing, then the prayer is of no use. We are becoming a hardened country here in America, for example, so fewer and fewer healings will take place here. But the testimony given is that in countries where there is faith, those with the gifts of healing do see results.
Ba ha ha ha ha. So prayer is useless unless one has the power of healing?
No, prayer is useful if one has FAITH to be healed. Those with gifts of healing will be able to heal IF the person has FAITH.
The desired outcome will not always be the one that is to be. It is true that God heals in response to faith; but it is also true that our days are numbered and will come to an end. These do not contradict. It is best to have discernment and know what the Spirit wants us to pray.That is why we tend to go to doctors, instead, as the desired outcomes are far more likely to occur than faith based ju-ju.
Sorry all the studies have proved otherwise. If I were you I'd feel sad.
Rad Man, the studies cannot capture the sincerity of faith amongst the sick, nor the faith of those who pray for the sick, nor gifts of healing, nor the leading of the Spirit in what should be prayed for, nor God's will and plan, etc. The studies are so limited they are utterly meaningless.
When I was in college and my mother who I was very close to had an unexpected brain aneurism at the age of 54, and she was taken to the hospital, I did not sense I was to pray for her healing, but rather KNEW her time had come, and that it would be her preference anyway to go rather than to suffer or be disabled. My sisters and I did not have to be told by the doctors that she had been pronounced dead that very day; we knew exactly when her spirit had gone, and we told them she was gone before they told us.Does it not seem like cheating to say that whenever prayer doesn't work it is because the faith, either of the sick or the one praying, was weak? When you really have no idea if it was or not?
Because it absolutely looks that way to the outsider looking in - such declarations merely serve to reinforce that prayer does not heal any more than a voodoo curse works. And voodoo absolutely works - as long as the curse is not unreasonable AND the cursed knows of it and has faith in the witch doctor.
Prayer is thus much like the voodoo curse in that the mind can sometimes heal (or injure) the body. Convince the sick that prayer WILL work, show them that you are praying and they will sometimes heal. Remove any of those parts - the faith of the sick, the knowledge of the prayer and an illness the mind can cure - and the prayer will not work.See that's where you are wrong. Those numerous studies were designed to look for just what you described. But nothing has been found statistically.
BTW, Sorry to here about your mom. My mom had an aneurism when I was in college as well. It happened very fast, we had no time to pray, no one did. The doctors said she was lucky to make it to the hospital because only 1 or 2 percent of people get a sign (my mom had headaches and on eye closed). Then they said she has about a 3 percent chance of making it through the operation. She made it though.
I suspect you prayed, but wouldn't admit it afterwords as that lines up well with what I see of your character.Rad Man - The studies may be designed in the hopes of capturing that which cannot be captured, but without the Spirit, no person can determine the sincerity of faith, the will of God, the gifts of the Spirit and so on. Also, as I posted to JMcFarland, those with the most sincere faith just may be those not relying on medical aid at all, but relying solely on God, so that their healings are not even recorded by any medical tests, etc. It is little wonder nothing has been found statistically.
Thank you for your condolences about my mother; I know you were very sincere in making them. How awesome that your mother was one of the 3 percent to make it through the operation. What a reason to praise and glorify the God who gives life!
My overwhelming sense was that I was not to pray for her healing, and so my primary prayer replicated that of Jesus when he was in so much distress - Father, your will be done!Why the assumptions that no real Christians were used? Sorry some of the studies were done by real Christians to provide evidence that prayer works.
I was sincere, I am sorry for you loss. I did lose my mom a few years back and I still miss her today, so I do understand.
So you did pray.Rad Man, you ask, "Why the assumptions that no real Christians were used?" This is not the assumption at all. Faith is a gift of the Spirit (as is the gift of healing). Not all Christians have the same gifts; not all Christians have the same measure of faith. Jesus said, "According to your faith it will be done to you." (Matthew 9:29) So those in the study may well have been Christians, but not full of faith. Perhaps those most full of faith or with the gift of faith are less likely to seek medical treatment at all, and instead receive their healing from God, relying solely on him (their medical situations would not even be recorded). I am in no way trying to put down those Christians in the studies, or imply they were untrue. I am saying that there exist important factors such as the true measure of faith that cannot be measured with any certainty and are known only to the Spirit.
I am sorry for the loss of your mother, as well, Rad Man.
My prayers for my mother were never centered on her healing, but rather God's will being done, with the overwhelming sense that it was time for her to go to God.Are you sure you are being honest with yourself? It seems you did not understand or read about any of the experiments?
If life is as you say it is we would find no real Christians in any hospitals. Are you suggesting that no real Christians ever get sick and therefor if they do then they are not a real Christian?Rad Man - Again, not having the gifts of faith or healing does not imply a Christian is not a true Christian. All have different gifts. Those with the greatest faith are more likely to rely solely on God for their healing, rather than medical aid, and you will never see their account of healing documented.
This believer makes a beautiful observation - "How awesome that God chose a doctor to write the book of Acts where men healed the sick by the power of God (Acts 1:8) and not one mention about doctors and medicines." (Wiki Answers)Yeah, I have cancer. Wasn't caused by my sins. Believe in God. Pretty thankful that he gave me an experienced surgeon to remove it. Kinda think he would like me to go to the surgeon rather than dying a horrible slow agonizing death while ignoring the people he put on earth to fix such things.
That's how my faith heals me.
Or conversely, I could just pray to God while he sits in heaven saying "I put that Doctor's office RIGHT THERE...are you blind?"Melissa, that is wonderful that your cancer was removed! God is awesome! I am not meaning to imply that we are forbidden from going to doctors, only that those with the greatest faith may be missed altogether in the studies if they solely relied on God and not medical treatment, thus their miraculous stories would not be documented in medical records. According to our faith it is done to us. I don't consider myself to have the spiritual gift of faith and I go to doctors much of the time (once overcoming my fear of them). But I am open to the possibility of faith being increased in me, and having faith for healing apart from medical intervention. I'm also open to the possibility of the gift of healing being given, but thus far my experience with supernatural healings have been only personal and have not extended from me to others through the Spirit. What an awesome privilege that would be! I guess I will see what God has in store. It's not for me to decide. But we are encouraged to desire the greater gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31) and perhaps our desire for the gifts will move our heavenly Father in the direction of bestowing those gifts upon us.
You still haven't read the studies. The sic were not the ones praying. Others like you and those claiming to have the gift were asked to pray. Nothing happened of course.
Yet the FAITH of the sick is often key to the effectiveness of the prayer. Jesus himself, it is written, did not perform many miracles in his hometown because of their lack of faith, which limited even the Healer of all healers!
Anyway, I don't know that I have the gift of healing. So my prayer might not be the one a sick person would want. Ideally the one praying would possess both faith and the gift of healing. These are spiritual matters and powers I think we believers have just barely tapped into. But I can say I am hungry for more in this area, so who knows but God...
It hasn't been removed yet.
Regardless of gifts and spirit... we are now back at the first point (in this thread) that you accused me of attacking Christianity, Christ, God, you, bubble gum and the American way.
And back to the responsibility that comes with the harm that Christianity can do. If you imply that if someone has the "gift of faith" and can be healed all on their own... and they don't go to a doctor and die. Then Christianity is the cause of that (Or more precisely, people spreading that idea are the cause of that).
Don't you think that might need to be addressed? Do you not think that, in that instance, that Christianity would be basically guilty of medical neglect?I am sorry to hear about your cancer, Melissa, and I sincerely hope all turns out well for you. You have my deepest concern and my compassion in all honesty here.
I've never told anyone NOT to go to a doctor. Nevertheless, when we are examining the meaningfulness and the lack of evidence in studies on faith healings, we need to consider that the most faith-based healings probably never involved any doctors or medical records at all.
I do actually appreciate that you and Rad Man have not twisted my words this time, but have rather cautioned me in what is an appropriate manner. Thank you both.No, but when you were talking about demons and Children, you didn't exactly tell them to take them to a psychologist. That omission gets people killed. THAT was what I was saying... if you are going to spout verses like that from the Bible, you have to take responsibility for what happens if people actually LISTEN to you.
Christianity is responsible for those deaths... for all the deaths that were caused because of those verses. Christianity needs to own up to that and do something to stop it.
Which is exactly what I said before YOU twisted my words and told me I was attacking God.Melissa, you say, "Christianity is responsible for those deaths... for all the deaths that were caused because of those verses." So you would have us edit out Jesus' own words? Here you are in fact "blaming" the verses.
I wasn't even really speaking of demons and children, but rather the healing of people based on faith. I used the word of God to make the point.
I'm guessing we all know the story about the parents that wanted to believe God for the healing of their baby so they didn't take the baby to get medical treatment for a disease that medicine could've saved it from. That was in 2009. Well it happened again last year to another one of their boys.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 … 38001.html
Not to be rude but far to many children because the parents think they can heal a sic child with prayer only. Giving people that idea is dangerous and irresponsible and causes death. Please be responsible.
How do you distinguish between the voice of the Spirit and your own instincts and subconscious thoughts?
Just as "the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16), so also it is the Spirit himself who reaffirms to our spirit when he is speaking to us and who "guides us into all truth" (John 16:13). Those who have the Spirit inside them (that is, all true believers - See Romans 8:9) are admonished to follow the lead of the Spirit, rather than their own desires and tendencies (the "flesh"). Still in our earthly sinful bodies, however, we sometimes fail to follow the lead of the Spirit and may act out of the flesh to greater or lesser degrees (See Romans 7). The Spirit will continue to work on us, so that those born of the Spirit cannot continue in their sin (1 John 3:9). When we are baptized in the Spirit (this is distinct from the water baptism, also referred to as "John's baptism"; See Acts 19:2-4), we will have powers and gifts not previously possessed (even not possessed as a true Christian with the Holy Spirit inside of us), such as the greater understanding and revelation of God's words, the ability to speak boldly, great faith, healing powers and so on (the Spirit will manifest differently in different believers depending on their particular gifts, but it is all the working of the same Spirit - See 1 Corinthians 12, for example).
That did not at all answer my question. Try again.
Sounds rather zombi like. Is that what you think God wants? Zombi's not able to think for themselves? I should inform you that that spirit that you follow is simply your super ego attempting to control the ego. That's why the spirit can give you any information that your mind doesn't already have. You are in effect a slave to your super ego and unaware of it. You conscious mind is being tricked, you have no super powers, that's getting embarrassing. Time to allow your conscious mind to do a reality check, or demonstrate your super power.
When people pray very specifically, and are then "cured", its not strange for them to think that it was God over pure chance that they got healed. It depends on where people set their "skepticism bar." Even Jesus saw firsthand, that it wasn't about absolutely proving to eyewitnesses. Some have the bar set so high, and then get the desired results I think.
It would be strange considering that people who never pray are also "cured". If people flapped their arms, clucked like a chicken and the next day were cured of their ailments, would they believe it to be result of being a chicken thespian?
Praying is just like wishing on a star.
There's a bar setting for skepticism? I would think one would be either skeptic or not. You either accept magical answers or you question them.Just because I think prayer can change things, doesn't mean that I think all people cured are the result of a prayer or some other such things.
Yes, there is a bar setting of skepticism, lol. You can observe it in people and especially in groups like these everywhere. We are all skeptics to a degree. I am referring to what we don't want to be true, or don't want to even remotely possibly accept to be true, and then setting the bar so high on those things that no amount could ever suffice. But when they are dealing with something else, they set their bar of skepticism not so high, that you can tell they don't obviously do it consistently with all things. We can all do it too, when and if we do.
We have all seen or heard of bosses or teachers or parents that set a bar so high that a person can never achieve success or acceptance, etc. in their eyes. If they did amazingly well, sometimes it just never is enough, but not because it should be that way. Its not the fault of the person that is trying to reach the bar, or whatever. People are totally capable of setting bars too high for all kinds of things. i am convinced they might be some of the most miserable people on the planet, though it might appear they just make things miserable for others.Why would you even consider to think that prayer does anything at all?
But, that's exactly what you and most other believers do and it isn't even remotely relevant to a skeptic. You don't want facts and evidence to be true, you want you're religious beliefs to be true.
A Skeptic is a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual, they don't just swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Speak for yourself.
You're just rambling, now.
I much prefer your perspective to Cat's. Yours seem to be at the very least an honest approach.
I am glad you liked my perspective Radman, thank you for that. I will enjoy it while it lasts, lol.
That's what the critics say "well how can we study wether prayer works as prayer is not in the realm of science", but the faithful seem to want to use science to prove the validity of faith, why not the other way around?
From these studies we can conclude that not only does prayer not work it can harm, but I think that simply statistical anomalies. Other studies have show prayer to work at the same level as a placebo. Take three groups in a hospital tell two groups people are paying for them, one groups gets prayed for the other just thinks they are and the other gets nothing. The two groups that think they got prayed for faired the same, slightly better than the control group.I'm not so sure that, in large-scale, the faithful so much want to use science to prove faith as they do to prove that things chronicled in the Bible actually occurred. This is a point of real contention. Interesting aside, it was once pointed out to me how often people rely on biblical archeologists when pointing to proof that such and such an event happened. The point this person missed is that there are no anti-biblical archeologists (that I know of) specifically digging for proof that these things don't occur.
But back to the original point. I'm aware this is a bit of a fine distinction and the two things are actually related, and also that it works both ways. Pottery is found listing "YHWH and his Astoreth" and anti-biblical scholars say, "See! Ancient Israelites were polytheists, not monotheists!" to which people who have actually read the Bible say, "Um, this actually supports what is written in the Bible, if you'd bother to read it."
I would have always been skeptical of the ability of a study to prove the efficacy of prayer. By their nature, what they don't quantify are things like a) the faith of the one giving the prayer, b) the faith of the one for whom the prayer is given, and c) the actual mind of God.
Seem pretty obvious prayer doesn't work at all, considering the tens of thousands of innocent children who die every day.
Or, are you of the mind that God does indeed answer prayers? How does that work and has it been working for you personally?I wonder if there is an assumption that might be going on, that if prayer works and people pray for things, then all prayers would be answered as prayed? In case that assumption is going on, on what basis is it being made?
Jesus prayed at the end for something that didn't happen. Something ultimately greater happened though in that scenario. He knew his Father enough to trust him when it was hardest of all to do. It paid off to have done so, in a huge way and for forever.Yes, there is an assumption that prayer works, the assumption is based on delusion.
Oh yes, mankind has been ever so grateful for Christianity.
You think I trust you?
Nevertheless, it's been working out in some ways well lately. The one real "disappointment" is that my wife did not survive the cancer. I'm still in my house, the kids are still together, we still have food, the vehicle works well, and none of this would have been possible without answered prayers.Well of course you and your family are more important than the children ED is referring to? Surely it's more important that your prayers were answered? Or is it just more likely that you live in a place where your "needs" are more likely to be met? Is it your conclusion that if they are met, then it must be God?
Someone can pray for starving children all day, no mana's coming from the sky and they will still die if other people don't go over there and feed them. Those are actual needs. Food to sustain life. Not keeping a motor vehicle for you to get around in in this lavish country. If he let's the babies be born, why not provide them with what they actually need to survive? Why are you and your family more important than them? I mean you no offense, but this is the kind of stuff that really gets to me.If you want to have that discussion then I'm game. I answered ED's specific question. If there were strings attached, he/she didn't specify.
If the question is, "How has answered prayer been working for you lately?" (asked with a sneer) the answer is what I have given.
If the question is, "Do you think God actually answers prayer?" the answer is yes.
If the question is "Why do you so selfishly think your family is more important than any other human being that suffers and dies" (a not unreasonable interpretation of your statement) then ask me that question and I will answer it straight up and to your face.
If it's a different one, then ask me that one.I did ask. Why are you and your family more important than them? If He answered your prayers, He consciously made an effort to help you and your family, no? Why would answering those prayers be more important than those of parents with dying children too ignorant or unable to stop having children (unable to stop if the women are being raped and there's no contraception or their religion doesn't believe in contraception)?
You should be hungry nearly every day for a year, you and you children, on purpose. And then I wonder what your opinion would be on the matter?
If prayer works, why wouldn't it work for things that are really important? If God will only do His will anyway, does prayer really "work" or is it simply a mechanism of making you feel better along with the free will illusion?A Thousand Words - Did you really say to Chris Neal so heartlessly, "You should be hungry nearly every day for a year, you and you children, on purpose. And then I wonder what your opinion would be on the matter?" And this to a man who has suffered and lost his wife?
Chris Neal has suffered a great loss, and yet he continues to bring glory to God, praising him for what God has bestowed on him. Chris will receive his reward in full. You are only making his reward greater with your comments.
We have so much, WE THE PEOPLE are told to go and FEED THE CHILDREN! So enough with the talk, let's do it!!Yes, I told him to choose to be hungry on purpose. Did I tell him that I hope he starves? No. Have I ever talked down to him about what he's been through? Nope. Don't interject yourself into a conversation you don't understand. Me and Chris have been conversing way longer than I've even seen you in these forums, so cry persecution somewhere else.
To be completely honest, I often think about The Straight Path and the Narrow Gate. Many who think they will be rewarded for their service, and many who didn't think they will do. We can never be completely comfortable in that. I don't like to receive earthly praise. At least not for anything I do "for God."
I will say the first thing that jumps out at me is, "Dead wife, autistic children, need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. These things are not important. Got it."
However, after calming down, I reread the post. Still there, but maybe not quite what you meant. First of all, we don't know that it never works. We can't know the mind of God. Some people are helped and others aren't, and they're not always helped in ways that we would tend to think of when we think of "prayer working."
So, quantity is what counts? (I'm sorry, but this came out several ways.) Only if I were starving, displaced and homeless for a long period and then God miraculously came through, only then could I really say that prayer works? Unless and until that happens, I got nothing to say and my family is actually not that important? Forgive me, but it's hard not to read this into your post.
I do think that sometimes prayer is more of a mechanism for helping people to feel better, and frankly I don't think we should discount that. But sometimes God does answer prayer, and sometimes He even answers it the way we hope He will. Sometimes His will is to decide to do as we ask. Jesus told us to pray without ceasing for exactly that reason.For this phrase to be used so often absolutely amazes me.
Nope, that's not quite what I was saying. What I was saying was for you to do this to see the level of suffering from a fraction of the suffering that people without prayers answered go through constantly. When you're losing your cognitive function from malnutrition and hoping for a prayer for something as simple as food to come that is never answered, and you're a mother constantly watching your children die, or worse you're one of the children that die and are constantly reminded of their hunger. But you, Chris, suffer in a lavish country where if you went on the right social media site and told people of your woes, your needs would be met in a flash, no prayer needed. That is the point. We always hear about prayers answered for people who's overall needs are less and have higher access to resources, vs people's who's death is imminent and resources are little that still die. Every. Single. Day. It's just ludicrous to me.
Would God answer a prayer for something outside of His will? As a calvinist, do you believe that things can happen outside of His will? If they cannot, prayers being answered is an illusion because if He wants it to happen, it will, anyway. Prayer without ceasing keeps you brainwashed. When I stopped, my method of thinking changed, along with a lot of things, "good" and "bad."Many lives are saved even in the most impoverished of countries; many prayers are answered. Ask those who've been helped by the loving hands of believers, and they will tell you their prayers have been answered! We are the body...
Yes, tell that to the thousands who die every day. Because they're the ones I'm talking about.
edit: And you're right, we are the "body," because prayer doesn't feed people, people feed people. That's the whole point.Thank you! You have two hands, you can either use them wring in prayer or you can use them to actually make a difference.
I apologize for misunderstanding you, I hope I understand you correctly now.
I'll cut to the chase, as a Calvinist I do indeed believe that nothing happens outside the will of God. However, to say that " prayers being answered is an illusion because if He wants it to happen, it will, anyway." is not the best statement of the case because, as far as I know, there is nothing in Calvinism which contradicts Jesus' parable of the Persistent Widow. I don't believe that God always answers the prayers of anyone the way they want, but on the other hand I don't believe that He never answers them the way people want. Your logic really escapes me because it assumes an absolute situation when nuance has plainly been indicated.
I'll tell you, although it's absolutely true that here in the US (and in the west in general) it's much more possible to find help, it's also not an absolute.
And here's something I've said before: I don't understand why some of these horrible things happen. I don't like them. And I try not to turn a blind eye or put on rose colored glasses. It is often Christian groups that respond to these tragedies (and I'm not singling out ones with a conservative bias, many liberally oriented Christian groups also respond.) Often they're small and fly under the radar. Sometimes it's as small as a group of Menonites who go to a place and help build houses. I'm not saying that no secular NGO's ever go in, of course they do. Medecines sans Frontiers, I don't think, is a Christian group. But prayer can be answered (and not answered) in a thousand different ways.That's why answered and not answered prayers cannot be distinguished from pure happenstance, nature and probability.
To say that a prayer was answered or not answered is equivalent to the childish fantasy of wishing on a star.EDead, I abbreviated your pen name easier to type. I hope you do not mind. I have a question for you. Do you have hope? Do you beleive in hope or is that a childish fantasy as well to you. I can not help but notice how much you seem to deplore the Christian. It is truly a shame. Really we care about you because we are talking eternal life. Jesus wants none to perish and we are His hands and feet. We too were once lost than found. What if us children of God are right and life does not end here? Our bodies go to the dust but our souls go onto eternity when we die. Our souls meaning mind, personality and spirit. Eternal life goes on, forever. The minute we die from this ol body we will pass on to eternity. Anyway I am just curious on the hope thing. You can not see hope and you can not see faith. How could one live without hope in something other than himself? In heartfelt sincerity. Skye
Pascals wager does not work, skye. No atheist or even skeptic is going to buy a "just in case youre right" argument. Even if they did, wouldnt an all knowing, all powerful god be able to tell who's believing in him on the off chance that he may be real and someone who is genuinely sincere? I dont see you all that concerned about the possibiliy of other gods (and their versions of eternity) being correct. By using pascals wager, you're implying by your own reasoning that you should hedge yiur bets and believe in them all.
I havr plenty of hope. I actively work to bring my hopes to fruition. No god required.If your hope is only for this momentary life, what hope is that?
"For what hope do the godless have when God cuts them off and takes away their life?" Job 27:8Who are you to tell me what my hope is our how important it may be? One again, you know nothing about me, and it doesn't appear that your spirit does either.
If you think I somehow care that your book says something in particular about the hope of a non believer, you're sadly mistaken. I'm also not inclined to take anything a self professed prophet has to say, since the Bible warns about those who make titles for themselves and lead others astray. A true prophet wouldn't have to announce that they were a prophet at all, in an attempt to somehow either cow others or gain earthly respect. Neither has worked.I am nothing apart from God and my opinions count for nothing. But the truth from the word of God stands.
Many believers who come to the forums have the spiritual gifts of prophecy or wisdom (far more than the few I mentioned). Otherwise we are acting as those who just throw around our opinions. If we speak our own words, then do not believe us, but if we speak the words of God (which you can verify for yourself in the scriptures), then we speak truth.
You have the choice to either accept or reject the truth that comes from the word and the Spirit.
JM You make no sense to me. You can not understand without the Spirit of God in you, who points you to Jesus. You have decided in your heart to not beleive. May God help you jm. One day every knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus is Lord. How could one not see God in creation? Hello? There is proof in His existance. There is no excuse to not beleive. Come on jm the rainbows, sky, rain, sun, stars, moon, mountains, desert, sunset, sunrise, waterfalls, fowers, trees, and sun not to mention all of the animals.And you do not see God? Please do not cry I am picking on you. I am sharing the truth jm. My oh my your heart is hardened, jm. May God help you. Out of here. I am clanging cymbals. You want me to argue there is a God. There is Almighty God creator of the universe. Those that do not see are blinded. Those that have hope in themselves are full of me self and I. God is for you when you love Him If you choose to ignore Him He does allow you to die in your iniquities. I hope you have a wonderful day jm.
Thanks for understanding that I don't want to be evangelized to and respecting my wishes. I'm sorry you don't understand me or where I'm coming from or think that more proselytizing is the way to understand someone, and it stinks that would make you think my heart is hardened. I certainly wouldn't say that to a fellow human being, since it's impossible for me to see into another persons heart. You have a good day.
Pascals wager does not work, skye. No atheist or even skeptic is going to buy a "just in case youre right" argument. Even if they did, wouldnt an all knowing, all powerful god be able to tell who's believing in him on the off chance that he may be real and someone who is genuinely sincere? I dont see you all that concerned about the possibiliy of other gods (and their versions of eternity) being correct. By using pascals wager, you're implying by your own reasoning that you should hedge yiur bets and believe in them all.
I havr plenty of hope. I actively work to bring my hopes to fruition. No god required.Sky, I understand your post was not directed at me, but I was left with a question after reading your post.
Is the hope for an afterlife the only hope you have? What you seemed to say sounds like without that hope for an afterlife you have nothing. I sure HOPE that's not the case. There, that's another hope I have, that you have more to live for than an afterlife.Our primary hope, Rad Man, is for the afterlife.
I am not speaking for all Christians, but this is how it is for me:
When I was in school and was bored out of my mind and wanted to be outside in the nature I loved, I stared longingly out the window, awaiting my freedom from the place I was forced to be (school) and the place I desired to be (nature). So it is in many ways here in this often difficult earth where we labor and have many troubles and are separated from the full presence of the Lord (though we at least have the Spirit to "hold us" until that time) - I stare longingly out the window of earth toward "the new earth and new heavens", eagerly awaiting that far better place I will soon be going for eternity.
"And you are looking forward to the joys of heaven..." Colossians 1:5
Of course, it is a trait most all humans possess.
Hoping is not useful in that it doesn't really accomplish anything. We can hope for all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they'll happen. It takes engagement, motivation, energy and resources, just to name a few, that make things happen.
That is where you're wrong, I have nothing against people. It's truly a shame that you think so.
Eternal life is a childish fantasy, just like praying.
No, we are not Jesus' hands and feet, we are human beings.
I was never lost, so please speak for yourself.
It is very highly unlikely that you are right, especially since there is no way for anyone to know.
Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist. We are gone when we die. Deal with it.
Sorry, but you can't possibly know that, so your statement is meaningless.
The real question is how can someone live in a bubbled fantasy world they have created for themselves, denying and rejecting reality at every turn and then being forced to deal with reality, notwithstanding?EDead thanks for reply on hope I was curious. Do you not hope that the chidren get fed or your neighbor gets healthy ( scenario) or that you grow in knowledge, or hope your family have a nice day? Do you hope that when you die you disapate away into star dust or the likes? Do you hope the pay check arrives in the mail? (scenario) .
As far as you deploring the beleiver you come off like you do many times. You say we are foolish and live in child hood fatasy by beleiving in prayer. You also say prayer is like wishing upon a star. Did you ever wish upon a star. They were created by God but they are not God. They no more answer prayer than a door knob but we sure see the evedence of Almighty God in His wonderous creation!! It is ok to have wishes but God hears prayers and knows our wishes. He knows our hearts. Prayer is a gift from God.
Anyway enough said. Coming over to the forum is similar to clanging symbals in a room. How can one hear if they have not heard the gospel and care not too. Your words do come off many times as bitter. Bitter that we Christians do care and have hope in something we can not see. Faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13)
Your pen name is way different. I know ithat encephaloil is a medical term in relation to the brain and a brain injury. No pun intended encephaloiDead. Your pen name could have no relevence or meaning to you. There are some crazy pen names out there. Does a name matter in context no I suppose not but our names do point tou us.
I do speak for the true Christian we are the feet and hands for Christ. It is our commission and we are honored to do so. We were lost and now saved from our sin. Made righteous before God who will judge our works one day. If not forgiven we will face judgement. I was not speaking for you E Dead. I know you do not beleive. You have made that loud and clear statement.
You have a wonderful day. I still pray for you E Dead. There is hope until there is none.
No need to apologize. I wasn't clear enough from the get go.
If a prayer that lands outside of His will would not be answered, as nothing can happen outside of His will, where's the nuance? If He wants to do something, He will. If He doesn't He won't. If it's not in His will, you can pray all day. Doesn't matter. If it is in His will, and it works according to His mysterious plans, He'll do it, and you won't really know if asking did anything because I think there's a scripture about him know what you need before you ask. Of course, it says you should ask. Imagine if no one ever prayed, the religion would lose footing quickly.
It's not an absolute Chris, you're right. But it's much, much more likely, and the sadder the story, the better.
(I do hope that in no way that you feel I've trivialized or attempted to trivialize your suffering. That was never my intent.)
There a number of non-Christian organizations that help people. But those are people helping people. And it hasn't gotten to a point where there aren't still thousands upon thousands dying every day, or thousands of little girls being raped. But it's people that are helping them, Chris. People. Because where there are no people to help, they die. They suffer. That is why we're not all that convinced. Surely a girl being raped constantly, God knows the want of her heart even if she can't/doesn't ask it. Why bother with answering prayers of vanity when simple things like saving these girls should be top priority? But the rapes continue. And some of those girls die in it. That is the ugly truth.I hope you realize that you have not actually contradicted me. People helping people. Yes. Exactly. In fact, this is what God expects of us and tells us we need to do. So in that respect, then yes, it is one of the ways that God helps people, by using people. People who are helping people. Even non-Christian people.
I can barely stand the thought of any human in hell, but the child pimps/rapists are probably the easiest for me to stomach having such a fate. The devil's days are short; his torments are coming to an end! Come, Lord Jesus, come and put an end to all the suffering! Amen!
I think one thing I've been saying is that I don't believe God to be in the business of answering prayers of vanity.
I can't find it but let me reassure you I didn't think you were denigrating my pain, btw.So do you actively stand against believers who claim incessantly that god keeps them skinny despite binge eating because they've prayed to retain their figure, or the ones that insist that god is their personal travel agents because they really REALLY needed a vacation?
Also, just out of curiosity, what is your biblical definition of a prophet?To be completely honest, I've never encountered people like that. But yes, I don't hold with that. That's also one of the reasons I no longer watch 'Christian' tv channels.
As for your second question, I'll admit I haven't thought about that for some time. My 'biblical' definition would be someone like Elijah or Elisha, someone who actively heard the voice of God. I know that a lot of people claim to be prophets, but I tend to be skeptical of that. I do believe that many people have "heard" God at some point in their lives. I've related the stories about my wife before but neither she nor I considered her a prophet.
How do you know? Did you try it without prayers as a control group? If so, how do you know that no one's praying on the sly? How do you make such a bold assertion that it wouldn't have been possible without answered prayer like it's concrete fact, when it's just your opinion.
Rad Man, meet Julie. Julie, meet Rad Man. Here's why I say the things I say about studies not being good indicators of the efficacy of prayer.
Nevertheless, although this is admittedly subjective, I do know when the Spirit moves. And He doesn't do it for every little thing. These things were all pretty major and at some points seemed about to unravel.
Man, I sure do hope other people are praying for me. That's one thing I never can get enough of.I asked you a question Chris. A real question. I know who Rad is. We're friends. We're not the same person. We've been through the sarcasm and insults before, and I'm not interested. Drop the defensiveness and have a conversion, or not and I'll walk away. We're adults.
Thinking you know when the spirit moves is little different from thinking I may have gas. It's non demonstrable. It's Un testable. It's Unprovable, and you admitted it was subjective. What else do you have?
You're choosing to believe that god had answered prayers for your family, and you say it like it's fact when you know no such thing. So although you denounce the "God is my travel agent and diet coach" mind set, how ate you any different? How can you say with any degree of certainty that none of those things were possible otherwise, which justifies your argument from ignorance. "I don't know how it happened. I wouldn't be giving prayer the credit if I had worked myself to make it happen. Therefore God. "Where did THAT come from? I was not being sarcastic or defensive, and I don't think that you and Rad are the same person. I was simply pointing out that even an atheist can show reasons why we don't always know why, or how, prayer works and the inability to quantify it in a study is not a good reason to decide it never works.
Sorry. Seriously.I'm sorry. I have been met with a lot of anger, hatred and bashing and biblically beaten on the head lately, and I perceived your tone incorrectly and was too quick to jump. You didn't deserve that. I thought you were trying to be a smart ass
It's okay.
Besides, I never TRY to be a smart-assThe advice you gave me, JMcFarland, was to not equate disagreement as hatred or bashing, and not to claim persecution. It seems reasonable to offer yourself the same advice here.
Did I say it was from this forum or from you? No. No I did not.
Projecting is never an attractive trait. Maybe it should be stopped.
I did answer your question straight up and I stand by it. I'm sorry you don't like it but that's my answer. I admitted that it's subjective. Tied in to several statements I've made recently and also in the past, the Holy Spirit is indeed something that I can know. I can't prove it to you, there is not test for it, but He is there nonetheless.
I've said before, and I will say again, that actually experiencing the Spirit puts you in a different place than even many believers, even many Evangelicals and other conservative Christians groups who profess a belief in the Spirit. I can well remember standing up in church and giving my testimony for the experience, and even getting excited simply thinking about it again, and the extremely tepid response it received in an Evangelical church, and the funny looks I received from people who I knew to be faithful members of the congregation because they had obviously never experienced it.
It's not something that I've experienced often and it's certainly not something I can produce on demand. I don't hold with the Pentacostals who think it can be produced at the drop of a hat. But it is an experience I've had more than once, and I do recognize the movement of God in my life.
This is a straight answer and I'm more than willing to have a conversation.
The believer has only their magical powers to "know" things, and we are not worthy of such magical powers. Kindergarten mentality.
Attention?True, you do seek attention. And you generally get it, too. So I guess your need gets satisfied there.
That's the thing about statistics Chis, if you have a large enough sampling it will show if there are anomalies.
You get no argument from me. I'm no statistician but I find them quite fascinating. But one thing I have learned is that statistics often lie.
Deleted
Dude. That's not cool. Kinda wrong to suggest that his prayers for his wife didn't take priority...these are things that happened after that situation. You know that we rarely have issues of major importance, but that was sorta cold.
Did he actually say that to me? I often don't read his stuff.
I think that might have gone a bit too far ED. If you can't prove a point without bring up a tragic loss, maybe that point doesn't need proven.
It sure looked like Cris brought it up first, and to prove a point, as well.
You misread what I wrote.
If you honestly read that as my putting my vehicle before my dying wife, that is sooooo your problem.
And I mean that sincerely.Yes, a thousand pardons o great one, I stepped over the line with that analogy.
My bad.Agreed.
And, ED, I think it was big of you also to offer an apology.It takes courage to apologize, Encephaloidead; you acted courageously.
Motown2Chitown, I just want you to know that in truth I think you're a darling woman with the gift of compassion and love. And the gift of love is greater than all others!
Hey, he called me 'Oh Great One.' It may have been a bit of sarcasm, but he said it. Or she.
To be fair Chris admitted to praying for his wife and not getting his prayers answered. Cat on the other hand said she didn't pray for her mothers at all and then when pressed admitted that she pray for God to take her. Chris is being honest in this case therefore doesn't need the rhetoric.
Rad Man - My sense from the Spirit was that it was my mother's time to go home to the Lord, and so rather than focusing on prayers for healing, I prayed in a very difficult time that God's "will be done". I was honest about this at all times. Your statement that I prayed for God to "take her" is an outright falsehood against me. It's wearisome when people, especially you and two others specifically, attempt to twist my words or make false accusations.
It's just that I don't believe you. It seems to me that afterwords it's easy to say you didn't pray for the recovery of your mom. I think it's dishonest.
That's pretty unfair there, rad man. It isn't unreasonable to assume that someone would honestly want what was best, in the long run, to happen. Not everyone is ignorant enough to think a recovery is possible.
Since her claim is not unreasonable; why assume she is lying?My mom recovered fully from her aneurism. Only had a 3% chance of survival. Isn't it reasonable that people pray for their loved ones survival? Just lost my cousins 7 year old a few months ago. He had slim odds but everyone prayed for his recovery, I don't recall anyone praying for the lord to take him.
A kid is different. I didn't read your whole conversation on the mother of the other hubber; but I can tell you when my Dad was sick, I desperately wanted him to live. But, I did know that a large part of that was selfish desire. I wasn't taking into account the quality of his life. I wasn't taking into account the pain he was going through. I was taking into account the fact that I didn't want to lose my father.
But.....I did want what was best to be the outcome. I do believe that what was best was the outcome. The best for my Dad. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that if someone prayed, that is what they would pray for. That is actually a more compassionate prayer, imo.My condolences to the family regarding your cousin's child, Rad Man. I pray God gives them comfort in such a difficult time.
Likewise, I did not pray that God "take" my mother, as my flesh very much wanted her around and as I knew how much I would miss her. As I've made clear, it was instead that I prayed that God's will be done, as I knew his will would be best, and as I did not feel led to pray for her healing, but rather had the sense that it was her time to go home.
"Dishonest", Rad Man, is saying someone prayed that God take their mother when in fact they prayed that God's will be done. I have not lied to you here or at any point on these forums. I have no way to "prove" this to you, and since you look to disbelieve, in the end that is what you do.
Well what does the sprit tell you about Dr Lamb? You seem convinced it's a sock puppet. Who is it?
Before we start that discussion, can we end this other one? The one where there was the idea of a parent favoring someone elses child more or as much as their own child, especially when it defies their rules? We can discuss the reasonableness or rational nature of that idea. (I hope?)
This matters because it is part of my greater concern here. It is a test of sorts to see if we can really discuss a simple subject on its simple merits or lack of, reasonably. Its not a trick, it is someone's thoughts on something. If we can't discuss it rationally, then other things are tripping us up again. Its not a bait and switch or anything, if that is the concern. Then I can give my response to the other point, and I will.I already explained that comparing the Creator of Everything to a parent who is favoring its own child over another is a poor comparison. Either we are all gods children or none of us are.
The rule being "defied" is believing in it with no good reason. This is a ridiculous rule in and of itself, but to make the claim that just by believing over not believing - you get eternal bliss vs eternal pain for not believing is plainly unreasonable. I honestly don't know many people that would disown one of their children and then cause them eternal pain - do you?
Clearly - because you claim to believe you feel you win this particular test and will get the eternal bliss - I already know you think this is acceptable behavior. I do not. I think it is both unreasonable and irrational. And - honestly - it is one of the many reasons I rejected this irrational belief system in the first place. Self righteous believers claiming they get the bliss and I get the fire. I know, I know - it is indeed a biblical claim. Personally I find it disgusting that a parent would disown one of its children and punish them in this fashion and am rather shocked that so many of you will worship such a thing.
Now - show me these things we can test for. Think of it as a test to see if my initial assessment was correct.Yet again you show how Biblically illiterate you are. It must be a gift, to miss the mark, Mark, so often.
Hi dj. I'm curios why you call him biblically illiterate. His whole argument is in line with most Christian thinking. I know those who claim (as you probably do) that thinking all humanity is equal in the eyes of a Creator is watering down the message to make it more palatable; but is it?
The message Jesus shared was radical. For its time. I'm sure he was faced with similar arguments from the staunchly entrenched religious of his time. Yet, it made sense at that point in the development of humanity. Had his message been something humanity could have accepted; from the beginning of, don't you think it might have been shared? What was the point of everything leading up to his message? I don't see anything valid except to show that those who wished to be special in the eyes of a God only brought pain and misery onto themselves by wanting it.
Christianity has slowly evolved into tens of thousands of sects. Each one using the Bible to attempt to understand God's message. Each and every professed Christian and each and every person who reads the Bible....honestly, each and every person who seeks to understand God, by any means, has a valid opinion on the matter. Biblically illiterate is not an accusation which supports a valid argument.
'Seek and you shall find.' Right? You probably think that our reality is all the evidence one needs of God. So, those who seek a better understanding of reality also have a valid opinion on the matter because the promise was made. 'Seek and you shall find.'
If the spirit exists within our world the Bible is superfluous. If God exists he didn't put himself in a position to reside solely in a book. And closing your eyes to reality, in order to hide in a book (to the detriment of the spiritual well being of others), isn't something an all powerful entity would choose to do. Nor, would it expect you to.
"I already explained that comparing the Creator of Everything to a parent who is favoring its own child over another is a poor comparison. Either we are all gods children or none of us are."
That is a point of view, and Dent had a point of view. What you say there is probably fair, but doesn't address his point as a point in itself. It changes the point to a new point then rejects the new one. It adds in opinion and new information. The key there I think is that Jesus is allowed to speak as he did on the matters of parents and children, and it applies on some level, and it doesn't on others. Someone aptly brought up that Jesus was speaking of spiritual fathers of children. Not as creator of the universe kind of father over the children. Its not to get overly technical, its that these details matter. It is why I posted that long scripture, Jesus wasn't denying that God created everyone when he spoke of some being belonging to God or to the devil. It was even in response to them talking about human fathers like their patriarch Abraham.
"The rule being "defied" is believing in it with no good reason. This is a ridiculous rule in and of itself, but to make the claim that just by believing over not believing - you get eternal bliss vs eternal pain for not believing is plainly unreasonable. I honestly don't know many people that would disown one of their children and then cause them eternal pain - do you?"
We each have a view on whether or not belief in God is reasonable over being unreasonable. That is where those points end though, and those facts sit in their own "compartment" so to speak, if that helps here. (Bear with me....) We each offer up an opposing opinion on the matter, and one doesn't get automatic points for the sharing of said opinion, not for that reason. If you keep insisting on it, then that is just that, insisting your opinion is right. Where it matters and COUNTS, is in the point by point matters. In the discussing each point that leads us each to our conclusions. That is what has happened anyway with you and me. You can give some pretty good reasons I imagine for holding your views, and I give mine. When we talk about those things, THEN we see who has better points along the way. No one gets a slam dunk win, even though one of the views might actually be true ultimately.
If you read my responses, I am not positive of eternal pain. It might be, but there are other closer ways to view some of the scriptures that allude to something a little different. If we are talking the spiritual realm, then we get to talk about spiritual fathers that Jesus was referring to, right? Dent wasn't talking about people disowning their own children, so that you reject that other idea, and I would too.
It begins to sound like you just disagree with God on how he would have run his own show, so to speak. That is fair, but look at it like that. If there is a God, and he makes the rules and runs his own show, is everyone going to agree 100% with him, if he gives them a free will? No.
"Clearly - because you claim to believe you feel you win this particular test and will get the eternal bliss - I already know you think this is acceptable behavior. I do not. I think it is both unreasonable and irrational. And - honestly - it is one of the many reasons I rejected this irrational belief system in the first place. Self righteous believers claiming they get the bliss and I get the fire. I know, I know - it is indeed a biblical claim. Personally I find it disgusting that a parent would disown one of its children and punish them in this fashion and am rather shocked that so many of you will worship such a thing."
Christians have to stand before God and be judged too, btw. They have to answer for every word spoken even, that is in there too. That isn't going to be pleasant, and talk about sobering and not blissful. Ultimately, the difference is that God looks on the Christian who has opted to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to cover their sins. When God then looks on that person at judgement, they have the covering of Christs forgiveness, which is what he sees first, not the sin any longer. Its been paid for, and the person accepted God's "terms" so to speak. To the person that doesn't want that, he lets them pay for their own debts. In our own society, we live and act like that idea is fair, we pay for our debts to society when we break the laws of that society. When it comes to God, we get mad and act like its crazy of him, who would also happen to be creator of all, when he has his own laws. We want to be our own gods, but we aren't qualified or in that position. So we trick ourselves sometimes with our ideas and thoughts I think, to get around it.
When you ask me to show what we can test for, I can only show you what we can test for materially, and you know that. I don't however, put the cart before the horse on this idea like I think some suggest at times. I don't invent the idea of "non material" things to account for my desire for there to be a god or anything. I actually think there are non material things, like someone asked for evidence of someone elses dream, but you see the problem with that? So when you ask me for evidence of God, I can't point you to the things that point to his existence, to a point. If your view precludes any ideas that non material things can't even exist, then that is a bummer for you IF they do. All because of a belief.
What I am asking of you, is that if you really, truly think I am unreasonable, irrational, or illogical in my discussing in here, to point that out. I am not perfect. The problem I have is when I converse in here, and get called those things and it can't be pointed out, and the person often doing it is often showing some irrationality, or unreasonableness, or illogic, when they don't like those things supposedly in others. If we act irrational, unreasonable, and illogical in our discussions in here, then we may ACTUALLY be irrational, unreasonable and illogical people! If we don't show those things, then we may not be. Things have to be true for them to be true. That is all I am asking, for that and fairness, otherwise no discussion can be had.(and not because some can leave or ignore, but because literally you can't get to truths when people converse like that.)Excuse me for interrupting, but I understood you were going to offer up examples of the testing you were able to do.
It seems RA was correct after all.Of course not, that's why we would never look to God as any kind of moral compass or role model.
There isn't anything reasonable about it.
If we have free will and we see that God is unreasonable, we will not agree with Him, nor should we. And, we shouldn't be punished for that.
That looks like a person who doesn't take responsibility for their own actions.
Yes, and when we don't break the laws of society, that means we don't need to pay any debts. So, if we don't sin, then we don't need Jesus to pay for debts we never incur.
Why do you want to be your own god? Why not just be your own person?
Yes, the problem is that you keep making the same false conclusions and then fallaciously compare them to your irrational beliefs.
Exactly. There is nothing to in which to point.
The problem lies in associating irrational beliefs based entirely on faith with rational and reasonable thought and explanations. They are not the same thing at all. Your belief in God is not rational or reasonable not matter how much faith you put into it.
That is totally illogical, it doesn't follow logic at all. You start from a false premise making the assumption your God exists, but that is something you nor anyone else can show, so it makes even less sense to make conclusions based on false premises and try and start a discussion.
No gods have ever been shown to exist, that is the logical, reasonable and rational fact. You now have your response on which to build your discussion.
Sorry, but that's not how truth works at all. That is only an irrational belief based entirely on faith.You MIGHT be right, BUT, if you are, why can't you point out more often where I am actually being irrational, unreasonable, or illogical? Sure there will be times, but if you are right, then I should be "consistent" with what you are saying about my beliefs, OR its possible they are not as irrational as you believe or need them to be perhaps. The way to test this idea out for its merits or not, is to continue to see whose ideas seem more rational or reasonable as we discuss the different matters. I know it sounds bold of me, but I am like you in that I TRULY believe rational, reasonable and logical wins in the end. There will be times where I share things that you will disagree with like, "I believe in God", or share stories of prayers answered, and that is fair to me. I am dipping then into full fledged belief/faith/trust in an eternal being God, which I understand you will likely discount.
The thing is, that I don't think God as creator of the universe, will go against the truth of his universe, or his created logic, nature, etc. There is room for all of this, and with all the different minds and people on the planet, it makes total sense to me that for some, simple faith is enough. For those that it is not, there are other things provided for them to also come to the originator of it all. I think that is God.
God if he is real, won't be real because OF people's faith in him. He will be real regardless. He can be discovered, sought after.
You said the one part is illogical, but you said to the idea that if God is spirit, he can speak on (Reveal things about ) spiritual matters, through Jesus or prophets, etc. That isn't an illogical point actually. A spirit being has absolute right to speak on these points.
I think Jesus showed us what God is all about. Many reject him, but he isn't "nothing" in these discussions. If there is a God, it makes sense to me that things look just as they would. Nature isn't "nothing." We can't explain its origins by material means. Nature points to the creator too, for those that don't like Jesus, lol, or came before his time or far away from ever knowing about him. (Again, I probably differ from many, but I try to be fair in my views and true to them and myself)
As for our disagreements, one thing we CAN agree on I think going forward is that we can be rational, reasonable and logical about the individual topics we talk about or not, right? I will always ask that of you and anyone can of me too. Right now, we just disagree on ultimate kinds of things like God vs no god, but those aren't facts in the other person's eyes. A person that generally holds fair views, will be a bit more believable I think, and especially if tactics and personal attacks are left by the wayside. You don't usually engage at least in the subtle (or not so subtle) attacks, and speak your mind, but either can detract.That has been done many times, not just by me. Of course, when you just dismiss what we point out in favor of your beliefs, there's no point in continuing.
Yeah, they are irrational.
You just contradicted yourself. You can't consider rational, reasonable and logical wins in the end and then say you believe in God and answered prayers.
Sure, simple faith for simple minds.
That is not reasonable, rational or logical.
And, we are still waiting for his sought after arrival.
If spiritual beings actually existed. Can you show us one?
Yes, we can.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, we hope someday you will talk like that.
Who lied, and what was the lie?
Edit, and who is the it? It was me, that was asking for reasonable and rational with you a lot. If you are referring to me, do you have an answer for this post about lying? Even if not me, curious who is lying and if you are maybe doing that yourself if you can't show it?
Exactly like the mafia. "Give me money or I'll burn your place down" "you need to pay me to protect yourself from me".
I think the mafia followed the bible and that's why they think they are good with God.exactly like the mafia, actually.
If you owned a shop, and a mobster came into your house and told you that if you paid him 100 dollars a week for him to protect you, he will reward you by not breaking your legs. If you refuse, he will not only not protect you, but he WILL break your legs, leaving you incapable of working.
If you chose to NOT pay the money, would it be your fault that your legs got broken, or would it be the fault of the person who threatened and intimidated you who did the breaking? Would you worship something that threatened to break your legs and tout their righteousness? I think not.Not true. Life itself gives you a choice to make. God has given you a better choice but you have to choose it for yourself.
what did you find untrue in what I actually said?
That serving God or not is like the mafia.
I assumed you were talking of choosing God or not. If I was wrong, I apologize.
EDIT: I went back through 8 or 9 pages trying to find what you replied to and what Jane replied to and didn't find it. Once again, I apologize if I misspoke and misunderstood what you were speaking of.
The idea of hell is a different conversation, but applies here when you take it to the very end of where the conversation could go, and then going with a very strict interpretation vs one that might be an eternal separation say, from their creator.
I don't look at the not being rewarded in eternity with our creator as being exactly the same as being in hell. Not at all. Even if there was no burning eternally in hell, and I wasn't going to be with God, it would be a hell too to me. Again, that is a different subject. The idea of rewarding children for breaking the rules is not something that is a good idea generally speaking. Its logical and we live and act like it is.OK, I don't reward my children for breaking rules...
There, point conceded.
Now you can move on to the next step, which is why should God? Then apply the answers that I already gave. Would that make you feel better?
Do you believe there is another option besides burning in hell and eternity in heaven?That is the point, why should God? We don't with our reward poor behavior with our kids. It goes back to the point Sir Dent made, which was when I jumped in at all, agreeing with him. This has nothing to do with my feelings, not sure where that came from.
Which answers did you give, so I can respond? I went back and looked, and didn't see where you gave answers for where God would do what we wouldn't do, or some form of that.There isn't the answer for why God would do it. There isn't an answer for why he would let his children burn in hell for all eternity when all it would take is for him to say they didn't have to either.
Would you tell your children that you would reward them by not burning them? You never did answer that one.
That's my point.
Why would you? Why would God?
I acknowledged your point... can you do the same?
And as an aside, to directly address it... the point by point pretending that your point has nothing to do with what you are obviously getting at is annoying and manipulating. No one here is stupid, we know where you're going... So is there any reason why we can't just address the final point without the kindergarten teacher crap?That is the whole point. If they reject Him, they are not His children. They belong to Satan.
And that's my whole point.
If your children said that you were not their mother, would you say they weren't as well?
Would you burn them for it?You're confusing creator with father.
He created all of mankind, but only those who hear His voice and follow belong to Him.Oh, so you would give birth to children, say they weren't yours because they didn't listen to you, THEN burn them?
God created all mankind. He calls us all to Him. Those who reject Him choose their path. Those who choose to follow are His true children. You don't need to spin it. Why do you want to spin it as the Atheists do? I find it so strange.
I'm not spinning anything. You are.
I don't believe either view, I'm just following yours to it's conclusion. You wouldn't do it, you can't admit that, you are dodging. So yes, again, you are not being truthful.Your inner ATM is showing. I am not lying. I am speaking the truth. Hell was created for Satan and his angels. God did not create it as a place to "burn ppl".... this is where you are twisting, turning your own God into a monster. I am saying, He is trying to rescue ppl from this end. He has gone to great lengths... what more could He do to save that which is lost? He reaches out constantly. He even uses this little forum as a way to reach out and share the truth of the Bible with those who have rejected truth.
Again, there is no trying for God... if he wants something done, he does it.
And for the record, I'm not twisting it. I'm discussing YOUR view.
My view is hell doesn't exist as anything but a metaphor. In my view, you have done a good enough job of twisting it. No one else was necessary.Then, there is nothing for anyone to fear, Hell has nothing to do with people.
Save from what? You just said Hell is for Satan and his angels, so from what end do people need rescuing?
That makes no sense. Why do people automatically belong to Satan? Clearly, that means people don't have any free will to make choices. You are offering nothing from your religion other than a gun to the head.
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” jn 8
That is completely ridiculous. Just because people don't accept your God does not mean they automatically take up residence with Satan. Of course, you need to believe that or else you wouldn't have reason to feel superior to others and have anything to preach.
That wasn't posed to me, though I did talk about it, and this post makes me think you missed it. That is one point of view only, hell. I did answer how rewarding them in heaven forever with God, is not the same as hell though. I have been staying on the point I came in on, since I got here. I am wondering why you disagree with Sir Dent's point, if you still do? That was the whole point. Do you care to finalize that part first? I wasn't jumping into a conversation about why would god send people to hell. That is a different point.
You seem to concede to the points Sir Dent made, so that is good enough for me. Doing the same for children that aren't even your own, that want nothing to do with you, wouldn't make good sense I think RA is the one that got off easy for disagreeing with a good point though, lol.I didn't concede any of his points. You obviously misunderstood.
If you believe there is another option besides heaven and hell good on you. Dent doesn't.
You aren't answering the question. I'm done with you. Come back when you can follow your own rules for conversation.I did answer it, I talked about hell. There are other forms of it, and hell is one idea of many of what happens after death. When I said concede, on the basic point of you wouldn't reward your child for breaking rules, that fits a little. His original point was not even about our own children and breaking rules, etc. So I know you disagree on the point about there being possibility of people not being God's spiritual children, or the devils, etc.
Melissa said she is done with you Bro. Please comply with her wishes.
Wow. I hadn't seen that before I posted what I had. I am not a bro either. It is one way to deal with not being able to hold to the points. I respect that. Haven't said anything since.
It is ok, I actually get that all the time, people think I am male. I am not. (In forums, not in person! Just to be clear.)
I had missed this edit before. There is no pretending on my part. This attempt to make what Sir Dent originally said, to be construed into what it has turned into, is not my doing. My pointing it out as it has happened, I imagine isn't fun, but I in no way made you or others do it. You chose it. I am the one keeping to the original point I came in on. I don't play games, nor manipulate, but do point it out when I see it. I would ask that you do the same, especially if you accuse of it like you do here.
Once again. Done with you. I don't feel like being your student.
Aww - obedience means listening to you?
What do you mean by disobedience? Does that mean worshiping and praising God is obedience and not worshiping and praising is disobedience.
Sorry, but only a very bad, selfish parent would punish their children for not worshiping and praising them.
I would talk with them, of course.
Would you do the same thing as your God, light them on fire?
Oh. I guess I was sticking with what he said. I don't see this discussion about disowning a child every time they disobey as being love. You said if his interpretation is true then all Christians that say God loves you were lying. I don't see how this was his interpretation, so it makes sense there is a lot of disconnect in it.
To answer your first question, no. But I don't think disobeying is all they were doing, the wanted to kill him, and they and He knew it in that scenario. (Which is why I posted that text in part.) Saying a child can only be their father if they listen to you isn't love, no. I don't think that is what they were doing when they wanted Jesus' death though.
I think you are on to something when you said the comparison isn't exactly the same with human and spiritual fathers. It is ok to do at times because even Jesus did the same in speaking about spiritual and earthly fathers and their interactions with their children. With God though, he is also the arbiter of all justice in the greater courtroom, so to speak, (for a lack of better words but it gets the idea there). Human fathers are rarely the judge and jury of their children's crimes against the law, so it breaks down there at least. For those that are so opposed to him and everything he is about ultimately, including what his Son Jesus did for complete lost humanity, why should he force upon them what they don't want? To these guys in particular, they wanted Jesus dead. How strange would it be for them to be in heaven anyway with Jesus if they want him to not only be not around, but dead? Eternity with him would be those people's hell, and some have put it just like that.
Here is more from that section of scripture, in case it sheds some light and I think it might,
"31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”
39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
I thought it was interesting how he characterizes the two groups, and it seems to apply to this discussion.
I would be indifferent to other people's children because they are not my children.
Spitting in your God's face? Is that what you believe people are doing who don't worship your God as you do? Have you never actually heard of the word, "indifferent"?
"God loves them so much that He gave His only begotten Son for them. That is true love that cannot be matched by any man woman or child. That doesn't mean He will reward them for their wicked ways. He gave man freedom to choose."
Then the analogy of a human father is a poor one and probably shouldn't be used any more.
Here's a question for you in those same vein, if you had 6 children and they were all about to drown, would you only save the ones that had obeyed you? Would you let some drown because the were "wicked".
Is not burning forever a reward for a child?
Now, that is not an attack on the Bible, Christianity, God or Christ. I am questioning whether comparing God's "fathering" to a human's "fathering" is really apt.I would save all of them that I could.
If I told them to come toward me and they went the opposite way, then what? They have to make a decision no matter how much I love them.But that's not exactly apt either. You have the ability to save them all, you just choose not to because they disobeyed you. Once again, not attacking the faith, just the comparison.
That's called using ones freedom of choice. If God didn't want anyone to use their freedom of choice, why bother giving it to them?
There's a difference between disobeying you and rejecting you. We are not talking about children under the age of accountability. We are talking about those who had been told the truth of God, what He had sacrificed for them, and spit hatred in His face. If He rescued them, what end would it come to? Would they all of a sudden become loving and kind? Or would they continue on in their ways of hate and rejection. Ppl reject God b/c they don't want to obey Him. They will fight to the death to do as they please.
Oh, so you wouldn't rescue your children if they said that you weren't their mother?
Once again, the comparison is not apt... unless your answer is yes...
In which case this conversation is the least of conversations we should be having.if your children, when they reached the age of 18 years old came to you and said, "We hate you and are not going to live here anymore. We never want to see you again and if you try to find us, we will have you arrested."
Can you save them? No matter how much you love them, it is their decision to make to come back to you.
I am only writing this because it seems you are not understanding what I have been trying to say, which, of course, could be my fault.If they needed rescued, the threat of being arrested wouldn't stop me. Nor would I punish them with eternal damnation... because... it would still be in my power to stop it.
I'm understanding what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing that that is how God works.
I'm just saying that's not how a father acts, so the comparison is not apt.So tell me, what good would it do you or them if they have you arrested? You wind up in jail and they are still where they want to be. They chose their place on their own.
A father will save those children who belong to Him if they are in danger. How can a father be expected to save all children, no matter who they belong to?So are you saying that God doesn't have the power to decide who gets in and out of heaven... that he couldn't stop a soul from going to hell? That he doesn't have the power to save everyone?
(God can't go to jail, there's no higher authority)
If that's your view, then I'll gladly accept your logic for all your other views after that.
If he does though, then I have to take the view that he is picking which children to save based on whether they obey him or not.
In which case, that's not a good parent -or even if you take the view that not all of the children he made are his-not a good "person" as I know the definition. Because if I could save them all, I would and I expect any good "person " would.
Again, not questioning God. Just questioning the comparisons I've seen used.Are you familiar with the scripture that in order to come to God you must believe that He is?
I posted before in one reply that God created Adam in His likeness and Eve from the rib of Adam.. After they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they procreated and children were born in the likeness of Adam and Eve, who were then in a sinful state. All children born were born with the same sinful nature.
God has the power to save all but will not go against His own Word. Jesus said, you must be born again. He also said, Ye are of your father the devil, when addressing the pharisees at one point.
Now, we can go back to the book of Job. Job spoke of a daysman, Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both. Without a daysman, no will be able to reach God.
Then we can go back to the New Testament in 2Peter 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. God wants all to come to repentance.
More later if you want. I gotta run for a bit. There is a forest fire down the road from where I live, approximately a mile away. Need to check and see if there is anything I can do to help.I was safe. I haven't fought a forest fire in many many years. Last time was back in the 80's.
Glad all checked out, as having a forest fire a mile from my house would be scary! Glad everyone is ok, and homes, etc. I grew up in an area that had a lot of fires, very dry. Do they know what started it in this case?
I'm glad you are safe, Sir Dent. What an honor to fight forest fires
It's all good. it was getting close to a house but they got a fire ring around it.
Good to have you back safe, Sir Dent. Everyone safe and sound? No injuries or anything?
I figured they would.
Like I said, I know that area. Good people.
Anyway, and again I need you to understand I'm not questioning God just the comparisons we make of him to human standards. My views of heaven/hell/ and saving are different, but I'm also not questioning your views of the scripture.
So I'm not arguing what the scripture says, or your quoting of that. And although I don't believe quite the same thing you do, I'm not even questioning your interpretation.
With that said, as a human and a parent, my heart could never go so hard as to keep my word at the cost of one of my children (or anybody, whoever's child)burning for eternity. I don't think I could take the stand that they were somehow evil from birth either. To me, that's what makes the comparison of God as a father not quite fitting with your interpretation of the Word. Not, at least, as far as human fatherhood goes.This is the last I am going to say on this subject. I posted another if anyone is interested in discussing it.
If God goes against His own Word, then that makes God a liar Himself. His Word has to stay intact in all fullness.I agree, and don't think he would ever truly contradict himself, though it is impossible anyway. I think we have the word, and the truth before us, the reality and truth that doesn't waver. I believe God is the god of all truth, and no truth contradicts him.
That makes it rather convenient, if meaningless as well. When truth is defined as what god does, and no one knows what He does, it kind of takes all the meaning from the word.
Just as well as a god that loves everyone, murders by the millions and condemns nearly everyone to Hell yet does not contradict himself kind of takes the meaning from truth anyway.That depends on your definition of hell. There's not really a contradiction in my belief system with this (lots of other contradictions though, just not this).
I don't believe the fire and brimstone hell exists. I believe in a very nasty (admittedly) unpleasant time-out followed by admission into the pearly gates once you have learned your lesson.Understood, although He could just as easily save everyone the trouble of changing themselves by doing it Himself.
But it still doesn't change the OT view of the Christian God; it simply does NOT fit with love and caring.Sounds scary. Doesn't make a lot of sense either. Time for an existence outside of time? Learning a lesson by being hurt?
I can understand that reaction. And it doesn't sound particularly pleasant. The idea behind it is this (and be patient, because I may not explain it well):
Human beings commit sin. On earth, there are consequences for those actions that we need to accept. One prayer of repentance and forgiveness 30 years before you die hardly seems enough to get you into Heaven if you continue to sin beyond that time. Sin stains the soul until it is forgiven...if we sin but don't confess (not necessarily in the Catholic tradition, just in general) we carry the weight (stain) of our sins on our conscience. We must be stainless to stand before God (our conscience must be entirely clear). Purgatory is a place of final cleansing to prepare us to meet God free from stain.
It is often misunderstood as a place of Final judgment where it is decided whether we go to Heaven or Hell. It's not. It's basically (excuse the really poor analogy) pre-op....the place where we are cleansed and prepared to meet our maker if we didn't die without sin.
Now, I know you won't agree...lol, but does the explanation make sense?No - it makes no sense at all. Either sins are forgiven or they are cleansed. It does explain the Inquisition though.
Really? I don't know. Explain the inquisition parallel.
For sure sins are forgiven...but you see the pastor who steals from his poorest or gets caught committing adultery with sixteen prostitutes as not having to make some reparation for that?The Inquisitors were burning their sins away to cleanse them for god.
No - I don't think there are any reparations made after death. I would like to think it true, but it is too far fetched to be likely. And honestly - why would the Creator of The Universe concern itself with such petty matters?
Perspective.
Certainly a fair enough take on it. It makes sense to me as a believer simply because if there are NO repercussions at all, then we're sort of playing God for a chump. As far as the Inquisitions are concerned, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Beyond holding a human being accountable for breaking secular/civil law, it is NOT in the purview of humanity to exact reparation or to make spiritual judgment. IMO, that task is reserved for God alone.
But it makes a difference in this conversation that one of us believes in his existence and one doesn't.But - is it reasonable that the Creator of the Universe would concern itself with such petty matters as stealing money and having sex with prostitutes?
Only as far as those actions were responsible for severe harm to his creation. Otherwise, nope. *ducks*
Severe? Honestly - it would be concerned about that?
On a much lesser scale, think about this...would you be concerned if someone you love was severely harmed because of another's actions?
I think you are missing my point. I am suggesting that you are projecting your little human emotions on to the Creator of the Universe. Is it likely that the Creator of the Universe would be concerned about such a tiny thing?
Hmm. I might have been missing your point in the process of making another. Sorry about that.
But yes, I do think (because God is both creator and father) that his love and compassion mean that he is bothered by harm done to those he loves.
What makes me a theist v. a deist, I guess.
*Edit: And by those he loves, I mean all of us, as we were all created by him.Just can't see it myself. We live such a precarious existence it seems almost cruel to have put us here.
In some instances, I agree. But I do see a reason and a purpose in/for almost everything even if I don't understand or if it isn't immediately discernable to me.
I could see why people thought God was concerned with our daily screw up when it was thought that those lights in the sky were just lights and everything evolved around the earth and the universe was a small place. But as it turns out we are on the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies among billions of stars rotating around a second or third generation star with a relatively short life on a planet that will relatively soon no longer be able to support life because our sun is heating up rapidly because if it's large size and short life. That being said of the billions of years that the earth has been here is only been 200,000 since we arrived.
I guess he was in no hurry.I get your point...and would agree if I felt that the bible was the beginning of recorded history, and if I ignored the fact that we may be a small part of the vastness of the universe. That said-I neither feel that way about the bible, nor ignore those facts...so it would be mighty silly of me to believe that God, who created US didn't create and doesn't sustain whatever/whoever is out there-in the same way he does for us. Silly, and a little arrogant.
But these aren't petty matters.
Let's put that question into a different, ah, 'perspective.'
If the Creator of everything actually did, right down to the smallest particles, why would this being not be concerned with even things that we consider petty and small? Including death, disease, and sparrows?Money is not "petty" to the Creator of the Universe huh? Interesting 'ah' perspective you have there.
The Creator of the Universe is concerned with money being stolen and whether some one pays for sex on one tiny little planet out of billions.
Not only that, but it waited 13.8 billion years for money to be invented.
Really?I might have missed this portion, but what is this part of the discussion? Is it that God ought not to be concerned with morality in general? Is that the reason for the comparison of is greatness if he is creator, to the comparably small things? Not weighing in on this one way or the other yet, just asking what this point was.
It's that ra-ra thinks that reducing all morality to little pieces of paper somehow actually brings perspective to the discussion.
Telling, really.
Really?
Wow. Smart-ass attitude and ability to not actually participate in a conversation.
No wonder you win all your arguments
If tens of thousands of innocent children starve to death every day, how is your Creator dealing with that if it matters?
Isn't that the name of the town where Clint Eastwood killed all those bad guys?
Wilderness, that post contains a lot of my personal belief, after all else is said and done and talked about, it is what I walk away with. Some of that post is logic, about not being able to have two contradictory things being true at the same time, laws of logic, etc.
I don't expect atheists to see truth as defined as what God does, and my point in part is that truth IS whatever it is, no matter what. I believe in God, and that he is the originator of all things. All truth even exists because of him, that is what I have come to believe, put to the test, and reaffirm, and believe. I don't know that it is true that we don't know what he does. As for the second part, that is one view of things, but it is not a view of what I believe and understand of Christianity.
To be clear, convenience, especially personal convenience, if that is what is being suggested, I don't think is a good way to base ones beliefs. That is set up to fail, though we do see it happening. Truth never caters to our wants and our personal conveniences, so I would avoid that idea all together. If it happens to be absolutely true, and it happens to appear convenient to people, then that is all it is in that case. It is convenient that we have this earth to meet our requirements to live, as humans. It doesn't take away from the truth of the facts that make it so. Very specific requirements, that seem almost too good to be true. Just wanted to point out, that was a post about what I think and believe, and I don't often share those things in these forums, but not because I am hiding it. It doesn't always apply, and it did here.What I got from your post was that truth is defined as anything God does or says. If He lies, it is truth. If He contradicts himself, it is truth. Partly, I get that from the statement that it is impossible for God to do contradictory things - God is omnipotent, can do whatever He likes and can thus contradict Himself. But then it is Truth, by definition.
Which is why I said that the concept is convenient; it eliminates a whole lot of trouble trying to understand, accept or explain just why God did such evil in the OT.
That would be the epitome of a closed mind, one that doesn't accept any reason, logic or fact, and one that definitely does not want any truth.
Since there was an agreement and a response, I get a rebuttal...
As a parent, the welfare of my children -or any child- comes before keeping my word. So the comparison still doesn't fit.Those who do not see the Glory of God will perish without achieving the greatness that is within them. The current evil congregations grumble against God because they do not believe in the Commandments. This has resulted in demoralizing the world's society through false-prophets. The true path to eternal life is through belief in the path of Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy 1:16 "Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."
That would probably mean one of two things, those children have mental disorders or you have treated them so badly that they need to get away from you. And, if you behave the same way as your God by punishing them severely for not worshiping and praising you, then the latter is most likely the case.
We understand you perfectly.
That problem with your ridiculous explanation is that you automatically believe that people who don't accept your God are rejecting and hating your God, which couldn't be further from the truth. But, of course, if you didn't believe that, you wouldn't have anything to preach.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Joh 3:3 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.
Let me guess - you just happen to be born again? You win. Again!
YES - and we win always.
When the individual takes the path of righteousness, they always win.
John 3: 16-21
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”Well done you! Oh wait - you are bragging. Guess you lose after all.
Truth provided as a response to a statement is not bragging it is what is commonly called "knowledge transfer" by wise individuals.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
I was reading about a baby left in the wilderness after being born, abandoned and left to die. The umbilical was still attached and it lie in it's own blood. Many walked by it and never had pity upon it.
Eventually someone came and heard this baby crying. The person took the baby in his arms and comforted it. he cleaned the baby up and clothed it.
If any of you have heard stories like this before, you know it is a really sad thing. A baby, helpless left to die alone. Where was the love of the love of the mother of this baby?
You can likewise read this story by going to your bibles. Go to Ezekiel Chapter 16.I was never fond of that parable... too much anger.
I am wondering if I should post ti all here from the bible. I see compassion and love. God said, "Live." and the baby lived. It is fine if no one wants to discuss it. I won't be offended. We can move on to something else.
LOL, post scripture all you want. I like discussions. I think I'm just coming at it from a different angle than you... which is good. Different opinions are good.
The way I see it, what he did was compassionate, but he kinda lost his temper there when it didn't work out the way he planned... which he should have known. Reminding then of what he did for them was more of a way of calling them ungrateful and chastising them rather than showing them love and compassion.He called them out for being harlots. They went after idols and made idols to themselves. Of course He was angry and jealous just as I would be angry and jealous if my wife was out cheating on me.
In the end, This is what is written: Eze 16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Eze 16:61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.
Eze 16:62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:
Eze 16:63 That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord GOD.I agree completely. Still too much anger for me to enjoy reading, I'm not really seeing compassion there. It's just not a parable that speaks to me.
I like Luke 10:30–37 for showing compassion and love.That is a good parable of love and compassion. it is also one of my favorites.
Out of curiosity, who do you believe the good Samaritan to be?LOL... Do you mean do I take it at face value? No.I can't think of a parable that I do take at face value alone. Although I believe there is plenty of good to be had there and share the story in a modern version with my kids on a regular basis.
The good Samaritan is Christ, IMHO. Of course.I also believe the good Samaritan to be Christ. (Watching the ceiling to make sure it doesn't fall on me now because we agree on something. :p)
Many believe Jesus to have been a Jew but his mother was a Jew but His Father was not a Jew. My understanding is that a Samaritan was half Jew and half something else, a mixed race of people.Ethnically? I'm not sure, but I can see it.
I know that the Samaritans and the Jews hated each other. So a Samaritan helping a Jew would have been a massive show of love. Luke was heavy on Love thy enemies, neighbors, everyone really at some point in there.
I kind of took it (personal interpretation) as Jesus helping those who would otherwise despise him from no reason other than love and because it was the right thing to do.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen
Good night.Thank you Sir Dent, and goodnight to you.
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
RA, the way I said it is indeed contradictory. Let me rephrase. I would be inclined to agree if I didn't believe there was a reason/purpose...
It was on my heart this morning to post a word that I see was exactly what was being discussed recently. It looks like the Spirit has moved among us and has been addressing this through many of the believers.
In John 1:12-13 "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."
We know that God loves his creation tremendously and he came and suffered so greatly in order to offer a way for all to be saved. Anyone may answer his call and accept his gift of salvation. But it is only those who do who then have been given this "right" to become the children of God.
All are created, all are loved, all are offered salvation, but only those who receive him have been given this right to be his children.And just why does God love sacrifices so much? Animal scarifies and then human/god scarifies? And why does God need us to follow him on spec?
Would you trust anyone who would ask you the same? Would you trust someone who typically asks you to kill animals to prove your love and then asked you to by land in Florida without you ever seeing it. Just curious, cause I have land in Florida.God never "loved" animal sacrifices; all the lamb sacrifices were foreshadowing the perfect sacrifice of Jesus himself, the sacrificial "lamb".
Because the God of love is also a God of justice, all sins had to be atoned for. We can choose to receive our judgment based on everything done while in the flesh (whether good or bad), or we can choose to let Jesus' sacrifice of himself cover over all our sins and shortcomings according to God's perfect ways.What about the bird sacrifices? I understand it's hard for you to see how silly animal and human sacrifices are as you in the middle of it. But would you ask that of any of your children? Would you ask a child to kill his hamster to show you that he is sorry for a swear word?
The animals that were sacrificed were not the beloved pets, they were owned for other reasons. Asking a child to sacrifice his pet would be in a sense more similar to asking a parent to sacrifice their child (considering the attachment between children and their pets). The only one who went through the horrible experience of sacrificing his beloved was God himself, who gave his One and only begotten Son that we might live through him!
Okay I'll rephrase. Would you ask a child to sacrifice something valuable to show you how sorry he is for his error? Wouldn't that be the silliest conversations? "Mommy I'm so sorry" says little Billy. "I don't believe you are sorry Billy" says mommy " you must throw your PS4 in the garbage to repay me for your error"
What you don't see how ridiculous that would be?As humans we underestimate the seriousness and loathsomeness of sin. We do so more and more in the day when popular culture teaches us that "anything goes". In fact, our human nature, which is at enmity with God, actually enjoys or is drawn to sin (see, for a revealing example, how we love movies with violence, impurity, vulgarity, and so on) The sinless God of the universe cannot look at or tolerate sin. He is pure and holy. Sin is no light matter; that is our misinterpretation of it. Sin must be atoned for, according to the sinless, holy, righteous God who created all things and determines all things. Period.
Wow.
Or conversely, we are all basically good and those who spend their lives rolling around in the evil of the human race tend to do so because they assume everyone is like them.
Fruit of the tree, sister, fruit of the tree.Fair point. I tend to subscribe to the idea that most people are not inherent jerks. But then as the parent of an autistic child, I constantly get smacked with stories like this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1718983
And there's no explanation. It tends to reinforce my belief that people are not so nice deep down. Fruit of the tree, so to speak.
I think there's also a real misunderstanding (spoiler alert: I've said this before) on both sides of what the whole 'humans are evil' thing really means. If we compare ourselves to 'bad people' like Hitler or Stalin, then yeah, the majority of us look pretty good. Crap, even just that jerk at work or the person down the street. But the point of the statement is to compare ourselves to God, who is perfect. That puts an entirely different spin on it.First, outside of the context of the debate we are about to get into
... I've actually seen a lot of beauty in people because of my kids' special needs. Yeah, some bad stuff, but way, WAY more good people than bad. Everyday miracles kind of stuff. If you need the link to some support groups (not saying you do) that are pretty positive, I'd be happy to get those to you.
With that said....I don't think we were ever meant to compare ourselves to God. I actually think that was discouraged. I think we were supposed to roll around in the beauty of being human, imperfections and all. I don't think God put us on this earth to be miserable self-loathing creatures with inferiority complexes. We were never meant to be strive to be mini-Gods, and that what comparing ourselves to God leads to.We're not meant to believe that we can attain perfection, that's for sure. I think if you really read the Bible, you would see that God is telling us left and right that we are NOT min-Gods, and those who come to believe themselves to be so don't get to keep it.
God does accept us as we are, certainly.
And yeah, I've seen a lot of people be very nice to my daughter when they learn about her autism. I've also seen a lot of people look at her like she's diseased and they don't want it. Overall, I'm inclined to cut people some slack but bad things still happen.Ignorance can feel like cruelty, but it's not Chris. People who don't understand Autism are the ones that hurt unintentionally. Not bad, just ignorant. God knows I've seen enough of the ignorance though. I tend to educate quickly and loudly in those cases
They do have those informational cards to hand out when you run across those people. I've never used them, but members of my group have with really good results.
But so yeah, I think we agree basically. I understand the inclination towards the "we are all worms" mentality, but I don't think Jesus thinks of us that way (don't know for sure) and I certainly don't think that mentality helps with a relationship with Jesus. Humility and self-flagellation (and flagellation of everybody else by association) aren't the same thing.I've never seen one of those cards, might be nice.
I see the point of ignorance not being the same as cruelty. Still, the cruelty does exist. The article I referenced is sooooo not even close to the only example (and how I wish it were.)
And we do agree, humility and self-flagellation aren't the same thing.Oh, I agree, true cruelty does exist. I just don't think it's the norm. I wouldn't want to lose sight of the good of the majority of the people by focusing on the cruelty of the minority.
I actually take it as sort of an affirmation that people are inherently good that stories like that make the news/media. It means they are abhorrent enough to be "newsworthy"
Beauty is indeed great within so many special needs children; perhaps they are the "least" by human standards who are in truth the greatest in the Kingdom of God?
You know, I know you were trying to be nice there... so I'm going to cut you a break.
My kids aren't/weren't the least of anything in any kingdom.
You really do need to work on this whole social-interaction thing. That's not being mean, that's honest advice.Least by human standards? I wasn't aware we had standards for humanity.
So you judge humans against their disabilities? This one is better than that one kind of thing? Sad.
I see that human nature has been to judge others in many, many ways. It is unperceptive to miss this. Human judgment is often opposed to God's judgment. Historically those with special needs have been looked down on by humans, and parents generally have hoped they would not have a special needs child. Yet I see that in TRUTH those with special needs, who are so often loving, innocent and pure, are the GREATEST according to God's ways.
I read that story as well. Sickens me.
How can you say the God of the OT is perfect, unless by perfect you mean jealous, sexist, racist and homophobic? What would we say about a human with those traits? Would any of us good people say he/she is perfect?At this point I'm only going to say that my thinking did need a bit of adjustment when I became a believer. The correlation is that what I most needed to adjust to was the idea that God is not a human being. The accusation that some atheists make (and this has been aimed at me specifically, although as part of a group. And it was a while ago, I don't think the person who said it still posts, but I've seen it other places) that we believers 'anthropomorphize' a deity actually I think more often applies to atheists, who tend to look at God as a projection of humanity (like the Greek pantheon) and therefor take a vary narrow and dim view of certain aspects.
Also, although this is not to excuse certain actions, there is a need for perspective.I believe what you are doing is rationalizing the fault in behaviour and personality in the God of the OT. We are said to have been created in his image and as such would be able to understand him. It seems more likely these ancient people invented a God that would give the people what they wanted. Most people of the time would have had the time to think things through or read for themselves. But we do and what we get is a God with some not so flattering personality traits.
I don't doubt at all that you believe that. At the risk of seeming a bit arrogant, I don't think you could see it another way.
Was listening to an interesting episode of Freakanomics on the ol' iPod last night. Dubner was talking to a guy who studies mind-reading. Not like phone psychics, but how people actually can figure out what someone else wants or intends by body language and other subtle cues. In any case, a big part of this episode had to do with something called egocentrism. What they basically said is something that I've said many times. We (human beings, and I've certainly not been immune) tend to be experts on ourselves, and tend to think others are more in tune with us than they usually are. In the benign sense, this means that we often think more people are looking at us than are (whether we think we are more attractive to others than we are or are more embarrassing than we are, the general principle applies.) In the sense that I more often see in these and other forums, we tend to think that other people must, deep down, see things the same way we do and if they don't, all we need to do is 'explain' it to them. And then we get upset with them when they still don't see it our way. Although this is certainly more pronounced in narcissistic people (think Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory) it is something that is endemic to humanity. Here, it tends to take the form of (as I was saying to Melissa) either "how can you possibly believe that nonsense" vs. "you've never experience the Spirit, so you're blind."
The upshot is, when I tell someone that they love their sin (which I try to avoid such things now but I've certainly done them in the past) it is usually more benign on my part than is assumed by the receiver. By the same token, someone who feels the need to 'explain' how I'm just a slave to my subconscious or my conditioning usually does not mean it in an unkind manner, even though it certainly doesn't feel like a kindness to me. In both cases, the person expressing the view is basing things on their own life experiences and predispositions (at least in the overwhelming majority of cases) and they naturally feel that others should see things the same way they do.What an interesting post, Chris. I sort of liken it to getting irritated basically because my husband can't "read" my mind, or naturally intuit my needs or desires. It never occurs to me that A) I'm no more capable of doing so with him than he is with me and B) It may simply NOT be possible for either of us because we are just that different.
The first time I went on a narcissistic rant about how "he should just know" and "I shouldn't have to tell him how I feel" the person to whom I was speaking asked if I was suffering from "glass head syndrome."LOL! I think that all married couples, or even couples in long-term relationships, go through this. I think they even built an entire episode of Roseanne around it. But yeah, I was actually thinking about that as well when I was writing the post.
But you adjusting your viewpoint has nothing to do with the truth behind what we say about that God. It simply means that you choose to either look at Him with rose-colored glasses, or from the eyes of a slave that's "realized" that their master really has all of the power and that they're only a pawn. Either way, our points are still legitimate, and we can only call the deity anthropomorphized because that's exactly what most religious books do, and that's certainly not exclusive to Christianity.
The Christian God experiences jealousy, terrible anger, commits genocide, kills unjustly, etc, etc. The only way to deny the evils of this is to redefine evil, but only for master. If slave does it, it's wrong. We could describe the God of the bible all day as though he were just a man because that is how he is described to us as being. A man with some serious insecurities, and the consequences of which is our own destruction and/or eternal damnation.
Now there are portrayals of the infinite, a higher something, a transcendent/covert something, that is indescribable, that does not choose sides, that is not personal. Personal is the key problem here. As soon as a god becomes personal, they begin to get anthropomorphized. That's where the disgust for actions comes (or lack of action). If God is simply the Universe without emotional attachment, then ALL of these things we would know and understand that are bad and ugly about the world are simply the actions of PEOPLE.
It is only when it is claimed that one can 1)come to personally know this God, and 2)that this God personally wants to be involved with you that problems come.That's partially the truth, but not all of it. Not by a long shot.
Actually, many many things must be redefined. What I needed to redefine is not so narrow as "only for the master, not for the slave."
What else could possibly be redefined that's not encompassed by "it's only right for the master not the slave?"
If God created everything, is in control of everything, and if His will is what happens no matter what we do, then he is Master. I imagine that we're only meant to be His slaves as anyone who chooses something else is met with either finite destruction and/or eternal punishment, as the story goes.
A slave is supposed to listen to master, even if they don't agree. Master lays down the rules and slave has to follow. Slave is expected to dedicate their life/service to Master. Because Master owns His slave, whatever punishment He deems fit is fit for that slave and all the others. For those slaves who try to choose a life outside of what Master wants, they are punished severely and told by the good slaves that Master knows what's best and that Master is loving and kind and better than all of us slaves even though in our minds Master's actions would be deplorable if a fellow slave did them. No one can have the audacity to try to measure up to Master! Master has given us all we can imagine, all we have to do is serve Him and be good slaves and even with whatever He dishes out to us, it will all be ok because in the end we'll be rewarded. If Master wishes to appear as a tyrant or a loving Father, He may do so because these are all constructs that exist in our minds. Master is good. End of story. It's His way or the highway (to Hell), end of story.
I think this about sums it up.I offer the following post after much thought. There is something in there that people might be deeply offended by, and it's not meant that way but sometimes the way I mean something and the way it comes out are not the way I would like them to be. If I am wrong about this, I will gladly and abjectly apologize.
Implicit in your post seems to be the idea that we are simply at the mercy of whatever whim Master possesses (and forgive me, but based on this and past postings, I hear it as "Massah" which carries its own set of implications. I hope I'm not being too presumptuous and I will gladly and sheepishly apologize if I'm wrong). Like Master is really a chaotic and wholly unpredictable force that we must simply live with if we know what's good for us.
There really is a loving relationship and that love is reciprocal. The God who sacrificed his own Son because only that sacrifice could really wipe away everyone's sin (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew) is not some being who whimsically consigns people to fiery torment for no reason at all, and you never know who.That is precisely what I'm implying, Chris, actually. Or was that not your take home message from Job's experience? Satan came to God and challenged him, certain that Job would curse him at some point in his suffering. Instead of brushing off Satan's pettiness, He accepts that challenge and allows all of his children to be killed and for him to lose everything, and for him to physically suffer. Just so it could be said that he was faithful? And then God checks him on his attitude and reminds Him that he (Job) was not there when He created everything, blah, blah, blah. How could this be considered anything more than a whim? Our creation was a whim also, was it not? He already had beings with free will. Why create more? It is all His whim. And watch out if you get in His way. The OT's full of stories showing that fact.
I hear that Christ is not dead but very much alive... So I don't know how much of a "sacrifice" it can be considered when it was temporary. Also if he was fully man and fully God, God cannot die I presume, so it was only his human part that "died." Also, I don't know how reciprocal this "love" is as it has been selfish from the get go, but I know it certainly seems a lot of people "love" Him...
Also, let's recall the passages about the people devoured by lions for disobeying God for noble reasons. The first refused to strike a prophet. The 2nd was tricked by a prophet. These two particular stories either make the case for his whimsical wrath and/or for his want for slave-like obedience along with countless others.I'll admit to wondering about the Job story sometimes too, but in fairness it's not the WHOLE picture, and every part of the Bible (even just the OT) is simply a reiteration of the Job story.
The point of God checking Job (and the literal 'Job's friends', that is an extremely important part of the story) is that we humans can become terribly complacent in thinking that we know and can understand God. We can't. We can never truly understand a being who is capable of imagining, planning, and then actually creating a molecule, let alone an entire universe.
The definition of whim is sudden desire or change of mind. It doesn't fit the definition. But the implied usage of whim also doesn't really apply in that this is not God doing one thing one day and then changing His mind for no discernible reason the next.
The variation of the 'zombie Jesus' argument (and man, I hate that phrase) I've heard before. Let's see, Jesus spent years rallying people around Him, then watched almost every single one abandon Him. He was beating bloody and hung up on a cross which is a truly horrible way to die. Then, when He's already suffered physically and mentally the way relatively few people have (I know there were thousands of crucifixions in history, but in the great scope of history it is thankfully rare) He is robbed of the very presence He has claimed to know so intimately (Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?) This is not just having your friend walk away, this is like having a piece of you ripped out, but much much worse. It was 'only temporary' but tell me, do you think YOU would want to go through all that, even if you knew that, though dead, you would just be walking around three days later? If you had a choice?
Did He actually have beings of free will prior to human beings? That's been debated, and I'm frankly not so sure.
So prophets, men who are supposed to actually be more familiar with the power and majesty of God, disobeyed Him. Big deal, right? Laws are meant to be broken.
And selfishness is often in the eyes of the beholder. I don't actually see God's love as being so overwhelmingly selfish. It really hasn't been so much in my case, at any rate.What is the whole picture?
That's so ironic because here we have people adhering to religions based on a God they think they can get to know, and that they know enough of His characteristics to know that the God they worship in their head is the "actual" God. You cannot both adhere to a religion, especially a Western religion like this, and actually believe this statement... Otherwise you are no longer allowed to say what God would or would not do, nor can you say He is loving, etc. Any definitive statement means that all other options are ruled out. For all YOU know, God could enjoy calamity, suffering, and the lot of it. You make statements about God's character because you think you have a good idea about who He is, and what He's like. You sleep at night probably feeling fairly good about the fact that God is how you see Him, but if your statement is true, how do you really know that maltheists aren't correct?
The definition of whim that I'm using is "a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of events of the mind." Now how is it that you're so certain this wasn't whimsical? Job and his family are living their lives. It's clear that Job is a righteous man that loves God and is faithful to Him, according to the story. If you had a child that loved you and was faithful to you, would accept a challenge from some fool about how deep and true their faithfulness was for you? Especially if it meant they were going to lose their whole frikkin family? He could've said no, and they could've continued on. But He accepts the challenge, and if He is all knowing, surely he knows what Satan is going to do. In this story, not only is Satan likely a messenger of God instead of His adversary like the Jews believe, but it also shows the master situation that I explained to you before. How much we understand God in this story is irrelevant. If He wants to let you're whole family die to prove a point, He can. If He wants to flood the Earth to kill all the people that displease Him, He can. He can do whatever the hell He wants to. And you have to be a good slave and grin and bear it. You can candy coat it and make it tasty for your own faith, but that is the ugly truth.
Sorry, but there are worse ways to die then being beaten and hanged on a cross. You should know that being a history major. Or aware of what happens in the world/wild. What do you think would be scarier, hanging on a cross, or being awake while an animals tears you to shreds?Also, there are people who have jobs where they risk their lives for people all the time, knowing that they could die. And they won't have the luxury of coming back. But would I do it if I knew I was going to be alive again? Yes. I'm not scared of being uncomfortable... One, I'm God, two, I'm going to be alive again, and three, people would be able to go to Heaven. Yea. I would do it. And it would be scary as fuck, excuse my language. But do you think God should fear pain or death? (LoL, especially after all the lives He's taken and in fairly cruel ways?)
Oh, so you're saying that the Devil has always been the Devil and He did not choose to defy God but God created him to be an adversary? Interesting.
What are you talking about?
In story one, a man that is walking along runs into a prophet being chastized by God. The prophet tells the man to strike him (the prophet), but the man refuses because the prophet has done him no wrong. He asks him multiple times, and the man still refuses to strike him. When the man continues on his way, God sends a lion to maul him to death.
In story two, a man who loves God and is faithful to Him, is told by God that there is a certain olace where he is not allowed to eat or drink. The man accepts this. He then comes across a prophet who os friendly towards the man. The prophet then tells him to go eat and drinkn with him(the prophet) in the place where God told the man not to. The man says, "but God told me not to eat and drink there!" The prophet tells him that God has now said that it's ok for him to eat and drink their. The stranger, knowing that the prophet was a prophet, trusts him, and they go eat and drink together. Afterwards, the man goes on his way, and God sends a lion to devour him.
No Chris, selfishness is selfishness. Especially when souls are in the balance.Once again ATW has made what I consider a brilliant observation.
When some believers are questioned about the characteristics of the God of the Bible, jealous, racist, sexist, genocidal… they immediately tell us that we can't possible understand a God of that magnitude. Some of them then go on to tell us what God wants us to do and tell us they know what God wants because they have the spirit of God in them telling them what to do as if they are just puppets.
Can't have it both ways, you either have no idea what God is or you know exactly what he wants and is. Which is it? Those who claim that God/spirit speaks through them should have all the answers to everything. A spirit being part of God would be able to answer simple questions that they themselves don't have the answer to.
I call these people false prophets.I'd like to state again that believing that you speak for God or that you are a prophet is an exceptionally dangerous philosophy. Honestly, such people scare the hell out of me.
With that said, it is fairly clear that no one knows the mind of God. We can know what the Bible says-a tool that anyone who can read possesses by the way. We can know what our conscience says-another tool that almost everyone has. We can let our conscience be ruled by what is in the Bible-a choice that almost everyone is able to make. We can know what Christ was like by reading the Bible and forming our own opinions on him-again everyone can do this who can read. Hell, some of us can even attempt to emulate him based on our interpretation of him- again, almost anyone can do this.
No one knows what God is thinking. NO ONE. You kinda have to accept that sometimes he does things for obscure reasons that you, personally, will never get. You can't make excuses. You can't try to armchair analyze him. He is and he does. Accepting that is part of the whole package. Fighting against that is an obvious sign that you aren't comfortable with the yoke you took up voluntarily.
Just my humble opinion.What surprises me is why so few Christians call her out on it. You did and was therefore ridiculed so the others won't stand up to the bully. Some of the others won't even admit that they are not a prophet.
Because the brethren have become more important than the father. Faith by peer pressure from someone who professes to be a prophet. If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then you haven't been paying attention to history.
I didn't get the "peer-pressure is great" message from my Bible. Of course, I didn't have a church telling me what what I was reading meant.You seem not to understand the biblical term "prophet". Those with the spiritual gift of prophecy speak the words of God as written in scriptures and as understood through the Spirit. That's it. No great flattery going on. The greatest of the spiritual gifts is love.
You might be the one confused here.
Definition of prophecy (n)
Bing Dictionary
proph·e·cy[ próffəssee ]
divine prediction: a prediction of a future event that is believed to reveal the will of a deity
prediction: a prediction that something will occur in the future
supposed ability to predict future: the supposed ability to predict the future when inspired by a deity
Do you claim your words, in any way, fit the definitions above? Everyone who has claimed the above ability previously has been proven fraudulent, or they have caused the death of innocent people. I don't believe theirs was the will of a God. Why would we believe yours is?Biblical prophesy is a little different than prophecy as defined by secular sources. Biblebell.org gives an idea of the manner in which I've been using the term prophet and the spiritual gift of prophecy (again, perhaps I should instead be saying the spiritual gifts of wisdom, teaching, etc.? I'm open to feedback from the brethren).
From biblebell.org:
A prophet speaks forth God's messages in TWO MAIN CATEGORIES, as illustrated from the book of the prophet Isaiah in the verses alongside...
•Category #1: Preaching -- a preaching prophet encourages, comforts, or reproves the people. (NOTE - from this standpoint, a pastor who preaches, in full and accurate accord with God's Bible, is functioning as a prophet.)
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil Isa 1.16
If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land Isa 1.19
•Category #2: Foretelling -- a foretelling prophet gives the people the word of God concerning the future
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Isa 7.14
Prophecy Today
To serve God's church in the PRESENT TIME, God imbues certain of His servants with the gift of being His prophets.
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 1 Cor 12.28
Based on Revelation 22.18, it is Bible Bell's OPINION that God's Bible contains ALL the foretelling that He deems we need. Therefore, it is our OPINION that the verse alongside means...
•God is no longer revealing future events to His present day prophets
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book Rev 22.18
Accordingly, we hold the further OPINION that the Biblical function of today's prophets is simply to preach and teach from the word of God -- His BibleWell, I would say by your behavior patterns you are attempting to fill the role of apostle, not prophet. I find it hilarious that miracles and healing are listed as below being an apostle or prophet. I do understand though. Ego reins when one knows what can and can't be done.
Where did you find that miracles and healing are "below" apostles and profits? I must have missed that.
Oh. Since you listed apostles and prophets first, I assumed they were the most readily recognized and held a higher place in the pecking order.
I notice you spelled prophets as profits. Freudian slip?Those with gifts of healings and miracles are not described as "below" prophets and apostles. For the most part, one spiritual gift is not said to be greater than another, with a couple of exceptions. Prophecy is said to be of greater value to others than the gift of speaking in tongues - the one who prophecies does so for the benefit of others, while the one who speaks in tongues edifies him/herself. The "most excellent way" is love, the gift that surpasses all.
What "profit" is it to be a prophet, except as it profits others?Funny, but I don't feel I'm profiting from you at all.
Nor will you, not until you bow down and accept that all that is being said is absolute truth, from the one blessed by God and the Spirit above all others. Once you have done that, and accepted the self proclaimed greatness of the prophetess, then shall ye profit greatly.
Probably by falling asleep. That's what usually happens when too many neurons shut down or die off.God's Spirit is the One above all others. I have said repeatedly that God's Spirit is within every single believer, and that he pours out his gifts generously onto those filled with the Spirit. You know already, Wilderness, that I never suggested I was "the one blessed by God and the Spirit above all others". Your honesty would be appreciated.
Why do you resent the believers who have the blessing of God on their lives? You have been given the same offer as they have.You have made it exceedingly plain that anyone that disagrees with you (because you have the Spirit) is wrong. That makes you superior to everyone else on earth in your understand of God's truth. False modesty is not appreciated, honesty is.
Perhaps because they have no more blessing than I do, but declare themselves superior, and a prophet to boot. They claim knowledge, but it is only a lie as they have none. It does get a little irritating after a few dozen or hundred repetitions even though I do understand that a handful actually believe the nonsense they spout as "truth from my god".
Right, your claiming to have the highest ground. You claiming that you have the greatest understanding of scripture therefor no one can question you on it. Well, guess what I don't believe you. What evidence do you have besides your own words. You wouldn't be the first to lie for Jesus.
Many of God's children submit to the Spirit and have wisdom and understanding. If you are genuinely interested in truth, then you would do well to listen to their words . It doesn't make us "better", as the wisdom comes from God and not ourselves, as others may also seek and find wisdom, and as we are often given "thorns in the flesh" to keep us humble in spite of the revelations and understanding. We humbly offer you the truth, as servants. You may take it or reject it.
Again with the puppet thing? You think your God wants puppets. You are a puppet to your own imagination and you think I want to be like that? When you prove to me that your "spirit" has any information that you don't I'll pay attention, but until then you are just someone I'm trying to help confront your delusion.
But Q is most certainly right.
Um, both. There is a God who we can get to know, but because God is not a mere human being we cannot get to know God the same way we can get to know another human being. Knowing what He is is also knowing that we cannot truly understand what He is. That's not a contradiction.
Sure it's a contradiction. You can't claim to know what God what because he speaks to you and then claim he can't be understood the second someone shows you scripture that paints him in a bad light.
No I don't actually, but someone needs to. Everyone going around saying God is perfect in light of all that was written about how imperfect he is said to be is ridiculous.
Yeah, you can. You can also claim to not understand Him when scripture paints Him in a good light. Is life really so completely simple and black and white that we can look upon any nuance at all as being self-contradictory and therefor we cannot allow it?
If you don't understand him then you don't know what he wants. Or is it you understand him until someone shows you something that makes no sense and then you don't understand him.
So it's either/or? I either completely understand Him and know what He wants or I never understand Him and never know what He wants? Is life really that narrow? Is that the way all of your relationships are?
Rad Man, you wrote, "You either have no idea what God is or you know exactly what he wants and is. Which is it? Those who claim that God/spirit speaks through them should have all the answers to everything. A spirit being part of God would be able to answer simple questions that they themselves don't have the answer to."
The Spirit wasn't put inside us to make us ALL KNOWING, God alone is all-knowing. The Spirit is within us to give us power and boldness, understanding of spiritual matters, abilities/gifts we do not otherwise possess, comfort, a seal of ownership, confirmation, joy, etc. etc. The Spirit that is within us knows it all, but only reveals what he chooses to our own spirits. This is why it is written, "The Spirit also helps us in our weakness, since we do not know how to pray as we should. But the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words" (Romans 8:26).That's exactly what I said. You claim to understand what God wants and needs and yet you say we can't understand his way.
There is a very good reason for this conflict. The spirit which you speak of is hidden in your mind, but not connected to any God, that's why it can't get any information it doesn't already have. You are simply talking to yourself. You have become a puppet to yourself.The Spirit was never given to us so that we could mind read or perform acts at your command, Rad Man. You already know God doesn't "perform" for you or others who demand signs. Why keep making the same ludicrous demands rather than humbly seeking the One True God?
Sorry the God of the bible performed miracles to help people to believe. Perhaps you've got the wrong version of God swimming around in your mind.
Performing miracles such as healings did demonstrate Jesus' power, but was never done as a response to demands for a sign, but rather was a response to faith. Demanding a sign is the polar opposite of an approach of faith. Faith brings about the evidence/signs; lack of faith/demands for signs never will.
"He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah'." (Matthew 12:39)
The whole picture is the whole Bible, the parts where God demands sacrifice and where God sacrifices His son.
Where God demands love and respect and gives love and respect.
Where God loses patience and where God shows great patiences for decades, or centuries.
The whole thing.Losing patients seems like a human trait. Demanding love and respect sounds narcissistic. Demanding sacrifices and then sacrificing His son doesn't put him in good light especially when his son is him and he didn't die. So essentially he put himself through some pain.
Sounds like you understand him enough to tell others about him and yet can't understand him. Okay.I've quoted this before, but every once in a while it just seems so appropriate:
In the beginning God created man, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.
It's one of the most terribly-kept secrets in the whole of existence and history that if God created man in His image, then it would stand to reason that God would exhibit traits that we consider human. Sometimes the negativity of it is simply the spin we choose to put on it.
I stand by what I wrote.Well he is certainly not perfect then is he.
If God created man in his image and is perfect than we should be perfect.
If Man created God and said he is perfect then we should expect him to appear human.
The bible describes him as a flawed man.Erm, no. That is flawed logic.
If God created man in His image that is not the same as God creating man as an exact duplicate. The statement has nothing inherent to indicate that we should expect the creation to be perfect.
Your second statement is indeed correct, as indicated by many 'gods' (the Greek pantheon being the example I cite most often.) But man did not create God.
The Bible shows a being who we humans can call flawed as long as we hold Him to our standards and no more. And historically that has been the case.So man has created every God ever known, except the one you believe in?
Further, why is it flawed logic. If God is perfect then him image would be as well, how could a perfect being make something imperfect?You know as well as I do that every next generation image is slightly off from the original.
To be fair, though, when God looked over his creation, he declared it good, not perfect.Yes, thank you Mo. That was the other point I was trying to get at, that God declared His creation "good." Not "perfect."
Then why do SOME (Sorry to yell, but I get in trouble for not using that stipulation) Christians tell us how sinful and horrid people are and that we all need to become puppets of the spirit to be saved. Doesn't sound to me like one is actually being good, because they are not making there own decisions. They are of course making their own decision, they just don't realize it, perhaps that's why they appear unChristlike.
Sorry. not directed directly at you, just a little rant.*hugs*
You don't get in trouble for not saying "some". It's a knee-jerk reaction from those of us Christians that don't want to be associated with the "hell-fire and brimstone" pack. They are embarrassing and we don't really want to be mistaken for them. Consider it a short-hand apology, kinda like apologizing for the crazy uncle to your date before you get to the family reunion.
With that said SOME Christians have a horrible inferiority complex that creates the odd dichotomy of considering themselves both as worms and as being superior to other worms. They don't like it when they run across others, who have never considered themselves to be worms... as that automatically means that non-worms feel themselves superior. The worms then must do their best to reduce the non-worms back to their "rightful" place... which is lower than them... as it should be.You are right I understand the difference and don't mind being corrected. I liken to not wanting to be lumped in with those like Sam Harris.
In the very same way, we should probably give the "hell-fire and brimstone" pack the same courtesies we would show our "crazy uncle" at the family reunion. They need far more help than anyone else.
I'd love to. As a relative though, I could petition to forcibly commit my crazy uncle. I can't do anything about the fire and brimstone pack.
My point was that Christians should be doing something about the fire and brimstone pack, especially considering how much damage they do to Christianity overall. They need help and the only ones that can help them are their brethren.
Yeah, we're trying. We're told that we're not Christians when we try. Any suggestions?
Stop validating their beliefs by calling yourselves "Christians."?
I can't stop believing in Christ just because someone else is pissing all over his name. Sorry. Just like I couldn't stop loving my husband because the other people who loved him were asshats. (And they are)
Then you will just have to accept the fact that every time one of them says "there are X billion Christians," to support their stance - you have been a part of that. Despite the fact that you need to completely change what the bible says in order to "believe in Christ."
Clue - who said this?:
"But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. "I accept that and certainly can't change it. They are all crazy uncles. I can't disown them because of it.
I know the verse. ThanksSo - you are not actually doing anything about it then?
I call them out on their behavior when I see it. I suppose I could punch them...Do you think that would help?
Depends - how hard can you punch?
But - no - all the time you feed them by claiming to be a Christian the same as they are - probably not.
Do you have to call yourself a christian to "believe in Christ"?
As a matter of interest - what does that involve exactly? Believing in Christ?In fairness Melissa is doing more than her fair share. She and a few others have been the only ones I've seen stand up to them. The rest turn a blind eye while someone goes on about how children would better off in heaven.
To be home with the Lord is better by far than to be here on earth. That being said, God alone determines the number of our days, so NO ONE is suggesting we end anyone's life in order to end their suffering (as you maliciously and slanderously have said). If we remain on earth, this is good because it means "fruitful labor", opportunities and so on. To go home to God ends the labor, but is far better for us personally. Those who know God joyfully look forward to the day he calls us home. What unspeakable joy beyond our comprehension awaits us!!
All this is biblical. Those who take issue with this or anything else I've said straight from the word can take it up with my Father.
I don't believe in the No True Scotsman argument. You follow Christ, you are a Christian. You may be an ass, but you're our ass.
Until a reasonable alternative is found, "Christian" is the catch-all term. So yeah, I kinda have to call myself a Christian... or make up some abnormally long phrase explaining the specifics.
As far as what believing in Christ entails- I'm not exactly sure how to answer that without a book-length response. Was there something specific you wished to know?As I've said before; Everyone should be very about the things they hate regardless of what that thing is. Cause .... If we don't, we become as bad or worse than the thing we are fighting (hating).
When you fight fire with fire, ...??... you become fire.
Edit .. as a matter of fact. I got one burning in the front yard (leaves) and one in the back. better go man the water hose.
There isn't much anyone can do cause; IMO the fire and brimstone and the believe like I do or die, are the ones God was talking about in Rev. 13.
And he gave them 42 months (prophetic months) to blaspheme and all them other things he talked about. Remembering that 62 weeks in prophesy (Daniel 9 ) turned out to be approx 568 years before it came to completion. If I'm correct with my theories, this 42 months will be over soon.
Then everyone might understand prophesy a little bit better.
THAT is "IF" I'm right.I know; ... that's why I said it. I haven't heard any other theories I like any better though. I'll be on and off here today. busy doing yard work today.
I think calling that a "theory" is a bit of stretch.
I have a way better one myself.
I would suggest the bottom/up - top/down approach. Put it forth to the religious leaders to take steps in working with the entire Christian community to bring in professional counselors to help these people, have the religious leaders start teaching them that the fire and brimstone preaching techniques do more harm than good, that Jesus would not approve of that type of evangelizing. They don't seem to want to listen to anyone else.
The problem with that is Christianity isn't that organized. It's entirely denominational. The mainstream churches could do that, but that's not where the problem is. The fundamentalists have no desire to do that, and wouldn't accept the interference of those churches that they don't see as being Christian anyway.
In short, they aren't going to listen to us either.Then, as a Christian, there's not much you can do but be dragged along with the fundamentalists agenda as they define Christianity and give everyone else a reason to despise it.
I think most people understand that fundamentalists only think they define Christianity.
Jesus defined it - "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Therefore those who follow the Way, the Truth and the Life are Christians.
Only for a little longer.
The decline of the fundamentalist/conservative/fire and brimstone type churches is well-documented. They are like rats jumping ship. The rise of the "non-denominational" churches (read embarrassed Baptists) were the first sign. They didn't want the association with the negative image of the Baptist faith, but wanted the same doctrines. Now they are suffering the same fate.
The only place that fundamental Christianity is on the rise is in third world countries (Thanks missionaries) Generationally, only 17% of the "Millennial" generation identifies itself as being Conservative/Fundamental Christian.
At the same time, the percentage of Liberal/Progressive Christians has almost doubled just since my generation. The "moderate" gap and atheism have eaten the rest of the difference.
What you are seeing now is the camera-hogging grandstanding of a philosophy that is on death's door and is making it's final stand. That is why the extremists are louder and are spending their time trying to convince the world that Armageddon is imminent. It's desperation.
By the time my youngest child has children, fundamentalism will be reduced to the cult status it deserves. (Assuming the world doesn't end and the curve continues in the same way that it has for the last 4 generations)
TL/DR They are only defining it because they are the loudest, they actually are quietly going the way of the dinosaur...They just haven't admitted it yet.1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons."
2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
I believe churches such as the UU churches will gain increasing popularity, as they follow the philosophy of our day - their association states that 1) they combine all manner of religions, including the worship of nature and atheism, 2) a person can believe whatever they want so that they essentially define their own truth, 3) they do not uphold scriptures / the Word of God (but a person may follow scriptures if they so choose).
If a person embraces the philosophies of this day, then they cannot embrace the Word of God without great contradiction, for in the word it is written:
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)
"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles." (Romans 3:30)
I encourage you to examine what you believe in light of what the scriptures teach. I encourage you specifically to look in Revelation at what the Spirit says to each of his churches. I have already confronted your attacks on Christianity/Christians, and am not here seeking to do that. I am in all sincerity exhorting you to take a hard look at scripture and your own beliefs. You may choose to believe whatever you wish, but if you seek truth - the Word is the Truth and the Spirit is the One who will guide you into all truth. May God bless you, Melissa.I didn't read your posts. I haven't read any of them since you declared yourself a prophet.
Again, you have declared yourself a prophet. I don't believe you speak for Jesus. I cannot associate with you even to the limited extent of an internet forum. My faith will not allow it.
Please respect that and stop responding to my posts. I do not read your responses anyway past seeing your name, so they are wasted effort on your part.I think everyone is beating a dead horse at this juncture, but I have to tell you; you worship a dead religion. A dead spirit. Christianity was not Judaism. The Catholic church that arose was not the faith of the beginning. The Protestant reformation was not a move to line back up with the faith of the beginning.
Christianity, for the most part, has been a political force through the centuries. Christians are not that force, they simply align themselves with it. Individual Christians have evolved through seeking a better understanding. That is why, as Melissa pointed out, only a small percentage can relate to the message you attempt to spread.
There is nothing static about the idea of a spirit. The universe is only unchanging in that it will always change. Were humanity not meant to grow in understanding there would have been no interlude of the gospels. If God exists....if Jesus was who he claimed to be......the only thing you are attempting to do is back track and negate all of his teaching. You can't hit auto rewind for humanity simply because you fear moving forward.
There's a difference between saying that the creation is good, and that people are good. And there's a difference between saying that people are good (as in because God created something, and that fact makes it good) and saying people are good (in that they are behaving in a way that would be considered good, whether by nature or by coercion.)
These are points that theologians spend a lot of time on, but they're not quite that esoteric.
And honestly, to some extent, what you put as having to be 'puppets of the spirit' is a matter of perspective. Without getting into who's right and who's wrong, there will always be those who see things in a more literal sense (and therefor will take literally what the Bible says about surrendering yourself to God) and those who see things in a more allegorical sense (and so tend to think of the Bible as a guideline but not an absolute.) I don't know if there's any parallel in Canada, but in the US this can also be seen in the way people talk about our Constitution, the 'Strict Constructionists' vs. the 'Living Document-ists'.Actually, I don't think there is a real parallel between our constitutions. Canada's constitution is a work in progress and is one of the oldest working constitutions in the world. We don't hold those responsible for starting it as anything special and don't hold them up anything near your founding fathers. It's much more fluid and changes for what the times need. In other words we don't have a right to be armed, it more of a privilege. It's not so important what the people who started wanted it what the people of today need.
So God's creation is good, but people are not. Seems like Gods creation is deeply flawed, but how is that possible?The question is, is the creation actually flawed or does it fulfill the purpose for which it was created?
The purpose of humans is to love God, and you can't truly love someone unless you can also truly not love that someone. That's the shorthand version, whole books can be written about it, but it illustrates the point that even though the creation doesn't act "good" does not necessarily mean that it's 'flawed.'
Chris, you are not painting a very good picture of the characteristics of the God you love. I know you are going to tell me we can't understand God while telling me why he created us, but suggesting our only purpose is to love god suggests that needy to say the least.
I understand it's hard for you to see how absurd it is to say he is perfect given his characteristics in that your in the middle of the story. The Mormons are fine with Smith being at equal billing as Jesus and they are okay with the notion of having a secret handshake to get into heaven.
You are suggesting (and I've heard this before) that a almighty, perfect being created this vast universe and waited about 14 billion years for us to love him. If he had put us on another planets we could have been here 12 billion years ago. All of the billions of galaxies just for us to love him. Right.So what you're saying is that God would only be perfect if He were aloof and uncaring like, say, Allah?
I know that you really give me no credit for intelligence or imagination. I put it down to your conditioning, you're just a slave to it. Or perhaps your super-ego drives you to be this way. Either way, I understand. You can't help it!
Got the science on that one? I'm not talking the 14 billion years thing, I mean what planet would have produced human beings in one eighth the time? Scientifically shaky ground is not a good case for disbelief in God, let alone for telling someone who has experienced His presence that He does not exist.We are talking about us loving him aren't we?
I said nothing about anyones intelligence. I'm the last to judge someone's intelligence. I'm just saying it seems okay when you are in the middle of it.
Chris, our sun isn't a first generation sun. There are billions of suns smaller than our that have been around since the beginning that are more suitable than ours. Ours didn't come around until almost 10 billion years after the formation of the universe. Because our sun is rather large it will not only have a shorter life span but it also heats up faster moving the sweet spot for live farther away eventually leaving us to hot to contain life. Does it make sense that God created the entire universe for us and put us on a planet some 13 billion years after he could have?Yes we are, and I don't see what's wrong with a living, emotional being wanting to be loved. Your response to my statement at the least implies that you don't think a god who wants to be loved can possibly be perfect, which is why I responded the way I did. Since we are created in God's image, we too need to be loved, and to love. And the relationship with God is reciprocal.
Saying that it's hard for me to understand how absurd what I say might seem does speak to my intelligence. But we've gone round with this before. Maybe someday you will see it, I don't know.
I don't dispute the actual science, what I ask is do we know, can we know that other planets capable of sustaining human life were there 12 million years ago? Until we do, that's not the best argument for God's non-existence, and frankly even if we do it's still not a very good proof. The entire theory of evolution still rests on time plus chance. So even if we know for an indisputable fact that a planet just like ours existed twelve million years before this one, that's not a good argument that human life would have HAD to be on that planet.
The baseline argument you seem to be making (and that many atheists in these forums often make if you boil down what they actually say) is that since God didn't do things the way you would have, God makes no sense. It doesn't work that way.Wanting to be loved and demanding it are two different things. Do we demand love from our children? Do we have children so that they will love us, is that their entire purpose? If your neighbour were to tell you they had children so they would be loved and demanded that love with the threat of burning them what would you think? Is it okay for a God to create up for the soul purpose of loving him but not okay for people?
Sorry Chris, it has nothing to do with intelligence. Do you agree that there are very intelligent Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Hindus that just don't see the absurdity of the stories being told to them?
Knowing that there are stars and planets out there that could have contained life billions of years ago and may still contain life doesn't in itself mean that no God exists, but it is an clue as to what our universe is all about. It's certainly not all about us. These are facts. Our sun and earth and the position of earth are not perfect examples of places designed for life. Our sun has a rather short time compared to about half the stars out there to generate the possibility for life to exist on Earth.
How does it work then? Why this planet? Why to almost 14 billion years to make us when he could have done it in a flash? Why would something that has always been suddenly decide he needs to make something that love him? What makes your God valid and others invalid? How does it work?I don't love God because He threatened to burn me. I don't know anyone who does. Obey, I can see that and I do think people obeyed because they didn't want to go to hell. But love? No.
I think you missed the point of my original comment about you being a slave to your conditioning.
I've never claimed that our universe is "all about us." However, in a way you simply agree with what I say. I responded to a statement that said, in effect, that God cannot exist because it makes no sense that He wouldn't have brought us forth earlier on a different planet. I don't see it. And 'life' is one thing, 'human life' can be quite another.
There are answers I don't know, and I've always said so. But I do know that saying that just because you would have done something differently means (or at least heavily favors) God's non-existence is not good logic. It is presumption, that your way is the best way and no one else's is.Chris, you are talking about your love for God, I'm talking about something completely different which is why God requires or needs love. Stating that our purpose on earth is to love God means we are simply here to feed God's ego. Any one who would make children for the purpose of having them feed their ego would seem like a narcissus.
It a matter of what makes sense, you can deny all logic if you like, but at some point one should ask themselves if any of it makes sense. Not long ago when it was believed the universe was small, we were at the centre of everything and the universe was only a few thousand years old it made sense to think that a God created everything for us, but now when we understand that we are not at the centre of anything an we are not in a particularly good place in the universe relatively speaking we should at least question the notion that the universe was made for us.
It took a few billion years for us to evolve on the one planet that we know contains life. There are billions of planets out there that have been capable of sustaining life for two or three times longer and will continue to do so billions of years after we are gone. To think that intelligent life couldn't evolve on those planets to to ignore that fact that we are hear.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to be loved, especially with people. Where it gets a little psycho is how far you'll go for that love. It's one thing if I love you and I want you to love me, but if you don't, I accept that you don't have to. It's another thing if I demand that you love me and I threaten your life and the lives of those you love to make sure you understand why I'm so wonderful and why you should love me. And it's equally unhealthy that I can't deal with the fact that you don't love me back. And me slaughtering all those who refuse to love me... This doesn't sound good, right?
Intelligence is different from a frame of mind. An intelligent individual will have different frames of mind all throughout life. When you were younger, you had the same capacity for intelligence, but you were in a different frame of mind. I think that's more what he means.
Very true. But there are some that can make more sense without much effort, especially the more you really learn about nature and the nature of nature. There are too many inconsistencies with this God. Just because you believe you experienced Him doesn't mean you did. Subjective experiences can't be real proof. Proof doesn't work that way.I refer back to my response to Rad Man. I don't know anyone who loves God because they're scared of hell.
Again, I think (scratch that, I know) that the point of my response was missed. Although it's true that Rad has not given me much credit in the past and we've gone around about it, the real point was the part about him being a slave to his conditioning, or being forced by his super ego to do what he does. I know I'm not that funny, but am I really too subtle? It was a parody of all the times I've been accused (including often by Rad Man) of being a slave of my conditioning or driven by my super ego. Yeah, I understand the frame of mind thing. What others don't seem to understand is that I'm smart enough to have thought about and questioned all this. Just because I maintain my belief is not proof that I'm some dimwit or a slave to my subconscious. And Psych 101 efforts to 'prove' to me or 'show' me how I'm wrong don't do much for either side.
I agree that subjective experiences aren't 'real proof' yet we accept them all the time. Some things you can find someone or something to back you up when you tell someone and some you can't. At some point I have to own up to my own experiences and why I believe what I believe, and then I have to accept (as painful as it may be) that others will judge me to be stupid or psychotic. I have to choose between things that I know to be true, and one thing I know to be true is that God does exist.The relationship is reciprocal. And He definitely has shown patience. The Bible is not one unbroken sequence of events happening in short periods of time. Many of the events happen decades or even centuries apart. It's too narrow to focus on a few things in the OT and say that's the sum total of the whole.
What he thinks he means and what he is actually saying are nooooot quiiiiite the same thing. He and I have gone around about it and I'm tired, I don't want to do it with you too. I know what he thinks he's doing, it's been done to me by more than one well-meaning but unintentionally condescending atheist. And I wish I could say I've never done it to anyone else.
Yes, subjective experience is not 'proof' in that you can't reproduce it in a laboratory. As I've said before, and if you're honest you have to admit this, we still accept subjective experience all the time. For the most part, our willingness to accept it really depends more on how we feel about the person or about the subject than any deep-seated need for absolute objectivity. That being said, just because I had an experience that cannot be septically reproduced, that doesn't mean that it can't be examined and analyzed.
Repeatedly dating that you have felt gods presence really doesn't do more for skeptics, Chris, and you know it. You don't know that it was God's presence you felt, or which God's presence it was. Asserting something does nobody but you any good if you can't back it up. I can tell you repeatedly that I've felt the noodly presence of the fsm looking out for me, but talk is cheap and I sincerely doubt that you would take me very seriously either.
Yes, I do know that is doesn't do much for skeptics, but at some point I have to stop pretending I haven't experienced what I've experienced. That doesn't mean I emphasize it as a reason that you or Rad or anyone else has to believe me, but it is a foundation of why I'm a believer.
Talk is cheap, except when it's not. Not to be insensitive, but I think you understand that one. I don't mean to compare my experiences with yours, I've never had to endure even close to what you have and I wish you had not. But if you think saying that I've experienced the Spirit is an easy entree to anything, you would be wrong. I've written about the funny looks I've gotten in church for asserting I've felt the Spirit.
And yes, it is possible to know what I felt.Fine. Prove your knowledge (not belief, knowledge) of the origin of your feelings.
I could say something very close to what Chris just did, I haven't and won't cause it is a personal thing for me. I don't care if anyone else believes it. most people that meet me do like me. And that makes me feel good about myself, but that isn't what I live for. And most Christians I share my beliefs with still like me though they don't agree with my Christian beliefs. But some of my Christian friends are finding out that my beliefs aren't as un-biblical as they thought at first .
I just think that this life is not all that "ALL That there is" This physical experience is but a fraction of the whole thing. Everyone who holds an average theological mindset are entitled to it as I am with mine.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone can be RIGHT an long as their mindset aint hittin me on the head.
And I don't want to see them hittin anybody else on the head either.Or what? What can I say now that I haven't said before? To you? Because I've given you all my reasons. It's all very well and good to try and 'be reasonable' and I try to do that but at some point if you're a believer you have to assert that something is true that makes no sense at all to non-believers. And in that I think you have to agree because one way that we're alike (aside from being emotional Celtic descendants) is that we've both been on both sides of the issue (although I went one way and you the other.)
It doesn't mean you have to agree with me or even that I expect you will. It's possible you may lose all respect for me at this point, although I certainly hope not. But the fact is, I have the experiences. I've outlined them. The assertion (and I got this from my mother until she realized that either we would have to stop talking about it or stop talking, and neither of us wanted the latter) that I cannot know for sure what I've experienced is a bit presumptuous. And I've seen (and been guilty of) the same sort of presumption coming from the other side.Odd that you dismiss Hitlers experiences. He said God spoke into his head by majick. As you do.
Really?
Please, prove to me once and for all that I'm right about you. Oh, wait, you just did.
When did I ever claim that for myself?Oh good. God doesn't show himself to you and speak to you. Hitler says he did to him. Guess that makes Hitler the REAL Christian.
Oh! Oh! Grasping at straws! I love you!
You are definitely the funniest one here!Now turn it around and compare it to what you actually claim. Hitler made the same claims. But you know he was not being truthful. Hilarious!
Wow. Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but at least you go at it full bore!
Chris, you said that you can know where your feelings originated from, and its not just a belief or a feeling that you attribute to the god that you believe in. Sure, you can say it all you want, but without being able to demonstrably share that knowledge, what's the purpose? What good is it for anyone but you? I understand that it gives you comfort and security to believe that it comes from god, but that's not knowledge.
If I claim to know something beyond doubt or question, I should be able to share that knowledge. If I can't, then it's nothing more than a belief. Beliefs may be true, but without any way to demonstrate that they're true, it's pointless for a skeptic. There is no reason whatsoever for me to accept your claims of knowledge about your God as absolutely true, and if I did, the would be no justification for rejecting a believer from another faiths claims. I would have to accept all claims at face value without question. What good would that do me?I don't disagree with any of what you wrote, it's just that I've shared it so many times.
I remember the two times I was 'in the Spirit' and they were both connected to Christianity. In fact, they were both connected to Keith Green, a man who died before I became a Christian. He was very interested in the Spirit and many of his concerts were marked by movings of the Spirit. Here's what I wrote in my hub, "My next truly supernatural experience came a couple of years later. As you've probably guessed, the woman I attended church with did become my wife. We had been married for about a year, and while reading the biography of Keith Green I experienced something that Keith did often, the presence of the Holy Spirit. It was the first of two times for me, and it's like a rush, a euphoria, like something I'd never experienced before. But it's also a feeling of peace, of knowing that God is truly there, in the room with you. I had never done drugs and I certainly wasn't much of a drinker, so I had no previous experience to compare this to. And, as I learned, neither had many other people. Although many people have claimed to experience the Holy Spirit, I didn't attend churches with large numbers of those people. Even other Christians can sometimes look at you funny if they haven't experience it themselves."
It was directly involved with a Christian experience, but it was unique. I've had deeply emotional experiences both before and since but they were not like feeling the Spirit. It's difficult to explain. Nevertheless, although it's a subjective experience it still took place in a specific setting.Because something took place in a specific setting doesn't mean that you just automatically get to correlate that setting with the experience and determine solely from that where it came from and what it was. For example: When i was little, I got sick every time I got in the water to swim. My parents assumed that it had something to do with the water, so I wasn't allowed to swim for several years. As it turns out, I was having an allergic reaction to part of the elastic in my bathing suit. If my parents hadn't eventually investigated outside of the water, I may not have developed my love of the water and my appreciation for swimming. While the experience happened in the water, the water had nothing to do with the cause, and assuming it did only because that's where I had the experience was false and faulty.
You said to ATW: "That being said, just because I had an experience that cannot be septically reproduced, that doesn't mean that it can't be examined and analyzed.".
Unfortunately, in my past experiences with you, that doesn't seem possible - at least in your situation. No matter what alternative possible explanations I came up with, you dug your feet in and said "it's god its god it's god, I'm not going to analyze or even really consider anything else" (not in those words, but that's certainly the tone I got from your responses. You say that you're willing to examine and analyze your experiences, and that's great. I would love to participate in that conversation, but we've tried before and it's never worked, so I'm a bit skeptical of your claim there.
The only basis you have for the moving of the "spirit" is your word for it, the word of other Christians who claimed to experience something similar (but you can't know for sure, because you are not able to experience their experiences, so they may not be similar at all) and a feeling that you associated with a particular situation. I have strange feelings too. I had them when I was a christian, and I can recreate them now that I'm not. I'm just not willing to assert or assign supernatural explanations to them just because i'm not positive where they came from or what a natural explanation would be. In that way, I can't assert that I KNOW for certain what happened, because I don't - and I can't demonstrate any knowledge to someone else. I try not to make a habit of asserting knowledge about things that are, by default, unknowable.You make it sound like you came up with alternatives that were not only plausible but also more likely than what I put forth, then I stomped my foot and said, "No, it's only what I said!"
From my perspective, it's more like the evidence makes my explanation the most likely and you guys are the ones saying "No, it can't be God." And then getting upset with me for not going with that. Yeah, if there is no God then you would have a point but God does exist. The alternatives are alternatives, but none of them are as likely, let alone more likely, unless God doesn't exist.But there is no evidence that can be examined. Emotions are not evidence. Assertions of where those emotions and feelings came from with no substantiation are not evidence. You can say something until the cows come home, but repeating something does not make it evidence either. What evidence ort than conformation bias, special pleading and your feelings do you possibly have? The fact that other people relay similar experiences and attribute then the same way? So what? That's just the appeal to popularity, and many people from many different faiths share experience they attribute to the supernatural, too and without evidence, their assertions are every bit as viable as yours. You believe God exists. That's fine. But feelings and experiences do not amount to proof that belief is true, and if you accept truth based on experiences then you should accept every religious claim out there. You don't.
You don't find any alternatives plausible because you want to believe it's God. That's fine, but don't assert that as knowledge, and don't hold up your experiences as proof that you're assertions are true. It's not proof. Even if it were, the only thing that attributes those experiences to your particular god is you, and you can't prove that either other than just to assert it repeatedly.By the same token you find any alternative to mine plausible because you don't believe in God. And that also is fine. But basically what you are saying is anything I offer is automatically disqualified. Emotions are not what I offer. However, my credibility is. I'm not stupid and I'm not blind.
While there have been times when emotions have been heated on both sides and I can certainly admit to being frustrated, I have never called you stupid or blind, Chris, and you know it. I respect you because you're knowledgeable and I do think that you care whether or not your beliefs are true, but if you put your personal experiences out there for examination and critique, you're opening the door to that discussion and critique. That doesn't mean that you get to get snarky, disrespectful and sarcastic whenever anyone responds to you.
I'm absolutely not saying that everything you offer is automatically disqualified. I'm saying that if you're going to attribute things to supernatural sources, you need to be able to back those assertions up with more than just "because I said so".
Let's look at this a different way and try to calm down, okay? What do you consider evidence? I have a feeling that we have two different definitions and two different sets of criteria which is not allowing positive communication.
If I were to have an experience that I couldn't explain tonight, and for whatever reason, attributed it to Allah, what would it take to convince you that Allah was the one true god, and that my experience truly came from that deity and not the one that you believe in? Would me just saying it be enough to convince you that it was true? I'm thinking that it's doubtful that it would be significant enough for you. Maybe looking at things that way will help put things in perspective and make them less personal on your end.Actually, I don't think he does. If he is sharing his experiences or his opinions for the sake of conversation or just because he feels like sharing, he doesn't have to back anything up. If he, for whatever reason, is trying to convince someone else that they have to believe him, then he has to prove it.
So if he's trying to convert... yes he better be pulling some serious proof out. If he is trying to convince someone that they are wrong, and that his beliefs are absolutely correct, again, he needs proof. If he is saying "Hey, I love God, I believe in God, and I am happy... and here's why... I don't see how he is responsible for proving he feels a certain way.
So I guess it boils down to why this conversation is happening.No, he's saying that he has knowledge that god exists, and that the evidence points to the supernatural and not any other kind of natural explanation. If your example was what was happening, then that's fine, but it's not. He is claiming knowledge, fact and evidence and a person can assert that all they want, but if they want to share those ideas and have them examined and discussed, then it takes more than just an assertion to make that fly.
He is saying absolutely that he KNOWS that the source for his experience was supernatural. I don't know, maybe we have a different definition of knowledge as well as evidence and fact. It's possible. We don't have a great track record at communicating (him and me). But if someone tells me that they know something to be true and know where it came from when it's an experience and therefore subjective, I want more than just their say-so if they want me to accept it as true. If I accept that his claims are true, then I would have to accept that his source for his claims is also true, and I'm not able to do that without evidence. Chris says that the evidence points to a supernatural cause - and not just a supernatural cause, but a very specific one.This explains, rather well, the futility of debate here on Hubpages Forums.
The claims of believers, of having a relationship with God, is true, but the evidence demanded by unbelievers cannot be provided, outside of subjectivity.
Not believing someone's testimony has nothing to do with the believer, but with the hearer.
I can understand that one may not want to believe the witness, but, that does not negate the testimony.
The proof that is alway sought is, in my opinion, non existent. The evidence is real, but the interpretation varies greatly.
For instance, Jesus cannot be proven to have existed, outside of testimony of eyewitnesses, or their testimonies.
There is no grave to try and exume His body, since He is risen from the dead. So, what proof is sufficient?
Observation, common sense, and logic "proves" that life can only come from life, yet, so many still argue, that no God (living being) is needed.
If a person cannot accept the testimony, then there remains nothing that will satisfy him/her.I'm not really interested in engaging in a discussion with you in-depth while involved in another conversation on this thread, but I was just curious some things you said.
Firstly, I'm not really having a debate. I'm having a discussion. Debates are more formal and organized, and that's simply impossible in an open forum such as this one. I'm interested in understanding why people believe what they do, and what their reasons for their beliefs are. That's all. I am not interested in trying to convert people to atheism - or deconvert them. I want to know their stories and understand the conclusions that they have come to because of them.
Do you accept the testimony and claims by people of other faiths aside from Christianity as true at face value, when those beliefs validate (to the person) the existence of a different god? Or is this exclusive just to Christianity because it's the one that you agree with?
Evidence to me is something that can be demonstrably shown to someone else. If it is purely subjective and subject to the interpretation and the relaying by the person who experienced it and cannot be shown to be true or examined, it doesn't qualify as evidence. If I wasn't interested in evidence or interested in religion, I wouldn't be in these forums. Anecdotes are not evidence. Insisting that something is true without evidence does nothing for a skeptical mind. I can say a whole bunch of things are true that no one would believe. What's the point?
As for testimony, you can go out today and talk to people one on one, face to face who claim to have been abducted by aliens or that they have seen aliens or UFOs. This is not 2000 years removed, translated, copied, etc. These are asserted first-hand accounts. Do you believe them, too? I have no doubt that believers BELIEVE that they are having a personal relationship with a deity. What they believe, however, does not necessarily equate to truth.Fair points and observations. Not admitting to setting the bar to a point of being unreachable (for what could constitute as reasonable evidences), doesn't mean it isn't happening. We see it often for one thing like Christ, etc and in the next line of thinking about a totally different idea or person, a 180 is done in what counts as evidence. It is therefore not about what could constitute as reasonable evidences, logic and reason. Not a lot of things explains this chosen behavior, but something true explains it. Denials are strong. For example, like denying it is happening as it happening.
Not only do I hope people point this out if I do it, but on my own I want to examine why I do that to my own mind, what reality am I avoiding? That is being intellectually honest with oneself first. Life is flying by, why spend precious time doing that? Why not want to address it even if uncomfortable or distasteful?
Since when do our wants and preferences get to be allowed to define reality, and a belief that it is even possible, get allowed to creep in and deceive us? It's chosen behavior, even if not thought through to that degree. And people are allowed, but reality remains constant, whatever the truth is remains always anyway. Some People play head games, not just with others , and maybe not purposely with themselves. But that they do when they do, shows their belief in lesser reasonable things and ideas,
to be incredibly strong. Rambled there but your post got me thinking.If life can only come from life then where did your God come from? Wait, I suspect you made an exception for him.
Don't act like that's the only exception. To accept your viewpoint you have to make some very similar exceptions. Like about a 'first cause'. The fact is existence exists, and therefore requires explanation. To formulate an explanation, exceptions have to be made on either side of the discussion.
No exception are made. Greater minds than yours or mine are working on what caused the big bang. Who is working on the what was the cause of God?
No exceptions? Really think about that. You've got a singularity of unknown origin to start with, that by modern reasoning would need a cause to be there. Plus, you've got the phenomenon of this singularity changing states, beginning to expand, before time existed. How does something change states, a change that actually creates time, if there was no time before that change that resulted in time existing?
These are things we think and are attempting to understand, we know that at the subatomic level things do happen like that so it may not be an exception to any rule. It's just something that is not fully understood yet, which is nothing like saying that a God that created everything had created everything so that everything needs to be created with the exception of himself. I'll ask again, is anyone studying the creation of God?
No one is studying the "creation" of God, Rad Man, because those who are led by the Spirit already understand that He is the God who was and who is and who is to come, that he is eternal, that he has no beginning or end point (almost like a circle), and thus he never was created but is the Creator of all things. To the awesome Creator be all glory and praise now and forevermore! Amen and amen.
Do yourself a favour and try to wrap your mind around something or someone without a beginning.
With what we now know about this universe and time-space, this concept of a God with no beginning makes more sense now than when it was written. The only reason you or I have a hard time with that concept is because we've always existed within this universe, therefore within time. And everything here has a beginning and an end. So for bronze age people to be able to even conceptualize an eternal being should say something. Especially now that we know that time as we perceive it only exists here. That concept is consistent with a being that exists apart from this universe.
Give me a break. They invented something that has no beginning because they understood saying so prevents questions. Just how does something before time have the time to create the universe and have no creation itself. How does not having time make that concept work?
Because things that have beginnings and endings are the nature of things that exist within a place where time exists. Your point about there being no time to create the universe goes against your own viewpoint as well, because that singularity had to be able to change states before time could exist. How does a singularity change states where there is no time?
We know that gravitational time dilation is a fact, it has been experimentally observed. Within a singularity, time no longer exists and it's state there is no longer changing.
So how could that singularity inflate, as we know it did, without changing states? How does it change from a singularity to an expanding universe without time? And gravity, as far as its affects on time, yes, time is distorted by gravity, which is one of the clues that tells us that time itself is also a product of this universe. As is gravity. Neither existed before that singularity. Both are products of the inflation of that singularity. All we know is if we rewind everything back the direction its moving it all converses in one place and time. But once we get there the math breaks down. Physics don't make sense anymore.
The introduction of space, of course, that's why it's called 'inflation'. And, with space comes time.
Not really. In the state of a singularity, time no longer exists and the state of the singularity goes unchanging, gravitational time dilation would confirm that and it would be consistent with General Relativity.
If a God is consistent with existing apart from the universe, He too would be in an unchanging state where space and time did not exist, just as the state of the universe was before the Big Bang. That said, it would be actually be more consistent to say that not only did the Big Bang bring forth time and space, it also allowed God to come forth from that unchanging state.But if a God exists then we're talking about the being that created the universe. So how can the creator of the universe be a product of it? You're exactly right that if a God existed apart from the universe, He too would be an unchanging state where stapce and time did not exist. So, from our perspective, within time and space, God exists exactly the same, unchanged, in every moment everywhere. Exactly how He's described by bronze age people that didn't have any of that information.
You set that up to come to conclusion that he doesn't exist though, then. Is that satisfactory to you? If we set the game to win, do you really win? You may live a whole life never knowing..... to what end?
A couple of things come to mind, and I will try to keep this short. This would make the God you mention there, not God, and the Singularity or the Big Bang then God possibly, minus the personal nature of a God.
God makes more sense to me than a singularity being the cause for the effect we see, because the cause needs to not only be eternal but personal. It seems to need to be personal because being a timeless thing, it can then create a temporal (like we see with a beginning in the big bang), The cause can't JUST be containing sufficient and necessary conditions, and be impersonal.
We have a temporal effect with a beginning, from a timeless cause. We have a cause and what existed with that, and it isn't the case with the effect. How could that be? One is timeless, the other temporal. It is a dilemma. This can be solved if the cause is a personal agent with its own free will. This kind of agent can choose to create a new effect like what we see, or are in. We see a new effect from an eternally existing cause.
Otherwise, we have an impersonal "something" at some point in its eternity, that begins to do something without the help of an outside cause. The dilemma we have, dictated by the reality we do know, would best be answered by a personal being, not just an impersonal eternal yet sufficient cause for the effect we are in.
Why would I attempt to wrap my admittedly little mind around Someone so awesome He is without beginning or end? To God be all glory!
Thank you for making my point. Intended to stop thinking.
The last time I mentioned IQ in a relevant conversation it brought me grief, but it's relevant here again - At 99th percentile IQ I'm "just" intelligent enough to know how "unintelligent" I and all humans really are. I don't attempt to "wrap my little mind" around things I'm wise enough to recognize are above and beyond human intelligence.
I can see that. You just believe what your told without giving it any thought.
I believe unquestioningly what the Spirit tells me - the truth of God, the truth of Jesus Christ, the security of my salvation, etc.
I study the scriptures and let the Spirit guide me. I have been given some revelation, but there is much I have not been given any revelation on, at least not yet. I hunger for God's words and for wisdom in much the way we hunger for food; it is like "bread" to many of us.
I question what people say, whether unbelievers or believers (including pastors) and make sure it lines up with truths given by the Word and the Spirit. I openly say if I simply don't know because I've not been given any specific revelation in that area.
