Christian Discussion
Its true it doesn't make sense to be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Conversely, it actually makes a lot more sense to be mad at something that actually exists.I think this got twisted somewhere, so let me clarify.
It makes no sense to be mad at something that you have no reason to believe exists. It may exist, or it may not, but anger at the thing that has not been sufficiently proven is absurd.
Thank you very much Ocean sunsets, for your earlier compliment.
I apologize for the lapses in time before I reply to people who reply to me. All I can say is, it's unavoidable; .. not intentional in any way.
I read comments which Atheist make on here and in Part have to agree with many of their arguments. As you mentioned a few minutes ago to Ms McFarland; I seems to me that the Atheist which I have come to know make good arguments against religion more so that the existence of a creator. If all them Christians which they have ever meet are there, most Atheist wouldn't want to be there. which brings up a question in my mind. If a God wanted everything to be here on earth as it is in heaven, what is the purpose of creating earth?
Consider the beast as described in Rev. 13. (The false religion) Religion teaches that it is an evil thing. I guess because it is called a beast. But all of the Beasts spoken of in the OT are representative of a governmental body. The Jewish people of that time considered Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great to be a messiah (Savior).
Ok ... in conclusion. Why would God raise up this beast out of the sea to give it power, as he did with Persia and Greece when he knew it was going to teach a false religion that was going to fool the masses. And why would he sent those who he knew would be fooled to hell to burn for ever and ever?
I simply do not believe this doctrine of Hell as taught by this new religion that began teaching this concept a little over 200 years after the book of Revelation said that it would be like that.
I think a person can accept God and reject religious doctrine which was conceived by man. It seems to me that is what Jesus was teaching.
He told the pharisee "why do you keep making up all these rules ....?
I could just ramble on like this for ever but i won't.Hi Jerami, no worries on the time issue, I am in that same situation often. As for heaven and earth, I think it is the best way to create people (ultimately) that have free will. That is not a complete answer, but it is what comes to mind.
I wish I could say I had studied Revelation more than I have, and in more depth. My hope is to still do so. As for the hell questions, I don't really know the why's behind all God has done, and we are only given some revelation and not all. I am still thinking about hell, heaven, life, death, etc. These are the biggest topics I think.
A lot of the prophecies include eyes being opened for some people that it had not been the case for before. A lot of the answers I could give would not be satisfying, but they would be honest, and still only guesses really.
I think its not a bad idea at all, to reject doctrines of man. Man can really complicate things to a horrible degree and cause a great deal of damage to people in the process. I think its one of the darker sides of evil actually. Jesus seemed to take it seriously too, when talking about woe to the person that causes one of these young ones to stumble, etc.
Feel free to ramble on actually, it was getting really good right when you stopped there, and I couldn't agree more. The extra rules added on were a perfect thing for Christ to ask them about, and pin them down on. No, he didn't like that, it causes and caused so many problems. To the degree that when I see people going against my own beliefs, so often it isn't my own beliefs at all, but another from of it where much was added on to what I believe. Isn't that ironic? That the issues they have are the man made additions to things so often? Jesus was so right in so many things. I started to ramble too...and could go on too, lol.
Ramble on! Wish I could help more with the prophecy stuff, but I hope to learn more and more on that stuff, its very interesting considering the prophecies of the past and all that has happened.Good evening oceansnsunsets
It is my belief that the way in which we see or understand prophesy of scripture determines how we understand all of scripture. Because these visions describe what this "Beast" and that "Beast" is going to do, most Christians envision something evil or anti God about them. As mentioned earlier, Cyrus and Alexander the Great or the governmental organization they established, were depicted as "Beast" in prophesy described in Daniel 8. And yet they were welcomed as Messiahs by the people when they came. The way in which we perceive prophesy definitely controls the way in which we understand the rest of scripture. I forget where it is written , God said prophesy was given to prove scripture. Somewhere along the line, the church started attempting to prove prophesy according to scripture.
It just can't work in reverse.
This thread has been hijacked already,
If you would like to discuss this some more, what ya say we take it over to that other thread?... about how many are going to get saved when God comes back.
"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."
Nope, that's where you're wrong. I'm blaming you and the other Christians that act like you. The fact that you used the word of God to make a point is kind of what I'm talking about. To me, a "spirit-led" Christian would know what verses to use when. When they weren't dangerous. When they weren't being used as weapons.
A "spirit-led" Christian would also know which verse is appropriate in combination... and would tailor each combination in a way that wouldn't cause harm. A spirit-led Christian would also know that misinterpreting that verse could lead to someone being exorcised for just about anything and/or someone forgoing medical treatment for prayer... hoping for a miracle. A spirit led person would get a sick child to a doctor.
An evangelist, however, would care nothing about anything but getting people to agree with them. An evangelist would care nothing about the consequences, just how holy they are going to be in God's eyes for recruiting people to his faith. An evangelist misses the forests for the trees...
Because an Evangelist is too busy spreading God's message to live it or believe in it.Melissa, you specifically said the deaths were caused by THOSE VERSES.
I won't even say I have the gift of evangelizing; I don't think I do. Sometimes the main message given is not to unbelievers but to believers - the message to stop "whoring" with the world and to remain faithful and true to our husband - that is the word, who is Jesus Christ. My gifts are more in the areas of discernment, wisdom, teaching and prophesy (if by it we mean speaking the words of God).Prophecy does not mean reciting scripture. Why must you invent definitions for words? A prophet is someone who gives prophecy. Are you claiming to know the mind of god and speak for him? That you tell the future? That you have special revelation apart from the Bible? Is it not hubris to boat about your self recognized gifts with no proof that you actually have them?
"Melissa, you specifically said the deaths were caused by THOSE VERSES.
I won't even say I have the gift of evangelizing; I don't think I do. Sometimes the main message given is not to unbelievers but to believers - the message to stop "whoring" with the world and to remain faithful and true to our husband - that is the word, who is Jesus Christ. My gifts are more in the areas of discernment, wisdom, teaching and prophesy (if by it we mean speaking the words of God)."
So you are claiming to be a prophet. LMAO, you need to take that one up with Christ. I hope I'm on the other side of heaven with you do... ROFLMAO.
It is possible for someone who is working for their own glory (not Christ's) to use the verses incorrectly and at manipulatively-chosen times, to further their cause, rather than Christ's. That's what you are doing now, I believe.
Those verses, still verbatim, are no longer of Christ's intention. Their use has made them twisted and anti-Christ. Christians know this. Most use them when appropriate. Those who use them to make points or as weapons to get people to agree with "their" wisdom are working for their own purposes.
So yes, the verses themselves cause it... but only when spoken with a forked tongue. Christianity needs to acknowledge that that happens... if they ignore it and let such people go, then they are responsible for the stench that settles over the religion that supposedly worships Christ.- SirDentposted 11 years ago
0Been tied up all day and most of the evening. Tried to catch up but now have a headache. Abandoned the idea.
Makes me want to give up really. - SirDentposted 11 years ago0
One more thing before I go to bed.
I believe some of you could use a little of this. - SirDentposted 11 years ago0
I have come to realize, those who don't like it when scripture is posted or that a testimony is given to the glory of God, they walk all over it. It is hard sometimes to not feel rejected but they don't reject me, they reject God.
I don't how much it's that we don't like scipture being posted. Most of us are quite familiar with scripture, actually. So having people post nonsense is slightly annoying when we ask them a question that we want them to answer, not a book or a "god." It's like trying to having a conversation with someone that constantly pastes wikipedia articles/bits instead of having an actual conversation. (And the authors are just as reliable.
)I see this going both ways. I have no problem with posting scripture, but I'd much rather have a conversation, not a verse off.
I'm not sure being skeptical of miracle claims that are presented as anecdotes with no evidence is walking all over someone. I've seen a lot of Christians display skepticism over atheist stories, and certainly over miracle claims from other faiths. Does that mean they're walking all over them, or just practicing skepticism over things with no proof from a complete stranger that you don't know well enough to determine whether or not they're trustworthy?
Lastly, I'm not rejecting you or Christ. I don't believe your interpretation or version of god exists. If that constitutes rejection, then Christians are equally on par with rejection for every other claim out there, and even with some fellow Christian claims.I just don't read the scripture. I'm more interested in what you think about the scripture.
No God is being rejected. One has to think there is a God to reject him.I think there's a difference between posting scripture for discussion and posting scripture to hurt, insult, or win an argument. I've done it myself before but always ended up with that "wrong" feeling afterwards. I don't think Christ intended his words for such petty uses... In that way, I think it is possible to rape the scripture-to make it do something it wasn't intended to do. That's done by Christians, but people hold it against Christ.
The personal witness thing too, same thing. If it's done to get one up on someone else, I think that's counter-productive. People aren't stupid, they know when others are trying to use their experiences to win an argument/prove the other one wrong. That's not an attempt to glorify God, that's an attempt to glorify themselves. Once again, done by Christians, but held against Christ.
So when the behavior of Christians ends up soiling the name of Christ, how can you possibly say that others are rejecting Christ? If they are, it's only because of what Christians have done to his name. (Well maybe not ONLY, but a good part of it.)As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:2Thanks for proving my point, Beth. That was a brilliant example of exactly what I was talking about.
First, Paul went into a synagogue, which, more likely than not, was filled with Jews who acknowledged scripture as being both divinely inspired and true. An important thing to keep in mind. Paul was reasoning with people who embraced a religion as to how Jesus actually fulfilled the promises made to them in the scriptures they accepted.
Slamming someone who did not accept scripture as divinely inspired or true didn't seem high on his list of priorities. Even in his epistles, he was speaking directly to groups of people who had accepted Jesus as the Christ, who had perhaps embraced Jewish scripture, perhaps not. Odd how he felt he had to write his own letters to the Gentiles, as opposed to throwing Jewish scripture at them. Seems that outside of the Jewish belief structure, the Jewish scriptures were meaningless. Oddly, the same holds for the Christian scriptures outside of a Christian belief system.
Like holding someone born and raised in France to the same English language standards as someone born and raised in the states.
That's my take on it anyway.
Along with the other excellent answers, I'll add one more complaint.
Posting scripture does not indicate what you are thinking, does not indicate what you mean to say. All scripture means different things to different people, with the result that when you post a biblical verse you have no idea what the reader will get from it. Perhaps something similar to what you think it means, perhaps something wildly different. In that regard, scriptural verses are useless in a dialogue unless the scripture itself is the topic of discussion.The scriptures, the inspired words of God, are themselves the jewels. Maybe you won't get what the poster intended, and that's okay. It is better that God through his Spirit speak to you through the scripture than anyone posting speak to you. We all have our flaws; the word of God is flawless. Here I am not saying God corrected all his prophets' words when they showed the limits of human knowledge, such as when they attempted to explain planes seen in visions but had no knowledge of planes (they were inspired by the Spirit, they were not all knowing), but the Spirit has ensured that the basic and essential message is truth. Therefore scripture is truth, but flawed humans can only give you as much truth as permitted by their submission to the Spirit.
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword." (Hebrews 4:12)
"So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)You've got it the other way around. We are not all screwed up, that's why some of us can see that the scripture is screwed up.
Nice words, but very little truth in them.
God does not speak to me at all, let alone through words from a random poster on HP forums. The "inspired word of god" is not flawless; it has a great many falsehoods in the pages of the bible. The basic and essential message is myth, not truth, and should not be mistaken for reality at all.
And you obviously did not read or understand the simple message of my post as you once more provide verses that will be interpreted differently by different peoples and thus cannot be a window to your meaning.
I had a few different replies to my post above. One thing I want to point out first is that the title of this thread is Christian Discussion. What does that mean? it means is is titled so that Christian can discuss things about the Bible, Jesus, etc. . . I know we can't keep non believers from posting and that's fine. So why is it so bad to post verses of scripture for discussion?
What do you think would be the #1 reason that could be? I mean to some people? I don't think its bad, especially in light of how you explained it, to be clear.
No matter what scripture is posted, no one wants to actually discuss it. Some merely want to mock believers because they don't believe. Some believers mock believers because the Word offends them. Some think everything is peaches and cream but there is a lot of the Word of God that is hard to swallow and it isn't all nice.
Some claim it is from what happened in the past and maybe something did happen, but why do they keep dwelling on it?
I won;t be around much more until later tonight. I still go to church regularly and it is time to gety ready and go.Have a great night
Edit: To what you said, I think you are right.1. Have a good night
2. I'm perfectly willing to discuss scripture. I've enjoyed our conversations too. But I may be irritating to you because I am sort of peaches and cream. Not because there isn't tough stuff to swallow, but because that's not the message I need most from Christ. I'm hard enough already, Christ is the one that keeps me from taking it too far. There is more good in that then I think you give credit for.
Besides, it's not really conversation if all we do is set around agreeing with each other.
Can I try to answer this one? If you present a passage or verse of scripture with the intent of sparking a discussion, I don't think anyone would object to that. But in a lot of instances, the verses or passages aren't presented in that way or for that reason. I've seen times when scriptures are use to exclude others-all the while talking about a God who loves everyone. I've seen verses posted that while, in and of themselves may be enlightening or encouraging, are really only being thrown up here to say something insulting or to make someone feel chastised or rebuked. It's not so much the words with which folks sometimes struggle, but the attitude in which they are used. That's just me.
The only other thing I might say is that I view a Christian discussion as a discussion about things Christian, and not as a discussion being had by Christians. If the goal is to discuss a verse or passage, say that. Just throwing it up as a comment with no reference just makes it appear as though you're trying to use those words as your own...and I don't mean you, personally, just in general.Because it's not discussion if you don't use any of your own words.
"The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listen - for they are a rebellious house - they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." Ezekiel 2:4-8
"But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are... Do not be afraid of them, though they are a rebellious house.' And he said to me, 'Son of man, listen carefully and take to heart all the words I speak to you. Go now to your countrymen in exile and speak to them. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says', whether they listen or fail to listen." Ezekiel 3:8-11
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says, 'Whoever will listen let him listen, and whoever will refuse let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house'." Ezekiel 3:27Obviously written for different people in a different time; we've long ago grown out of thinking there are prophets of a god running around among us. Best to just keep quiet and keep your private lord to yourself.
Then you often CAN tell the general idea of what is being said when given scripture, Wilderness (though it is true that much scripture will be "nonsensical" to anyone without the Spirit). It is not people, but the Spirit himself who gives the deeper insights to those who study in the Spirit (though one who is Spirit-led may give you interpretation, so that the Spirit is giving you insight THROUGH that person). You said you get many different interpretations of the scriptures, yet you will find much agreement amongst the Spirit-led Christians regarding the meaning of MOST of the KEY passages (It is in areas where scripture seems intentionally vague or beyond human understanding that debate generally arises; Even the Spirit will not give us all knowledge, as there is only One who is all-knowing).
There are many more prophets (those speaking the words of God) going out now than in Ezekiel's day because since Jesus' death and resurrection, the Spirit has been generously poured out onto believers, just as prophesied in the book of Joel. The Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus, and the Spirit is the one who gives us greater understanding of the words, the boldness and power to speak those words, and the various gifts, according to his purposes.
You have in these forums been given the words of God over and over again (in some cases the scriptures with no interpretation) by many prophets. Whether in Ezekiel's day or our day, the truth remains and God is still saying, "Whoever will listen, let him listen and whoever will refuse let him refuse."The verse, if it were actually based on morals should read "Whoever will listen, let him listen and whoever is not interested, let him go his way in peace without rebuke or reproach."
Sure, you will find agreement is MOST of the KEY passages, as long as you define key as where agreement exists and are careful to cherry pick the appropriate verses.
On the other hand, we could look at creation; a pretty key area, I'd say. And one where no one agrees. Or Noah's flood, with the entire world killed off. Where no one agrees as to what happened.
No, I've never been given the words of a god; I've been given what some people think are those words (or at least claim they think so). I do find it rather odd, though, that only believers think they find truth by twisting the verses into something unrecognizable; others realize that doing so does not mean the biblical words are true at all.
As far as needing the Holy Spirit (whatever is meant by that) to speak the fables and fibs of the bible, such has been done since the first snake oil salesman hit the earth. Man has always lied to each other, and it doesn't take a supernatural creature from another universe to allow them to do so.Let's take perhaps the most key passage in the word of God - "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13, Joel 2:32). You will find that the Spirit-led Christians agree that "everyone" means open to all without regard to nation, ethnicity, class, status, gender, age, religious upbringing, choices, shortcomings, sins, etc.. You will find that they agree that "calls" means that the person is calling in truth and with belief. You will find that the "name of the Lord" is known to be Jesus Christ, the "only name given by which we are saved", the One who came and died in order to reconcile us to God the Father. The Spirit-led Christians will understand that "saved" means cleansed, forgiven and given eternal life with God through Jesus Christ.
As for the creation account or verses regarding the Creator, while we are given more in the word of God, the KEY passages here are simply "God made" or "God created", and you will find that all Spirit-led Christians unanimously agree that "God made" and "God created" - the One True God is the one and only Creator of the universe.True statement ONLY if it is you defining what is a "Spirit-led Christians". Because many will read John 5:24 and realize no calling is necessary. Many more will require what they consider appropriate actions. Nor is the "name of the Lord" necessarily Jesus Christ; some follow Yahweh, according to Malechi 3:6.
And no, when determining the reality and truth of the Genesis tale, a key phrase is "7 days", or "first day, second day". That Christians do not agree on the meaning does NOT mean it is not key - to cherry pick only phrases that lead to the conclusion you wish them to is not very honest. Palming the card "spirit-led Christians" as a method to then claim that all that do not agree with your ideas are not "spirit-led" is not only dishonest but a logical fallacy as well.“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24) This does not contradict the verses stating that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved", nor change our understanding of those verses. Because the demons believe and shudder (James 2:19), we understand that this "believing" has to do with a calling on him as Lord and Savior, as revealed in the other verses.
You are right that some "require what they consider appropriate actions", which seems to result from looking at certain verses upside down and results in a "work-based" mentality that contradicts the truth of the scriptures and is not inspired by the Spirit. I'm not saying those who think like this are not Christians, but the Spirit has not led them to this flawed way of thinking. We can see that it is only the belief/calling on the Lord, and not our works, that saves, as written in the word: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9); "Therefore they said to Him, 'What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent'." (John 6:28-29) Those who push a "works-based" salvation are looking at certain verses "upside down" - "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (James 2:17). We need to look at this verse "right side up" - If we have sincere faith, the faith will produce good works. We can see the good works as evidence of the faith and we can see the faith through the good works. Nonetheless, it was never the good works that saved, but the faith/belief/calling on the Lord.
Jesus Christ is Yahweh who came to us in human form. Yahweh in Hebrew is connected to the verb “I am.” Yahweh is the One-Who-Is or “I am who I am”. When Jesus was communicating his divinity and oneness with God the Father, he said "I am".
The most essential truth of the many verses about the Creator throughout the word is that God is Creator and created all things. All Spirit-led Christians agree on this. The Spirit led Christians may disagree from this point, with some saying the 7-day account is literal, others symbolic, and so on. The Spirit does not reveal all things to all his Spirit-led followers, and certainly not on the same time line.
I see that Spirit-led Christians can have differing opinions about many things in the word of God, but these are things that are either intentionally vague or given only to some through divine revelation, etc. I have never claimed that the Spirit has enlightened me on all scriptures, and I stay away from those that I have no revelation on (I have no problem answering certain questions with a response of "I have no revelation on that"). The Spirit will gradually guide into truth all those who submit to him and follow him to the truth.No, it is you who is not being led by the Spirit. We know this because I say so, and my word is just as good as yours.
Nope; God is a trinity, of which Jesus is just one part. Spirit led Christians have told me this.
No, the most essential truth is that the bible is full of falsehoods and cannot be trusted to provide truth. One of which is the 7 day creation, which spirit led Christians tell me is true.
For you to imply that God has intentionally made the bible vague and not clearly understandable puts Him in the shoes of Satan in that He is actively trying to deceive. For shame.
As you have had no revelation outside your own mind, you need to stay away from scripture quoting entirely. We know this because you are not spirit led, and we know this because you disagree with those that are.
Do you begin to understand what you sound like? I've used the identical reasoning you do, just pointed it 180 degrees around. Your reasoning and comments are valueless because they all depend on the listener believing you are a prophet (or a god, I'm not sure) even as you provide no evidence of such. I, too, can sound that way by using the same comments - why do you not immediately jump to believe as I do?because her "spirit" is obviously superior to your "spirit" Why? Because she said so. Duh.
I don't see what can possibly be gained by proclaiming ones-self a prophet of God. Certainly not blessings from god, who values humility not vain boasting. If she thinks that proclaiming herself a prophet will gain her respect from her peers, she's mistaken.
I'm the queen of england, though, if we're just going to go around proclaiming things and accept them to be accepted as true. You may kneel now.Yes, the attitude is quite obvious. I'm just not sure that it is recognized by the person most involved. So many deeply religious simply cannot fathom how little sense they make with such outrageous claims of their own infallibility.
But kneel to the queen? Never! The King kneels to no one!You're the king of England? Does that mean we're married, cause I'm not entirely sure at all that you're my type.
Piffle. England is but a wart. No, the king of Earth, silly woman. Because I have the spirit inside me!
Oh whatever. If you're the king of earth, then I'm the magistrate of the universe. Let's not mince words here. I clearly have the superior spirit, cause I said so.
Now work out your little girl in a pink dress' issues like a good vassal.LOL You've got me there. I'll go quietly into the night.
Wait! Does that make me a princess? I always wanted to be a princess. I know that you are my mom... and a queen... so I guess I get big pink dresses.
Does that mean I have to call Wilderness dad? I'm going to be honest here, that's going to confuse some issues I have.
If only there was a counselor around... One that wasn't bat-**** crazy themselves.No. Dad is so...plebian. So...hick, like Tennessee or even (shudder) West Virginia.
No, father is much more acceptable and shows proper respect.No, if it was WV it would be Daddy... and calling you Daddy would just be too much for me to take.
If I speak my own words to you, my words are meaningless. If I give you the words from the living word of God, then they have meaning and value. If you see me contradict the word of God, then confront me on it and do not believe me at any point of contradiction.
IF you could give the words of a living God, it would be significant. Unfortunately you cannot show that you can do that. That leaves your own words as the only thing left to value.
I already did confront you on it. Your excuse is that the spirit doesn't say what the bible says and that you know what the spirit wants to have said.The "living God", lives within me and all those whose spirit is blessed by the Lord for their righteousness.
You obviously do not see the "living God" because you do not possess the spirit of the Lord.Hopefully it is a benign parasite then, and not one that will destroy you.
No, the pretend words of "living god", "spirit of the lord" and such are not something I wish to partake of. I very much prefer reality, where I do not make up my own imaginary friends.
But it IS good to see that someone else is righteous, too. Just make sure you do not disagree or you, too, will find yourself declared to be without spirit.Do you see my dilema? Apparently, if I don't group with THESE people, it means that I don't have the spirit.
Apparently the intelligence of the spirit and it's social skills (and personality) are limited to the host that it dwells in.
My spirit is an intellectual snob.
Do you see my problem?No, I can't see your problem. If the spirit they speak of turns them into what is seen here there is no possible reason you would want it. Nor should you wish to "group" with them as most people have a strong tendency to take on the characteristics of those they surround themselves with.
Unless you, too, desire to explain to everyone that you are better than they, that only you have "The Spirit" or all the knowledge it has supplied you, and only you, with and that you are actually a prophetess?Yeah, no. With my personal beliefs, I'm a little reluctant to group myself with false prophets. I'm not particularly fond of burning pits, even if I do believe they are transient.
No desire to change anyone's faith or try to prove I alone hear God's voice. I'm good. I just hope people aren't associating Christ with his so-called prophets. I mean Christianity already has about the worst reputation it can have because of these kinds of people... which is a shame, because they really are nothing like Christ.Believers ALL have the Spirit, and no believer on here has claimed that they ALONE have the Spirit. In fact, I've said the opposite repeatedly. I've also explained that being a "prophet", as defined as one speaking the words of God, is quite common amongst believers as a spiritual gift (this generous outpouring was even prophesied long ago in the book of Joel). Those without this gift have their own spiritual gifts of equal importance. So you also will twist my words and make false statements about what I'm saying, Wilderness?
None of us have declared any believer to be without the Spirit (though one who calls herself a believer but stands opposed to the truth has given reason for concern and has been questioned by many believers). The Spirit gives different gifts to believers as he determines, and any misunderstanding of scripture or lack of particular gifts in the areas of prophecy and wisdom does not mean a believer does not have the Spirit.
Again truth - but ONLY when you get to decide who is a believer and who has the spirit. Which always comes down to whoever agrees with you.
And no, I will not twist your words but I WILL absolutely call you on it when you use subterfuge to try to define who is right and who is not. Putting it down to having "spirit" when "having spirit" always means agreeing with your own concepts is, again, dishonest in the extreme. YOU are not god, YOU do not decide right and wrong and YOU do not decide who has God's spirit in them. You don't even get to decide if YOU have the spirit in you, or just another demon that has fooled you right along.
One day you might understand this concept, that thinking you have all the answers probably means you have none of them but for certain means you do NOT have all the answers. Until then I'm sure you will continue to "prophesy" in your own unique manner, using words you claim come from God or spirit but often do not. For when you change holy scriptures, the very word of God Himself, to match what we know is real that cannot be from the Spirit of God regardless of whatever you might believe or claim. Just from Cat333.You already have twisted my words, Wilderness, as I've made it clear that ALL believers have the Spirit within them (If they do not, they are not believers), as I've never claimed to be unique in this, nor unique in being a prophet (or someone with the spiritual gift of wisdom, if that is more accurate). I absolutely do NOT say those who disagree with me do not have the Spirit - there is ONE "believer" I have questioned and confronted because this ONE believer repeatedly speaks against Christianity and Christians, is "attacking" yet another Christian every time I turn around, makes far more points for atheism and unbelievers than she ever does for God or her "brethren", speaks in direct contrast to what is written in the word of God, etc., etc. (and this same "believer" has concerned many others with the spiritual gifts of prophecy and/or wisdom). I have not questioned her friends or anyone else about their sincerity as believers, and I understand their loyalty to her. Some are more concerned about her attacks than others. Those of us who are particularly concerned about this one who calls herself a "believer" may be so because maybe, just maybe, we also have the Spirit-given gift of "discerning spirits".
It is not really me deciding if the Spirit in me is from God or the devil, it is the Spirit himself deciding and "bearing witness" with my spirit. "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16).
I certainly do NOT think I have all the answers, and am quite content to state I have no revelation on certain matters. I am content to acknowledge my many weaknesses, my many mistakes, my many sins, and so on. I accept rebukes and I apologize. It appears that you and other unbelievers are angry and resentful that I have ANY answers. Yet I do not claim having answers makes me special - they may be given to anyone who earnestly seeks wisdom from the one who holds all wisdom. "May the name of God be praised forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him" (Daniel 2:20).
And where have you seen me "change holy scriptures"? All scripture is inspired by the Spirit and all scripture is understood through that same Spirit. Amen and amen.I think, what you can't see is that no one stands against God. No one is disrespectful of Jesus. Your ego keeps you from understanding the wisdom in Wilderness's responses to you.
If there is spirit involved, you do not display it by your claims.I am completely baffled here. Wilderness has posted this response: "YOU are not god, YOU do not decide right and wrong and YOU do not decide who has God's spirit in them. You don't even get to decide if YOU have the spirit in you, or just another demon that has fooled you right along."
And this, "For when you change holy scriptures, the very word of God Himself, to match what we know is real that cannot be from the Spirit of God regardless of whatever you might believe or claim."
I mean, what the what?! He is now arguing as if he is a believer... doing nothing but playing devil's advocate. He spent the better part of yesterday testifying that anyone who believed in God is essentially a fool and now he rips into her for changing holy scripture? lol As if it matters! He wants to hold her to a book he doesn't believe in. Is there no end to the ridiculousness of the effort to tear believers down on this forum? Does no one have ANY thing better to do? I mean, do you get my meaning? I'm not saying he is debating the topic of God, I'm saying He is chastising her for not being godly enough, compared to a God he doesn't even believe in! And he is calling *her a hypocrite.Okay, since you won't respond to the question and you didn't correct Cat when she said you are a prophet I'll assume you consider yourself a prophet as well.
It is called "reason", Beth - the ability and willingness to reason your way to a correct conclusion. One starts with a premise, adds facts and discoveries and finds out what is real.
If Cat (or you) wish to start with the premise that a god is out there and has written the bible the conclusions are not what you find when using reason instead of emotional wants. And that is what it is about - no matter what perceived reality we begin with, it remains that the nonsense being given here is not true.
So yes, a hypocrite. Claiming love and kindness one moment, claiming superiority and prophet status the next, with a clear slap at anyone without "spirit" (meaning they disagree). Not the way of the God professed to believe in, just ego clawing it's way through the crowd.Actually, that is kind of the point. I see those who do not claim affiliation with religion displaying more respect for the concept of God than those who claim to be religious do. She not only attempts to box a God into a neat little package that suits her fancy; she attempts to imply that any that don't suit her fancy couldn't be a God. Seriously. Then, she claims to be a prophet; ostensibly because she was able to convince herself she has conjured a God.
Sorry. I think those who reasonably accept the world as it appears to be; do not attempt to find a way to believe that anyone who disagrees with them won't have a chance of any existence past this ephemeral one and those who, generally, think most any cosmic view is as valid as another (as long as it doesn't go out of its way to cause pain and suffering to others) are more in tune with the universe than those who don't.
I cannot, for the life of me, see how you could be supportive of the ridiculous and egotistical claims we see coming from the one you are defending.Not only that Emilie, but Cat has also stated that Beth is a prophet as well and I have not been able to get Beth to deny for agree with that statement.
Yeah, that's a troubling trend. Is there a church out there teaching that doctrine? Because honestly, that's a really dangerous thought process, both spiritually and socially.
Well, I'll be honest I don't read all of the posts in this thread. Some were so very over the top that I couldn't help but gag. It's been about seven years since I threw up and I'm going for a record, so I'm forced to skip reading a lot of it.
Emile, you write, "She not only attempts to box a God into a neat little package that suits her fancy; she attempts to imply that any that don't suit her fancy couldn't be a God. Seriously. Then, she claims to be a prophet; ostensibly because she was able to convince herself she has conjured a God."
God has given us his word and his Spirit. The more I align myself with the word and submit to the Spirit, the more I speak truth. I am nothing and my opinions count for nothing. It has nothing to do with what "suits my fancy" and I've made it clear previously that some of the word (e.g., men being called to be the spiritual leaders in Christian households) did not really "suit my fancy", but was nonetheless the word of God.
As for the spiritual gift of prophecy, please understand that this is only one of many spiritual gifts, is no "better" than the other spiritual gifts, is widely poured out in these later days as prophesied in Joel, and can be found in many of the believers who come to forums to speak the words and truth of God (there are far more prophets in these forums than the few I mentioned). 1 Corinthians 12:4-31 may be helpful in an understanding of this:
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines."
"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."
"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."It apparently suits your fancy to believe yourself to be a prophet, filled with spirit, and generally more in tune with God than others. Without proof that is ego; pure and simple. It doesn't really matter whether or not you see that; the point is everyone else does.
I and the others on here with the spiritual gifts of prophecy and wisdom (even far more than the few I mentioned) weren't given any gifts because there is anything special about us, but simply because we have the Spirit who bestows the gifts. You also may become a believer and may be given spiritual gifts.
We don't gain earthly praise or any reward here because of our gifts, and many times it is just the opposite - the world and worldly people HATE the prophets, just as they hate God and the word.
The truth still stands that if we have the gifts of prophecy and/or wisdom and teaching, then we present you with the true words of God. We are simply messengers, the glory is not ours but God's. The word did not originate with us, and we humbly strive to submit to the Spirit and the word, offering you only what is revealed through that Spirit and word.
It is your choice to accept or reject the words of God.
Wilderness has natural intelligence, not spiritual wisdom. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", and God gives wisdom to those who seek and ask for it. A child with the Spirit has greater "wisdom" than an intellectual leader without the Spirit.
You, through your own choice, limit your understanding of the spirit to those you agree with. By doing so, you negate the whole concept of spirit. I did go to church as a child. I always loved when people implied that intelligent questions and intelligent responses were against the spirit. As if God would be intimidated by someone using their minds. Small minds think that way. Which makes your idea of God a small god.
The Spirit is not a "concept"; he is God in Spirit form and he is living in all believers (though not limited to this). I do not doubt my brothers and sisters have the Spirit, even those I disagree with here or there. There is ONE person who calls herself a believer who I have confronted (and that includes not only in these forums, but in my entire life).
Unbelievers do not have the Spirit, though if and when they become believers they absolutely WILL have the Spirit. And this does not imply they will agree on everything, as the Spirit does not give us revelation and understanding on all matters (and certainly not all at once). God alone is all-knowing.
As we submit to the Spirit and seek his wisdom and gifts, we will gain greater and greater understanding. This is a life-long process. All praise be to God, the one who possesses all wisdom and bestows increasing wisdom on his eagerly seeking children!That may be true. Unfortunately, without God speaking for himself all we have to go on is our conceptualization of God. We don't have to accept yours or anyone's. No one has to attempt to conceptualize, if they chose not to. And, given the nature of reality, that would mean that this was exactly as God wished. So, all of this ranting and raving and Bible thumping only serves to prove that the reality we live in (which, if God exists, was created by God) isn't good enough for you. God's will isn't good enough for you. You seek to negate the value of the reality he created. Who, then, is against God...if not you?
Again, bashing another hubber. I forget. Is it Melissa or JMcFarland you find so offensive? Whichever, you are not in a position to determine who is and who is not a believer. Only the individual making the claim is in that position. Unless....are you God? If so, don't you have more important things to do other than masquerading around Hub Pages wearing a sock puppet? If you are God and this is your will, please, part some water or send a lightening bolt so we can all bow. Otherwise, without some proof that you are God, you can stop expecting everyone to bow to you and your delicate sensibilities.
But, that only applies if you believe them to be believers. Otherwise, you'll just attempt to bash them repeatedly. Right? So, spirit equates to agreeing with Cat. Does that about sum it up?
Lip service here. God, alone, is all knowing; but you think you know who is a true believer and who isn't. So, which is it Cat? Have you been given revelation and understanding of all matters or is God, alone, all knowing.
But, if they don't agree with Cat then the wisdom and gifts they have aren't really wisdom and gifts. If Cat doesn't approve then what they perceive as greater and greater understanding really isn't. Because Cat says so. Does that about sum up your complaints against those who disagree?
The problem here is that everyone is eagerly seeking. They wouldn't be bothering with a religion and philosophy forum if the topic wasn't something they find interesting and they weren't seeking to discuss it. I will grant you that both sides of the aisle appear to think they are somehow smarter than the other and they both appear to think they have a mission to teach those who disagree with them. However, 'Seek and you shall find'. Right? Unfortunately, you aren't seeking anything, other than to lord yourself and your opinions on cosmic issues over others. There is nothing spiritual about such an endeavor.But, yes, Cat knows who is a believer. She has defined "Spirit" and "believer" in such a way that one cannot exist without the other. She has also stated that she can discern who has the "Spirit" in them. Inescapable conclusion is that she can tell who is a True Believer and who is not. Or at least she thinks she can. Or is willing to claim she can.
And just as you say, she can only discern the Spirit in those that agree with all or nearly all of what she says. Particularly those "Key" things that she finds important. So only those that agree with her are True Believers.Personally, I don't believe Cat is who she presents herself to be. I think it's a joke. No one would continue to post such ridiculous drivel unless they were laughing while typing.
It is God, not me, who has defined a believer as one who has the Spirit - "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (Romans 8:9)
I have not even said I have the gift of "discerning spirits", just that it is a possibility. There is one who calls herself a believer on here who I question based on her expressed hatred for Christianity.
It has nothing to do with who agrees with me; it has to do with who agrees with the Word of God!Point out the post where this believer claims to hate Christianity. I believe what she is probably saying is that she is not pleased with the way some professed Christians act out. What you are doing is throwing a fit because she doesn't support you.
You can turn a blind eye to it if you want. It's throughout this and many other threads. I see it started long before I came into the forums. It probably does not offend those who do not love God, the Word and Way, the bride and brethren.
Yes, I'm a little slow but I'm starting to catch on now. I do know a bully when I see one, and I see one. First you bully the believers so that they are afraid to speak out against you and then once they are in line you bully the rest. Nice job.
Shame on the rest of you. Your prophet awaits…
LOL
Nowhere in that series of verses does it say anything at all about believing. YOU have added that part, changing the text (or the meaning) to try and claim that anyone believing in God has the spirit. The text does not support your claim.
"...we also have the Spirit-given gift of "discerning spirits" From a post by cat333. Is there another one? Because it would indeed seem that you have made the claim and are now wanting to back out of it.
No, it has to do with whoever agrees with the Word of God as interpreted and defined by cat333. As in the first paragraph where you declare the verses mean something other than what they say, those that agree with the Word but not your interpretation of it does not have the spirit AND does not believe in God or Jesus.If you read scriptures you will see quickly that believers are the ones "in Christ", Wilderness. The scripture I gave you says that if someone does not have the Spirit, they are not in Christ. The text absolutely supports this claim.
Look at the post again and you will see that I said "maybe, just maybe" we also have the Spirit-given gift of "discerning spirits". Very sneaky of you, Wilderness, to leave off the part that makes it clear I was stating it only as a possibility (I don't honestly know if that's one of my or the others' gifts or not). Are unbelievers generally as sneaky and manipulative as the ones on these forums?
ONE person on here calls herself a believer yet continually bashes and attacks Christianity and Christians. She fights against most of the believers, speaks against the very words of God, gives links to other material that bashes Christians, etc. etc. She is the only person who claims to be a part of the brethren who I have questioned regarding the truth of her claims. If you want to say I am bashing the one who bashes, so be it. Bullies are the only people I've ever comfortably confronted. Points of disagreement amongst believers do NOT imply any are not Spirit led, as the Spirit does not give us revelation in all matters or on similar time scales, and I have never implied such (though my confrontation of this one individual seems to have led to that erroneous assumption).
JMcFarland does not claim to be a Christian.
If someone seeks for wisdom eagerly, but does not seek from the One True God, they will never find true wisdom, but may find that which their own mind tells them is good enough. We are offering you true wisdom from the very word of God. We are not offering you the truth because of any competence we can claim on our own, but because God has seen fit to give wisdom to the lowly and offered it to you through us, who are nothing but lowly servants.There is a hubber here who has, on several occasions, gone out of her way to complain about anything I said. If I had said the sky was blue, she would probably have accused me of attempting armchair psychology on the sky. But, that didn't mean she was actively attempting to bash agnostics. She just didn't appear to like me and my opinions. I don't know of any law that says anyone has to. I do wish there were one but, alas, there are none.
If you want to voice your opinion you'll have to accept that some will disagree. If you are going to attempt to pass your opinions off as God's opinions you'll get a lot more disagreement.In the threads I've read, you are actually the one non-Christian I've seen her attack; all others seem to be Christians. I interpreted it as the result of a few things: 1) Your positive relationship with Beth, a believer, on here; 2) Your tendency not to join in with the cliques, but to stand on your own; and 3) Your tendency to take the "higher" approach and avoid some of the mocking, taunting, slander and verbal attacks she seems to delight in.
I don't mind if she disagrees with my opinions (and it seems to be the opinions of almost every believer on here with which she disagrees, unless she happens to be friends with them outside the forums). Disagreeing with the word of God when she is a "believer" is an entirely different matter. Disagreeing with the word of God makes sense for an unbeliever; not for a Christian. Even if/when I go, I expect she'll continue to bash Christianity and the Word, as she has been doing so long before my arrival, as evidenced by the threads.Ever heard the saying dust your sandals off? What's to stop you from that? That's Biblical. Go preach to those who are interested in the message you share. If you are right in all you say, then obviously what you have to share is falling on deaf ears. Where does the Bible say you are supposed to obstinately continue complaining about people not believing? Is there somewhere it says you are mandated to continue pushing an agenda?
I just don't understand this Christian belief that you are supposed to attempt to force your views. That isn't good news and, isn't it supposed to be good news?I am not complaining about people not believing. I put forth words of truth straight from God's word in response to the human opinions and lies so arrogantly tossed about.
I'm not sure you're in a position to talk about arrogance when you're the one claiming to be a prophet of god. I doubt recall many prophets having to actually proclaim that they are prophets.
If I speak my own words and opinions, this is arrogance. If I submit to the word and the Spirit, and speak the words of God thereby (prophesying in this sense), understanding that my competence in this comes only from the God of all wisdom and truth, this is humility.
But you are speaking your own words and opinions by proclaiming yourself a prophet. God did not call you a prophet. You do not have a diploma from heaven proclaiming that you're a prophet. You're proclaiming yourself to be one. Do you not see the difference?
Can you name one prophet that went around announcing that they were a prophet, so everyone should listen to them wherever they went? I can think of a few, actually. David Koresh. Marshall Applewhite. Jim Jones. Are you planning on serving any Kool Aid, cause I'd like to get as far away from you as possible.Many of the Christians called to the forums have the spiritual gifts of prophecy and wisdom, now common in these later days when the Spirit has been poured out onto believers. I didn't know it was to be a secret or would cause so much offense and resentment amongst unbelievers.
Yes, I know that many will have prophecy in the end times, according to the bible.
The problem is that every generation of Christians after the first have been absolutely certain that they've been living in the end times, and there's no reason to believe that you're more correct in your assertion than they were. So, if these are not the end times, then there's no need to believe that there are a horde of prophets running around. Nor did I see anywhere in the bible that this horde of prophets would run around proclaiming themselves to be prophets in internet chat rooms. No matter how many times you say it, it's just you saying it. Not even the other Christians will admit that your assessment is correct and that they are, indeed, prophets like you say they are. You're the only one claiming to be a prophet, and for all of the Christians I've been surrounded with my entire life, you're the only person to come right out and say it repeatedly without any demonstrable evidence that what you're saying is true.
The ability and propensity of the human mind to rationalize whatever they wish to be true is astounding isn't it?
Your words are arrogance, but if you claim that they are biblical words, changed by the spirit inside you to mean what you would like them to mean, they become the Word of God and you are exhibiting humility. And Ego triumphs once more.The words of God are inspired by the Spirit and understood through that same Spirit. They mean what they mean, regardless of what I would like them to mean. In fact, there are a few places where I don't like what they mean at all. For example, I personally can't stand the idea of hell and can hardly bear the thought of a single human going there. I'd love to redefine hell, or say I don't believe in it. But the Spirit won't let me.
That's what I said, isn't it? You will often change the meaning of the written word into something you like better, saying the Spirit told you to do so. Understandably, it sometimes doesn't work; the changes are just too much for even rationalization such as this, but it often does work, too, and makes for a great excuse to change the words.
It seems you often intentionally change the meaning of what I say Wilderness; that seems your game.
Oh? Can you point to somewhere I changed your words? Once in a while they are vague, particularly when you speak of what the spirit told you, but in general are fairly plain. So while I may make an occasional mistake (and WILL as I don't have the spirit to tell me what to say) they should be few and far between.
Cat, I have a simple question for you.
You have asserted repeatedly that the spirit guides you and gives you scripture. Tell me what my favorite scripture was while I was a believer. If your claims are true, it should be remarkably simple, and it's not something that anyone on earth knows - not even my closest friends. I won't ask you to tell me something about me personally or my past or my history. I won't ask for a miracle. Just a verse. Just one. To increase reliability that you are what you so adamantly claim to be.
This should be simple. You said that the spirit guided you to ONLY speak scripture to Wilderness, although the spirit seems to have changed its mind on that front.JMcFarland, you seem to be confusing the leading of the Spirit with mind reading. In fact, if I were to read your mind, that would be a big sign it wasn't the Spirit I was following at all, but might show I had powers in the demonic realm.
All I really claim to be is a servant of the Lord. If I have been given the gift of prophecy or wisdom by the Spirit, that is not of my own doing and I don't get the credit. All spiritual gifts are bestowed by the Spirit. Many have my gift; further, the other gifts are equally valuable.
I prayed before responding to Wilderness a couple of days ago.
What was your favorite verse while you were a Christian? And no, I am not trying to say I thought so, no matter what verse you say; I actually am interested.I see. I'm not asking you to read my mind. You have said numerous times that before you post, you pray and the spirit guides you about what to say or what verses to post. But when it comes to actually demonstrating that you're telling the truth, it suddenly doesn't work that way. Isn't that convenient.
This response mirrors (very closely) the approach of the Pharisees.
They too, asked Jesus for a sign, to prove Himself.
For that very reason, the Spirit, might be saying nothing, (MHO) to you, other than bringing Jesus' reply to mind.Sure, any excuse in the book to compensate for demonstrating that a believers claims are actually true - especially since she had claimed to do this multiple times before.
So, now, an answer is an excuse! Ok.
I guess Jesus had stax of excuses then.
Having been a Christian, you of all people ought to know that God has given the Church the "five fold ministry". Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers.
None of these are SELF proclaimed, but CALLED. (Capitals for emphasis only).
If you know this, you also (should)know the boundaries of a prophets ministry, their limits, their purpose, and their authority. In particular, prophets don't operate in a vacuum. They are (supposed to be) accountable.Jesus is not being questioned here. It helps to remember that.
That's incorrect.
If you are asking a prophet to answer you by the leading of the Spirit, you are, in fact asking Jesus.
He, and the Spirit are ONE.Don't we have to first establish that she is a prophet, or do you think that's a given. Are you a prophet?
The "problem" I see with you, (and sadly, many others) is that you are not seeking answers.
You are on your own agenda, and will not be convinced otherwise, on anything.
That said, you don't need to establish anything about cat, (or me, for that matter). Other than what we are. people with a faith in God, through Jesus Christ. Not perfect, all knowing beings. And certainly NOT better than you, or anyone else.
No, I am not called to be a prophet. (but then, we probably have a vastly different understanding of what a prophet is, (and is not).Are you distinguishing between your opinion and absolute fact? Or maybe you're claiming to be a prophet to, able to see into complete strangers minds and hearts to assess and judge their intentions and motivations. Is that what you're saying?
Ah, you are jumping ship, now.
I'm not in a mood to carry on two, three conversations, simultaneously.
Please stick to the one we were having.
Anyhow, my internet time has run out for now.How am I jumping ship (which means running away) by actively asking you questions. You are jumping ship by saying you have no interest in answering them.
By, Jumping ship = jumping into another man's boat (conversation), is what I meant.
Sorry, but the real world beckons. I really must sign off for now.And how did you work your way in here? Did you respond to another's conversation?
Sort of. I interjected, but I didn't leave another conversation just hanging.
Instead of answering my question, jmf jumped into this one.actually, I was talking to you first after you addressed ME. It's really just a page back, not that long ago.
It's almost all I do is ask questions that don't get answered.
How many people have claimed a direct line to God and when I call them on it they never follow through? What's your agenda? Will you ever be convinced otherwise? LOL.
Cat is claiming to be a prophet, that needs to be established before I will believe her. Do you believe Mohammad was a prophet?
Good for you for being honest. Let Cat know that cause she has a list and you so far are the first to admit to not being a prophet.In the sense that I was using the term prophet, one of the spiritual gifts, I do consider aka-dj to have the gift of prophecy. He speaks the words of God. He clearly has revelation and understanding through the Spirit.
I've said a few times that perhaps I am meaning to say the gifts of wisdom or teaching, though many say it is indeed accurate to say prophet.
I think God has called many prophets here (and there are many in these later days, just as prophesied in the book of Joel).
I don't ask false prophets anything. I don't associate with them because I don't like being cast into lakes of fire.
There are no prophets here. I'm sorry. There are people asking for proof from people claiming to be prophets. If they were real prophets, no one would be asking for proof.
So Christ isn't being questioned. People are. None of the people here are Christ.If you ask a prophet a question, that ONLY the Spirit (of Christ) knows, then you are asking that question (through) the person.
Otherwise, why bother asking a person?
You will never get the "proof" you seek!dj. come on. You are smarter than this. Self proclaimed prophets are nothing more than self proclaimed prophets. They don't have the 'spirit' of Christ. They simply claim they speak for God.
When anyone asks a question here, they are asking that question to another individual. No one expects Christ to answer. And, when someone claims to be speaking for Christ or God, they will be laughed at. As they should be.
What would you do if I claimed to be speaking for anyone else? Wouldn't you laugh? Wouldn't you wonder what audacity I had? No one has the authority to speak for God. If they claim to, they'd better be able to back up the claim for all to see. Otherwise, they fall into the category of false prophets.Thank goodness we aren't allowed to do what used to be done to false prophets.My post was in regard to identifying a true prophet.
Issues like this take a lot of text to explain. Obviously not appropriate for a forum, like this.Make me agree with you one more time. Go ahead. I dare you.
This is new for me, but I understand why. It's the extremes you don't like.
I'm not seeking proof.
I've already got my answer. If I need to ask Christ anything, I'll ask him myself.
I am a casual observer in this case.
I think, though, it is reasonable to ask questions when others make extraordinary claims. I actually think the Bible specifically tells us to be wary of those claiming to be prophets, and for good reason. Those who don't doubt prophets will be easily led astray.
In this, the doubters are doing God's work. He doesn't like false prophets either.
I'm not the one proclaiming that I'm a prophet, am I? Cat is. There is no reason whatsoever to believe her, and the Bible days that we are to test spirits so that we are not deceived. Cat claims to be getting knowledge and verses from the spirit for everyone who doesn't ask, but is unable to do it for the one person who asked. I'm not asking for a miracle or a sign. I'm asking for a verse. If the spirit she's communing with is the spirit of god, a verse should be easy. Otherwise, I have to assume it is not the spirit of god, she's a false prophet and there's no point in acknowledging her.
Jesus performed signs all the time, just not for the people who set themselves up as spiritual leaders and priests, teaching others about god. I am not doing that, but Cat sure is. Take it up with her. To doubting Thomas, jesus appeared, and allowed him to place his fingers in his wounds. He healed people. He taught them. He did not beat them above the head with his spirit. Cat is not Jesus, nor is she following his example very well.I wasn't defending cat. I haven't read many of her posts.
My interjection was to highlite what I did.
Are you, indeed a Doubting Thomas? From your previous posts, I gather, no.
In any case, if you are seriously seeking to know God, He will show Himself to you.
Well said, brother aka-dj!
And how important being held accountable by one another is, and I thank God and hope for rebukes from my brethren - "The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets." (1 Corinthians 14:32)
I've made no claims to mind read. Jesus knew what people were thinking; I'm not sure anyone else ever did or does.
That would be mind reading, JMcFarland, and that's not the wisdom the Spirit gives. I pray some of the time before posting, certainly not even close to all of the time.
Like a junior high school girl trying to bully. Make others focus on someone else.
This has taken a very bizarre turn. I would say what I think is going on with her; but I'd probably be banned. I don't know what any of you would do without me, so I'll hold my tongue.
Are you saying I'm bullying the bully, Rad Man? Have you not done your share of taunting, twisting words, slandering, and so on, all of which are bullying behaviors?
There is now an erroneous assumption that if someone disagrees with me, I say they do not have the Spirit. I have attempted to clarify that there is only ONE who I have questioned regarding the Spirit and the truth, and this was based on her obvious and continuous attacks on Christianity / Christians throughout the threads. I have tried to uplift my brethren, regardless of whether we disagree at points.Nope, I try to have conversations with people. That's not what you are doing.
That's what bullies do Dear. They pick on one person and make that person the target. Everyone becomes afraid to speak out because they don't want to be the target. That's why Beth won't comment on wether or not she is a prophet. You have established who is with and who is against you just like a bully does.
It's just not Christlike. That part is obvious for all to see.You seem to have turned a blind eye to the ongoing behaviors of the one I've confronted, Rad Man. But then, you seem to delight in exactly the same things she does - the attacks, the mocking, the manipulation and slander. The only difference between you and her and the only reason I have confronted her more than you is that she claims to be a believer yet bullies believers throughout the threads.
It seems to me that you are the one forming groups and excluding people from groups. Just like a kid in middle school.
I strive to uplift my brothers and sisters in Christ, whoever and wherever they may be.
If I see people engaging in bullying or other inappropriate behaviors, such as manipulating words, slandering, mocking, etc., I confront them. I've always confronted bullies. You and Melissa have been confronted often because you two seem to delight in these inappropriate behaviors most of all. Or perhaps it's because the two of you really know better (I think there's a few on here I simply don't expect much from).Please show me where I manipulating words, slandered, or mocked. If you can't then you are the slanderer.
An example off the top of my head, Rad Man, is when you falsely stated I was implying people kill their children to keep them from the pains of life. This was manipulative and slanderous.
You have also called me a liar on numerous occasions.
If I may ask, the person referred to in your first paragraph - do they have the spirit inside them? If so, that spirit is obviously telling them something different than what it tells you. If not, how do you know? Because you are better than everyone else and can "discern spirits"? Or because you have cleverly defined "believer" to be anyone with the spirit, which means they agree with you? It won't wash. It didn't wash before and it doesn't wash now; such definitions are meaningless, just as I said and are only useful in building your own ego.
So the spirit inside you lies and informs you it is actually a god, whereupon you totally believe it without ever questioning and testing. And you don't find this a rather poor way of choosing?
Perhaps I should rephrase the "have all the answers" - you only have the ones you have considered and asked for a "revelation". Or had a "revelation" forced on you whether you wanted it or not. Either way, the "knowledge" that the "spirit" has "given" you is inviolate and superior to that of anyone else. Even when they, too, have the "spirit" feeding them information. Can I ask - have you ever had a believer, filled with the spirit, disagree with you on any spiritual point beyond the picayune? Does that answer tell you something (and not that you can discern who has the spirit in them)?
Changing scripture - how many days to form the entire universe, plants, animals and man? More than 7? Then you changed it. Did God bring in a planet sized ball of water to flood every inch of the earth, killing all plant, animal and marine life forever? No? Then you changed it. Do you stone your neighbor for wearing two different cloths? If not, you changed scripture - to "fulfill" the law means to obey it, not ignore it.I'll start with this one - It is not me who has "cleverly defined 'believer' to be anyone with the spirit" as you say, but it is God who has so defined it, as written: "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (Romans 8:9)
My ego is not built by questioning this one person who attacks Christianity. In fact, it may be detrimental to my own ego, as I most value love, peace, mercy, etc., but have felt compelled to confront her, which is an undesirable necessity in my most honest opinion.
You ask me if this person has the spirit inside them. I will say this - I have seen NO evidence that the Spirit resides within the one who calls herself a believer yet has aligned herself with those who harshly question and attack the word and Christianity, has displayed no love for the brethren, no unity of Spirit, no knowledge of the Spirit, no godly wisdom, no truth, who has been dishonest and slanderous toward believers on here (She falsely and slanderously said I encouraged exorcisms and the killing of children; She heartlessly taunted another who endured trouble in her marriage and gloated that her own husband was never unfaithful), etc.. etc.. Though I sense she is not in truth a Christian at all, I have allowed for the possibility that she is an infant Christian or one who is quenching and grieving the Spirit within her. I have not questioned the authenticity of a single other believer on here (or anywhere in my life for that matter). I much prefer to encourage and uplift, but her behaviors go so far beyond simple disagreement that she is confronted by me and other believers.
If I have the spiritual gift of discerning Spirits, and I am not actually saying that I do, but just that it may begin to be a possibility, this would not make me "better" than anyone else. The Spirit gives different spiritual gifts to those who have the Spirit, but the word clearly states that we cannot consider one gift or calling better than another, as all are God-given and important. Only love is said to be the "most excellent way".
We are not given all revelation on all matters (God alone is all knowing), but simple, expected disagreements do NOT lead us question whether the Spirit is in another. Again, I've not suggested the Spirit is not within a single other who calls themselves believer in my entire life. The revelations the Spirit gives us do not contradict. I see truth in the words of the majority of believers on these forums and I believe they were sent here to speak the words of truth. Some believers in the forums do not have certain gifts that give them wisdom/knowledge/teaching/prophecy, and they offer opinions. This does not mean they are unbelievers or that they do not have their own gifts. But our opinions aren't what matter. Speaking the words of God, that is truth. If we give you the words of God, we are speaking truth; if we give you our opinions, which we all do at times, we may hit on truth but we may not, so opinion is worth little.
You asked if I have "ever had a believer, filled with the spirit, disagree with you on any spiritual point beyond the picayune". Believers and I have had discussions where we then looked into the scriptures and there found the truth (or both agreed it was vague and neither of us had revelation on it), but if the truth is revealed by the scriptures and I have spiritual understanding of those scriptures, then the answer is - no, I've not had any believer who knows the scriptures disagree with that which I've stated definitively by revelation of the Word and the Spirit.
Some believers with their own gifts but without the gifts of wisdom, etc. may state things that contradict the scriptures. So, for instance, if a believer on here insists that we are all God's children because we are all created by him, then we can go to the scriptures and see that this is not so. If I am offering my opinion in any spiritual matter, I do not claim to have revelation. I am open to correction and rebukes based on scripture (but will dismiss those not biblically based), and I have been corrected in actions though rarely understanding of scriptures (and never when I believed I had revelation from the Spirit). There are many scriptures I openly acknowledge having no revelation on, and if I am unsure if another Spirit led Christian is right or wrong, I respectfully keep my mouth shut.
Your attempt to discredit the reality of Spirit appears to be a self-imposed exile depicted as a protest against the Divinity.
Writings express this phenomena as a disobedience.
2 Timothy 4 (NIV)
4 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 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. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.If you know (not think, not believe, not have an opinion, but know) the spirit is real, then you can demonstrate it for all to see. Not people's actions that you will attribute to the spirit, mind you, but the spirit itself. I await your instructions on just how to detect this illusive and undefined thing.
Why would you give biblical quotations to someone that finds the bible to be very often wrong and always irrelevant to reality? Especially as you will change the meaning of the words anyway, leaving the reader without a clue as to what you intend to say?And following your own line of reasoning, Wilderness, if you KNOW that you have an ability to perform math, then PROVE it but NOT by your "actions that you will attribute to" your ability to do math. But wait, isn't the evidence that you can perform math your ACTIONS in performing math, and NOT the presentation of this "illusive" thing?
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)You are, of course, free to imagine that it is the Spirit inside me doing the math; that I cannot do it without the Spirit.
Nice quotation, but any god that uses a crucifixion cross as a symbol of it's power is most definitely not a god I would choose to worship. I have an aversion to being crucified, even if I come back to life and much prefer symbols of love and kindness to show power. For that is where true power lies, not in fear and loathing.Wilderness, I wasn't saying it's the Spirit inside you doing the math; as an unbeliever you don't have the Spirit of God inside you. I was illustrating that it is only your actions in doing the math that give us evidence of your ability to do math, and that the actual ABILITY you possess is illusive, seen only by your actions.
The cross is the ultimate symbol of love and kindness - "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)No, no, no. You do NOT get to change the words, whether you claim the spirit told you to or not! Nowhere in that sequence of verses is there any mention of the cross; just love. You don't get to decide that the text refers to your symbol of cruelty and murder - the speaker has made it plain that he had no intention of including the cross in any mention or discussion of love.
Although it does say that He sent his son to turn His wrath away from us (doesn't make much sense, does it?) it does NOT say that the crucifixion demonstrates His love to anyone. Just that sending his son so He won't be as mad does.Wilderness, the "atoning sacrifice" in 1 John involved the cross; sounds like game playing again to me.
Game playing to you; changing scripture to me.
Because the verses you mention do NOT mention the cross and did NOT mention atoning. Just that Jesus's coming made God less angry with us; "10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Now, I understand that Cat333 says it is about the symbol of a cross, but nowhere does scripture say that. Just Cat.Wilderness, the sacrifice of love TOOK PLACE on a cross. That is why the cross is a symbol of love and salvation, nothing gruesome.
I am not saying the verse is "about the symbol of a cross"; I was giving you the verse to demonstrate the love bound up in the sacrifice, which took place ON THE CROSS.
Whether the translation says "atoning" or "to be the propitiation", it's saying essentially the same thing - through Jesus' sacrifice, we sinful humans are now able to be seen as righteous in God's sight.
All praise to God for his mighty act of love toward us!From Mirriam Webster:
atone verb \ə-ˈtōn\
: to do something good as a way to show that you are sorry about doing something bad
pro·pi·ti·ate transitive verb \prō-ˈpi-shē-ˌāt\
: to make (someone) pleased or less angry by giving or saying something desired
Personally, I don't see these as saying the same thing, and I definitely don't see God as atoning or propitiating for anything at all. I understand the verses say that He did, that He made himself less mad at humanity by crucifying His son, and thus have to accept that. Perhaps you should try to do the same, and quit putting the cross into verses that don't mention it. OR saying it isn't a symbol; of COURSE the cross is a symbol of Christianity; it is worshipped all over the world in all it's gore and hate.
Nor was there any real sacrifice, outside of a few milliseconds of pain to a body not even Christ's. Nor did it have much to do with love; it was basically a grandstand play to impress the plebes and gain their worship. Forgiveness does not require murdering someone, even if it wasn't a real killing.From the moment Jesus was born in a lowly manger, having given up all his rights as Lord and King, he sacrificed for us. He sacrificed year after year in a human body that felt pain every bit as much as the rest of us. He permitted himself to be mocked, spit on, judged as a criminal though he had no sin, beaten beyond recognition, and painfully put to death on the cross. He felt every bit of it and suffered far beyond what you or I have experienced. He further suffered the inner torment of one who was betrayed and tortured by those he loved, those he came to save. Justice required we be punished, but he took the punishment for not only the best of us, but the worst of us; not only the smallest sin known to any human, but the greatest sins known to humans. He did all this for us, because of a love for us that is beyond any human understanding.
As the story goes he spent about 1/4 of the time on the cross before he died. Many have died a slow painful death that lasted years.
Let's see, he invented punishment and then took it away. Except we continue to die slow painful deaths.
Is this the best you can get from the spirit?
Jesus was subject to humiliation and was BEATEN BEYOND RECOGNITION in the hours leading up to his crucifixion. He was on the cross with nails in his body for hours. His body was as much his earthly body as your body is your earthly body. He suffered and died for you and for me. But you say, "Nor was there any real sacrifice, outside of a few milliseconds of pain to a body not even Christ's"?
The truth is, Wilderness, that it doesn't seem to matter how much or how long Jesus suffered for you, you want to minimize his act of love on your behalf. The truth is that others may suffer here on earth as well, but only ONE offered himself and suffered FOR YOUR SAKE.
Because God is the God not only of love but also of justice, and because our sinful nature separates us from the Holy One who cannot look on sin, Jesus' sacrifice accomplished to needed things: 1) our sin debt was paid in full so that we no longer must pay the penalty, and 2) humans now have the opportunity to be reconciled with the God who loves them and designed them to be with him, so that now they may live with him in blissful eternity.
The cross absolutely is a symbol of Christianity (I said only that the verse wasn't about it being a symbol). Yet the cross is not to be "worshiped"; it points to the one who is to be worshiped. It is a symbol of love for those who understand the unspeakable love that led to the ultimate sacrifice for us.The only "physical/material" symbol we need is the bread & the cup of communion. It's the only one Jesus gave us.
You weren't there and have no idea if he was "beaten beyond recognition"; please, please stop making things up to add to scripture. It ill becomes you in the "prophet" guise.
To a creature that has already existed for an eternity the hours spent on earth aren't an eyeblink (thus the millisecond reference). Nor did Christ die - just the body he occupied for that exceedingly brief period - so no real sacrifice at all.
Please, explain to the infants of Egypt, killed solely because God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so He could impress the plebes with His power, that He is a god of justice. You will find them in Hell, never having had a chance to follow your god, and can speak to them there. Humans have always had the opportunity to reconcile with God; otherwise there would have no Jewish nation.
Yes, I know the cross is a symbol of Christianity, but just as you say it was NOT one when the bible and scripture was written. Symbols, in fact, are denied god's followers, including the cross. I surely do question, though, a symbol of perhaps the worst cruelty one man could do to another being a symbol of love. Except that god has never exhibited love as we know it - perhaps His is a love of blood and gore?My comments about the severity of Jesus' beatings were based on prophetic scriptures in Isaiah:
Isaiah:52:14: “As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men:” And Isaiah:50:6 says, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Isaiah 53 gives a lengthy account of Jesus's sacrifice as well. These prophetic words line up with the gospel accounts of the suffering Jesus went through for our sakes.
The spiritual gift of prophecy does not place us above anyone else. Many prophecy in these later days, as we have the Spirit who is the Word living within us. Believers have various gifts, all valuable. Unbelievers may one day possess the Spirits and the gifts as well, once faith is put in Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior. No one is claiming to have all knowledge or be better than anyone else (There was one person who continually attacked Christianity who I wanted to be honest; UU association does not claim to be Christian and does not follow scripture, but incorporates various religions and atheism).
Just as Jesus' life and suffering on earth was momentary compared to eternity, so are our lives here. All suffering is momentary compared to eternity. The children who have died are all in God's presence now; all are home with the Lord. May the God of all comfort give comfort to all those presently suffering and may Jesus come quickly to set all things right! Amen and amen.
Wilderness - What do you mean my "excuse is that the spirit doesn't say what the bible says and that you know what the spirit wants to have said"? The Spirit says exactly what the bible says! The fact that the scriptures are spiritually discerned or that people can come to inaccurate conclusions does not imply the Spirit and the word contradict. The Spirit and the word are in full agreement. -The Spirit is God, and the Word is God who came in the flesh, that is Jesus, so they are one and the same.
Sorry - I'm missing some of your posts, and some of the information/discussion is getting doubled up as a result.
In any case: Does the spirit tell you that God created the heavens - the universe and all the stars, galaxies and other planets - in 24 hours? No? Then it does not say what the bible says.
Does the Spirit tell you that God imported a planet sized ball of water and provided a massive waterfall over the entire earth, killing every living thing - plant or animal, land or sea - forever (except what was on the ark)? And then made all the water vanish back into space? No? Then the spirit does not say what the bible says.
Does the spirit tell you that the earth existed before there was light (stars)? No? Then it does not say what the bible says.
Or is the spirit telling you all those things are true - directly lying to you in other words?
Yes, God is a trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So yes in this sense Jesus is one part of the Trinity. Jesus is also God himself in human form, so Jesus is Yahweh (I Am/God), which is generally translated "Lord" in our bibles. These two truths do not contradict each other; they are both true. The three persons of the Trinity are both distinct and the same! This takes understanding on a spiritual level and though it confuses many in the natural realm, it makes perfect sense in the spiritual realm.
gobbledegook.
A part is not the whole; if you worship Jesus as Lord then God is not Lord. Yet the bible plainly says He is Lord. The son is not the father, not even in a god, and Jesus is not God.
Nor does it take understanding; it takes a willing suspension of thought and understanding. It takes acceptance without questioning or understanding and to claim it makes sense in an imaginary "spiritual realm" neither you nor any other person has ever visited doesn't change any of that. Making up words and meanings does not give rise to understanding.
You should understand by now that using religious jargon, without meaning in the real world, does not contribute to the conversation. Such things as "spiritual level" or "spiritual realm" have no meaning outside of whatever the speaker has made up themselves. They certainly do not improve communication.Your efforts at effective communication appear to be nothing more than building a wall, hiding behind it and throwing rocks at the person you disagree with. There is no communication that comes from this kind of effort.
Communication can be difficult, as you can see. A part of God is God. Jesus IS God although only one of three that make up God. Each part of God is the Lord, even though the primary party plainly stated He was. Each in three distinct things is the same thing.
Such statements are not called "communication" - they are called "gobbledegook".
Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun
Professor Nathan Aviezer stated that “Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly,” he said. “If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it.”
He explained that the sequence of creation in the Genesis narrative begins with nothingness, moves to a ball of energy and light, and then to the universe.
Aviezer noted that even Cambridge University cosmologist Prof. Steven Hawking found “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics.”
from http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/physicist-bi … rwsvCRy.99
read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/scien … .html?_r=0Revealing post, tbHistorian! Don't the passages in Isaiah about God "spreading out the earth" also describe well modern findings?
yes, they most certainly do.
There are many passages written that provide positive attainment through the Glory of the Spirit.
If individuals would begin to follow the path that Jesus prescribed, the world would be a much better place.
But many evil ones wish to discredit the history and how it provides for positive opportunity for the individual.
Saying you're a prophet or claiming to be one is meaningless. You haven't prophesied. You haven't given any wisdom. Sure, you've regurgitated scripture, but anyone can do that. Even the devil can recite scripture, according to Jesus. I can claim that I'm the Queen of England, but that doesn't make it true.
Someone proclaiming themselves to be a prophet of God and bestowing the title upon others they happen to agree with carries no more weight than you saying you're a unicorn, and it's hardly an example of humility. Jesus aid, when you pray, go into a room by yourself and shut the door. Don't do it to gain praise or respect. I can't recall anywhere in scripture where Jesus. God or the Holy Spirit ordered people to post pages of Scripture on the Internet or argue with people who disagree using the Bible as a weapon. I must be missing a verse or two in all of the bibles I own.
A lot of people claimed to be prophets. Jim Jones. David Koresh. Multiple others. Eyewitnesses claimed that they performed miracles right in front of them. It's a cult mentality, and it's frightening to witnessJMcFarland - Who is getting praise or respect around here? Occasionally we believers encourage one another, but generally speaking, we face an angry "mob" of people who hate (dislike, look down on, mock, reject, etc.) scriptures and believers. If we were doing any of this for praise or respect, we'd have gone long ago!
The word is in fact the "weapon" we use in spiritual warfare - the word is the "sword" of the Spirit.
As it is written:
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
Ephesians 6:11- 17 "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."You are praising yourself and others by naming then (and you) prophets. You're acting as a spirited cheerleader for everyone who's opinion is similar enough to yours, while bashing those who don't. The others you named as prophets didn't correct you. Maybe that means they agree with your assessment, which makes little sense, since we're all strangers. One of the Christians I actually do respect rejected your praise of him, and I think in doing so, he exhibited the humility of Christ fast better than someone who would self appoint themselves as prophets of god.
There is no hatred, no persecution and no rejection. Speaking about Christianity does not equate to attacking believers, and it's impossible to reject something that you do not have any reason to believe exists.
Aside from the clearing of the temple, when did Christ ever pick up a weapon? When was he violent? When did he chase anyone around and insist that they follow him? When did he use what he was as a weapon to threaten or intimidate? He went after religious leaders, those who claimed to speak for him because they misconstrued the message. With the sinners that his people rejected, he was kind and compassionate. He was patient. He gave of himself and met the needs of those he ministered to. The opposite of what we actually see in these forums a lot of the times by your brand of "spirit led" believers.
Yes, it mentions the word of God as a sword, but it never days to bash someone over the head with it. It also says right in the verse you posted, that the Christian battle is not against flesh and blood. Which means that you don't use your "sword" against people. We're all people. I can all read the bible. You don't need to post it for us, and your weapon, by the bibles own words, is not for use against human beings. I'm not a demon, and I really doubt demons are typing on Internet forms and that we're all people here. We're just people who disagree. I have the right to disagree with you, not accept your interpretations as valid and speak against what you're saying. The free speech you enjoy extends to everyone else, too, regardless of whether they agree with you or not.
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ."JMcFarland, you state, "You're acting as a spirited cheerleader for everyone who's opinion is similar enough to yours, while bashing those who don't." In truth, I try to encourage people, and you can find encouraging words I've given even to unbelievers who disagree with almost every word I say (see for example some of my posts to Encephaloidead). I don't agree with everything Motown2Chitown writes, but I praise her for her peacemaking and gift of love/compassion, which in truth are the greatest gifts. There is only one person who calls herself a believer who I have questioned or confronted because she more often than not is speaking against Christianity, fighting against believers and aligning herself with the opinions of the unbelievers. In fact, I accept rebukes from other believers and I appreciate them for them. I also admire Chris Neal's humility (though even this is a compliment he may not want). I am sorry that I have not given you encouraging words, JMcFarland; I haven't had much opportunity, as every post of yours to me is negative, correcting, condemning, rejecting, etc. When you disagree with or accuse me, you insist it is not "bashing", yet you say I am "bashing" if I give verses to demonstrate the truth that stands opposed to human opinion and reasoning.
The word of God is our spiritual "weapon". We are using it to fight spiritual battles that are taking place "behind the scenes". We give unbelievers the words of God so they have the opportunity to receive or reject the truth; we give believers God's words for encouragement, correction and so on. Those of us who belong to God hunger for his words, whether in the form of encouragement or rebuke, and we may value his word above our daily bread. If you reject God's word from me because you do not like me personally, then perhaps you may take the word from someone else. This is likely why God calls many prophets here to the forums (yes, prophets, and btw, prophecy is just one of many spiritual gifts, and one he said would be common amongst believers in these days, so it is a less boastful claim than you may realize). But if you reject his word from ALL his prophets, then you are rejecting not any prophet in particular, but the Word, who is Jesus, himself.You are not a prophet of God. To claim to be one is pretty pathetic.
Wow, are you claiming to be a prophet? It's my understanding that a prophet is an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God and one who speaks of visionary ways and claims to make predictions.
That is amazing coming from some who does't know who Dr Lamb is while everyone else seems to.
You know what they say about false prophets...I am using the biblical terms of prophecy and prophet to refer to the Spirit-led speaking of the word of God (not necessarily prophesying future events), as related to the "gifts" of the Spirit and as foretold in Joel of occurring with widespread frequency in these later days. If I am using the biblical term of prophecy inaccurately and I should be referring to the gifts of "wisdom" or "teaching" or "knowledge" rather than "prophecy", then I accept that. There are many on these forums who are "prophets" or who "prophecy" in terms of speaking the true and Spirit-led words of God. "Inspired teachers" just may be a good way to describe much of it as well.
I am sure there are many individual who do not know of Dr Lamb
I am positive that you do not know Dr Chambers
But then, he was killed in the Spanish American War - so that was probably long before your time.
It is not who you know - but how one uses what they know.
Revelation 22:6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”
Therefore, those who spread truth through the use of God's words are prophets.Wow.
Actually, most of us do know of the identity of Dr. Lamb... there are a couple in the dark... but they seem to think they know who he is.
Hint: You really need to read a thread before you comment on it... your attempts to look wise have just fallen WAY flat. You have also proven that you are not a prophet... big time.WOW - you read too much into statements made as deflective rhetoric.
It is not Dr Lamb or the Bunny Rabbit that is of value, but the truth that must be focused upon.
HINT: You really need to quit defaming anyone who comments without really knowing that individual.
I am a prophet focused solely on the path Jesus described to the Apostle Simon (who is called Peter).
Like Simon, I ask for instruction, pray for wisdom and receive insight from the Lord as each day ensues.
Like the Sermon on the Mount, I am shown the way.
This could be something as simple as my getting a reward for assisting someone in a critical crash who lives and presents it to me.
Then I run into someone who just lost everything and is attempting suicide and so give them my monetary reward because this is what God demands of me.
While I walk the earth with very little material assets, I carry many bushels of love that are bestowed on me daily by those who surround me.
John 13: 10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
I have been healed.........*Sighs*
I respectfully request that you no longer address my posts-I will no longer address yours- You have labeled yourself a prophet, I don't believe you speak for Christ. I cannot associate with you, even to the limited extent of a forum.
What I really find humorous is that among your list of people who you think are prophets are two very distict factions who disagree on almost every point and argue constantly. Yet to you, they are prophets. They're not sharing a message or an approach. thus the danger of bequeathing accolades on complete strangers that you do not know. Same goes for the judging.
Using scripture to insult, ridicule, dismiss and invalidate people who disagree is not its intended purpose. That's what I consider bashing. The word is Christ, not the Bible, and Christ should never be used to threaten or conttol. It was contrary to his behavior, his demeanor and his example.
Additionally, you can't have it both ways. You say that you give scripture to unbelievers so that they may come to know god, but turn around and say unbelievers cannot understand scripture without the spirit. Which is it? If it is the latter, then posting scripture for us is meaningless. If it's the former, then you shouldn't need to explain it, redefine words or point out your own interpretation.
You're just making all of this up as you go along, and it does nothing for your credibility. If no one can trust you and your words, why would they want to pay attention to your message.?I previously listed Cgenea, Beth, Sir Dent and skye2day as a few who I've seen to have the spiritual gift of prophecy (or wisdom / teaching / knowledge, if I am inaccurate in my use the term prophet) and I have not seen any of them to argue constantly as you say, JMcFarland. Regardless of lesser points of disagreement, they all appear to agree on the basic Spirit-led truths.
I have not used scripture to ridicule or dismiss (though perhaps to rebuke), and I have not considered myself "bashed" by any rebuking scripture. I apologize for any offense to you, JMcFarland.
The scripture is given even to those who do not yet have the spiritual eyes to discern the meaning or appreciate it largely because we do not know when the Spirit will act, when their spiritual eyes will be opened and if/when they will become a believer or return to God. It appears from scripture that we are called to offer the words of God in order that some may receive the words. This is a joint work - we the believers spread the seeds (the word) and the Spirit waters them and makes them grow, bringing forth new believers.Yes, you are quite inaccurate to use the terms wisdom/teaching/knowledge when referring to yourself or Cgenea, Beth, Sir Dent and skye2day. What you are all saying couldn't be further from that.
Yes, which causes conflict and spreads hatred. Well done.
The ultimate in arrogance.
You appear to be under the delusion that we are interested in hearing Gods word from you or anyone else. We aren't. And, that has nothing to do with rejecting it, either.
Please get some professional help."We give unbelievers the words of God so they have the opportunity to receive or reject the truth"
No you don't; there isn't a one of them here that hasn't read your book. They have already seen the so-called "words of God" and have rejected them as false.
Want to try again as to why you repeat them?Wilderness, you deny that our intent in giving unbelievers the words of God is so that they may have the opportunity to receive or reject the truth, stating "there isn't a one of them here that hasn't read your book. They have already seen the so-called 'words of God' and have rejected them as false." Yet there is no personal gain for us through the sharing of the verses in terms of our esteem or "winning" points, as unbelievers do not presently acknowledge the value of the words and so do not consider the believer to have made any valuable point at all. If anything we "harm" our reputation or popularity amongst unbelievers by using scriptures. So it is not our gain that we are after, but your gain.
The word of God is "living and active", the word of God is seed, the word of God is bread... Even if it were true that all the unbelievers here had read every word of God, it doesn't change the importance of continuing to give the words - suddenly the words that previously had no significance to the spiritually dead will have great significance to those who may come alive as the Spirit breaths life into them!
So it is not those who continue to give you the words of God that have judged you, for they have refrained from judging whether those who are dead will one day live; rather, it is those who withhold the words who have judged that the spiritually dead will remain dead.You do understand there is a difference in withholding the words and spouting them at each street corner? It is impossible for you to withhold the word of God; it is available anywhere books are sold or the Gideons pass by.
All you can possibly withhold is your own evangelizing, and that would be a great thing to have happen. There is nothing in this world so advertised as the "word of God"; it is on billboards everywhere, in gatherings both public and private. Government pushes it and half the radio stations in the country are dedicated to advertising the myth. Enough already! We don't need any more people shouting "The Word" at us!Evangelicalism is a Christian topic. Yes?
The are a lot of topics about Christianity and Christian beliefs. Be creative. It does not automatically have to include proselytizing and evangelizing 24-7, especially if your aim is to have only Christians you agree with participating
Why don't you draw up an outline and we will try to follow it. Otherwise my point was that if we were going to be criticized for posting the word on this thread, then there is no where that you all would not try to control our speech.
How is anyone actually infringing on your ability to say anything you want? Is someone holding a gun to your head to make you say things you don't want to say?
Posting scripture really isn't a discussion, any more than me quoting a book, pages at a time. Discussion can come from it, but the verses in themselves are not discussion. They're transcription. Every single one of us has access to them.So you go to the extreme... a gun to the head then bring it right back to criticizing us for doing what is a completely natural part of our belief system. If you don't want to read the verses, start a different thread... about... what else are you interested in?
On the contrary, please do keep posting verses, they show the blatant hypocrisy of the believer who posts them, which just so happens to also be "a completely natural part of (y)our belief system"
If you're not interested in people who do not believe the same things you do having a discussion about Christian topics, why don't you go to a Christian only forum site or start a new forum about something else? It works both ways, see. We are free to disagree with believers in an Koen forum, and the free speech you enjoy is thankfully not limited to people just like you.
The gun to the head was a fitting example. If you feel like tie speech is being restricted because someone is disagreeing or criticizing that spe3ch, that sucks. But no one is controlling you or making it impossible for you to post. You disagree with me all the time. Does that mean that you are restricting my speech? Of course not.
Sorry, are you asking us to explain how a discussion forum works? Haven't you been here long enough to figure that out, yet? My my.
You are the only one in control of your speech. We don't control it.
Good point. But the argument was that unbelievers need to hear the word (every day, apparently); do Christians frequent "Christian discussion threads" looking for unbelievers to harangue with "The Word" instead of looking for discussion and understanding of scripture?
Seriously? After your last post you believe it is us haranguing you? It's not like we follow you around to other threads... we can't really say that for all the members of your group.
Go back and read the posts. Nowhere will you find that any real effort was made to discuss a quotation or idea; just a general smash of evangelical proselytizing. None of the posts were aimed at learning anything, just attempting to push an imaginary god onto someone known not to believe via a continual barrage of scripture that is also not believed to be true. Makes good sense, doesn't it?
Don't dispair. Jones, Koresh and their ilk actually had a following. What we are witnessing here are simply lonely people lashing out, desperately, because they know they are alone.
Notice the religion teaches it's followers that anyone who doesn't listen to them must be rebellious, ie. "rebels". This is the same thing tyrants and dictators tell their followers as well, that if we are not with you, we must be against you.
This can only serve to cause conflict and promote hatred and fear towards others.Those who rebel against parents, police officers, the president and so on are considered rebellious, though some may rebel for good purposes. Since we are not called to be rebellious but to live in peace when able, we are to submit to earthly authorities EXCEPT when those authorities defy the Supreme Authority, that is God, and then we "obey God rather than people".
If one is rebellious against God, the Creator and Lord of the Universe, then this is rebellion in the ultimate, truest form. So then, whatever label you want to put on it, if someone rebels against Almighty God, then that person is truly rebellious in the truest sense.Sorry, but that is obviously false considering some of the things in the Bible that we would never do today. Being rebellious means to actively resist authority, to be disobedient, unruly and insubordinate to something or someone. Just because someone is not interested in listening to Evangebees does not equate to them actively resisting authority or being unruly or insubordinate.
You can't be rebellious to something that has never been shown to exist, hence it is pointless.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
The unicorn has never gotten so much play as he does in our little forum.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
You are actually in error in saying that she cannot be a prophet. You may be picturing a prophet of old, or some kind of man of great honor, when in actuality, the Bible says that God has given this gift to some freely. I do not know if she possesses this gift, but to say that someone does not have a God-given gift... would make you a sort of prophet, would it not?
Romans 12:1-8
1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. 3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully. I noticed that most, if not all of this page is anything but a Christian Discussion, as the topic title requests.
Does this, then, mean that it's been hijacked?
I see an awful lot of irreverence towards God.
I guess it comes easily & naturally to irreverent people.I don't see a bit of irreverence to God.
I see a lot of irreverence to people who, honestly, don't come close to deserving reverence. Since these people seem to believe they are God, I can see the confusion.You're absolutely correct. We should have moved this discussion to a separate forum. Of course, it's undeniable that this happens in nearly every topical forum on hubpages... secular ones included. So this forum is no different in that respect. Everyone has opinions, and those always seem to be taken back to religion. But I wonder if it's only super Christians that can't handle non-Christians adding to the mix? Melissa and Motown don't seem to be bothered by it (unless I am mistaken).
Hey....are you trying to say we aren't super?!
I don't personally object to the discussion taking twists and turns here and there. I kind of do see a discussion about prayer as falling under the "Christian Discussion" umbrella, but that's just me.
I'm picking up the vibe though, that the hope is that the thread will dwindle just to the Christians who wish to discuss bible verses without a whole lot of interruption from others. I don't fault them, but an open forum is a tough place for that, since really anyone can participate.Actually Mo, I get the feeling that it only applies to Christians that all agree on every Bible verse ever. It would be interesting to see the pool slowly dwindle to the last-Christian standing.
I would watch that if it were a show.Yeah, Christian Cage Match. Let's pitch it to the networks.
I didn't mean super as a compliment in that instance, Motown. But you guys are super.
I'd definitely be a Christian if I'd met people like you when that window was still open.
But there are websites for people interested in only Christian discussion. Open forums mean that they're, well, open forums.
It doesn't bother me at all. Of course I'm a U.U. so I love interfaith (including atheist) discussions. The dynamic is weird though, because we don't have very many "super-Christians" in the Church. Those who have wandered in are often very disruptive and tend not to feel at home.
I may check out a UU church. I'm intrigued.
LMAO, The irony here is that I can't even point you at a website. Conversion attempts are against my faith. So yeah, there's a website... go find it yourself.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
The Tulip
Arid ground gives way to a wondrous development
With no foundation life advances
Pushing through the hard crusty layers of earthen matter
Bringing fruition in dire circumstances
One lone fledgling lives out of thousands that were spread
Forging the way to see the sun
All others sent to oblivion in the heat and dry ground
While an individual being has just begun
Spectrums of orange brighten the plot atop columns of green
The rigid ground causes no disturbance
It is conquered by the resolve of the flower
As it continues in its dance
Immanuel is called the lily of the valleys
The location where darkness reigns
The light of God shines ever so brightly
As the tulip gleams and remains Some are given by the Spirit gifts of prophecy, some gifts of healing, gifts of faith, of discerning spirits, of wisdom, of teaching, of knowledge, of tongues, of interpreting tongues, gifts of exhortation, of evangelizing and so on. The greatest of all the gifts is the gift of love.
If you want healing, it's best to go to the ones with the gifts of healing and faith, and to have faith yourself. If you are in a Christian forum and many Christians give you their opinions, but you seek true understanding, it's best to listen to the ones with gifts of prophecy, wisdom and teaching, so that what you are given are the biblically based and spiritually discerned words of God.
Recognizing the Spirit and recognizing the gifts given to believers does not equate to thinking one is God. Prophecy and wisdom are somewhat common amongst Spirit led believers in these last days; it does not make one "special". Again, love is the greatest gift.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10); it increases from there. Wisdom from God is given to those who seek and value her, to those who study the word submitted to and guided by the Spirit, to those who ask God for it.- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
Put your money where your mouth is.
http://www.feedthechildren.org/site/Pag … g_homepageIs that directed at God? I wasn't aware God needed money to feed the children? Won't prayer solve that problem?
I volunteer for homeless feeding, donate money to multiple overseas groups that provide food without religioud undertones and offer my time for other volunteer events. Why assume that we don't put our money and our time and our sweat and other things where our mouths are?
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
This thread is getting out of hand yet again. No discussion at all and no discussion going to start because everyone feels they must get one up on the others.
This is my last post on this thread. I have nothing else to say here except to JMcfarland and A Thousand Words. I notice you are the only two who responded to my post with the link to feed children who actually give. I appreciate that you do. I also give to the homeless, food and clothing, sometimes cash also depending upon the need.
The rest of you should do likewise for you never know when you may entertain and angel.
Whatever it is you all are looking for in life, I pray you find it.
Have a good day.I once mentioned my volunteer work and was told I was bragging by a group of Christians (some of who are in this thread). Could everyone's spirit get together and let me know whether I am allowed to talk about it or not?
Unless you were saying things about you being the lynchpin and nothing would happen without you, I don't see why it would necessarily be bragging. I would have no problem with it.
Nah, things happen without me all the time. There's a whole world out there happening that is completely unconcerned with my existence. I'm fine with that
It was in a discussion about some verses in James... It was very much like Dent's post... a money where your mouth is kind of thing... yet completely different response. I wonder why that is.
Sir dent I am with you sir. It is like clanging symbals in here. None want to hear the truth. God allows hearts to stay hardened. Praise to God He choose us. We can only be His hands and feet. Seed planted amen. All we can do is pray for others as you do. May God bless your works for Him. dear brother.s Job well done good and faithful servent. Love ya brother, Skye
That I agree with. I see a lot of resounding gongs, but not a lot of love. Love is defined by the person receiving, not the person giving. Christ knew that. I see the words of men in almost every post, the words of Christ, I'm just not seeing. So many claiming be prophets of his word, yet the spirit is leading none to behave as he would.
If one wants to deliver the word of Christ, without being Christlike, then the message is going to fail. The prophet is false. The words are meaningless.I disagree. The words have meaning, although probably not the meaning or message the speakers thinks is being delivered.
Sadly, I think that's probably an accurate assessment.
Why "sadly"? I'm always glad to learn and if what I learn isn't pleasant, so be it. I such a case I have still learned, and learned not to invest too much. A good thing, then.
I just don't think there was anything to learn here, other than what everyone already knew.
Skye, I agree wholeheartedly that we are the hands and feet of Christ. Maybe we should get busy working and walking then, because I've never heard a hand or foot say a word.
Many times we do not say a word. Discernment girl. We love God and let our lights shine. I think many say they are a true Christian but with their behavior one wonders and some may decide they want nothing to do with that. But we are to be salt of the earth. We let our light shine inside. Jesus Christ He is the light. One true christian can tell another by the fruits they bear and the words they speak. Does it mean we are perfect no. We make errors. Love, Skye
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
I don't generally do this, but the "I'm taking my ball and going home" tone of some posts is starting to irk me. So is extreme language like "a gun to the head." For the most part, HP gives us all access to this great discussion forum. Occasionally, those discussions turn into semi-formal debates. Not my cup of tea, personally, but to each their own, I suppose. But who determines when a "discussion" has gotten out of hand? Does that mean the majority of participants are no longer in agreement? Does that mean the discussion was intended to be one thing, but has become something else? Does it mean that the person who started said discussion feels that the participants have veered so far off topic that they might be better taking the new conversation elsewhere?
Well, all of those are perfectly valid reasons for any of us to personally opt out of a discussion. BUT if we choose to do so, it's no one's fault. Disagreement, even vehement, strongly worded disagreement is not persecution. It's not a personal attack. It is really nothing more than evidence that the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of others may be different from ours. The definition of "persecution" the way it's used in these threads is THE epitome of a first world problem. When you're getting jailed or shot because you have or don't have religious beliefs, come back and talk to me about persecution. Because six people may say they think or believe differently from you, they are not ganging up. They are not bullying. Happens to me every day, in my family alone. I don't have a problem thinking or behaving differently no matter what people seem to think about it. I do no harm. At the end of the day, can we all say the same?
While I applaud every effort to feed the hungry and help the homeless, it doesn't matter one bit that anyone knows I do it, except for the one I've given food or shelter to. I don't even need to mention it to God. He already knows.
If I go to church every Sunday, every Wednesday, or in the case of some, every SINGLE day, it doesn't matter. If, as a Christian, I want to limit my discussions to only those with my same label and identical belief structure, I should choose a place other than an open, pluralistic Internet forum. If I am uncomfortable with dissent, different opinions, or having my beliefs or my atheism dissected by someone who doesn't share them, I just don't think this is the place to be.
That said, I respect every single person's right to have beliefs, to have none, or to be confused about what they might actually believe. Jesus always appeared to me to have done the same. If we want people to respect us, we have to respect them. If our words don't convince someone, maybe we need to stop using so many of them.
And, yes, I realize that statement is ironic after this novel-length post.You have a good (gifted) way of simultaneously confronting and promoting peace. May God bless you, Motown2Chitown.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
I think I'm done with this thread too. You all may have the use of it.
I'll give that a couple of the unbelievers (perhaps Jane and Emile) come into the Christian discussions because they are genuinely interested in religious topics. But it looks like the sole purpose for the rest of you is to bash Christianity, Christians, the Word and God.
IMHO .. perhaps Jane and Emile may be more closely connected to the Spirit of God than even they realize.
My favorite verse in scripture which is so easy to miss the deeper meaning of is,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I think we have to master the depths of this verse before we can stop judging ourselves so harshly, When we master that, then we will stop watching what everyone else is doing to compare ourselves with.
Oh thank you Lord for making me NOT like that sinner over there.
; kind of thoughts will go away. I love that verse cause it runs SOoo.
When I catch myself seeing other people forgetting that verse, I suddenly realize that I forgot it for that moment. I constantly catch myself doing that., wish I could quiddit.Yes. I agree. That's a powerful message. If you look at it, there is hypocrisy in everything and choosing to chastise anyone for what we find a fault, exposes our own (to other people) in the process. I notice a lot of religious people attempt to turn that verse into something different. I guess, because they know it is truly impossible to live without casting stones.
Just checking in for a minute then gotta run.
I think it is impossible to not pick up the rock once in a while and get ready to throw it, but any time we take the time to really think about it; when /if we do throw it, all we are doing is giving them more rocks to throw back at us. Sometimes it is best just to hunker down and hope they run out of ammunition to use against us.
From what I've read of this thread. There seems to be a lot of rocks flying in all directions.
The Unitarian Universalist (UU) church was mentioned a couple of times in this discussion. Their association says, "We are creating a force more powerful than one person or one religion. By welcoming people who identify with Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Earth-Centered Traditions, Hinduism, Islam, and more, we are embodying a vision 'beyond belief':”
From what I have seen in scripture; If God had something to say us humans, he would contact someone and speak to them telling that person to go and relay that message, thereafter that person to whom Gad gave this message to then can be said to be a prophet. That person being a prophet can't do parlor tricks, except "Possibly" under very special circumstances.
If that is the correct understanding of a prophet ? I have not heard from one.
If however, if we are reading scripture, and we feel that the spirit has spoken to us concerning what we have read? sudden inspiration! Maybe it did? Maybe it didn't? Either way, it would be a inspiration to ME and about ME.
I can share it if I choose ... or not.Yes. And that same principle can be applied to someone else. Often, the Spirit gives a specific scripture to one (prophet, if you will), to share with another.
Some situations can be quite overwhelming, and it may take an outsider (prophet) to speak an appropriate word of encouragement to bring direction/clarity.
In this sense, cat is correct, that in the last days, many shall prophesy. It may involve fore telling, it may not.
In regards to living in the Last Days, we have indeed been in that state for some 2000+ years. The (actual) last day, maybe today, maybe years away, but it does not detract from what scripture calls Last Days.How can you tell the difference between the spirit telling you and an ordinary inspiration - light bulb going off - kind of thing?
Likewise, when someone claims to be prophesying, how can you tell if it is true? For absolute surety, people have lied about it for centuries (millennium).I personally would not consider a person who was an inspired teacher as being a prophet. All of the prophets of the OT brought a new message to his people. I think ?
The prophets of the OT came with arks, burning bushes, and whales.
If I see a sea part, I'm all ears.I guess you'll be disappointed.
Although, the days of the anti-christ, many (lying) signs and wonders will be performed/seen.
They will be so convincing, that even the elect (are warned) that could be deceived by them.Yeah, I'm sure.
Probably shouldn't believe any self-proclaimed prophets at all then... they could all be the anti-Christ.
The role of a prophet has changed since the OT.
One can be a prophet today, by God's calling, but their function has changed under the NT.I think you know my beliefs as to when the Last Lays was talking about.
And believing as I do; I see the NT from a completely different angle than most Christians.I'm not sure there has been any prophets after Jesus. Even if he was the Messiah and son of God, he was also a Prophet. And I think all of his prophesy were fulfilled before the first half of the second century had ended.
Except on this point, we agree on most other things.
In the end... I don't think these differences make much difference.There are prophecies that concern, the future, past the first and second centuries that have since come to pass. One obvious one, is the Nation of Israel to return to their land in Palestine. (True as of 1948)
There are many prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled. In fact there are a GREAT many, that have yet to be fulfilled.I was speaking only of those which Jesus spoke of.
I wasn't speaking of the book of Rev., or a couple of things mentioned in Daniel.
I think Christianity has a wrong interpretation of what Jesus was talking about concerning the last days.
He did say "This generation shall not pass until these things come to pass (THESE things he was speaking of)
I don't think we should clump all of the prophesy delivered from all the prophets all together, as they are all going to happen within 3 1/2 of our years.
If we begin our study of prophesy with just one little misinterpretation, it becomes necessary to continue misinterpreting the next thing in order for it to coexist with the previous misinterpretations.
If my final interpretation is incorrect it is because there exist prior misinterpretations.
The same can be said for every ones.
Most people believe my first misinterpretation is that when Gabriel told Daniel 62 weeks will pass and they will kill the Messiah ... and 568 years later they did! My interpretation is that 62 weeks in prophesy = 568 years. I don't think this is an interpretation of any kind.
This perception has lead me to a different place of understanding prophesy than anyone I have spoken with. I've discovered no one wants to believe this concept because it shakes the foundation of their belief system. After all this time on here, my attitude has changed; ..... In the end .... It really doesn't matter if this is correct or not.I was only speaking of those prophesy which Jesus spoke.
He said all these things which he had just addressed would happen before that generation shall pass.
I believe modern Christians hold a misguided perception of what Jesus meant when he said ..or it is interpreted "Last Days" OR Jesus was wrong. MAYBE ?? we could reevaluate our interpretation of what we think he said so that it can be said that Jesus wasn't wrong.
But if we do that ? we have to rethink everything. and that is a lot of work.
Edit After I went through many stages of rethinking ... ? Well I don't think it makes that much difference which concept we hold.
But again I still might be wrong about that.
Here is an example of how prophecy can work in the N T.
The story of Saul's conversion, and subsequent calling into ministry, as Paul.
It's Acts 9, " 10Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying,
12and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.”
13But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem;
14and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19and he took food and was strengthened."Yeah, I've read it.
I haven't seen any blind people cured either.Can ask you a question?
Where have you been, when you were expecting to see such a miracle?
Where are you looking, in order to see?
Here are two examples for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBIWpLrOMOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1_h6ynYxBIDo you really believe those to be true healings?
I don't expect to see such miracles. That's the point.
Christ really isn't all that mystical to me. No circus required, really. No prophets, no "spirit", no unfathomable mystery. That's all smoke and mirrors by people who need theatrics to believe.
I'm good. Really.Pretty much the answer I expected.
If you don't expect to see a miracle, you won't "trip" over one.
The "smoke and mirror stuff" is merely a assumption on your part.
Equal to dismissing the claim as (non)genuine, is no more valid than the acceptance of it.
Truth is, YOU don't know whether the people were actually "ill" or not, so you cannot determine that they were never healed, nor it is real.
Now that's ok, but don't go around asserting that miracles don't happen, and only because you have never seen on. In fact, you just may have, if you watched the videos, from start to finish.If it would have been documented, it would have been on the news, not youtube.
Christian really doesn't have to mean gullible or blind to science/medicine.
I'm not even asserting that miracles don't happen. I'm just saying that I haven't seen one from a self-proclaimed prophet.
Smoke and mirrors is indeed my opinion on why such people fall victim to fake healers and prophets. Me saying I don't need it is a fact. Me saying it is not genuine is a very big probability.
Find me a prophet that can perform a miracle that is appropriately documented and I'm on board. It doesn't really matter to me in any significant way, because I need neither prophets or miracles, but you get my point. Show me an obviously fake healing on a youtube video, I'm going to dismiss that-and likely anything else you ever show me to prove something. I'm just not that... well...stupid.Stupid, is not a word that ever crossed my mind.
I take your comments as either miracles happen, or they don't, I'm not sure which.
Whether or not you "need" to see one is up to you.
I'm not using Youtube as proof, only as examples of possible evidence being "out there".
As I said, dismissing the videos as fraudulent, is as valid as accepting they may be real.
I have been told by (atheists) that every piece of evidence I ever offered was fake, fraudulent or unacceptable. To me, this basically says, "I don't care what you put forward as evidence, I refuse to accept it" For various reasons, known only to the one saying it. I'm only left with speculating as to their real motives.
I personally know people that have been miraculously healed, but I also know many who never received healing after prayer. It's certainly NOT a formula.Actually, I would probably be very open to receiving proof. I don't need it, but I would be open if it was presented to me. But, my requirement for evidence is pretty high. If someone is healed, great! I want to see medical records/tests proving that they were ill in the first place and are healed now. It needs to be a condition that doesn't heal on it's own.
If that can't be provided, I'm going to have to go with faking it either for attention or for money... or whatever obscure reasons.
Without the records, it is actually more valid for me to believe that it is a fake than for you to believe it is real. I know you don't want to accept that, but statistically their have been far fraudulent claims of miracles than real ones, even if every single miracle in every holy book is true."I have been told by (atheists) that every piece of evidence I ever offered was fake, fraudulent or unacceptable. To me, this basically says, "I don't care what you put forward as evidence, I refuse to accept it"
It doesn't tell you that perhaps you need to have a different concept of what evidence consists of? Different methods of collecting it, or a much more complete set, including negative results?
If everyone looked at MY evidence and declared it to be inconclusive or unacceptable, I'd certainly be asking "Why?". And trying to understand how to produce evidence that is acceptable to more people than myself.
Melissa, you said, "Find me a prophet that can perform a miracle that is appropriately documented and I'm on board." I just wanted to clarify that prophecy and miracles are two separate gifts given by the Spirit. Someone can perform miracles because that is their particular gift (they may or may not be a prophet as well). Many prophets won't also have the gift of working miracles or healing.
So, if Christ is not all that mystical, why do you continue to seek the miracles?
As usual, one who cannot bring themselves to feel the Spirit, perpetually denies that others can.
1 John 3:6-8 (NIV)
6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.That leaves out about 50% of adult women, then, as remarrying after a divorce is a sin for women. You're claiming that most women, Christian or not, believer or not, with the spirit or not, do not live in him or know him.
Ha ha ha ha ha haha. That's funny. You are kidding right?
I think we are getting the definition of Apostle and prophet confused. I don't think the Apostle Paul is ever said to have been a prophet. But I could be wrong ?
How many people must affected by the contents of a prophesy? On a small scale we all sometimes see the future. We meet someone and instantly see what the future might hold If we go down that path. Sometimes we might see as many as three potential futures spring from one event, depending upon which path we take. Is this divine inspiration or is it an instantaneous deduction based upon prior experience? And either way; who is to say that instantaneous deduction isn't a gift from God?
The distinction separating the gift of prophesy and instantaneous deduction can be a bit blurred.
You might say we are all prophets in our own right, to a lesser or greater degree. But if we claim to be a prophet of God, we are saying God gave us communication of some sort concerning some specifics concerning a future event that we otherwise could not have known.
And then again; I might be making up my own definitions
Woke up ... read some of this thread, ...had to say something and am back to bed in a couple of minutes.I'm surprised to see that y'all don't understand that these people who call themselves prophets or say they talk to God or believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God or see miracle healing or some other fundamentalist claim, have some serious mental disorders, they have lost their grip on reality and live in a bubble they've created for themselves.
It is this bubble that must remain intact under any circumstances so they will say and do anything to maintain it's integrity while forfeiting their own. They don't know what logic or reason is in the same capacity as the rest of us, their logic and reason is inside their bubble.
They aren't "lying for Jesus" because everything they know and understand is not based in reality, it is based on the hallucinations they see and the voices they hear in their head, which to them rings the absolute truth, no matter what. It can even contradict the Bible and they still will not waver in their position. They say we don't understand because we don't possess the "Spirit" to guide us, but of course, that spirit is the mental disorder.
We can see what happens when their beliefs are questioned, criticized, mocked, ridiculed... whatever, they get emotionally affected and we see that manifested in anger and hurt. What we don't see is who in their world that anger and hate is transferred, which often is usually to their children or spouses. I think this is really important for us to seriously consider when we respond.
If you think you're having a reasoned discussion with these people, you're dead wrong, they have no concept of reasoned discussion, that is why it is best to just nod your head in agreement, smile and wave to whatever they say, even if they say you're evil and will burn in hell. There is no need to feel offended or angered at their words because it should be obvious that they know not what they say.*Whoomp! There it is!
"Whoops! There it is!" is something differentProbably! I don't know. I was a dweeb in the 80's and I'm an old dweeb now!
There is no offense to me in you calling us mentally disordered, Q, because I understand that to those looking with natural rather than spiritual eyes, we DO IN FACT APPEAR crazy. In fact, I appreciate your "tender" approach versus the hatred, mocking, etc. of most of the unbelievers in these forums. There's really only one thing that I'd say "bothered" me in your "well-meaning" post: You said, "It can even contradict the Bible and they still will not waver in their position." Those of us who are led by the Spirit strive to keep in step with the Spirit and to align ourselves with Gods' words. We may even hunger for rebukes from the brethren to help us in aligning ourselves with the word in both thoughts/words and actions.
Do you not find it curious how many "crazy" people are running around, simply because they have great faith in God? How strange that such a belief should result in so much insanity! How contrary to the normal development of psychosis! I am content to appear "insane" for Christ to the majority, if it means even one who is being called will hear the truth.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)
"For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake..." 1 Corinthians 4:9-10After reading through much of this thread, I have seen many contradictions to the Bible from yourself and others here. It is part and parcel to the bubble you and they have created for yourselves.
As long as those people are never placed in decision making positions or are responsible for the well being of others, the psychoses they possess should not be harmful to others, however it could be potentially harmful to the person themselves.
The old testament prophets spoke the word of God, declaring "Thus says the Lord...".
The Prophet above all prophets, Jesus Christ came as the Word in the flesh, and being the Word itself he said, "Verily I say unto you...".
As promised by Jesus, believers now have his Spirit residing within them. With the Spirit who is God who is Jesus who is the Word within us, we who have the Word within us may now prophecy to you...You weren't there and have no idea if he was "beaten beyond recognition"; please, please stop making things
To a creature that has already existed for an eternity the hours spent on earth aren't an eyeblink (thus the millisecond reference). Nor did Christ die - just the body he occupied for that exceedingly brief period - so no real sacrifice at all.
Please, explain to the infants of Egypt, killed solely because God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so He could impress the plebes with His power, that He is a god of justice. You will find them in Hell, never having had a chance to follow your god, and can speak to them there.
- = - = -
me ... I've removed a couple of your words so I can say, cain't argue with that!
except... If our names were written in the book of life since the foundation of the earth was first being established, I would think that we also was there in some form. And "IF" this is true? That is where we go when we drop these physical bodies. SOoo what you say about compared to eternity; our life time here in this form is but a blink of an eye in comparison. That being said; We needn't tell those Egyptian children who died because Pharaohs hart had been turned cold anything because they already know that all that transpired is that God called them home early.
====================
Humans have always had the opportunity to reconcile with God; otherwise there would have (been) no Jewish nation.
- = - =
me ... true that!
============
Yes, I know the cross is a symbol of Christianity, but just as you say it was NOT one when the bible and scripture was written. Symbols, in fact, are denied god's followers, including the cross. I surely do question, though, a symbol of perhaps the worst cruelty one man could do to another being a symbol of love.
- = - =
me I've wondered about that myself. If he had been shot with a gun, would we wear a symbol of a gun on a chain around our neck?
Just because Gods representatives have been doing a poor job of representing him (in your and/or my opinion) for the last 1624 years, should we assume there is no fire from whence the smoke rises?yes, but when we know who set the fire and sent up the smoke signals, there's really not a lot of reason to go hunting for supernatural explanations, is there?
True, ... BUT ... seems like there are a lot of people manipulating the signal being sent; while only one person sparked the original fire. There are so many different stories as to who that was a person can only come to their own conclusions based upon their own experiences.
One thing I've learned; I can do more damage to another's life from imposing my morals upon them, especially when they try to live by them than would have been if they had just went on sinning in their own way. If you know what I mean?
Either we believe the scriptures or we don't. This does NOT mean everything is literal, but it does mean that nothing we believe can contradict the essential truth of the scriptures. If we deny the Word, then we deny Jesus, who is the Word in the flesh. Only that which is based on the Word and the Spirit can be trusted.
If we love you, we won't tell you "pleasant lies"; we will tell you the truth, even if it causes you to hate us or wrongly accuse us of hatred. I haven't seen hatred toward unbelievers by any Christian on here; only the truth given by the believers, which is rejected and hated by unbelievers.If we deny the bible we deny the writers of the bible were truthful. Big difference.
There you go again thinking we hate while you love. The problem is you're not making any coherent sense and you have no evidence therefore it's not the truth.I know we love because 1) we otherwise wouldn't share the truth, which is such an unpopular message that it causes others to reject, mock, etc.; 2) I see the Christians telling of their weaknesses, vulnerabilities, etc., making themselves easy targets, just to benefit others; 3) I know my own heart and I sincerely love even those I get angry with (okay, my Italian flesh comes in, I shouldn't take easy offense or get angry, but I do); I can genuinely tell you that while I get angry with your accusations and such, I still love you and would still do whatever was in my power to help you if you had need.
What is it you see as so unloving in the words of any of the Christians on the forums? Yes, we have confronted you when we felt disrespected, slandered, mocked, etc. But other than confronting what we see as attacks, what unloving words have been said? Are you offended that we tell you that ALL people sin? Are you offended that we tell you that it is by God's GRACE that we are saved? Are you offended that we tell you that ONLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST CAN WE BE SAVED? What is this great offense? We do not see ourselves as different than you; only rescued from our own depravity and sinful nature and DECLARED RIGHTEOUS BY THE ATONING ACT OF JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR.If you feel you have been disrespected, mocked or attacked, please try to look at what you're saying to other people and understand they are not loving words. For example:
Yes, very much so, those are not loving words, they are words that are very disrespectful and can be considered an attack to the person you are telling.
Not really, if you believe you are saved, that is fine, no one will really care much about that. It is not offensive.
Only if you tell me that it applies to you and not to me. That is not offensive. But if you tell me that it does apply to me, then I will be offended.
No one really cares that much if you have been rescued from your own depravity and sinful nature other than offering a pat on the back and a hearty "Good on ya, mate!"
But, if you are saying that I need rescuing from my depravity and sinful nature, then I will be very offended.
Is any of this getting through?The message is that you and I and every other person ever to have lived is indeed in need of a Savior, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Now some may have sinned little (a few lies here or there, a few judgments, a few unkind words or thoughts, etc.); some may have sinned greatly (I'll place myself here, because I confess that I am on my own capable of most sins). But whether we sin little or greatly, we are in need of salvation because "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and because our sin separates us from God who cannot look on evil or wrongdoing (Habakkuk 1:13).
I understand that to you this sounds like a hateful rather than a loving message. But let me illustrate how it is indeed loving all because it is the truth. Suppose you went to see two doctors. One doctor gave you pleasant news - "You're fine," the doctor said, "You have no cancer and need do nothing." But the truth was you DID have cancer. The other doctor said to you truthfully, "You do indeed have cancer and here is what we can do to save your life." The second doctor's news was not what you wanted to hear, it wasn't pleasant, yet it had the power to save your life, and that was the doctor that in truth acted in love.
May God bless you, Q.But the second doctor is not actually a doctor or qualified to say any such thing and there is no cancer.
May Stan keep you forever in His Bosom.If a doctor tells you that you have cancer without any evidence he has done you great harm.
I'm simply trying to help you. I can see that you are terrible confused and angry and just want to help you see the truth. All these delusion about Satan and how you see it in others must be terribly tiring and taxing on your body and mind.
It's time to open you eyes and see the light, and I don't say this just because I love you, I say it because I also love those around you.
I worship the Living God, not any religion and certainly not anything dead.
Old Testament scriptures all point toward the Messiah - Jesus, and Jesus fulfilled every last one of the many, many prophecies about him. People have been willfully or unintentionally corrupting the message from the start (the Catholic Church, etc.). I attempt to uplift the brethren and the bride of Christ, and to uphold the Way which is now called Christianity, but I am not really interested in promoting any particular church. Only when we rely on the Spirit and the Word do we have the truth.
Yes, the universe is changing, and such was the design of God. Nonetheless, God says clearly of himself in several places within scripture: "I the LORD do not change." (Malachi 3:6) We are meant to grow in understanding. But here we have a choice - to let ourselves be led astray by any and all current philosophies and human "wisdom" that deny the truth of the Word and the living God himself, or to grow in spiritual understanding by means of the Word and the Spirit.
"The one who stands firm to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:19)
May the living and everlasting God reveal his great love to you and bless you greatly.And, that's what I fail to understand about the conservative evangelical viewpoint. It's always 'Yes, but'.
Jesus attempted to clarify. To explain. They say he intuitively understood the reason for the law at a very young age. He said himself that the law existed for the benefit of man. It was never intended to enslave them.
You've put a ring through your nose and think the words in a book can drag you into righteousness. You've said yourself that you fight against it sometimes. Christianity, as you present it, is so alien to the example of Christ and the words of Christ that it cannot be resolved. Why?
I assume, because you focus on almost anything other than his words and example. I notice you quote a lot of passages from the Bible other than his words. I do realize that even some of the things attributed to him can be twisted and, when made to stand alone, can corroborate some of Paul's comments. But, Jesus, taken as a whole, does not support this damn the world mentality.The law pointed us toward our need for a Savior, as it is written. Jesus fulfilled the law for us, as it is written. Now we do not need to strive to fulfill the law, as it is written. Jesus has indeed set us free, as it is written.
I absolutely do NOT think the word of God drags me into righteousness, unless you mean the Word in the flesh who is Jesus Christ, who died for us so that we may be DECLARED righteous, despite having no righteousness of our own, as it is written. I've said we find the truth through the Word and the Spirit, both of which are God; how is this form of "Christianity" alien to the example of Christ and the words of Christ? Jesus Christ is the one who came as the Word in the flesh, who came not to abolish but to fulfill every written word, and who promised to give us the Spirit that would guide us into all truth, as it is written.
All scripture is God-breathed, all scripture is inspired by the Spirit, so all scripture is valuable. In my very last post to you I quoted Jesus' own words - "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost; that was his mission the first time he came to earth. But these are also the words of Jesus - "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book" (Revelation 22:7).How does the spirit justify and interpret Matthew 5-17,18, where Jesus very plainly said the law is still in effect? Understand that "fullfill" does NOT mean "abolish"; it means "follow". Jesus did not end OT law; he "fulfilled" it, meaning he followed the law and did not violate it. You are expected and required to do the same; to follow the Law down to the smallest letter.
Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" or "Christ has completed the law. So now everyone who believes can be right with God." or "Christ is the fulfillment of Moses' Teachings so that everyone who has faith may receive God's approval."
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." The law has not disappeared, but rather it has been met already by Jesus Christ, the only One who was capable of keeping the entire law. Now we benefit from his righteousness - through his sacrifice and our faith we are made righteous in him. So we who are sinful are "hidden" in Christ - When God looks at us he does not see our sin, but he sees the blood of the sinless perfect Jesus covering over our every sin. For this purpose Jesus came to earth as a man, suffered and died for us and rose again. All glory and praise be given to the Lamb and to God the Father forever and forever. Amen and amen.The law is still there. Jesus followed it. But because you are hiding in Jesus, God cannot see your sins and that means you can willfully violate His laws at will
A most fascinating case of rationalization, Cat. When carefully analyzed it means absolutely nothing except you will do as you please and hang the law, but it sounds pretty and to someone not questioning what they hear will make perfect sense. You will even find more to join you as being without blame in all things is quite attractive.
I will remain agnostic, though, responsible for my own actions and with them plainly visible to God and everyone else.Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.Does all that mean that you will now follow the law that Jesus left intact, or will you continue to willfully violate every day of your life?
Wilderness, you asked, "Does all that mean that you will now follow the law that Jesus left intact, or will you continue to willfully violate every day of your life?" The answer is neither.
As revealed in Romans 6, believers are "dead" to sin but "alive" to Christ. We live for Christ now, not to sin. If we do slip up, we confess our sins and "he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:19). Then we continue living for Christ. The more we live by the Spirit, the less we will struggle with our sinful nature. Because some Christians started with much more sinful natures in their natural state than others, because God works things out of his believers in a unique manner suited for them, and because some Christians are living more by the Spirit than others, this will often appear confusing to both unbelievers and believers. Only through the Spirit can anyone get a true sense of what is going on with a Christian who struggles with sin (and we all still do to some extent).Interesting. Is that why you believers have no morals and can do as you please?
Sin/forgiven/sin/forgiven/sin/forgiven.
Nothing confusing about that at all - in fact - it explains a lot. This is "living for Christ" huh? I think I will leave you to it. I find your lack of moral code somewhat disturbing. But - good for you saved 'n' all.
As I read your post, you are saying that you WILL continue to do as you wish, ignoring the Law as you do so, but then use the loophole of confessing those sins to something that already knows all about them. (This is Catholic, not biblical - are you a Catholic prophet?).
Have you confessed the sin of not stoning your neighbor for wearing multiple cloths? Or for not stoning a rebellious child? For eating shellfish or pork? Or do you just ignore those laws and hope to get away with it? I'd have to say there is a whole lot of sin on today's Christian, mostly because they all ignore the law and do as they wish. Like eating pork without confessing it to the priest, who will tell them that is fine and not to bother him anyway.Wilderness, if believers are "dead to sin" and "slaves to righteousness" then, no, we won't "continue to do as we wish". Instead, we who are "alive to Christ" strive to follow Christ through the power given to us by the Spirit. Either you miss what I actually say every time, or perhaps you're playing games again?
Confessing our sins as in verse 1 John 1:19 is really more about realigning ourselves with the will of God. It is not a "loophole". We are saved already, but when we step outside his will through sin, we want to realign ourselves with his will. I am not Catholic (or any particular denomination), but follow the lead of the Spirit and carefully study the Word. Since 1 John 1:19 is in fact scripture then it is biblical; therefore the statement that "this is Catholic, not biblical" does not make sense.
We are no longer bound by OT law now that Jesus Christ has come and fulfilled the laws and the very purpose of the laws. We now operate in the Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. In love, we honor God above all else; in love for others we do not murder, steal, covet, commit adultery, etc. If, however, we slip and do any of these things, we have one who has paid the price and makes us new creations in Christ. To him be all glory, both now and forever more! Amen and amen.Interesting - you can do murder and the price is already paid.
If we're living for Christ, dead to sin and our evil desires, why would we murder? HIGHLY unlikely occurrence. We would have to not only ignore the lead of the Spirit (as in the case of any sin), but act SO FAR OUT OF LINE WITH THE SPIRIT in the horrific act of murder... it just wouldn't make a lot of sense. A born-again Christian may have been a murderer before they came to Christ, but it's particularly unlikely they'll be one thereafter. Struggles that may continue following salvation and rebirth would more likely be those related to addictive behaviors and such. But even these, through the power of the Spirit, may be overcome.
Odd that so many Christians have killed so many. So - you were lying when you said :
I don't believe "so many Christians" have murdered many. "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:14)
Ah - so none of them were real christians I suppose. But you did not answer my question.
Save me a seat by the fire,.
1 john 1:19 has exactly nothing to do with confessing your sins, either to a priest OR to a god that already knows about it. It was a specific statement that the speaker was not the Messiah.
"Dead to sin" equals not caring if you sin or not. It does not mean you can do whatever you want and it is not sinful.
Christ clearly said to follow the law, that it was NOT dead, but you continue to ignore it, You cannot be "alive in Christ" (whatever that peculiar bit of religious jargon means) and ignore his statement.
That's the handy claim, yes - that the OT law does not apply any more - but that again is not scriptural, while Matt. 5-17 most definitely IS scriptural and DOES say the OT law is still in effect. Even a prophet cannot change the words of scripture; if you wish to live in Christ you WILL follow His law. If you don't, you will not. Your choice, which you made long ago when you decided not to follow the laws of God.
Prophet or not, such obvious rationalizations as Jesus "fulfilled" (followed) the laws and canceled their purpose (which even a prophet does not know) are worthless. You cannot put your own rationalizations and interpretations onto scripture; it says what it says, and that is to follow the laws of God. Including those the unchanging god made many millenia ago. Amen.162. Not to marry non-Jews (Det. 7:3)
163. Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people — Deut. 23:4
164. Not to prevent a third-generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people — Deut. 23:8-9
165. Not to refrain from marrying[clarification needed] a third generation Edomite convert — Deut. 23:8-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
Those laws sound rather specific don't you think? Specific to the people in the situation the people these laws were given to were in? These laws were clearly specific to the Jewish people in the wilderness. There were actually laws, known as 'Noahide' laws that were 7 of the 10 commandments, that were meant for non-Jewish people living in Jewish governed land that they had to follow if they were to live in that land.
1. The prohibition of idolatry.
2. The prohibition of murder.
3. The prohibition of theft.
4. The prohibition of sexual immorality.
5. The prohibition of blasphemy.
6. The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7. The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws
"the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity
These 7 laws are represented amongst the 613 Mitzvah laws. Those laws clearly had specific reasoning. So for Jesus to say He fulfilled these laws I read to mean He fulfilled the purpose of these, something realized through the following of these laws. Laws made necessary because of free will. Without free will there's no need to establish commandments.
In the context of the story being told, God first tested then chose to breed through Abraham, whom God found favorable traits in. God then promised Abraham's descendants would be many. These laws realized that promise. These were the laws necessary to do so. God created Adam, then chose a descendant of Adam, Noah, to then breed through, and made a new covenant. He then tested and found Abraham favorable, a descendant of Noah. He then gives these 'chosen people' these 613 laws that are very specific to them and their situation. Laws that say who and who not to breed with. What to eat and what not to eat. Things that seem to be concerned with realizing a particular outcome through controlled breeding by controlling the behaviors and actions chosen by these people. This was the line that Jesus came from.
Genesis 6 talks about how "God's spirit" would not contend with 'mortal humans' forever when it speaks of how descendants of Adam began breeding with mortal humans. This action introduced free will into humanity and caused them to become 'wicked'. In Ezra, I believe, it talks about the importance of not 'diluting' God's spirit. I believe this was the purpose of these laws. To "keep it in the family" so to speak, but not too close, in order to retain, and not dilute, God's spirit. To realize God's promise to Abraham in an environment where free will exists and is therefore not totally in God's control.Good and useful information, HeadlyvonNoggin! I'll have to check out the links. These are things I had not yet been given either information or revelation on. I see the Spirit working through you and am thankful God planned for you to come when you did. May God bless you!
You're right on this one, Wilderness, I meant to say 1 John 1:9, the verse we had just been discussing in our previous posts (1 John 1:19 says nothing about confession, as you say). That was my mistake.
"Dead to sin" does not equal "not caring if you sin or not". It means we are not living to sin, we are not living to satisfy our sinful nature. We no longer have any reason to sin, as we did when we lived apart from God, delighted in many sins and sought to please our own earthly desires. Our spirits were dead when we lived like that. But now we have been made spiritually alive, so we say we are "alive in Christ". Now we live for Christ instead of to sin.
I've said already that Jesus Christ fulfilled the OT law; we are not bound by it. The law was in place for specific purposes (the purpose was not "cancelled" but fulfilled) and was a "guardian" until Jesus Christ came. “So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24); “When the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5); “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). “Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). HeadlyvonNoggin has given you more information about the specific purposes for the Israelites of the law given to them.
All this is indeed scriptural (as you can see for yourself in the scriptures here provided). I have said repeatedly we live by the Spirit of the law, but not by the letter of the law. See for yourself in the scriptures: “Do you not know, brothers and sisters--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? …So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:1, 4-6).
Hopefully this is not a sin because I can't stop laughing about the "amen" you put at the end of your nonsense. It would almost be cute if it weren't so wrong!OK - "dead to sin" means you won't live in sin if you live in Christ. Kind of leaves you out as you ARE living in sin, by eating pork and shellfish. By stoning your neighbor or your children as needed (and almost every neighbor in the country needs stoned under the Law). By a hundred other things, all from the OT law that Christ himself confirmed is still in effect.
For "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." cannot be read or understood as anything but that they are in effect and must be obeyed. Prophet or not, Spirit or not, you must obey them to live in Christ. You, whether prophet or Queen, woman or man, do not have the authority to change God's word into something more palatable - something you like better than stoning your child for being rebellious.
No, the Law was not a "guardian", protecting people from Satan or anything else. It was an order from God, purpose unknown as His ways are not for man (or prophet) to know or understand, and it will behoove you to pay attention and follow God's law just as Jesus did. Stop, in other words, changing God's words (in Matthew) to something besides what is, after all, very plainly laid out. (And no, "fulfill" does not mean "cancel". Do you need a dictionary definition?). Follow Christ's words, follow Christ's example, and put this insanity that God's everlasting Word has been canceled.Quite amazing!
An unbeliever, teaching the Bible!
I guess they won't be able to stand before God, on the day of judgement, and say, "but, God, I didn't know!"Seems that's what's needed. Someone without an emotional attachment, someone that will read what is there instead of what they WANT to be there. Someone that reads to understand, not to find a way to spin and change the words into something they like better.
Not a Christian, in other words.Somewhat of a typical response.
Only address one point, and ignore the other.
Interesting how you do the same thing you accuse Christians of doing. Ignore vital parts of the same book. Obviously, it doesn't support your position to do so.?? What was the second point?
And what point, in scripture and not through a "interpretation" that changes the meaning, have I missed? Where does it say no one needs follow any of the OT law?2nd point, re judgement, daahh! Can't believe you not only missed it, but actually asked what it was. Never mind. Momentary blindness. I guess.
Well, if you really DO know and READ the Bible, you would not ask that question.
But, let me point you in the right direction. Read Galatians. I'm on my mobile phone, and it's not easy to copy and paste, to give you the exact reference. Shucks, you might have to do a little work. Sorry about that.
Wow. You saw that, yet, the 'believer' can't.
If you take your statements here, look at the last response wilderness offered you...you see the glaring contradictions.
The Old Testament showed how the Israelites, like their adjoining neighbors, viewed God. Awesome and terrible in his power. A fickle force who could, and would, wipe out entire civilizations simply for a perceived slight. A God so alien in its whims that rituals slowly built so Man could be acceptable in its eyes.
But, it didn't matter what Man did. This fickle God could still withhold favor on a whim. Because, it was God.
This, obviously, didn't work. The God of the Old Testament was silent for..what? Six hundred years?
Jesus was in tune with God. He said he came to fulfill the law. He called those who strived to publicly fulfill each law of the Old Testament white washed sepulchers. Because, as he stated...the law existed to serve Man. So, those who went out of their way to display their piety were only attempting to serve God. Their perceived love of God left love of Man out of the equation.
Jesus's compassion for humanity was equal to his love of God. His actions prove this. As did his words. Follow two simple rules, and all laws are fulfilled. If you make statements you consider to be pious and those statements don't follow the two simple rules, you missed the mark. You become the white washed sepulcher. You've deviated from the message sent.
Everything subsequent to the Gospels is simply Man's attempt to invent ritual.
Because, maybe they don't feel worthy. But, their lack of self esteem can't be transferred to the rest of humanity. Your need for ritual cannot supersede the spirit of the law.
Maybe, they want to be above others spiritually. Your need to be more loved does not equate to being more loved. You allow your need to goad you into ignoring the second simple rule.
Maybe, the God more plainly revealed by the gospels doesn't suit their fancy. They want a fickle and terrible God. Your wants can't conjure this entity.
You can't logically box Jesus in between the Old Testament and Paul. He doesn't fit. You can jump through hoops to convince yourself he does, but the whole point of Jesus's message was to stop attempting to be a circus dog. God doesn't create the hoops. Man does.Emile, are you sure you're not a Christian?
That's beautiful, and really well spoken. I wish more of us who follow Jesus were able to see, understand, and articulate some of the things you tackled in this response. In some cases, I think maybe we are, but we've been shouted down so many times that we've stopped trying to articulate it and just do what we can to live it by example.
This is fantastic: "Jesus's compassion for humanity was equal to his love of God. His actions prove this. As did his words. Follow two simple rules, and all laws are fulfilled."Gotta agree with you (and EMILE of course). The strange part; I've heard preachers proclaiming a similar message from the pulpit and hear an AMEN through the house then in the next breath, the sermon switches back to the fire and brimstone. and the AMEN again sounds off through out the building.
It's like the first part of the message melted like a snowflake.
Emile - I'll start with the truth in your statements: "Follow two simple rules, and all laws are fulfilled." This is absolutely true - Loving God and loving people does lead us to follow the Spirit of the laws. So for example, if we love someone we won't covet, steal, etc. from them. Jesus himself said loving God was the greatest commandment, and the second greatest was like it - loving others as ourselves (Matthew 22: 37-39). It is written throughout scripture (both OT and NT) that this is the heart of God. "The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14); "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 22:16)
It seems a misunderstanding has led you to speak of a contradiction - As I've stated in previous posts, Jesus fulfilled the "letter of the law", and we now live by the Spirit of law. The Spirit of the law is in fact as you say LOVE. To keep the "prophecy" in the book and to keep to the Spirit of the law is not to say we must keep the letter of the law, which Jesus already did for us. Those were Jesus' own words in Revelation, spoken when he appeared to John, "the Apostle who Jesus loved"; they cannot be discounted any more than any of his words in the gospels.
Jesus is throughout the Word from beginning to end - he is the promised Messiah in the OT and he was with the Father in the beginning; He is the Word in the flesh; He set us the example of holding to the word, stating "It is written"; He fulfilled every command of this God you call harsh; He is in fact God in the flesh! You cannot think you are esteeming Jesus and turn around and speak against the Father!
God had his prophets speak his words to his people. Then God was silent for four hundred years while the "climax" of all prophecy was awaited - Jesus Christ, the Prophet above all prophets, the Son of God and God himself in the flesh! Jesus was far more than "in tune with God", he is God.
This statement is so far from true it is downright dangerous - "Everything subsequent to the Gospels is simply Man's attempt to invent ritual." Look again at Jesus' words. Notice that it is Jesus who promises to send the Holy Spirit, who will give his believers direction and power. Notice that Jesus said to us: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12). Jesus himself was inside those writers of the New Testament, the Spirit was guiding their words (doesn't mean their humanity didn't ever enter in). When you speak against them and their words, you are speaking against Jesus.
Speaking truth does not imply anyone is attempting to "be more loved" (only John spoke of being the one Jesus loved because he had great revelation of the fact that it is Jesus' love for us and not our love for him that makes all the difference). It has nothing to do with "rituals". I don't care for rituals, and I don't see any of the NT apostles speaking of rituals. In fact, they speak of our freedoms. To deny the continuing acts of Jesus through his Spirit and to deny the rest of the Word given to us is a very dangerous "gospel" you are preaching, Emile - one that is not inspired by the Spirit or the Word.
Speaking the Spirit-inspired truth is love, whether it is accepted or rejected. We want people to come to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus Christ, not merely the knowledge of him that even demons possess. We are given no honor, no esteem by a world that rejects him; we do this out of love. The Spirit through his believers speaks to those with "ears to hear", that is with "spiritual ears".I apologize if it appeared as if i was attempting to preach a gospel. My intent was far from that, although..yeh. I find the words and example of Jesus inspiring so maybe saying that isn't far fetched. I was sharing my understanding of them.
You claim Jesus is God, but other words appear to supersede his. I know you justify that by claiming they, too, are his. I just don't see that. I'm not sure what purpose would be served for a god to take the trouble of coming here, in the flesh, sharing a message and then sending conflicting information in the wake of that.
I'll begin with a question. What is the definition of False ?
False does not mean Evil. Every religion which is not absolutely correct in its teachings are false in some regard.
===============
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."
= - = - ===
This verse seems to be prophetic in nature. And it does say "The Spirit" says; ... So this word "Times" should be treated the same as in other prophesy.
Theologians all agree that a day in prophesy is as a year for us. If this equation is correct; a time is 360 of our years. I think it is slightly different but that is besides the point. Here in this verse, TIMES would be referring to at least 720 years.
=======================
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."
- - - -
ME .... Is it possible this has already happened, approx. 1688 years ago? Scripture does say that this beast (False religion) will fool even the "Elect".?
How better to fool the elect than to create multitudes of denominations of religion all having the same basic foundation for their faith.
Does this mean that many of the Elect are going to burn in Hell? Absolutely NOT, because the concept of Hell is also the creation of this false religion.
False religion = not absolutely correct religion.
We could say that God spoke this Not Absolutely correct religion into existence In the revelation given to John approx 240 years before the conception of the R.C.C.
Lets face it. The R.C.C. is the mother of all Christianity.
I believe the first "incorrectness" of this false religion is that the second coming hasn't happened yet; even though Jesus said, "This generation shall not pass till all of these things be fulfilled ". In order to disguise this misconception, the necessity to misinterpret many other things was set in motion.
Incorrectness does not equate to EVIL! Why is it so hard to see that none of us are absolutely correct in our philosophies.
===============================
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:
- - - -
me ..... Those exact words (I'm sure) were applicable back in the fourth century when the R.C.C. first established itself and eliminated its competition.
"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 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.
- - - -
me ..... And there were only two of those churches which did not receive the threat of their candle being taken away.
Is it a coincidence that these two churches are the only two buildings of the seven which still stands today?Too lazy to properly format anything? Oh dear.
Jerami - Simply put, false is the opposite of true. Jesus defined himself as the Truth, the Way and the Life, therefore that which stands opposed to Jesus is not the Truth, the Way or the Life. And since Jesus is the Word in the flesh, that which opposes the Word is false.
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4). Numbers have great symbolic value with our Lord, but I have no revelation on how accurate the theologians are when it comes to the numbers of the days and years.
I'm not sure if the elect WILL be fooled in any overall sense or if there will be ATTEMPTS to fool the elect, as it is written: "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24) But you bring up a good point, and I do agree with you that the multitude of denominations is of concern and is not what God desired. In fact the various denominations seem to be what we are warned of in the following scripture: "Each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13Has Christ been divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:12) I've never liked the idea of denominations, and think we are to be one unified "church", the bride of Christ.
Each of the denominations, like each individual, will err because of our human nature. That is why I tend to stress this scripture: "Let God be true and every human being a liar" (Romans 3:4). The more a person or a church follows the Word and the lead of the Spirit, the more truth and the less falsehood will be found in them. It is a very dangerous thing to follow church doctrine without ensuring it lines up with the Word. This was especially dangerous in times when people did not read the word for themselves, but relied on the church to communicate the message to them. This seems to be what led to much of the difficulties within the Roman Catholic Church, and much that is not biblical within their traditions.
While the Roman Catholic Church was very powerful for a significant amount of time, the earliest church (from the days the Spirit was given) within scriptures seems to be our best example of what the "church" or body of Christ is meant to be. Some groups followed this tradition more so than others, though history books tend to focus on that which dominated.
You say, Jerami, "the concept of Hell is also the creation of this false religion". The first thing I will say is that in truth I HOPE hell is much more figurative than literal because it is to me unbearable to think of any human going to hell for eternity. I also understand that even mentioning these verses will have some accusing me of being "un-Christ-like" (though many of the verses are Christ's own words). Still, if we embrace Jesus' teachings and the Spirit- inspired scriptures, we quickly see that Hell is not created by any denominations or false religions, but is God's truth. The great number of verses that follow demonstrate that hell is a vital concept within the Word of God:
"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Isaiah 66:24);
"Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace." (Daniel 12:2); "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46); "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands." (Mark 9:43); "And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment." (Jude 7); "And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11) "They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power. (2 Thessalonians 1:9); "His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:12); "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will remove from his Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42; "... throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:50); "And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15); "The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17); "The way of life winds upward for the wise, that he may turn away from hell below." (Proverbs 15:24); "Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives". (Jude 23); "Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.' " (Matthew 25:41);
"And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast—miracles that deceived all who had accepted the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 19:20); " ... and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:10); "Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." (Matthew 16:18); "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power..." (Revelation 20:6). The popular new notion that hell does not exist is not in accord with what the Word and the Spirit teaches us.
When examining the verse "This generation shall not pass till all of these things be fulfilled", we have to consider what exactly Jesus meant by "generation", especially since we can see that Jesus often spoke in ways not readily discernible, but discernible through the Spirit. The NET bible notes, for example, state: Various views exist for what generation means. (1) Some take it as meaning “race” and thus as an assurance that the Jewish race (nation) will not pass away. But it is very questionable that the Greek term γενεά (genea) can have this meaning. Two other options are possible. (2) Generation might mean “this type of generation” and refer to the generation of wicked humanity. Then the point is that humanity will not perish, because God will redeem it. Or (3) generation may refer to “the generation that sees the signs of the end” (vv. 25-26), who will also see the end itself. In other words, once the movement to the return of Christ starts, all the events connected with it happen very quickly, in rapid succession."
.
You are right, Jerami, no human is "absolutely correct in our philosophies". But the more we rely on the Word and the Spirit, the more you and I and everyone else will gain greater and greater spiritual insights and truth. I don't follow any church doctrine (R.C.C. or any other). I wholeheartedly and exclusively embrace the living and active Spirit-inspired and maintained Word of God - the Word is Jesus, my Savior and my husband. I will not whore around with the world's philosophies, no matter the newest and greatest "trends" and deceptions being fed to us.
If the two Revelation churches that did not receive the threat of their candle being taken away are the only two buildings of the seven still standing today, then I agree that as you suggest, this would not be a coincidence.
CAT333 wrote
Jerami - Simply put, false is the opposite of true.
- - - =
me I disagree .. That is like saying , "If she is not a prostitute she must be a virgin". Jesus said that it takes just a little bit of levin to spoil the whole barrel of flour.
If I am speaking for 30 minutes about a number of things and one of these things are totally false, it would be fair to say that my speech was false because it was not correct. Sometimes we can change one simple fact causing an entirely different outcome or destination. ============================
CAT333
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4). Numbers have great symbolic value with our Lord, but I have no revelation on how accurate the theologians are when it comes to the numbers of the days and years.
- - - - me
I think Gabriel defines this in Daniel 9:26. Gabriel told Daniel thin in 538 B.C.
=================
I'm not sure if the elect WILL be fooled in any overall sense or if there will be ATTEMPTS to fool the elect, as it is written: "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)
- - -
me
Remember first that this story explicitly states that it is a private conversation with four of his disciples, and this chapter is but written recording of that which Jesus said in this PRIVATE conversation. Jesus told these four people take heed that no one deceives you.I wonder which one of the four Jesus was talking to when he said, "then they will deliver YOU up to tribulation and kill YOU.
V.15 Remember this is a private conversation. When YOU see the abomination of desolation ....! This does not say, "When those people, who are alive when THAT generation comes that, see the abomination of desolation ..."
Jesus told Peter James John and Andrew, "When YOU see the abomination of desolation ..."
A false religion will not have to change the scriptures, it will only have to corrupt our interpretation of those scripture.
====================================
CAT333
But you bring up a good point, and I do agree with you that the multitude of denominations is of concern and is not what God desired. In fact the various denominations seem to be what we are warned of in the following scripture:
While the Roman Catholic Church was very powerful for a significant amount of time, the earliest church (from the days the Spirit was given) within scriptures seems to be our best example of what the "church" or body of Christ is meant to be. Some groups followed this tradition more so than others, though history books tend to focus on that which dominated.
- - -
me
And yet Jesus was denouncing these seven churches, and the synagogue in Jerusalem. So maybe things haven't really changed all that much.
================================
You say, Jerami, "the concept of Hell is also the creation of this false religion".
- - - -
me.
That is just my opinion and a very long debate in itself; as to what is correctly translated and what isn't. ???
Don't take me wrong, I'm not anti church. The beast which rises up out of the sea in Rev. 13 after all is a creation of God.
inspired of God. It is only the false interpretations which have been gaining strength over the past 1600 years that drives me batty .
For a moment picture yourself as a fly on the wall watching and listening to Jesus having this private conversation (Matthew 24) with four of his closest disciples. Picture it as what it was, a private conversation.
If you can do this, you will see all of the NT in a new light.
may peace be with you.If something is truly nonexistent , there is no way to prove it does or doesn't exist.
So when we misdirect the substance of any debate centered upon that question, we are just dancing around the May Pole achieving nothing.
The only way anyone can change someone else's mind concerning their way of thinking about anything is to first find out exactly what is the first thing which perpetuated their thinking to grow in that direction.
When we discover what that was, and we examine that; we might be able change their minds, and who knows, maybe even our own.
At the center of my belief system is what seems to be a fact, that most all Christians holds onto a false interpretation of Matthew 24. I don't know why Matthew wrote this chaprer since he wasn't even there according to Mark 13, Matthew or Mark wasn't there.According to Mark; Peter James John and Andrew were the only people there, and they asked Jesus "privately ..." So maybe we should read Johns version for accuracy.
This story is written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Jesus had just finished telling the Pharisee's off and telling them of evil things they were going to do, and of the destruction of the temple.
The disciples ask Jesus ,"when are these things going to happen". It is only in Mathew's account that "the end of the world" was added onto the question. In the other three accounts, the end of the world was not a part of the question.
John didn't refer to it and he was the only one of these who were there.
This story is not talking about the end of the world, but the end of that age and the second coming.
But the religious leaders who constructed the canon (in 326) wanted us to assume that it was.
I believe this is to be the most important Falsehood or misinterpretation to creep into scriptures creating the necessity for many many other false interpretations.
We gotta remember that Constantine's only motive for creating this Universal Church controlled by the government, was to quench civil unrest through out what was then the known world.
And this one little change is all that was necessary in order for the government to control religion , thereby bringing peace through out the Empire. Well, it brought peace to everyone except for those that wouldn't join this mindset.
Except for this mindset, Christians would think I'm a good Christian (For the most part).. And I don't think anyone would mind being my neighbor (even Ms McFarland and Righteous Atheist). If they weren't too busy, we could sit on the back steps and have a drink. I don't judge anyone unless they are hitting me on the head or steeling my stuff etc. Then I would say QUIDDIT ... that is a sin.JMcFarlandposted
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.
- - -
me
Do you have any proof to back up this statement.lol sure. Never once have I said "be an atheist or burn in non-hell forever".
Nor have I insisted that anyone take my word on anything.
Nor have I told any believer of any type that they need to deconvert to atheism. Jokingly, maybe, but I'm not interested in collecting non-souls. I don't get any t-shirts for that.
Goina post just one more thought before going to bed.
God said let us make man in our OWN image ... and then we did. in a round about way (?) we are all co-creators
So if we don't like it; it is our OWN fault.I think you're exactly right. I think evolution and natural selection realized the 'image' and 'likeness' like God willed, but then from the introduction of free will on, or from the dawn of reason forward, we took the wheel, so to speak, away from natural selection and natural evolution and began to 'decide' for ourselves who to mate with and what characteristics were perpetuated. So from Adam forward, it's all our doing.
Free will makes us creators. It means there are wills apart from God's contributing to reality, shaping it. We 'create' of our own wills and the results can be beautiful, like art and music, and it can be all the most hideous things about humanity. It's all of our own making.You don't think that such things as a lighter skin tone as we moved north, with less light, is evolution and natural selection?
Yes I do, but I think much of that happened before the introduction of free will that visibly altered human behavior and greatly changed how we exist on this planet. I think free will was introduced through Adam roughly 5500 BC in southern Mesopotamia. Much of the changes you're talking about happened through the course of the entirety of the planet being populated by humans, which was fully realized closer to 20000 BC. In fact, homo sapiens exhibited behaviors that very much embody what the humans created in Genesis 1 were told to do...
1) Be fruitful and multiply
2) fill and subdue the earth
3) establish dominance in the animal kingdom
These things took numerous generations to accomplish, but homo sapiens accomplished all of these pretty quickly. Each iteration of species within the Homo genus that led up to homo sapiens each exhibited characteristics that make me think there's a lot of truth to that creation account as they seem compelled to do what they did in such a short amount of time, roughly 50,000 years homo sapiens went from the brink of extinction, reduced to less than 10,000 mating pairs around 70,000 years ago (see Toba Volcano) to fully populating the planet and establishing themselves as the dominant species the world over by roughly 20,000 years ago. For example homo Habilis, right out of the gate, seemed to be motivated to travel long distances, a trait that would be necessary to carry out the will of God as described. In fact, they're behaviors probably had a lot to do with our skin. That's around the same time that we lost our hair, and probably when we developed the ability to sweat as we do, as these are important traits for travelling long distances as it makes us much more energy efficient and it gives us the ability to rather quickly adapt to adverse climate conditions.That would mean that Cro-Magnon (first European humans, migrating from the south) had no free will. I think that most people will disagree that a group of tool makers, artistic and as intelligent as we are, had no free will.
Right, but they're behaviors were still very much reminiscent of mammals in the animal kingdom; migration, hunting in packs, etc. I think the behaviors like what you're speaking of were the result of our more evolved brain, which was necessary for biped primates such as ourselves, lacking any sort of sharp teeth or claws or venom, to be able to establish ourselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom, as well as the only remaining species of the Homo genus on the planet. We didn't begin to bend nature to our will until the dawn of civilization, which I think was a direct result of the introduction of free will. Yes, earlier human precursors exhibited these traits that make us what we are today, but I don't think they had 'free will'. They still very much lived in harmony with nature and were shaped by climate changes.
Earlier man probably acted with some animal traits because they were animals, just as we are today. But being hunter/gatherers does not make genetic change; that comes from a changing environment and it doesn't matter whether it was the lowliest animal or man. Until man learned to modify his environment to whatever he wanted, that environment dictated his genetic structure.
And, without being the "dawning of civilization", I would absolutely say that free will allowed those early men to migrate north. Just as wolves, also having free will, have migrated recently hundreds of miles into neighboring states from Yellowstone and Idaho (where they were re-introduced into the wild).With wolves, you pretty much know what to expect. A wolf is a wolf. The same can be said about early man. Early man is early man. All across the world their behaviors were pretty much the same. That all changed in a very specific place and time. It manifested in distinct behavioral changes that can be seen in our history. Changes so distinct the people that lived in that age and region actually spoke and wrote about it. A change that very much resembles the change Genesis says Adam and Eve went through during the 'fall'. When it says their 'eyes were opened' and when they became aware of their being naked. If we start seeing wolves from the wild wearing clothes, then there might be room for comparison. If wolves begin to completely alter their behaviors and begin to live unlike any wolves that came before, then we might have something. That's what happened to humans. The change was dramatic, and we've been altering the landscape of this planet ever since. From that point, and region, forward.
I think for that to be a fair comparison you would need a signal of awareness in wolves that makes sense--given that they are naturally clothed and insulated by fur. Otherwise you are basically saying you will only respect human behavior as high level behavior--which is just an expression if specieism immune ti any realistic evidence to the contrary.
Not true. We can tell through observation that these behavioral changes do not go hand in hand with dramatic changes in brain structure or state. The human brain has changed very little in that time, in size or structure, yet behavior changed significantly. And these changes can be shown to be independent of environmental changes as a 'cause'. There was nothing unique about the conditions that these changes came about in. Population size was not unique. Climate conditions were not unique. Yet the change in behavior is undeniable and very much obvious, as some of the oldest writings from that region indicate. Like how the Roman poet Ovid spoke of it ...
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."
This is speaking of a change observed that could be seen and recognized as drastically different. A change in how humans viewed things around them. This is the era when land ownership and the ownership of other people, ie. slavery, came about. Humans in this age began to prize possessions unlike any others that came before them. Think about how significant of a change that is, considering we came from the same animal kingdom that everything else did. Indigenous cultures through to this day still do not see land as something that belongs to anyone, but rather they view the natural world, including all land, as belonging to all living things equally.
The Sumerians spoke of this too. If you look at the 'mes', the "gifts of civilization" that they say were given to them by their gods. Among these were things like "truth", "falsehood", and "art". Things that they say were not part of their lives until these were introduced by their gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_%28mythology%29
"the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude." - Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
"my own research indicates that almost all indigenous peoples, if not all at one time, were matrilineal societies before the European conquest and colonization." - M.A. Jaimes Guerrero, Anthropologist
This change is what marks the dividing line between the people of 'civilized cultures' that felt okay with crossing the ocean and taking land by force from the indigenous cultures that existed there centuries prior. Indigenous cultures that were identical to them in almost every way, who were their distant cousins and who differed from them very little genetically. Yet these "Europeans" had a very different attitude and outlook of the world than the humans who came before them.
So before that time all people were naked? There was no art before this change, just a bunch of naked savages running around?
Pretty much. Anyone who's ever thumbed through a National Geographic magazine knows that. "Art" is a subjective thing. If you count all pictoral depictions, including cave drawings as "art" then yes, art existed before the change I'm talking about.
There is a distinct dividing line between humans who wear clothes for purely functional/decorative reasons, and humans who wear clothes because of an innate feeling of being exposed without them.Am I to understand that your line between humans and human precursors is drawn at the point when they decided to start wearing clothing to cover their dangly bits?
That is an indicator for the level of 'self-awareness', I believe.
And the cultures that still exist today who don't wear clothing to cover their dangly bits because of embarrassment? Do they lack self-awareness?
I believe so. I believe their not as acutely self-aware, and therefore have different attitudes about the world around them than humans from "civilized" cultures. Personally, I think these are indicators that can show us the emergence of the modern human ego, when it came about, and the impact it had when it did.
That's funny, you think they are less self aware because they aren't ashamed of their own bodies. Are those that attend nudist beaches less self aware as well.
And those church people must be extra self aware.
Well, in anything that has to do with the mind, you kind of have to work with what can be observed. Because the mind is invisible to observation, you can only really go by behaviors if you're trying to arrive at truths about the emergence of the modern human mind. It's clearly our minds that set us apart from the animal kingdom, so to make observations through behavior to inform as to the emergence of the mind is all we've got.
Yes, so there is no reason to suggest that anatomically correct humans suddenly became more self aware because someone wrote a book when we have cave art depicting and illustrating the artists self awareness dating back 40,000 years.
How do chalk outlines of hands "depict" self-awareness? And what do you mean by "someone wrote a book"?
Do I really need to explain why it takes self awareness to purposely mark a wall with a personal mark of a hand as to say "I was here"? Or any depiction of what they were doing for that matter "this is us hunting".
How do you know the artist is in the picture? How do you know it's "this is us hunting" and not "this is something I observed, hunters hunting"? How do you know that hand outline is the artist saying, "I was here"?
Have you ever studied the creation of art or what art is? Do you see any other animals creating art? Sorry, but if you are suggesting art doesn't require self awareness because it conflicts with your beliefs then you may want to have another look at your beliefs.
I'm simply trying to encourage you to really think about it. Yes I've studied art. Personally, I think the problem is that you and a couple of others are trying to make a one-to-one association between free will and self-awareness. In trying to grasp what I'm talking about as far as free will, the fact that I refer to self-awareness, your trying to reason how level of self-awareness can be attributed to level of 'free will'.
So do you acknowledge that creation of art is a product of self aware minds or not?
I think "art" is confusing things here. Does any image created by a human constitute as "art"? I tend to think of art in the context that I, as an artist, try to create it. It's often about trying to convey and an intangiable feeling or idea from myself to someone else. Through an image or a piece of music make someone else feel what I was feeling when I made it. That is my goal in creating art. So I don't know, if given that definition of art, that hand outlines really qualify. Someone figuring out that blowing colored dust against a wall while your hand is there leaves a recognizable image of something inherently familar to you, like your own hand, I'm not sure that constitutes as 'art' in that it requires 'self-awareness' to make it.
This could be the recreation of a scene observed by an individual. Does that require self-awareness to recreate a scene observed?
Sure, one has to be aware of oneself and abilities and desires to make such an expression to leave for others.
And certainly one has to be aware of ones hand to make the hand impression and continue doing it. It' done in purpose.
Rather than assuming art was done for the same reason as it done today you assume something else because it doesn't fit into your belief.
The earliest example of people displaying decoration for its own sake is from 100,000 years ago. We haven't changed much have we.Of course. Those are our ancestors. Everything that we are now began with them. So it makes perfect sense that we'd have things in common. But to assume those hand cave paintings were left as "an expression left for others", there's literally no way of knowing that was their purpose. Do you think whoever made those was aware that they'd be found so many centuries later?
Your suggesting people created art for a different reason than they do today because it doesn't fit into your theory. It's simply how you bend the things to cement your theory.
Or, it's that every direction I look the answer is consistent with my view because my view is that close to the truth. You can assume I bend things, but the simple fact is my answer stays consistent no matter what direction you come at it. That's how you know something's on point. When the answers consistently fit across the board.
Right just like birds being created at the same time as fish?
That's not what it says. It says God said, "Let the seas bring forth", this is not fish. Fish do not "come forth" from the sea. But birds did, which it mentions in the same breath, which should indicate that what it's talking about is not limited to fish. That's an interpretation as you were taught. That's the tradional way in which its interpreted.
If we can't take your word for one of your religious beliefs that doesn't show any consistency when compared with reality, how are we supposed to take your word for that?
Of course, the fact you even said that only tends to raise more red flags.Is it almost to the point that if you normally would agree with someone on something in science, then find out they are christian, would you throw out the idea and disagree with them for the sake of it? I have actually noticed this in these forums in general. People sometimes go against views they normally would hold to be true and support, but because a point comes up with a Christian they find reason to discount the idea or fact. This is how I know this is often more about other people's personal beliefs about atheism or materialism or whatever, than it is about reasonably discussing facts of matters.
If someone disagrees with something they normally agree with in history, geology, etc on a whim depending on who they are speaking with, is the problem with the views held by the one that is consistent with science, history and geology, or the one that goes back and forth as they choose?That is entirely not true, I have not seen one single instance of where any Christians using common sense, reason and logic are discounted for their ideas or presentation of fact.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. That's why I explain my reasonings behind my conclusions. I have an explanation that is consistent with the God described in the bible and is consistent with what we know about the real world. No matter what evidence you throw at it, the same answer is returned. That consistency is how you can measure how on point that answer is.
Those National Geographic pictures of half naked people are all taken at climates where clothing is not needed, however venture to northern Europe during the last ice age and see if they were clothed. What's more that shame only happens after babies are clothed. Anyone with a child will tell you you have to tell them to cover up.
That's why I make the distinction between wearing clothes for 'functional' reasons and not. Wearing animal pelts to stay warm in colder climates is functional, but is clearly not the only reason why humans wear clothes.
And why do you "have" to tell your kids to cover up? What makes you feel you "have" to do this? No other animal in the animal kingdom feels compelled to teach their young to cover themselves. Clearly, it's not for purely functional reasons? So what is your reasoning? What compels you?
So basically, because we are embarrassed about our own sexuality and have huge hangups and generally low-self esteem... we are more self-aware? So intense, illogical shame over a completely natural process and the required bits to do this this natural process are what sets human beings over animals?
Not the ability to use tools, or form intricate written and oral languages, or even the ability to adapt our surroundings to us rather than us adapting to our surroundings? But the fact that we are ashamed of our body parts? That's what does it? That's what makes us human?
Half of the state of WV has seen my breasts. They were shown on a website that received over 80,000 views a day (at least the left breast was). I had no shame about it. I'm pretty self-aware.We're trying to define 'unseeable' traits that we know are there to arrive at truths about what makes us tick. So, in that light, what is "embarrassment"? What is "low-self esteem"? In a purely causal explanation? Is "embarrassment" chemical? Is it attributed to specific neurons in specific regions of the brain firing? People who are not "embarrassed" or do not have "low self esteem", is part of their brain not working that is working in others? Is a different part of their brain involved?
Embarrassment of nudity is a completely social/environmental construct. It comes from fear of being treated badly or teased by peers. It is a learned behavior, certainly not an inherited trait. If you removed the social stigma surrounding nudity, no one would give a crap. You're talking social anthropology not evolution. If you are talking about why people are feeling it, you're talking psychology, not neurology.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm having a hard time keeping up? Now there IS a distinction between psychological and neurological? Were you not one of the ones recently who was refusing to acknowledge that?
Yes, there is a psychological tendency for humans to compare themselves to others in a group, through self-awareness. I'm sure everyone can remember this, when you first begin to attend public school, you look at others, how they do their hair, how they wear their clothes, to determine if you're 'fitting in' or not. Not wanting to set yourself apart to avoid drawing attention to yourself. This is all self-awareness and is a key part of human social development.There was always a difference between psychology and neurology. There's just no such thing as a mind.
Animals also show a desire to "fit into a group" and behave accordingly. You're trying to stretch this into self-awareness=realization of nudity=garden of eden=start of the human race. It's a novel way to force Christianity to line up with science but it ain't flying. Sorry.
Self awareness is nothing more than realizing that you exist as an individual.
There are some flaws with your assumptions about humans and our old human ancestors (and animals, for that matter).
But where you're really wrong is your baseless notion that naturally evolved humans lacked "free will." There's no basis for that. (Considering we're all evolved, but even if we're to buy your "theory" that some people were created by God directly and these are the people with "free will" and that tend to do more "evil.") The truth of the matter that it is situational and not innate. Even in animals, we see that when they're introduced into a domestic situation, there are certain things characteristically that they display that are not displayed in their natural environment. Humans are no different. We can see that when people from different cultures are introduced into American society (and it's especially obvious in their children that are born here or grow up here from a young age), that healthier, simpler, more peaceful approaches to life and relationships with nature are thrown out the window, more or less.
People today could just as easily live like we did and our earlier ancestors did before such grand scale colonization. The system is simply perpetuating itself, and the people in power don't want people to think that it could be any differently. I won't give them the satisfaction of falsely believing that somehow they are some superior race, straight from "God." LoL. Also we're evolving rapidly bases on all of the technological advances, and certain kinds of people that wouldn't have made it in the wild can easily survive in our fairly fluffy accommodations, comparatively speaking.
I'm a personal example of this. By me simply having a drastic change in perspective, I went from this broken perspective on nature and humanity that many westerners have to a more whole one. But it doesn't help much when you're caught up in this perpetuating cycle of ignorance and destruction and you're in debt (that was accrued before my "enlightenment") and surrounded by mostly people with a broken view of nature and the self. I know that we could all live that way. I think you're selling humanity short significantly. And simultaneously giving too much power to the "special, direct from God" humans.There is a line here that I'm careful around, where I don't want to make it seem as though I'm speaking of some 'superior race'. I'm simply following the evidence. If beings as Adam and Eve were described really were introduced into an already populated world, and really did live the length of time these stories say they did, then what would you expect to see? Every culture in that specific region tells their own version of stories, all of which speak of these male/female gods who lived among them and interacted with them. I think this is significant. Because it's the interaction with these beings that goes hand in hand with the dramatic changes in behavior. In fact, groups like the Sumerians directly say it was these beings who 'taught' them the ways of civilization. I think it's important to recognize these things for what they are. They're major developments in our history that played a major roll in what made us who we are today.
Realize? With what? Your non-existent mind? I find it difficult to get on board with a viewpoint that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the mind because it doesn't fit into the material column. Clearly it exists.
I'm not 'trying to stretch' anything. I'm recognizing very much relevant information in a story that's very obviously relevant to shaping who we modern folk are and where we came from. That self-awareness that the Garden story focuses on is a major development in our history, very much relevant, and very much telling of the relevance of this story that it acknowledges it.If you say so. Clothing to cover our embarrassment doesn't really seem like anything that propelled us into humanity. To me it seems damn trivial. You seem to think that the introduction of shame into our society somehow defines our switch from non-human to human. That's pretty telling. We became human when we realized that we had something to be ashamed of. Nice.
You do realize that for there to be embarrassment there needs to be deviation from cultural norms... which means there has to be a culture. But having a culture isn't a big deal... right? I mean it doesn't separate us from pre-humans.Of course. Though the story's often read to mean Adam and Eve were the first humans ever throws everything off. Humans had been around for thousands of years prior. There were already cultural norms. After all, it does say right after Cain's banishment that he built a city. There was definitely culture.
What's there to be ashamed of? Or embarrassed about? It's nothing that everybody else doesn't have. Why be ashamed of your own physical form? That's a very human trait. For the mind that evolved with the body to be ashamed of its own form is very strange. But it's not just that. The story also speaks of Eve being under Adam's thumb as a result of their choice. Something else that really did happen. In that region is the first signs we see of male-dominated societies. Why? Because being mentally separated from the natural world, including our own bodies to the point that they seem foreign and in a lot of ways, gross, to us, would have that effect. Think about what a strange development that is. That we find perfectly natural functions of our own bodies that have been happening that way for as long as we've existed, gross. Women are more tethered to the natural world than men. Through child-baring and lactating and menstrual cycles women cannot get away from 'nature' the way men can. It's in these regions that these perfectly naturally occurrences began to be looked upon as impure. It's telling that the Eden story is very much tethered to that behavioral change that shaped modern humanity into who we are today. The things that most define us as human, came about then. That's what this story is describing.
HeadlyvonNoggin, Rad Man and all those involved in the creation/early-human discussion:
Regarding creation, time frames. and such, it seems questions will remain, whether we follow scripture or not (unless we're given divine revelation in these matters) - those who follow scripture still may have questions regarding the literal versus symbolic truths, completeness of genealogies, and so on.
The world seems to offer little in the way of real knowledge, though it thinks it offers much, as even its dating methods are untrustworthy at best and radically flawed at worst - They use radiometric dates, stratigraphy (which is dated radiometrically), and the specific fossil species in a rock (which again is dated radiometrically) to come up with a date. So if radiometric dating is either untrustworthy or radically flawed, every single method of dating is likewise untrustworthy or flawed.
I make no claims about the age of anything, and I don't think it fully matters to me. The essential truth is that God created all things and he created it according to his word (however literal or symbolic that may be in the creation and related accounts).
We are told that when God created the plants and animals, the "land produced" them, which sounds similar to some findings/thoughts in evolution. But once they became what he intended them to become, he declared them "good", so they will not be "evolving" into some radical new thing as evolution theories suggest (we'll have new species, that's all - new species of dogs, etc.).
In the case of humans, we're told he made them in his image and breathed life into them. Were "early humans" more like animals than humans in that they lacked God's "breath" - I don't know. (Someone or something was out there that made Cain fear he'd be retaliated against.) Were they even so "early" at all or are our dating methods too flawed to even know how old they really are - again I don't know.
But I do believe every human alive today was made in God's image (though yes bearing the consequences of the "fall of man") and that one ethnicity or group is not "more evolved" or "less evolved" than any other (the degree of "civilization" and/or "socialization" is an entirely different matter). First, even if there were other beings not made in God's image or given his breath, they would have been wiped out in the flood, and our ancestry from this point would begin with Noah. Second, what some consider humans now "evolving" is not really us inherently changing, but rather being given different environments with which to interact; nor are we "improving" except in one main area - technology, and that which relates to this area (information processing, machines, health care, space travel, etc.). Most people are actually losing a great deal of their math skills, communication skills, writing skills, musical skills, artistic skills, even empathy skills, and so on.
God made creation to change and adapt, and humans have been doing exactly that. Some of the changes have been to our advantage and some have been to our detriment, and some have been both (like new technologies causing cancer in young people). Various groups of people likewise have differing strengths and weaknesses.So you think God made both the African and the Asian elephants or did he make one and they slowly evolved to two separate groups much like people do?
They're both elephants. It could have happened either way and it changes no essential truth.
Well it does because they are unable to produce viable offspring. They can produce offspring but the offspring doesn't survive. Meaning they were separated long enough to become two distinct species. It's a perfect example of what you just said couldn't happen as are the donkey, horse and zebra.
There's quite a bit of truth to the scientific model and dates assigned as can be seen in where things are found in the strata of the earth. We can determine how long, how much time, is required for layers of the strata to form. Based on where things are found, similar to how we can tell about a trees history by observing its rings, we can assign dates to these finds. And there are so many timelines across different approaches that line up to show a consistency across the collective scientific model that's hard to deny.
See, I think the humans created in Gen1 and the creation of Adam/Eve in Gen2 are two separate events. I think the creation of Adam was signficant, and specifically spoken about as it was, because this was God introducing free will into the world. I think Adam was the first of God's creation capable of behaving contrary to God's will.
Think about the humans created in Gen1. They were given very specific commands by God that would take numerous generations to carry out; be fruitful and multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. After all of this it says God looked on ALL He had made and deemed it ALL good, including the humans. The story told of Adam/Eve should make it clear that they were not 'good' in the same way. Gen1 explains how the entirety of the natural world just became what God willed. Yet in the story of Adam/Eve, this same creator God specifically told them not to do something that they did anyway. Would these beings be able to accomplish those commands that would take numerous generations? Would they be deemed 'good'?
Homo sapiens actually did what the humans in Gen1 were told. That's exactly what they did. We know this. Then I think Adam was created in an already populated worlds, as evidenced by the 'others' that Cain feared upon his banishment.You understand that the bible was written after the fact right. It's rather easy to write something after the fact.
It's like me saying that Mayor Rob Ford will get caught smoking crack and then say that he actually did just that.Except the knowledge of the homo sapien history I'm speaking of could not have been known at the time the creation account was written because it happened over the course of about 70,000 to about 20,000 BC. If the Genesis account as we know it now was written in the first millennium BC as many think, then it would be all but impossible for them to know the history of the homo sapiens well enough to wrap a story around it.
Let's see.
The fifth day.
“Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
The sixth day.
“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
Is that how it happened? Were every bird known today alive before land animals?
Did the land produce any living creatures or did they evolve form things that came out of the water?
Were the livestock produced before man?
As for what they knew about spreading out of the earth, all they new was that wherever they went there were people.
I do like this part.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Did you know at every green plant is for us to eat. Every one.Is that how it happened? Were every bird known today alive before land animals?
Gen1:20 - "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..."
No, but this mirrors the actual separation between sauropsids (non-mammals and birds) and synapsids (mammals). Birds evolved from dinosaurs, which did come before mammals. Mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles, which were already on land by that point, just as it says.Sorry, but you are still completely wrong and misleading.
Both Sauropsids and Synapsids evolved from Amniotes, but Synapsids evolved some 4 million years earlier and to make matters worse the first mammal appeared way before the first bird.
How is that just as it says?Because what led to becoming this and that is in the right order. You're looking for 'first appearances' in linear time, when it's actually what was set in motion and in what order. The age of dinosaurs, which was long before the age of mammals, is where birds came from.
Didn't I just mention that Synapsids evolved from Amniotes some 4 million years earlier and to make matters worse the first mammal appeared way before the first bird.
So how were birds set in motion before mammals and other land creatures and synapsids evolved before sauropsids?"and to make matters worse the first mammal appeared way before the first bird."
Be weary of looking for "first appearances". I know you understand this stuff well enough to know that.
Birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, which had their hayday long before mammals did. The age of dinosaurs came long before the age of mammals. In fact it was the K-T mass extinction of dinosaurs, which strangely enough spaired birds and small mammals, that then allowed for the age of mammals to follow.So what? What you are saying is that the age of something that eventually evolved to birds came before mammals. Does that matter at all? Dinosaurs were not birds just as all the creatures leading to mammals were not mammals.
The point is not only did mammals evolve first, but the line that brought us here evolved first. It doesn't matter how many dinosaurs there were.
Don't you see how far you have to go to make your theory work?So what?!?! Dinosaurs existing as they did, living as they did, became birds. This was necessary for birds to exist as they do. So yes, this does matter.
And yes, it does matter how many dinosaurs were there. Because they were the dominant species that kept mammals small and evolving as they did. We know this because once dinosaurs were removed from the picture, mammals took over in a big way.
It all matters. It matters because God clearly creates through sequences of natural occurrences. So these natural events, happening in the order and the way in which they did, created everything specifically mentioned.
Don't you see how far you have to go to refute this ancient text? That should tell you something.But all the creatures that mammals evolved from were necessary as well.
It's funny because you seem to look at evolution as if we were the intent. Evolution has no intent.
The fact is the evolutionary line for mammals started first and the first mammal came about before the first bird. And land creatures of any kind certainly came about before birds.
Land animals didn't come from land. The list is endless.
It's not like the bible say that the plans for birds were put in motion before mammals. And even if it did that wouldn't be true anyway. So dinosaurs are no more relevant than anything that the mammals evolved from."It's funny because you seem to look at evolution as if we were the intent. Evolution has no intent."
How can you possibly claim to know that? Clearly evolution has an intent. To survive. It's a system that coaxes the most successful of changes out of living organisms. It's a system that successfully accomplishes what Genesis says the God that created all of this wanted.
"The fact is the evolutionary line for mammals started first and the first mammal came about before the first bird. And land creatures of any kind certainly came about before birds.
Land animals didn't come from land. The list is endless."
Right, all life "came forth" from the sea. Which is exactly what it says. This one came before land animals, before birds, before all of that. It says this first. Right after plant life, which is also true.
"It's not like the bible say that the plans for birds were put in motion before mammals. And even if it did that wouldn't be true anyway. So dinosaurs are no more relevant than anything that the mammals evolved from.
"But all the creatures that mammals evolved from were necessary as well.
Can you see the contradiction in your two statements? First you say the dinosaurs that birds evolved from were "no more relevant than anything that the mammals evolved from", but then you admit that "all the creatures that mammals evolved from were necessary". And you're right, they are. If they hadn't existed, then nothing that evolved from them would have either.Evolution didn't set out to create birds or people. Some evolutionary lines just stop and nothing evolves from them.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
Where is the contradiction when saying none of the animals were more important than the others? You the one claim the dinosaurs somehow make the birds first. Please explain how when the line that produced mammals came first and the mammals themselves came first you still claim that genesis is accurate?Do you or do you not acknowledge that the era in earth's history where dinosaurs were the dominant species came before the era when mammals, in this case megafauna (dire wolves, whooly mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, etc), were the dominant species? Mammals became the dominant species on the planet AFTER the dinosaurs were killed off in the K-T mass extinction. So, if birds evolved from dinosaurs, then they came from the era that came before. Then how is Genesis not accurate?
Does it really matter with species was dominant? Does it say that in the bible? Show me where is says dominance matters. It says what came first. Do you really not get that?
Yes, it does. Quite a bit. There was one era where dinosaurs dominated the landscape. Then they were wiped out, then mammals dominated the landscape. In that order. Just as Genesis says.
The bible says dinosaurs dominated the landscape? Where?
I was going to say you just lost any credibility you had with that statement, but you didn't actually have any credibility. That one is a doozie of a side splitter.
This would be the point in the discussion to place a "Duh".
Genesis isn't accurate because it isn't accurate about any of that. Duh.
So the Bible basically says that God made dinosaurs to turn into birds to come forth from the sea (Except the ones that he killed with a meteor.) And when the birds (nee dinosaurs) spring forth then the small mammals shall turn into every other human on the planet but Adam and Eve. And you will know Adam and Eve are the real humans because they are ashamed of being naked. The other humans, of course, being non-humans because they don't create art, they just paint things.
Then he tells them to be fruitful and multiply. He sends the bad one away to mate with the non-humans, waits a few generations, then floods the area containing the off-spring of the real humans... but the flood doesn't cover the Earth, so it doesn't kill any of the non-humans (remember, the ones that are identical to the humans-except for the possibility that they are wearing clothes for utility rather than embarrassment). It just kills the offspring of the real humans... oh and the animals that he made several million years ago that look nothing like they did when he made them (except two, of course) but only the animals in that area.
All that is in your Bible eh? Just for the record, which version are you using? I think my KJ version is missing a chapter or two.You are just reading it wrong.
Ask him to tell you the one about the magic boat that actually floats based on exact bible specifications. That is my favorite. They built it in Holland you know. Exactly to specs and it actually floats and stuff. Got a cinema and everything. Just like it says in the bible. No - really. You mean the boat built to the same size specifications that proved to be the right size and shape to remain buoyant to properly displace enough water to stay afloat? I can appreciate your fascination with the physics of boats, but that enthusiasm comes off as a little creepy at times. Like an over-sugared kid bouncing up and down, clapping his sugar-coated hands together, exclaiming "tell it again, tell it again."
I believe the Aranovsky movie came out yesterday, so you should be ex-tactic about that.It's funny because it wasn't exactly built by one guy who had make the saws to cut down the trees and cut the proper planks with the copper saws they produced himself in an area with few trees, but it was built with a whole lot of metal that they didn't have at the time.
The point is it gives specifications about the size and shape. This size and shape is actually representative of a sea-worthy vessel that has the proper measurements to stay afloat given its size and shape. It really does displace enough water to stay afloat.
And what makes you think they didn't have the tools? Based on what? Your assumption that there's few trees or that they had to make the copper saws themselves first? Where are you getting all of this? There's a lot of assumptions here. If we're to go souly by the source material, all you have to do is go back just two chapters before the whole bit about the ark to see that in Gen4:22 it says "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron." So, where exactly are you getting all of this about them having to make tools themselves? Do you see how much of your own assumptions are filling in blanks without you even realizing it?Nope, I did a little research on the tools of the time. Do you think they had saw mills? They had to make copper saws themselves or trade for them. Do a google search? Good luck building a ship like that with a hand saw.
What time? How'd you determine what time these stories were happening within?
No - it was not built to the same size specifications. As I proved to you already, it is simply several barges tied together and a fake boat that would never float over the top. Please stop lying at me - it is insulting.
Apparently the fictional movie doesn't follow the fictional account in the bible so that is very disappointing for everyone. http://thaumaturgical.com/christians-noah/
We are all eagerly awaiting the sequel though.
And I hate to break it to you, but the ancestor of mammals came before the dinosaurs. Oh dear - your um "theory," is broken again.
^_^ You've got to read between the lines, ya know.
No, what the bible says is that the God that created the universe simply spoke what He wanted, and reality became what He wanted it to become. Yours says the same. And not behaving exactly as this God willed would be the equivalent of matter being able to decide whether or not to adhere to gravity. That's how significant a free will is.
Think about each 'day' in the creation account like this. Think of each as an era in history. Each defined by the 'laws' set by this creator. The fifth 'day' being the fifth version of reality where now there is a new law that didn't exist any of the prior four eras where this creator wants life to 'come forth' from the sea. So it did. This creator said He wanted birds flying in the sky. So reality became that. This law was set at the beginning of this fifth era and it defined the events of that era. Throughout this era reality became what He willed it to be. A reality with birds. For that to be accomplished dinosaurs had to exist as they did. They were one of many results of this new law that governed how reality was to behave. And, the existence of dinosaurs as the dominant specifies for as long as they were shaped the evolution of the lesser dominant species that was next to become the dominant species on the planet, mammals. Much of the most significant evolutionary changes in mammals happened while they were fighting to survive a natural world dominated by dinosaurs.
Just so you know, the above line is the only Biblical thing you've said. The rest of everything you've written is your hypothesis on how evolution gels with the Bible. So when you say Rad is going out of his way to disprove ancient text, he's really not. He's arguing about your opinions on how it aligns perfectly with science. Which is, IMO, a whole lot of intellectual backflips aimed at making the facts fit your hypothesis... which is poor science to say the least. It is also bending the Bible to make your faith fit science... which is bad faith.
Just a reality check. People deal with cognitive dissonance in lots of different ways. You efforts are a little more extreme than I've encountered before.Assumptions that this must be "cognitive dissonance" on my part are just a way for you to justify away something you've already decided to reject.
Displacement of blame. It must be me because I'm saying something you don't want to agree with. So find a reasoning that you can buy into that suggests I'm just bending things around at the detriment of myself and my faith. Yeah, that must be it.
When actually, all I'm doing is I'm employing the most accurate depiction we have of our history to place these ancient texts in their proper context. Nothing wrong with that, is there? That same natural history IS a part of the story, is it not? These stories are claimed to be taking place on this planet. So...Actually, I'm about as objective party as you are going to find on this... So I have no desire to either agree or disagree with anything said. No ulterior motives... sorry.
However, when you accuse someone of trying to refute the Bible when what you are arguing is no where in the Bible, then you might want to take a step back and examine that. You are trying to weave a scientific theory and a religious philosophy into a single piece of cloth. What you have produced is neither. It's not a compromise, it's a warped construct that goes against both things.
I can think of no reason other than a cognitive dissonance from believing in two incompatible ideas that someone would create such a construct.My first thought to the first post in this interaction is that there are many ways to butcher a person's view, lol. Being part of many discussions with Rad and the rest, I have to remind at this point that Rad was often the one that brought a non biblical discussion back to the bible, or said things like, "so godunnit?". So the steering back to those points were his very often, and not the point of the given discussion at hand. That being the case, it does look like he goes out of his way to keep disproving a text or a god he doesn't agree with even when we aren't discussing it.. Just an ongoing observation.
While you jump to cognitive dissonance as an explanation, I couldn't disagree more. The fact is, that whichever of us are correct in our views in regards to the greater truth, those views WILL line up with good science and the reality of our world and universe. I had to speak up because I continually assume this is a "given" here. This is true of your own beliefs too Melissa, held onto strongly by blind faith as you have said a few times. I mean that if your faith is being put into something true, then IT WILL line up with science and the reality of our world, and its history, really everything. That is a fact, and it could be a fact for the atheist or whoever it turns out to be true for. Likewise, if the atheist or naturalist is on the right track, then their views WILL line up with reality and science instead of the Christian, or theist.
So you are faulting him for doing what we ought to all be doing, and most here do on a regular basis. We know that whatever view is best and true WILL line up automatically with logic, reason, science, history, etc. If you don't want or need those things to maintain your view, then that is fine, but I find it incredibly odd to fault others for it, or just one person in this case and accuse of cognitive dissonance.
I don't find it to be a more extreme case of cognitive dissonance or any form of it, as you do. Really its a case of a person with views that are hard to refute, which is what most are going for here in the forums.
When you say you are objective and that you don't have the desire to agree or disagree with anything said, then immediately go on to again talk about how you disagree with what you do, shows a bit of transparency.
The reason people "do," what you seem to be "against" in these posts, is because of truth. Every person here discusses from a point of view of what they think is true about the world, its reality. If your belief in God is justified and God is reality, then the weaving of the two cloths is exactly what will be true. Have you thought about it from that point of view? That the very thing you are accusing him of doing, is what would be the actual case if you are thinking and believing correctly? If you have, why fault another for doing it things differently from yourself? I don't see the grounds for it, all things considered.Wow, that was a really long post. My point in saying I was objective wasn't objectivity in general, but objectivity on the evolution/creationism thing. I simply don't care, so I have no reason to have an opinion one way or the other.
But I do realize when somebody is trying a bit too hard to make their beliefs fit a scenario/a scenario fit their beliefs. It's not "lining up" facts... it's folding, spindling and shoving them where they really don't fit so you don't have to question your preconceived notion. That's not what we all should be doing. That's really the opposite of what we should be doing.
I also realize that when you accuse someone of trying to disprove the Bible, you should probably be talking about something that is actually in the Bible in the first place. Headly is so far into left field that his opinions, the ones that Rad is actually discussing, couldn't even be counted as differences in interpreting verses... He's just making stuff up now.I have, time and time again, gone over where exactly I get each thing I say. What these ideas are based on. And they're never just made up. It's about establishing the truth. Much of what I'm talking about comes from reading the stories against the context of history. This enables us to ground these stories in the history in which they took place. Or the history they're describing. If they're truly what they claim to be, then the creation account is a description of the geological and biological history of the earth. That's what it directly says it's describing. We now have a pretty good sense of the actual geological and biological formation of the earth and life, so I'm reading it against that. And I'm basing how God works on what we know about the natural world. How things are accomplished in the natural world. This is how God creates if God is in fact that creator of the natural world. He doesn't just 'miracle' things into place, they 'become'. It's a view and ideas that are informed as much as they can be and understood in that light. I'm not sure what your objection is about this. Should I not be trying to find real literal ground where these stories stand and ground those things in factual knowledge? If there's anything factual about the stories? If that's what I believe, then what exactly is your grievance with what I'm doing?
What I'm trying to get across to Rad is where what's written is consistent with what really happened. The age when Dinosaurs dominated the landscape and did most of their evolving really did come before the same kind of age for mammals. So sauropsids (reptiles and birds) really did come before synapsids (mammals). There's a reason amniotes are classed that way. There's a reason why reptiles/birds are classes as a different category that mammals. This diving line recognized scientifically is miirrored in the Genesis creation account, long before anyone could have known that.
This "cognitive dissonance" thing is just silly. If I believe what the biblical stories say are true, then what's wrong with attempting to find cohesion between known facts and real history and those stories? Why must it be 'cognitive dissonance'? The only reason you reach that conclusion is because you hold the opinion that these are two mutably exclusive views that are in no way related to one another. Because you hold the opinion that one view is totally falsified. Right? So, you're then projecting onto me the only thing that makes sense in light of the opinions you hold.Nope, sorry. I hold the opinion that you are doing intellectual backflips to try to put things together that don't fit together.
I don't hold any opinion at all about the truth of either evolution or creationism. I do know that they are incompatible though. To make them compatible, you have to add to the Bible things that were never in there... and you have to say "This may be what the Bible says, but THIS is what it means. I mean I guess all Christians do it, just pointing out that it's what you're doing now.
The point being- going back to what my point has been this entire time- that no one who is arguing with you right now is attacking the Bible. They couldn't be because what you are saying isn't in it.
For example, the age where things dominate means absolutely nothing... the Bible lists the order in which they were created... not the order in which they dominated.Unbelievable. What exactly does the age of the dinosaurs being before the age of man have to do with the bibles description of birds coming before all land animals? Dinosaurs were not birds and they were land animals.
Could we refute that with simple logic?
If we allow nature to be the one and only cause of our origins, we can certainly accept that if indeed dinosaurs are what always evolve on planets with similar conditions as earth and that our earth would have been a very different place if dinosaurs did not become extinct and were allowed to evolve, then that would follow logically.
But, if we allow creation by gods to be the cause of our origins, we would have to rule out the necessity of dinosaurs and go straight to mammal evolution and taking over in a big way in order for that to follow logically. An omnipotent, omniscient god would never be so in efficient and wasteful, even by human standards.Perhaps God wanted us to have the proper amount of fossil fuels.
"Could we refute that with simple logic?"
Apparently not.
"An omnipotent, omniscient god would never be so in efficient and wasteful, even by human standards."
Based on what? If God is the creator of the natural world then we should look to the natural world for insight into how this God accomplishes what He wills. Life is inefficient. Just look at the formation of an embryo. Way more cells are formed than what's needed to form the embryo. Like all the cells that form between the fingers. That's what life does. It over-makes. So, the history is consistent with what we observe.
This right here is what you always do. You say this idea of a God is ridiculous, but then when you inject your reasonings for why reality doesn't match up it's because the concept of God you're holding up against reality is some flawed, illogical thing. LIke this here where you said that if an omnipotent/omniscient God existed, it wouldn't be so "inefficient and wasteful". That's your conclusion. That because you perceive events in the formation of life as "inefficient and wasteful" that this is reason enough to reach the conclusion that a God couldn't have been involved, because in your mind a God would be more efficient and less wasteful. Is this the "simple logic" your employing?Were you not paying attention? Based on simple logic.
You just argued in favor of evolution and not God. Well done. You are using logic.
This is the area in the discussion in which you are unable to support your argument and must attack my position of comparing reality to your God.
Again, that is called simple logic and is a very obvious conclusion.
Sorry, but that is not an argument, that is just another lame excuse on your part for not being able to form an argument.
Did I forget to mention that Genesis states that vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it (life) grew on land first?
Did I mention that God made every living thing that moves in the water on the fifth day but didn't make mammals (whales) until the next day?
Rad Man - The scriptures are "inspired" by the Spirit, but that doesn't mean that God corrected EVERY detail, but may have ensured only that the essential message was not violated. At times it very much seems he allowed the writer's humanity to enter (for example, when the psalmist said the moon would not harm us by night, the essential truth was that God protects us from all harm).
The Spirit has likewise ensured that the word has been maintained, despite the many, many attempts to destroy it, yet this does not mean we are all going around with PERFECTLY translated versions of it.
Still there are things that may not seem to make sense to you, but are truth. So, for example, perhaps all the plants were good for eating until the "curse" came.
Please don't limit your own ability to keep an open mind and "heart" simply because you are getting bogged down in things that may not be the vital, essential truths maintained. It's okay to set some things "on a shelf" and despite the unanswered questions, to seek Truth and the one who is True.Cat amazing answer. The Holy Spirit of God moves on you in a mighty way dear child of the King. He has equipped you for a time such as this in the forum rooms. It takes great courage to move the unbeliever. But we know that our strength is from the true and only God. Jesus Christ. May He continue to strengthen you in your works for Him dear sister. As we both know God has predestined those that are His. Thank God we are chosen. Praise to God be the Glory. May He move on hearts in these rooms. Keep going girl in the truth as you do. My Love, Your sister Skye.
Thank you, dear sister Skye! You are always so full of grace and a gentle, loving spirit! I don't know that I'll ever be so full of grace as you are, but I just pray God fulfills his purpose for me! We are eternally blessed and I am glad you are my sister now and forever!
Oh good you finally admit that sometimes the messages you guys get from the spirit is wrong. That's a good start, something you should remember.
That's good was well, it means you understand some of the stuff you say are from the spirit are from yourself. Good. Except God doesn't protect anyone from harm. Real Christian die painful deaths every day. Children starve and are abused. There is no protection.
Oh I get it, the word has been maintained and any flaws are human error either by the writers or by the translators. Good excuse, but why would God allow that?
Right, so God is protecting us by putting poisons plants around because he was angry because his people wanted knowledge.
Please don't limit your own ability to keep an open mind and "heart" simply because you are getting bogged down in things that may not be vital, essential truths maintained. You will understand when you start to think with your entire mind, not just the part that you think you have a connection with God with.Rad Man - I understand that we are not speaking the same language, since I am speaking of spiritual truths and you are speaking of that which makes sense in the natural, but as far as you are able to prevent it, please avoid making false statements about what I am in truth saying (I haven't fully discerned if you and several other unbelievers are sincerely missing what I actually say, or if it is primarily intentional manipulation).
When I say the "writer's humanity" may enter and God may not have "corrected EVERY detail", this is the OPPOSITE of your statement that "you finally admit that sometimes the messages you guys get from the spirit is wrong." Rather, I was saying that although the primary message was inspired by the Spirit, the Spirit may not correct everything that slips in from the human writer. The message given by the Spirit absolutely was NOT wrong; that was the part that is the essential truth!
Likewise, nothing said "from the Spirit" is from ourselves (that which is from the Spirit is the inspired, fully true part), but we may ourselves unintentionally allow that which is from us ourselves to enter or combine with the message that is from the Spirit. Does this make better sense to you, if you were genuinely misunderstanding what I was saying?All I get from it is that sometimes errors are made, which gives you an out.
So, when the writers said that birds were made at the same time as creatures of the oceans you have an excuse. Do you think that birds were created at the same time as things from the oceans or was that an error.
Sorry, you have no special powers. If you can't be honest with me at the very least be honest with yourself.God alone possesses all truth. People strive to discover it - whether through science, "religion", experience, etc. We will always be limited in our knowledge while here on earth.
The Spirit is God and therefore is and knows all truth. The Spirit imparts truth to those in whom he resides, but even then does so only to a limited degree, depending on his purposes, our receptivity, submission, humility, faith, etc.
I know only what the Spirit tells me as factually true. Everything else is suspect to me, whether science, "religion", experience, etc. If that means I know "little" by earthly standards, I am content with that. I would rather gain a little true understanding and wisdom than be fed much "junk" by those who fancy themselves knowledgeable and wise.Bless you cousin for sticking it to the Heathen as you do. Jeebus must be dun proud of you for sticking it to them.
Well done you. Yay! U dun won the prize.Righteous Atheist - you have a peculiar view of "sticking it to" anyone. We are all the same ("No one is righteous, no not one"). Until an unbeliever's LAST breath is taken, they have the opportunity to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and receive the same blessings as we believers.
So terribly sorry, but you can't be serious in thinking that you're going to convince grown adults that God is speaking through you. I mean, that is just beyond ridiculous. No one is buying it.
But I don't believe you. My special gift is spotting BS and my detector is going crazy.
It just seems like ALL of us people get caught up in the little shit and can't participate in what is really going on.
You know! ...... sometimes we think everybody is attacking us that we stay in the defensive posture long enough that we cain't (sorry about the spell ck, caint is a real word where I came from)
. The longer we stay in that position; we begin to stop listening ....... and everyboly else does too.
(again sorry about the sp. ck. .... no I aint)
can you imagine if we infected the whole world with it?You did.
See - history. (Generic you - christianity. Not you personally - you are just propagating it and continuing the spread sadly. )Infected the whole world with what exactly?
- Rad Manposted 11 years ago0
Sure oceans, the bible says prayer can move mountains.
Evidence is required. Would you buy a condo without knowing it exists?Sure oceans, the bible says prayer can move mountains.
Evidence is required. Would you buy a condo without knowing it exists?
My response came in that conversation at the point that you said that if it were true that the spirit could speak to or interact with Cat, that if it were true it could be proven or shown. (Not verbatim quote). My point is simple. The POSSIBLE truth of a spirit working with/interacting with/speaking with people can't be proven materially. I think you actually agree with me on this point. I don't think she is claiming to prove it can exist materially. I think she is sharing her experiences from her understanding of things.You are correct. It's her understanding of things. She makes claims she can't back up. She is making statements as if they were fact and then claiming that we can't prove her wrong so what she claims must be true.
Prayer doesn't even work.Rad Man - You state, "She makes claims she can't back up. She is making statements as if they were fact and then claiming that we can't prove her wrong so what she claims must be true."
If I or other believers make statements that are not inspired or guided by the Word and the Spirit, then we speak on our own, and our human "opinions" are worth little. But if, guided by the Word and the Spirit, we speak the truth to you, then it is not merely us speaking to you, it is God himself speaking through his people. I have given some opinions in these forums. I have proclaimed many truths, inspired by the Spirit and the Word. These are not my opinions; these are spiritual truths discerned as true by those who are led by the Spirit. "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:2). "Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God." (2 Corinthians 3:5).
I have never said anything related to you (or anyone) not being able to prove me wrong, so what I say must be true (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or confusing my statements again). First, the fact that the spiritual world can neither be proven nor disproven within the natural realm is already a given. One day everything will be "proven" to you, and every knee will bow to Jesus Christ, the only true Lord and Savior. But while we are on earth, God has designed it so that we "see" by faith, rather than having us believe once seeing. God is seeking those who will believe by faith, thus he is not going to "prove" anything until that appointed time when Jesus returns.
Second, my claims are not true because they can't be "proven wrong", they are true simply because they are true. You either belong to the Lord and will sooner or later recognize spiritual truth, or you do not belong to the truth, and you will remain in your natural state and will never recognize it. God alone knows this.
You also say "Prayer doesn't even work." Prayer absolutely DOES work, but not necessarily in the manner you think, or that which will be readily apparent within studies that cannot take into account the true faith of the ones praying, the true faith of the ones being prayed for, the gifts of healing and miracles, the power coming from the Spirit, false signs and wonders, etc., etc.You do understand that "The spirit is speaking through me" is not considered "back-up", evidence or any kind of proof at all that any other of your statements are true? Except, of course to you...
I am not here to "prove" anything or even to give "evidence" for anything, as if any of it needed to be proven, or as if truth was for humans to decide upon or judge based on the "evidence" and our "findings". Truth is simply that - truth. Those of us who know the truth based on the Spirit and the Word (and there are many in these forums and throughout the world) lay it plainly out there for all to hear, so that those who are being called (and whose spiritual ears are being opened) may indeed HEAR THE TRUTH. That is why we give many verses straight from the Spirit-inspired Word of God. "Whoever has ears, let them hear." (Matthew 11:15)
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…" (John 10:27-28)"But if, guided by the Word and the Spirit, we speak the truth to you, then it is not merely us speaking to you, it is God himself speaking through his people"
Sorry, I took that as a statement purportedly true, but agree that it cannot be shown to be so, and therefore there is no reason to think it is actually true. And the same thing applies; you can make all the claims in the world (beginning with "God told me..." but there is absolutely no reason to believe any of them without backup evidence.Those with ears to hear (spiritually speaking) WILL hear the truth. That is why we present the truth from the very word of God.
No, they will hear you representing that your words are true. Which may or may not be true - without verifiable evidence there is no way to know. Don't forget that we've already seen another prophet, speaking God's word, that disagrees with some of what you say.
And you certainly don't present the truth from the very word of God, not even from the much translated and interpreted, changed and spun book called the bible, because you also change and spin whatever is there into something it isn't. We've already seen that being done.Wilderness - The message of the gospel is widely agreed on by Spirit led Christians (though even here not all Christians will be gifted in the areas of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, etc., but will have their own spiritual gifts). There is much that is less essential that we may or may not be given revelation on (regardless of our particular gifts). You say "Don't forget that we've already seen another prophet, speaking God's word, that disagrees with some of what you say." I don't know who you're referring to. If it is HeadlyvonNoggin, I don't agree or disagree because I have no revelation on the age of the earth, whether the days in the creation account are literal or represent an era, etc. I consider the essential truths to be that God created all things, and that he created humans in his image.
I give opinion at times, and I'm sure I say things that are not biblically sound from time to time, but overall, yes, I do present the truth from the very word of God. Despite the many translations of our day (and even the possibility that God did not correct all humanity that entered into the Spirit-inspired Word), his Spirit does guide us into all truth and the "interpretations" you are given when inspired by the Spirit are trustworthy. It is clearly written, for example, that we are under grace not the law, that we live not by the letter of the law but the Spirit of the law, that we have been given freedom (though not to sin but to live for Christ in righteousness). You may disagree with all these things and say they are not biblical, but without the Spirit no one can discern spiritual truth.No, the correct interpretation of the so called "Word of God" (bible) is NOT agreed upon by all those claiming to be led by the Spirit: if it was we wouldn't have a thousand differing ideas on what God wants of us. And no, you don't get to say who is Spirit Led, you don't get to define it by who agrees with you and you don't even get to claim YOU are, as you cannot tell the difference between your own conscience and the Spirit of God.
Consider all you want what "essential truths" are, but you cannot know. The Spirit doesn't tell you, God doesn't tell you, Jesus doesn't tell you - only that "still small voice" inside, called a conscience, tells you.
Yes, you very often say things that are not biblical - every time you twist scripture into something it doesn't say, every time you ignore the verses you don't like it is effectively saying things that are not biblical. A very good example is claiming that we are under grace and not the law, when we've already discussed Jesus words that the law is still in effect. Spinning the words like that is absolutely saying things that are not true, and KNOWING you are doing it as you type the words compounds the offense.
Perhaps it is necessary to have the Spirit to discern spiritual truth; we'll not know until we're dead. Because no one has ever been able to separate Spirit from Self; no one can tell the difference and everyone desiring to be a prophet or respected spiritually will always claim they have the Spirit. Some even believe it, but only because they would like to think it is true - even those that truly believe the Spirit is in them cannot know.The most basic essential truths ARE agreed upon by those who are Spirit led (i.e., God is the Creator and Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world, Jesus is God in the flesh, etc., etc., etc.). Other less vital matters are not always revealed to us and there will be disagreement when we form opinions without revelation (some may have revelation, but it may be difficult to determine amongst all the opinions).
I and the many, many others with spiritual gifts of knowledge, wisdom, discernment and/or prophecy will only agree on what the Spirit has given all of us revelation on, so differing ideas in certain areas will exist even amongst these Christians. Those who are not led by the Spirit make it pretty evident to the Spirit-led believers who have the gifts of wisdom and discernment. We don't always need to "define" it for others, as sometimes it is already defined within their own claims and church doctrine. For example, a Unitarian Universalist church acknowledges that it incorporates any and all religions as well as atheism, rather than actually being a "Christian" denomination.
Without the Spirit and a true sense of what is "biblical", the determination that I "very often say things that are not biblical" cannot be made by you. Now if pastors and spiritual leaders all rebuked me, I would pay close attention to this big warning. As it is, they also will tell you that we are under grace and not the letter of the law, as it is written.
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God." (Romans 8:16) All things we know with CERTAINTY are those that have been revealed to us by the Spirit (and how much or how little another believer has had revelation on, we may not know). All else is speculation and our own interpretation, and thus opinions will differ even amongst true believers.You know better. Not everyone thinks Jesus was God come to earth (there are 3 independent entities up there, with Jesus NOT being the father), and others think there will be a savior yet to come. All led by the Spirit, and all will tell us that just as you do.
You have no clue as to whether I have the Spirit - you cannot possibly make that call when you cannot even define what Spirit is, let alone detect it. All you can say is that I disagree with you and therefore have no Spirit, but that does NOT make the statement true.
Don't care what false prophets tell anyone at all; the bible is the Word of God and not to be changed by you or anyone else. Under Grace (though no one can define that, either) we may be, but we are also under the Law, just as Jesus said.
"opinions will differ even amongst true believers" - a good sign. You may be beginning to understand it is all opinion, with no indication of truth anywhere. Including in your own declarations.Wilderness, you are certainly right to say, "Not everyone thinks Jesus was God come to earth (there are 3 independent entities up there, with Jesus NOT being the father), and others think there will be a savior yet to come." But no, they are NOT "All led by the Spirit", no matter what they tell you. Those who speak spiritual truth to you, will tell you that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Please don't take this offensively, Wilderness, because you may yet be my UNBORN brother (or one who has wandered far, far away and grieved the Spirit), but I know with 100% certainty that right NOW you do not speak with any revelation from the Spirit. We can define what Spirit is. The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. I can detect God's Spirit only through God's Spirit that he has placed inside of me, just as he has placed himself in ALL true believers. In this way, it isn't even so much me detecting it or knowing it, as it is Christ in me and the Spirit in me that has the knowledge and feeds it to my otherwise helpless little spirit. It is not your agreement or disagreement with me that makes your statements untrue; truth is above and beyond either you or I.
The bible is indeed the Word of God, the very Spirit inspired and maintained Word. I have NOT changed the Word. I have given you scripture after scripture from the very word to show you what I've said. Grace has to do with the undeserved, unearned favor of God, so that we cannot achieve it by works or obedience to the law, but rather it is given to us as a gift by God himself through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on our behalf. To him be all glory! Amen.
The "opinions" of believers will differ (and opinion is all we have to offer where we have no revelation and have not taken what we say directly from the word of God). But TRUTH (the truly true truth of God and not of human design), whether declared directly to you by the Spirit and the Word, or by me or any one of God's children relying on the Spirit and the Word, will FOREVER REMAIN AND FOREVER BE TRUE! God's Word and God's truth are ETERNAL!
Statements such as these have always bothered me. To say that because you have the "spirit" and as such have the "knowledge, wisdom, etc..." that others what do not believe is basically the Christian equivalent of calling those who disagree or lack belief idiots incapable of understanding the truth. How do you expect someone to be open to what you are saying if you're calling them stupid in the process of teaching (or preaching) to them?
Careful, you are attempting to questioning a self professed prophet.
Not questioning, not trying to stir anything up. Just honestly curious as to how people expect any "truth" (if there is one) to be heard and accepted when insults are given. Giving the benefit of the doubt, it may be unintentional insult, but it's insult nonetheless
Sorry, if prayer worked in any way it could be proven statistically. That is a fact.
Sorry, people lie all the time and say they are telling the truth and sometime even think they are telling the truth. That's another fact.You say, "Sorry, if prayer worked in any way it could be proven statistically. That is a fact."
What makes you say that, and be so sure? Prayer, whether it is something that "works" or not, cannot be shown to be true or false by statistics. It is like you aren't admitting sometimes when speaking of spiritual things. Then saying they don't exist because they don't respond like materially observed things respond. It is a categorical error I am thinking.
You also say, "Sorry, people lie all the time and say they are telling the truth and sometime even think they are telling the truth. That's another fact."
I totally agree with you there.Because all the studies done on prayer have come up empty.
I understand the studies impress you. I am suggesting that they would be more impressive if studies with statistics can weigh in on something like the truthfulness of whether or not prayers work. How about they do a study on how many prayers God hears, but chooses not to answer in the ways the prayers are prayed? How about a study showing how many of the prayers are not answered due to the fact we are still in a fallen world, where everyone will die one way or another and get sick along the way? How about another study that shows how many prayers are answered where the people being prayed for were healed due TO the prayers, and how many were healed because their bodies were fighting off whatever it was, OR the doctors medicine worked? How about another study where a combination of the prayers prayed in faith, and the doctors suggestions being followed, did a combined effect in getting the prayer answered?
Does this help you to see my point? You are showing that you think such a thing as prayers being answered by God is testable, and then feel reassured your views are correct because the tests pulled up nothing really. That is exactly as it would be IF you are testing the supernatural.
I am not sure why its even a topic, because I am pretty convinced if you had a family member that prayed for something and the prayer was answered by God that you wouldn't assume it was for some other material reason anyway. See my point? It feels like a game almost, being played.
I haven't even begun to talk about how you are seeming to assume (I could be wrong) that every prayer prayed will be answered, for you to be convinced prayer does then work. When the truth is, prayers by Jesus himself went unanswered (partially, as he also prayed God's will be done). That unanswered prayer about the cup being taken from him, in no way could prove that prayer doesn't work, even when we know of a prayer by the son of God wasn't answered.
Trying to give you some perspective on the seeming futile idea that a prayer can be statistically proven to be true or false, to work or not. Make a case where the spiritual can be tested, then the idea of such test results might begin to make sense. Thing is, I am pretty sure the case can't be made, its a logic problem, its a category error, its like weighing a chicken with a yardstick, lol. (One of my favorite ways it hearing it put once.) Do you get my point at all?If only 5% of prayers were answered they would show up in the statistics. They don't. You can justify that if it makes you feel better, but it's a fact.
Unless the studies were entirely outside of the will of God and do NOT represent the way he is willing to be treated. Just pause for a moment and think about this whole "study" thing as it relates to God. He is God, the One who is to be revered and honored, not a "subject" to be studied for either "proving" or "disproving" him. He already stated in his word that we are not to test him (with the exception being in our finances). Similarly, he will not give "signs" to those who DEMAND THEM IN WORD yet have NO FAITH for them. He is God. People who don't treat him as such can expect nothing from him.
He needs us to revere and honour him and yet hides.
Sorry, but it sounds like something someone would tell you to deceive you.How do you hide behind a big bang like we have staring us and everyone in the face? Hides? Really?
Its the biggest miracle ever. Yet we with our brains (that we had 100% nothing to do with bringing about) and stubborn wills try to fit everything including the big bang into an appropriate "box" that we approve of. As if we could.
God hides..... I would find it more believable if people could just admit they don't want anything to do with a possible being that could be the reason for their existence, and what might come with that. We will believe with great faith just about anything but that..... the thing that actually best explains everything when all evidences are allowed to remain on the "table." Oh yeah, like how good science works... We make special exceptions for things that are especially (supposedly) threatening.
You have yet to show how supernatural interactions even could show up in statistics. It seems sometimes, with respect, that you aren't really listening to others or paying attention to what they say. Acting like you don't have to answer a major point doesn't mean it doesn't have to be answered for your view to hold water. This is one of those cases where normally I think a person wouldn't stand by such an irrational view, but they do when it comes to trying to prove something they want. I notice that tonight it happens a few more times as well. Where people ditch ideas and logic of things they would normally believe in, to hold a stance that requires them to disown views they normally would hold. All to support a desired view. I am often asked to show an example, and besides when I show it all the time in a discussion, I will really continue to point it out. This is because I am trusting that people here might really care they are doing it.
Dismissals and denials, as if with a wave of the hand, don't really amount to as much as some would like them to. Some of the everyday regulars here do it to an extreme degree. Then say, "where, when, we don't do that....." People want to discuss views with those that want to discuss, not that just want to share an assertion, opinion, denial or dismiss things off as facts.Test the efficacy of prayer several times, with differing circumstances. In each case, use a group of 10,000 patients doctors say won't live a year and pray for their survival (or not); see if they are alive in five years and if not did they die from the same disease/injury that caused the prayer
A) Tell patients they are being prayed for, in the next room. Do so, using priests/prophets to pray
B) Tell patients they are being prayed for, in the next room. Do so, using atheists to "pray". (An interesting side test would be to allow the patient to hear the prayers, but not know or see those praying.) This group assumes God can tell the difference between an honest prayer and one from a non-believer that is simply spoofing the whole prayer thing.
C) Tell patients they are being prayed for, in the next room. Do NOT pray for them at all.
D) Tell patients nothing, but pray for them in the next room, using priests/prophets
If each group is 10,000 patients you WILL see a significant difference between the groups with even a 5% effectiveness of prayer.Have you ever heard a random doctor talk about how effective prayers have been in the families of their patients? They have different "tests" than the atheists here, an will tell you if you ask. I hear a totally different story here in these forums...
That aside, how do you test the supernatural? Do you guys honestly not get that you cannot test it? It is as if all we can know about prayer from Jesus and the bible, and about God, doesn't exist to make any of these arguments. Everyone is still going to die. That alone could make a skeptic simply dismiss prayer.
The one answering the prayers in these cases, by the way, has never been impressed by those that mock and test such things. The whole idea is ludicrous, besides being illogical. Applying math and statistics to the supernatural... that hasn't been shown to be an idea that can work yet. Yet people that normally would know better, are running with it like its a workable idea to uphold a belief or view of something... (we can only guess the reason, that would be one though.)
Generally speaking, and this answer won't be satisfactory to a true skeptic bent on disbelief...... But the people I have seen most "turned around" by prayers are those that gave God a genuine chance, a heartfelt consideration and true prayer offered up to God about something. It is then they are most amazed at the answers. He isn't generally in the business, that I know of, to be out to override a self righteous and indignant and mocking soul, though its not unheard of. I think God knows what he is doing in regards to giving out appropriate evidences and reasons to lead people to him that would ever want him.... (the Calvinists don't tend to like me, and I get it....) . Why would a God that is interested in relationship with his creation want to force someone totally against their will, if their will is set against him? I think he gives that person exactly what they want and deeply desire.I just outlined a test for the supernatural that will work.
The idea may be ludicrous and even illogical - to those desperate to believe without evidence. To those searching for truth it is quite reasonable, and even necessary, to test every claim out there. Including the one that prayer works.The supernatural in question, would have to agree to such a study. lol
I don't believe without evidence, I have prayed and had huge answers to prayers. To me, night and day results, surgeries cancelled days before, but ALL could be discounted on the degree of which you would like to raise the bar high enough. "oh, it was going to go that way, Oh, this and that." I think the examples given by Christ himself knew far in advance that people would reject it out of hand.
Part of my point too, is that people seem to not understand prayer, based on how they are talking about studying it. It seems to be mocking it to me, but I could be wrong on that. I just know, I have prayed hard for things, a lot don't come true and some surprisingly do. Its not as easy as you would think, even for me, a believer, its a unique thing. I have no doubt though, whatsoever, that God has answered my prayers, and honored the faith I tried to have in him at times. I literally think it would be wrong of me to not equally know he answered them, as I knew he could or would answer them. Its not even really easy to try and explain.And, that doesn't give you a hint to the fact that prayer has no effect at all and that the reason why some things come true and others do not is because of nature?
The way prayer is presented as "working", even by Jesus himself, dispels the myth that seems prevalent here about prayer. That myth would be that everything prayed about comes true as prayed. Like its placing an "order" with God. That some prayers don't come to pass exactly as they are requested WOULD exactly be the case if prayer was real. In fairness, it would also be the case if it wasn't real, but my point in pointing out what I am, is that you are choosing to view prayer only by one held view of it, and not as it historically was presented, even by Jesus. Also, I already also admitted to nature and the natural course of events being the case often. (It also happens to be my view though that God is part of that process, obviously....)
- Can you not see how ridiculous your explanation? With all that is happening in the world, Christians will pray for the most innocuous things believing God is answering those prayers, meanwhile atrocities are committed elsewhere. God would have to be incredibly evil for answering some prayers and not others. Obviously, prayers are not answered and nature decides how everything works.
That is a lame, irrelevant excuse.
Oh - and yes, I've heard doctors (and priests and prophets) talking about how wonderful prayer is and how it heals. Always with the prayer being said over the patient and within hearing of that patient - the old "witch doctor" effect in full force. Not a single one ever indicated they performed a blind test, just an obvious one with the obvious results.
I am referring to unsaved, unbelieving doctors that have been asked. Maybe some here could ask their own doctors sometime what they think, with an open mind I mean. Hurts nothing. I am encouraging people to not be so impressed by something that can't weigh in on such thing in the first place. The whole idea of a study to prove it doesn't work or does, misses the whole point of it also. Why play such games? Why test it if not to prove it doesn't work, then cling to the studies that show less than 5% of prayers are answered as Rad is impressed by? This kind of thinking just startles me that it is taken so seriously considering what we are talking about, the supernatural and God acting and interacting into human affairs.
Why ask a doctor that hasn't tested the question? Just to get another biased opinion, another worthless statement that it either does or does not work, but without evidence to back it? Because yes, that DOES hurt as gullible people will grab onto anything that agrees with what they wish to be true and declare it as proof. That it comes straight from the logical "authority" fallacy doesn't matter to those that don't care to understand anyway.
Because the efficacy of prayer cannot be shown to be true does not mean that the test is invalid. It means that prayer does not work, and that all the claims by all the believers in the world will not make it work. Another unsupported, biased claim that it does is worth exactly nothing and there is thus no reason to make it at all.
The very question reveals much about the reasoning process of a believer, in that it clearly shows that truth and reality are not what is desired; only words that support the specific fantasy believed in with resorting to such things as evidence. Studies are done to provide truth, to know if the claim is real or imaginary - that's the point. To claim that truth is a game truly does indicate that a higher value is being put on imagination than reality.
Because the objective of a test is not to prove something is wrong, in spite of your claims to that affect. It is to find out if the claim is right OR wrong. To find truth and reality instead of depending on imagination and make believe to guide us. It is unfortunate that so many of the claims by the religious cannot be shown by test to be true, but it is what it is. If you don't like others pointing such things out, don't make claims you cannot support with evidence garnered from testing.
Sometimes prayer for healing doesn't come for believers until after death. It's a promise in the bible. It really isn't easily tested. Oceans, you are so right in saying the supernatural can't be tested well. How many believing patients relax when being prayed for? Relaxation makes trauma less damaging. Instead of a supernatural response you could argue physical response to relaxation.
Sometimes prayer for healing doesn't come for believers until after death. It's a promise in the bible. It really isn't easily tested. Oceans, you are so right in saying the supernatural can't be tested well. How many believing patients relax when being prayed for? Relaxation makes trauma less damaging. Instead of a supernatural response you could argue physical response to relaxation.
I agree with you Tirelesstraveler. We know death is coming, and so obviously every person's prayer for sickness or avoiding death will not be answered. Eternity is a long time compared to this life, a long time to be in a resurrected body never succumbing to decay or disease again. Its amazing we can pray and that God answers prayers now, but I think he does.
There are literally so many variables in play with a prayer to God and his possible response and to whom, etc. I can't think it could be legitimately tested, especially IF the goal is to show whether or not prayer is effective. Its like treating it like its a possible magic trick that might occur after a particular chant is given before the magical response it looked for. Its a whole view of it that I find seems to be lacking. Oh and there is another long post, as I get to rambling...
I've supplied enough link to studies that turned up empty.
THIS is the kind of prayer that "works", Rad Man - "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him." (1 John 5:14-15). "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you." (John 15:7). "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." (John 15:16). "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." (Romans 8:26). Anyone who tries to "prove" any of this statistically will FAIL - how can anyone prove that which is according to God's will, or who in fact is abiding in Christ, or what the Spirit is saying?
There is prayer that will NOT be answered. "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." (James 1:5-7).
Yes, many who think they are telling the truth are not.Rad Man - The more truth that is given you, and the more it comes straight from the word of God, the more likely you seem to be to have nothing better to say than "bla bla bla". You seem to want believers to make a case from a merely natural viewpoint, yet the truth is spiritual and exists beyond your ability to refute, disprove, etc. any of it.
Show us then. Move a mountain for us or something. Until you do - it is empty self righteousness.
"Self-righteousness" indicates a relying on self for our righteousness (as in the name Righteous Atheist). The Christian relies on Christ for their righteousness, understanding they have none of their own, and therefore it is not "self-righteousness" but God-granted (and undeserved) righteousness.
I have "moved mountains", Righteous Atheist, many of them (no, we are not speaking of literal mountains, though if it were needed, even that could be done by God). I've given many of my testimonies (and have many more), but they are no more convincing than the very words of God to those determined to continue in their disbelief.Don't believe your claims. Show us, because your self righteousness is obvious for all to see.
It is a bit ironic the one accusing of someone being self righteous with the word righteous in their name, lol.
Glad you understand. Irony. My middle name. Gawd you guys are so self important.
That's funny, I get the same vibe from you, Mark.
Of course you do Jez.
Of course - I don't speak for god as you do. How are you going to flat out ask someone what God's "end game" is, then accuse them of speaking for God when they attempt to answer? I'm just giving you my take.
I don't recall asking you anything. And I only asked in response to some one claiming to know the answer. It is very funny though how many of you know yet also claim god is beyond our understanding.
"In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect, A dog might just as well speculate on the mind of Newton." - Charles Darwin
Yes I know Darwin was very scared to admit to being an atheist. Don't recall him telling us he knew what god wanted like you do. Too profound for Darwin but - you know what god's end goal was.
Because the story being described, especially when you read against the context of history, makes it clear. The whole theme of the whole story is about free will. Commandments, judgement, the flood, the Babel story (because these 'children of men' can do whatever they imagine), it all points back to free will. I'm simply reading the story in context and that's what I get out of it. It seems pretty clear to me. Especially in this science age with the understanding of the world and of a causal existence as we understand it now, these themes the bible speaks of, before we knew any of that, makes more sense now than it ever did before.
Righteous Atheist, you state, "It is very funny though how many of you know yet also claim god is beyond our understanding".
This takes only a little understanding - All things are not EITHER OR; BOTH are true in this case. It is true that God's children (those who have his Spirit within us) KNOW God to the degree he has given us this knowledge and the word by which to know him, and to the degree we have spent time with him getting to know him (in bible study, in prayer, in his presence, etc.), and to the degree we follow the lead of the Spirit within us, as it is the Spirit who guides us into all truth (And God is truth). In this way, we may KNOW, for example, that God is the defender of widows, the fatherless, the poor and so on.
But NO ONE fully knows the mind of God and NO ONE is able to instruct or give counsel to God because his ways are too far above our understanding and ways.
Think of the way a one-year-old KNOWS their father. They do in fact KNOW him in many respects, but in many ways they cannot possibly understand him.
Any yet you try? Jesus was said to have preformed miracles to show those around him who he was. All we get from you is bla bla bla. You've got nothing. Perhaps you've convinced yourself of your greatness, but I need more than bla bla bla.
There are those today with the spiritual gifts of miracles and healings. I've seen you dismiss their acts, just as you dismiss and reject the words of God and the testimonies of the believers. Perhaps you would have done the same to the very miracles and healings done by Jesus himself?
You know that those healers are not real right? Please tell me you know it's just a show? You know wrestling is not real as well?
Honestly, I don't make a judgment on the legitimacy of all the healings, as I can't always discern if they are true or false. But what I do KNOW is that healings in the name of Jesus Christ DO occur, and that I also have been supernaturally healed. And I have experienced the Spirit in much the way of these people you see in healing demonstrations.
You've probably heard this testimony from me before - For 13 years I experienced pain in my abdomen to the degree I would lay down in any public place. Asking God to either stop the pain or take me home to heaven, I heard a voice above me say "Focus on me, not the pain." It said it again and again, and for the first time in my life I experienced an "out-of-body" experience so that while my body lay below, I sensed myself (my spirit) being drawn up in the air to the join the voice. I was away from my body and away from the pain. Now if I had learned from this experience a pain management technique, that would be one thing. But I never had to utilize any pain management techniques because during this out-of-body experience, I was SUPERNATURALLY HEALED. Now for 14 years I have never again experienced that pain in my abdomen (no techniques or medicine required).
When you watch people being healed, at the "force" of the Spirit, they often fall back. I tell you, when the Spirit comes, I at times have to control myself to stand upright (and not to scream, as it often jars me). I'm an overly self-controlled person and I never fall or scream, but the force is such that if I LET myself, I would also fall back at the force.Well, you got yourself fooled. Ever go to a doctor for that pain to find out what it was?
How can 13 years of pain, followed by supernatural healing, followed by 14 years of being pain free be a case of me "fooling myself"? I was phobic of doctors in my early years and wouldn't go. Can only guess at possible causes, such as a cyst. The abdominal pain was related to menstruating (sorry) and similar to labor pains with intense cycles of pain (never known any other women to come close to the experience except when in labor). I can't "fool" myself into being completely pain free after a pain THAT intense!
See, if you had just gone to a doctor and had the proper documentation to support your story, perhaps some would pay attention. Otherwise it's just a story.
The truth is never "planned" out as a story is. I never intended to tell anyone of my experience at the time. I didn't go to doctors, as I was phobic of them in my early years. So you can take my testimony of healing or leave it (Yes, I know which one you'll do at the present time). I have no "proof" to give you. If I were lying, I could easily say I went to the doctor and the healing was confirmed, seeing as I wouldn't be giving any identifying information anyway. But I am telling you the truth, so I tell you truthfully there is nothing but my own experience of it. If you begin to recognize truth, you may remember the true testimony of healing I've given you at some later time in your life. No one but God knows that...
How do you know the pain wasn't psychosomatic? Clearly if you had a phobia of going to doctors so bad that you lived with relentless pain for 14 years you may have had other issues.
You mean physical pain caused by a non-physical construct (the mind) that can be relieved by the individual without the use of medication to physically alter chemicals? How's that possible?
I could start by explaining that the brain is connected to the nervous system, but I don't think any of that would help you.
Ah, how does that not help? I mean, all pain we experience is in some way created by the brain, right? That makes sense. But it's the cause I'm after. A "psychosomatic" cause that a person with the right discipline or understanding can resolve themselves, purely through changing how they think. This is all non-phyiscal activity of a non-physical entity that has real world repercussions. Like the power of suggestion can make one, just by hearing someone else talk about dry skin or lice, make that person physically experience an itch that is caused by nothing more than a non-physical brain state brought on by information gained through the senses. it's not like it's the physical sound waves of those words that does it. It's those words and things that the brain psychologically associates to those words. Unlike anything else we've gained insights on through science, there's no direct physical cause that can be observed because it's 'mental'. Which opens the door to all kinds of possibilities and flies right in the face of the most commonly used objections in these discussions.
The power of the mind is an amazing thing. The mind can and does trick itself. She could be lying and believing here own lies. Narcissistic people do that all the time. I have no idea what goes on in her mind and I'm glad I don't have to. Where do you start with someone who says they are a prophet and spent 14 year in intense pain and wouldn't see a doctor because of a phobia. I'd start by telling her to get some professional help. I mean that.
Well I can't speak for her, but you threw "psychosomatic" out there like it's something real that you know exists. Have you ever experienced it yourself? Or are you taking someone else's word for it that it happens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic_medicine
What does stress do to the body?Stress is another good example. It's psychologically caused by situations in your life that have no physical impact on you, it's not anything physical causing physical changes in brain-state, yet has a real impact on how your body physically feels and functions.
It's because the mind is a product and function of a healthy brain as is the nervous system.
Uh-huh, which means the matter of the brain is capable of behaviors that cannot be observed in any other matter anywhere. Like consciousness. If you were take the same chemicals and elements that make up the mind, and jiggle it around in a test tube, would it be possible for that concoction for even just a moment to become conscious? See, there's a lot of gaps in the understanding here. Some rather BIG gaps.
I have a feeling that further studies with Prions are going to rock your world if you're actually keeping yourself abreast of current scientific findings. They already rocked mine, and are giving insight into the primordial ooze, an idea I never thought I'd entertain until now.
Prions are these nasty little devils that don't fit any definition of life for the Christian or non-Christian scientist, and yet they replicate and cause degenerative diseases in animals and humans that are nearly/basically incurable. If you try to treat them, antibiotics won't work. They mutate and resist any treatment. You can't use antiseptics to clean them off tools because they're not alive like viruses (which are barely "alive" themselves) or bacteria. You can't burn them, again because they aren't alive, so they don't die. The only way you can get "rid" of them is toss them into biohazard safe labs. Even a brain soaking in formaldehyde in a sealed container for a decade can infect someone who opens it. Yet they are the simplest of proteins, devoid of DNA/RNA, and yet they replicate themselves and reek havoc. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they stay out of the hands of crazy men.That's definitely interesting. It sounds like they're proteins that cause other proteins to take on their particular characteristics, so it's not like they replicate in the traditional sense, they seem to more influence how proteins around them behave. Yikes, thanks for referring me to those. That's new to me. Something new to be scared of.
"That's definitely interesting. It sounds like they're proteins that cause other proteins to take on their particular characteristics, so it's not like they replicate in the traditional sense, they seem to more influence how proteins around them behave."
Exactly, they change the behavior of proteins around them, and yet aren't alive. Prions are the basics of the basics for proteins, and wreak all kinds of havoc, no DNA/RNA required, and no conventional way of killing them.
" Something new to be scared of."
That's what I said to my Bio Psych teacher.
It's called completely insane people wanting attention so badly that they imagine things so people will feel sorry for them.
Just in case you don't want to read the whole wikiwow, so you're saying psychosomatic ailments are just needy people looking for attention?
I recently heard that stress can cause a nursing mother to be physically unable to nurse their chlidren. So by your statement, this is just moms who are "insane" looking for attention.
Recognizing the spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, teaching, etc. (all biblical) in myself and a great number of others is vastly different than this idea you're pushing of a Narcissistic personality claiming some unique and special position as a prophet (more similar to the OT prophets before Jesus died and rose and gave us his Spirit to live inside us and give us various spiritual gifts).
Between the ages of 12 and 25, I spent 13 years in intense pain each month because of a phobia that was later healed by God as well, so I don't require professional help there at this time. But thanks for the concern. Good thing I've had my brain checked for aneurisms as well so we know there are no lesions or other abnormalities in my brain, or you'd probably be pushing that one still.What else changed for you at age 25? I know I had acne from age 13 to 40 and then it just stopped. Was it a miracle?
Rad Man - If I had not been calling out to God and heard a voice above me repeatedly saying "Focus on me, not the pain", if I had not seemed to be "drawn upward" spiritually, if I had not experienced my first "out-of-body" experience so that I sensed my spirit was up above my body and the pain, if I had not from this exact point of hearing the voice and experiencing a most peculiar event suddenly become FREE FROM ANY PAIN THEREAFTER despite 13 long years of suffering, I would not call it a miracle or supernatural healing (I would consider it as the clearing of your acne). As it is, I recognize it as a supernatural healing.
I have given you a true testimony of a supernatural experience and a supernatural healing. If you are determined to deny the truth of it, that is what you'll do. (Btw, if I were making up a story I wouldn't make it about my periods, considering the less than appealing nature of it).
I am sincerely happy to see you use the word mind a few times there.
See, this is an example that you asked for the other day. I promised (well kind of) that I would continue to point things out as I see them and I will. This is an occasion where you are discussing prayer, (not the mind) but the mind comes up while you are making points about something else. You do believe the mind exists and is capable of having very real impact on our physical world while not able to be shown materially to exist.
Sometimes you ditch ideas you know are true, and then later might not realize you contradict yourself to the degree you do. This shows me about its upholding a view you hold more than anything else. More than facts, science, and what you yourself personally believe. I have seen it time and again. I was astonished when you asked for an example, and I knew it was a matter of time. If a documentary, science teacher, or doctor or psychologist spoke of the mind you wouldn't bat an eye. The bias against Christians and Christianity is seen when such things suddenly to be mocked or ridiculed. Some went back and forth for days about this, only to find you do agree on another day with those that believe the mind exists and has effect on our real world, while not being able to show it materially. You asked me, so there it is.I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said the mind doesn't exist, I said it was a collection of functions of the brain as it's defined in the dictionary. It was Headly that was saying the mind is undetectable, I've been saying it's detectable and doctors do it every day.
From what I recall, you fought pretty hard against me and others that think the mind exists and were also posting definitions (I was a couple times at least) of the mind. So this makes sense NOW, that you say what you say there, and in the conversation about the mind etc. It didn't make sense then though, the stance you were taking. Which is my point sometimes.... I knew you kind of had to think that way about the mind, but you were fighting so hard against similar ideas, and it was strange to see so many take that side that they did.
I think it happens depending sometimes on who holds the view, and people take the other stance sometimes. It is my observation anyway.
Because the mind is not a non-physical construct, but your denial of the fact will keep you in that confusion.
Hmm, really? Yet we lack any sort of physical observations of it. The only reason we know it's there is because we each experience it. It's recognized amongst professionals to be an unseeable construct that can only be accessed through interactions with a given individual. Which explains the practices of psychotherapists and such and how they determine things about the psychological aspects of the mind.
Of course, when you say "we," you are talking about you specifically, not the rest of us or science.
Well let's test that. Show me something I'm wrong about. Show me something that I say "we" (as in humanity as a collective) know for certain that I said we don't. If you show me that you'll see that I'll adjust my statement to reflect this new information that "we" know.
You have been shown wrong on many occasions, but like some other believers here who deny facts, you all seem to have very short memories.
Many occasions, huh? Well that should make your job here easy. I don't believe these occasions you're speaking of exist. Prove me wrong. Should be easy enough to do. You clearly seem to have particular instances in mind that you're speaking of. Maybe just share those.
Of course you don't, denying facts and evidence in order to defend and promote your religious beliefs here is just par for the course. I doubt you'd ever admit to anything.
If you can supply an example that illustrates my being wrong, I will fess up to being wrong. I promise.
You'll just deny you were wrong to begin with, just as you were wrong about the mind being non-material. What is the point?
Actually, I have been paying attention when I am able, and I haven't seen it yet. If you think someone is wrong about something, show it. Its the best way to prove your point and show how those you want to be wrong, are actually wrong. (They have to be actually wrong though to do that. Its the downside if you are wrong yourself, and just asserting things as true.)
Why do you insist on saying that something that we named after a collection of things the brain does (abstract) as invisible/undetectable?
Because that is the reality of the brain/mind. An important reality that's the primary example for why a purely materialist standpoint falls on its face. It's a vital piece to everything, that should clearly illustrate to you and everyone else the flaw in only allowing for what can be shown to exist. It's right there in your head, you're experiencing it and using it right now, yet you couldn't prove it if tasked to.
Let's not go down that road again. We've explained to you what the mind is and how it's detected and how doctors do this every day with great accuracy. The minds of other animals are also detectable. Let it go please.
Oh, yeah, "we've explained". Even though your "explanations" conflicted with what the actual experts say on the topic, I'm supposed to accept what you say? You and others here regularly speak as if more is explained and understood than what actually is. A pitfall you often accuse believers of. Injecting certainty where it doesn't belong. The only way you can 'explain' the mind to be phsyical is when you redefine the word "mind" to actually mean the physical happenings in the brain.
You mean, how it's already defined:
Mind: (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.
Perhaps, you'd like to deny that the words "element, part, substance" do not describe the non-material?mind |mīnd|
noun
1 the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
How am I redefining that?
Aware.
Think.
Feel.
Consciousness.
Thought.
If you see those 5 things together you see the abstract mind.
Try to think of it as like a baseball game. You need to see a collection of things happening to know you are watching a ball game. The baseball game itself is not a thing you can measure or see, but when you look at the collection of things together you can say you saw a ball game.Right, and how exactly does the matter of the mind achieve these things? How does a bundle of matter achieve awareness? Thought? Feelings? Consciousness? Is it the brain matter? Is it the synapsis? Is it the electrical charge that courses between them? Which physical happening is generating these thoughts your typing out right now? What physical material in your brain makes you self-aware? Aware of yourself as a bundle of thinking/feeling matter? Is it protein? Do firing neurons show us that bursts of electricity can carry information? Does that mean there's an element in the brain that's able to decipher coded information in electricity?
Alright, because you referenced a South Park image, which is close to my heart, I'll drop my horse beating stick.
This is not so just because you say so. LoL. You're simply applying a set of descriptors to something that requires another set of descriptors. That's like calling bees' social workings not actually social solely based on generalized human models of social behavior. Humans and bees have social behaviors, and many are similar, but they do operate differently in some ways, and one cannot be measured exactly the same as the other, even though both can be measured and both are considered social.
Anything observed in the physical plane is physical. Is material. Period. Otherwise it would not be able to be observed, and thus couldn't be considered material. How do we observe smells? We smell them. How do we observe faces? There are parts of the brain for that, besides our eyes. As a matter of fact, different parts of the brain light up for different faces. And people can lose/lack the ability to see faces (Prosopagnosia). But the facial features are still present. How do we observe the wind? We feel it, we see it's destruction. We see what it carries in its path. How do we observe anything? With the senses in some form or fashion. Can these sense be fooled? Certainly! All the time. But that is how we experience. How do we experience the mind? Well, let's define it again for the umpteenth time.
The mind is: the seat of thought and memory: the center of consciousness that generates thoughts, feelings, ideas, and perceptions, and stores knowledge and memories.
How do we observe this? Books, art, conversations, emotional responses, academia, thoughts, etc.
What legitimate reason is there to think the mind is anything non-material? There is none. Because it does not exist as its own entity as far as what can be observed. When the parts of the brain associated with it are affected, one can see the changes in ability to do all of those things. It's so simple, really. The only way to find out differently is to die (and not almost die and then come back, but actually die), only then can someone make the claim to have a continuing "stream of consciousness" that exists outside of the brain. I wouldn't reccommend that you try that, though.
The mind, for now, can only be described with our current physical ways of describing it using the measures that we can. The conversation with you about it is basically moot, though."Anything observed in the physical plane is physical. Is material. Period. Otherwise it would not be able to be observed, and thus couldn't be considered material."
Exactly! Can we explain, in the same way we explain say weather patterns, the cause/effect behind brain function and the psychological phenomena we experience? I'll save you the research.... No. We can't. We can't even explain how a firing neuron can cause us to experience a psychological event. We don't yet understand how information can be stored in brain tissue. Yet there are clearly behaviors the brain is capable of, that cannot be explained through a causal chain. We can't factor in physical properties like weight, pressure, level of chemicals, and accurately predict what a thought is going to be. We can only really assume that brain activity and physiological phenomena are related because they happen at the same time.
"What legitimate reason is there to think the mind is anything non-material?"
Because it cannot be observed in any physical sense, yet we experience it, so therefore it's clearly happening. People's minds have a significant impact on what they do, yet it's the invisible piece in the equation that hold court to try to determine. Imagine a civilization that exist 1000 years beyond now, archaeolgically digging up our culture. All things born of the mind that affected our behavior, could not be included in their equations for trying to figure out the cause behind the things we do.So... before we can identify the mechanisms behind things, they aren't observable (or material)? In what universe?
"We can't even explain how a firing neuron can cause us to experience a psychological event."
How many neuroscience classes have you actually taken? I'm curious.
All I read just now was, "we don't know, therefore something non-material's behind it." It's a good thing that scientists don't think that way. We'd never figure out anything.I have taken no courses. I am certain because psychological phenomena not being observable lies at the foundation of the practices of neuroscience, psychology, and basic human interaction. The whole reason neuroscience is so dependent on making associations between neurological and psychological is because of these same fundamental truths. Because psychological events cannot be directly observed.
What I'm trying to get at is that there are things that happen, in reality, that have an impact on reality, that cannot be directly observed. Events that to the eye of science are gaps in understanding because we cannot construct a causal chain from one to the other and explain physiologically what's happening.But you're still saying "we don't know, therefore it's immaterial." That doesn't fly. If anything, prions are an example of how we're going to have to start broadening/adjusting definitions. How is it that things without DNA or RNA collect together to create destructive masses that cause rampant/currently irreversible cell death?
Psychosomatic...
Interesting how the mind as something that exists is sometimes helpful in a discussion, until it isn't. This is an example to Encephaloi and Radman, and RA, that sometimes we treat a concept or idea like its very real and something true, until another time it is not. I found this twist of events in the discussion rather interesting!
But denials and easy dismissals are so powerful in such cases!
Pain occurring only while menstruating and mimicking labor pain is not characteristic of psychosomatic pain. Psychosomatic pain tends to vary in placement, is less consistent, etc. But nice try for dismissing the entire experience.
When I heard the voice above me saying "focus on me, not the pain" and had the out-of-body experience so that I sensed my spirit rising above my body and I no longer felt any pain, I was not at this time even aware that a healing was taking place, so even the absence of pain for the next fourteen years cannot be attributed to my expectations (like a sugar pill effect). I assumed I would have the pain the following month, and I was amazed that no pain ever came again following this supernatural experience, the first of my first supernatural healings.
Wrestling isn't real? Sure it is. This is a good example of how you throw the baby out with the bathwater by the way on occasion and as the need arises or the desire. You see, I know that you know some wrestling is real, but you use the example in your mind of the wrestling where they are crashing folding chairs onto people and flying off the edge of the pin onto their opponent, etc..... To make the case that all healings are fakes, because some clearly are/were for show. This is just sharing some observations on your part, and your black and white rigid thinking onto some things, with a quick pat answer. Just to reiterate a held view, and this is how a lot of the conversations come off. People spend a ton of time with you sharing their reasoning as if you were genuinely going to engage them in discussing, a conversation of sorts.
In short, you can't pass off all healing as fake since some have put on healing shows, just because some wrestlers have put on wrestling shows that were fake, as if that makes all wrestling fake, which you don't mean, though it sounded like it there. Its not a logical argument, and you don't seem to care that you ought not to be impressed by it as you are. Does that make any sense? Maybe you don't really care how your arguments work or not? I am trying to genuinely figure this out.Come on. Please. If these healers were real they would be walking through hospitals healing children with terminal illnesses, not holding open a collection box in a church.
Open your eyes.If someone is making people pay for healings, "holding open a collection box in a church", then it is best to stay away from that person, whether or not they actually have any supernatural abilities (remember that there are also "false signs and wonders").
Though the one given the spiritual gifts of healings and miracles by the Holy Spirit will not require payment, FAITH will be needed. So the faithful will still need to seek out the healing. In much the same way that Jesus himself was limited in the miracles and healings in his hometown due to their lack of faith, so also those with these supernatural gifts will be limited anywhere that faith is lacking (sometimes whole regions), but will perform the miracles and healings in regions and countries where there is faith for such.
Several unbelievers in these forums have expressed similar thoughts to ED's: "With all that is happening in the world, Christians will pray for the most innocuous things believing God is answering those prayers, meanwhile atrocities are committed elsewhere. God would have to be incredibly evil for answering some prayers and not others."
There seems to be a complete misunderstanding for the manner in which all this works. The Father is NOT sitting on his heavenly throne receiving prayer after prayer, this one for something small and this one for life itself, then choosing to answer some (even small "insignificant" things) and not to answer others (even those that are a matter of life and death).
If someone has put their trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and God has sent his own Spirit to reside within that person, then that person has God's presence (the Spirit) with them at all times, though they may not always be mindful of this or utilize this radically awesome truth and gift! In a sense, when it comes to our relationship with our Father, it is one-on-one. Each person with God's Spirit has God and his power ALL THE TIME. The believer within whom the Spirit resides may ask for large and small things both because God is the God of ALL things, and because in the same way a loving parent loves to lavish their children with good gifts, so God also loves to give good things to those who ask him and trust him for them. The Spirit may be relied on for even the smallest of matters and God will very often honor even these.
NONE of our prayers and blessings REPLACE any of the prayers of others (or God hearing and answering those). So asking for something "insignificant" compared to the needs of someone else does NOT interfere with that person having their prayer answered. Having the Spirit and the blessing of the Lord will result in the work of God being done in that person's life in many ways, and has nothing to do with whether prayers of others are or are not answered. Why should anyone resent the "favor" and blessing on a believers life, when unbelievers also may one day become believers who have the same favor and blessing which is offered to ALL. What the one without God is needing is not an "answered prayer" but the presence and Spirit of God himself who answers prayers!
We ourselves who possess the Spirit may also ask God for whatever we wish as long as it does not go against his will, and if we are abiding in his will, we know he hears and will give us that which we ask according to his will. But nothing should ever be asked contrary to his will. So even when our life is ending and it is God's will that we come home to him, it is better to pray his will be done, then pray that he continues our life here on earth. Some prayers may not be answered in the way humans think is best or will be. It is always according to his will that we ask and receive.
Some prayers await their proper time for answer - complete peace on earth awaits Jesus' return (though we can pray for peace in many different ways); the end of all suffering awaits the new heavens and new earth he will create (though we can pray for an end of all kinds of suffering on behalf of others); justice for believers who have been martyred (see Revelation, where their prayers together still exist) awaits the coming day of judgment...Since you have already stated that God is impossible for us to understand I didn't read much past where you attempt to tell us about him. You are simply using your imagination.
You two are acting like imagination has never been employed to help us better understand the world. Like it's a bad thing to try to imagine an explanation, informed by what is known. That's how we figure things out. Imagination evolved because it served our needs in some way, right? So why not employ it now?
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." - Albert EinsteinNow if Einstein had said,
“There are some things we cannot possibly know, so using our Imagination to fill in these gaps with make believe stories that we claim as facts is more important than actual knowledge."
I could see that fitting this situation. Sadly he concluded,
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."- Albert Einstein
Odd how intellectually dishonest you guys are. I thought your Invisible Super Daddy burned you for that?
Save me a seat by the fire.Odd how you seem to think Einstein's conclusion here is in any way relevant to the conversation. Rad and ED are speaking as if imagination has no value. Einstein believed that it did. That is relevant to this discussion. How you find me pointing this out as intellectually dishonest is also odd. It's as if you feel it important to in any way you can discredit what someone says. Whether it's relevant or not doesn't matter. I'm sure there's quite a bit you'll find odd, Mark, being that you're an odd one yourself.
Of course imagination has value, but it's not knowledge.
Incidentally, I want to talk to you about your theory. I'm just not sure the forums are the best place for that conversation. Are you interested in one on one step by step, or are you too busy these days?
Righteous Atheist - I wasn't impressed with the imagination quote of Einstein's much more than the quote you gave, as true "knowledge" comes from God. Imagination can be a good thing, but can also be a very dangerous thing.
Still you cannot in truth say HeadlyvonNoggin is being "intellectually dishonest" just because he/she sees the good in one aspect of what an intellect of the world says; Headly doesn't have to agree with everything the man said to agree with one part. There is no "dishonesty" here. If Headly were trying to convince you that Einstein was a believer and gave only a partial quote, THIS would be dishonest. As it was, he/she used a liked quote in a fitting context.
Also, hell was made for Satan and his demonic forces, and it may be that those who insist on following him to the end will make their own choice to follow him straight into hell. Believers, whose names are written in the book of life, will NOT be "burned" for any reason whatsoever, as ALL their sins are blotted out by the blood of Jesus.That's right dear, just keep telling yourself that the real test the God that created the entire universe is given to man is to believe in him without suppling any evidence at all. He will reward the gullible.
Does that make you feel better.Would you really be choosing God of your own free will if He were standing over your shoulder? It's 'seek and ye shall find'. It's your choice. Prayer is the same way. God allows us to ask for what we want, of our own free will. It's all about what we want. And I don't think He wants to force Himself on you like that. Would you appreciate that more? To be made to do what He wants? Rather than be given to capability to have your own will and follow your own wants?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the whole point is to seek and find Him spiritually. Within. Wouldn't outward "proof" divert your attention in the wrong direction?It would be nice to know he was there then I could judge him on what and who he is, rather than what I read and what others tell me. It's not forcing to show up. It's like an absent father wondering why the child doesn't love him.
Remember I was raised as a Christian and spent my fair share of time praying and asking for signs. It doesn't make sense to have to believe in something before you have seen it. It's manipulation. Don't you want to know it's not just your imagination? Can't find one ounce of evidence, but clearly God is used to plan vacations and to keep people skinny. Are you not seeing the pattern?Remember the parable that Jesus told about how the servants behave when the master is away? You're not going to be your true self, you're not going to act naturally, unless you can doubt He's there, watching your every move. If there were a physical powerful God, looming on the horizon, watching all we do, this would hamper our free will.
If the whole point is for us to learn to live with free will, to learn our decisions and actions have an impact on those around us, then this whole world being put together to achieve that would be undermined by God looming over you. Like a child when there's a parent in the room versus one when the parents are nowhere in sight. What are you really learning? How not to get in trouble? Don't you really learn through experience? I don't know about you, but in my life most those learning experiences came when I wasn't under the watchful eye of my parents.Then why do and others say they know for sure God exists if he wants to see how we will behave without him in sight? Does he think you guys need to be watched?
Sorry that make no sense.That's why its called faith. "Knowing" for sure without confirmation. Faith isn't the easy way. It's not like a switch gets turned on and then you know. It's only faith if you're capable of falling.
You're not listening to what others have to say. Do you know God exists?
Why else would it require faith if everyone knew?
So you are unsure, lets ask the others?
Who knows for certain God exists?Who knows for certain He doesn't? What else would 'faith' be required for? It's to believe, right? What would be the need of 'beleiving' and 'faith' if anyone knew for sure?
Albert Einstein quote from 1929 Interview:
Question: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Albert Einstein: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
From: G. S. Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein," Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929; Schlagschatten, Sechsundzwanzig Schicksalsfragen an Grosse der Zeit (Vogt-Schild, Solothurn, 1930), p. 60; Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), pp. 373-374.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein - from brainyquote.com/Wow, thanks for that. I wasn't familiar with this particular bit. I like his take on the gospels. He really has a point there.
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.
You can imagine stuff, I do it all the time and make living doing so, but I have to see if my imagination is correct before I tell people about it. I have to produce it to see if it works. That's not what's happening here.
This brings up a question. Earlier in the post, you stated that those who believe and accept the spirit im them can ask for whatever they want whether large or small and God hears them because he loves to lavish good things on his children like a loving parent. But then later on you said that we must ask that his will be done. This is confusing because what if what a person asks for something good but it apparently isn't in his will? In this case does this mean that only God decides what is good?
Careful wording is needed - We are those who believe and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and as a consequence are given the Spirit which Jesus himself promised. To say of us "those who believe and accept the spirit in them" is a misleading statement, as it is necessary to distinguish between the Holy Spirit and our own spirits, and as we are believing in and accepting the Lord Jesus Christ, who then places his very Spirit in us.
As for your question, ultimately God decides what will be for good, though we do recognize things as generally good. If anything is outside of God's will, even if it would otherwise be "good", it should not be prayed for without the greater prayer being for God's ultimate will to be accomplished (e.g., it would have been good for Jesus to avoid pain and death, except that this was needed for our benefit, so Jesus let his own will be known, but ultimately prayed that God's will would be done).The Son (God come down to us in the flesh) prayed to the Father (God).
Right, two separate Gods. How many you got there?
"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) - ONE and the same God in two FORMS.
God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are ONE GOD IN THREE FORMS.But you just said Jesus prayed to God. Why the need if they are one? A father and a son are not the same person.
That is true. The Trinity is "One substance but three Persons." Even though the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one in substance, they are separate in personage and there is also a difference in office. The Son (Jesus) said more than once that only the Father really knows when the end will come, and when He was on the cross He cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
Right, how can they be one if they don't have the same information.
He's God. This is where that "He isn't like us" thing comes in to play.
Right, back to that. We can question him, but can't understand him. Gotcha.
Yes, back to that. When we question Him, we realize how difficult understanding Him actually is. When you reduce God to "big human being" status in order to 'understand' Him, then you're no longer discussing God.
I don't know how many times I tried to make that clear. That when your concept of God is some invisible cartoon magician who just floats around somewhere in space 'miracling' things into existence, then of course reality isn't going to line up with this concept of a god. Because that God doesn't exist.
Yeah, but people want the Douglas Adams version. It's so much easier to understand, and dismiss.
Right, my whole point is if you're going to dismiss this concept of a God, it should at least be a realistic concept of God that you measure against. Given what we know about the natural world now, if the God of the bible created this place, then that should inform the God concept you then measure reality against. If you're convinced that the God of the bible is just some product of Bronze age imagination, then if there is a real God, He will never match up to that concept.
But for some believers this is exactly the image their description and ideas of God pull up.
There's no question that many believers also have a cartoonish vision of God.
What other kind is there?
How can anyone really picture God?
What's your vision of God like?The idea that we can't actually know God fully, including what he looks like, does not automatically mean that any vision someone has of Him must be cartoonish.
Yeah maybe?
So you think that if we can't 'see' God then we must therefor have a cartoonish vision of Him, no other alternatives?Well, no. I don't have a clear vision of God though. Not a cartoonish one, but one that is kind of like a "place holder". I have to have SOME way to visualize God. It isn't always the same, but it is sort of generic.
Will you tell me now how you visualize God?I don't actually visualize God. The admonition not to make graven images of Him I take pretty seriously, so I don't really visualize God.
Thanks for answering.
Hard for me to do though. It's like someone saying to you "don't think of a green monkey riding a unicycle" and then of course, that's the first thing you picture in your mind a second later. Perhaps I just have a vivid imagination, though.I agree, I don't try to "visualize" God either. My experiences are with the Spirit. Even when I've recently "sought God's face" and felt close to looking at him face-to-face (something I always kind of avoided before), I wasn't really SEEING him. I was seeing spiritually only, so that I sensed him smiling and sensed a love like I've never experienced (I tend to push away even God's love). It was more of a warmth and connection, trying to "stare" into a face I couldn't really see.
"Muslims reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules and are not expected to visualize God.
Furthermore, it is one of the fundamentals in Islam that God exists without a place and has no resemblance to his creation. For instance, God is not a body and there is nothing like him. In the Quran it says: "Nothing is like him in any way." (see Quran 42:11) Allah is not limited to dimensions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_IslamI can see now why you miss so many things in posts and are always confused.
You mean because you can't stick to the subject and inject something totally out of left field? When you try to be confusing and you miss things your own self, why you expect better from me is beyond me. Then again, I've seen your definitions of "synthesis" and "free will."
Okay. This raises the question of which version is real and who are the true Christians? Or are all of them true and are just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Valid questions.
The second answer is no, we're not all just arguing for the sake of it. If God exists then at some point some people must by default not be 'real Christians' simply because you have so many polar opposite positions claiming to be Christian. They can't all be right.
The first one is trickier and I'm not entirely sure what the 'right' answer is. But I think God is certainly big enough that people who tend to think and behave differently from each other can still be 'real Christians.'Fair enough. Thanks for your answer. Ive seen on these forums in my short time here plenty of accusations of who is and is not a real Christian
That would put into question your own beliefs about Jesus. Perhaps, you are not right and they are.
I've said often, and yes even to you, that I examine my beliefs, what I believe and why. But the second part depends on who the 'they' you're talking about are.
Is that a joke? Who cares who they are. No, you never examine your beliefs.
Ah. Arrogant and wrong!
You certainly haven't changed.
This scripture raises another question. It's easy to take this scripture and conclude that they are the same being. But in reading the whole chapter, Jesus was talking about all of the works done by God his father then made that statement. Could this verse also mean "I agree with my father"? It's like the scripture of a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife and the two become one flesh. It doesn't mean that they become the same person. It means they are two different individuals with one mindset.
There are various places in scripture that make it evident that Jesus is God in human form (The Father and Son are different "forms" or "persons" of God, but the same God). Here are some examples: “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity” (Hebrews 2:14). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1,14). “He existed in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6). “For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body” (2:9, Colossians 2:9). Just as God gave himself the name “I AM” (Exodus 3:14), so "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am'" (John 8:58).
Your points about the agreement between the two, and the "same mindset" of the two, and the being "one" as in marriage all apply well to Jesus and the church or "bride of Christ". "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." (John 14:20) "We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16).
It also is a good comparison for the unified "church" or "body of Christ" - all believers are "one" in Christ, and it speaks to the importance of unity and agreement amongst believers. "...that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. " (John 17:21). "For you are all one in Jesus Christ." (Galatians 3:28) "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:3)
But it's not two separate Gods. It's one God in three Persons. I know to a lot of people, they don't care and don't bother with the distinction but it's real nonetheless.
I suspect it was the influence of pagans who believed in multiple Gods and led Christians into thinking that they can still worship one God while worshiping three. Yup I think I read about that once.
I've read about that several times. The longer the piece making the argument, the more convoluted and nonsensical the 'logic' is.
You haven't read about the pagan influences on Christianity yet. It's a good read.
I've read many times about it. Any particular part you refer to? Because it depends on whether we're discussing the story of Jesus (which is often stretched to make it fit that theory) or particular practices (especially once the Catholic church gained ascendency.)
This is not exactly an undiscussed subject within evangelical or apologetic circles.
When I mentioned spirit I was referring to the holy spirit that comes with accepting Christ.
For your other point, what about deaths that do not serve a sacrificial purpose like that (e.g a child dying of cancer or starvation before having a chance at life or someone getting murdered)?So you believe, as you've stated previously, that God desires you to be skinny and you pray for weight loss so you don't have to do the hard work yourself and that's deemed a worthy request by god? I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous.
This conclusion here is why I was asking for clarification of cat's statement
That's the thing. She says it outright and is proud of it. She also has deemed herself a prophet of god. Have you seen that part yet?
I see a lot of biblical references. Prophecy may be included or not, but I honestly haven't been paying that much attention to whether she is actually a prophet. But I do appreciate her indulging my questions and clarifying any confusion
What she will do is tell you all about what her God wants and needs until you ask an important question that she can't use her imagination to answer and then she will tell you her God is impossible for us to understand.
It's entertaining.God's children are NOT going to be able to tell you your address, Rad Man, that is NOT the "knowledge" that is given by the Spirit!
Oh come on, I've been told many times that he supplies information to persuade people. But when push comes to shove you've got nothing but an imagination run amuck.
You've also been told many times that He's not a dog and pony show, waiting for someone to snap their fingers so He can perform a trick that will convince someone.
A) He doesn't work that way,
and
B) The overwhelming majority of people who demand such tricks wouldn't be convinced if they saw a thousand angels dancing on the head of a pin.
So if it's just a matter of you being told something 'many times', then this counts as well.Yes, I've been told that by many people who claimed to have personally seen miracles.
He did according to you reveal himself to you. Right?
Why do you claim that he has been revealed to you in such a way that it can't be questioned and yet claim he doesn't work that way and I wouldn't believe what happened to you if it happened to me?If I ever made the mistake of saying that it can't be questioned, I certainly haven't for a while. As often as it gets questioned, I certainly can't say that.
As for the first part, I'm lost as to how having seen a miracle personally and God not being willing to jump just because you (or anybody) says jump go together.
If you personally experienced what I had, you might believe and you might not, I don't know. I was making a general statement, usually the people most vocal in demanding a miracle would be the least likely to believe one no matter what it was.
Rad Man - God is not trying to "persuade" you or anyone of anything. The "righteous live by faith". Simple faith is what is sought. That being said, once you come to him by faith, your experiences with God will further convince you of the truth. And God's Spirit will himself lead you into all truth.
Still, some are given direct revelation. If God REVEALS himself to you, as he did with Paul who was persecuting him, then you yourself will KNOW that God exists without anyone else having to tell you. But everyone does not have this type of experience.
I don't know how it will happen for you, Rad Man. But I do know this, "the one who seeks finds" (Matthew 7:8), and God has said, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". (Jeremiah 29:13)
But she is being open about her beliefs. Can't begrudge that
Even a small child can tell you some things about their father. While it is impossible to fully understand God, I am as a "small child" telling you that which I DO KNOW about my Heavenly Father.
How do you know? Because you tested Him? Because your mother told you so? Or because someone wrote in a book 2,000 years ago?
Let me start by saying my short answer to "how do you know?" is that we haven't the time or space for me to tell you the whole daily truth of how I know. Let me just say, I'm filled with inexpressible joy and humbling gratitude simply at your question, and at the knowledge of himself that God has so undeservingly bestowed upon me and all his children!
Some day you may come to that place where "you know that you know that you know...", and daily he gives you the evidences, and his very Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are his child! And there is nothing any person on the earth could say to dissuade you because it was never what anyone said that convinced you, but rather it was God himself who revealed himself to you, and his Holy Spirit that has sealed you in him.
And now what remains? Simply joyfully awaiting the day he comes for you, and for now fulfilling whatever purposes he has for you, knowing that only that which lasts for eternity has any true value at all.Those that live the life promoted by Jesus know that they are delivering the righteousness required of a Christian.
Those that challenge that life, may never receive the Spirit of the Lord and so will never recognize the ability of others to live as a Christian.
The Christian easily recognizes that the Spirit is continually energized through a lifestyle based on the great writings of the Apostles.
Those who deny that Christian knowledge of God is impossible to test or demonstrate have never followed the righteous path.
During my 70 years in the physical life, I have witnessed many miracles provided by God through strength of the Spirit.
Those who do not see are blinded by their self-imposed limitations; not the Christian who follows the path of righteousness.
Knowledge is both demonstrable and testable. You can do neither. You have belief, not knowledge. Funny, someone who is a self proclaimed prophet in the 9th percentile should know that.
What makes you think spiritual knowledge is "demonstrable and testable", JMcFarland?
Many believers possess the spiritual gifts of knowledge, wisdom and prophecy. I am claiming no special position in these last days when the Spirit has been so generously given to us.
I'm not impressed with human "intellect". The standardized tests place me at the 99th percentile, but that has meant primarily that I know enough not to be impressed with the intelligence of myself or anyone else (who mostly come out even lower than admittedly pitiful me, lol).
Those were not things you knew, those were things you made up. The only knowledge you have is what is written in the bible and that's all here say. Sorry you have admitted he is impossible for us to understand so don't pretend to have any information you can't have unless you can supply evidence.
Almost everything I say about God IS IN THE SCRIPTURES! That's why I quote it so often (and even where I don't quote it, I'm relying on it). The Spirit leads us into all truth. The Word is truth. The Spirit lives inside me and all true believers. Small children we may be, yet those of us who are led by the Spirit do know our Father!
The evidence you seek is right in front of you everyday.
But as many others, you refuse to accept it because you do not seek the Spirit of the righteous who came before us.
The Christian does not question the Spirit as you do because they have attached their personal spirit to the Righteous one.
Jesus was crucified by those that refused to see.
Christians have continually been challenged by this same refusal.
However, as all Christians before, we prevail through this challenge with our exceptional righteous path.
The Lord provides to those who see. That is why he walks with me.What does he provide exactly? Food? Shelter? Health?
He provides exactly what is needed. Food-Shelter-Health included.
He walks with me as I traverse the righteous path.
1 Timothy 6:10-12 King James Version
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
If God doesn't exist, then what standard do Aeithiests have for morals?
Conscience.
I know very moral atheists. Don't you?Plenty of standards. There is also conscience. Morals are not dictated by what a book says. Doing something good for any reason than the fact that it is good is not displaying moral behavior. It's basic programming. Memory and regurgitation
So, if it's programming, assuming it comes from our basic capability to empathize, what happened during the 4th millennium BC when humans began to take and keep slaves, and when in this same age organized militaries and efforts to expand ones territory became common place? Things that seem to go directly against the whole empathy concept. Shouldn't that programmed empathy keep us from doing these things? Treating others as we would not like to be treated ourselves.
Not entirely. Because that programming I mentioned is from indoctrination and being told that doing things are good because the bible says to do it for reward or to avoid being punished. A lot of the programming doesn't come from basic capability to empathize. Even looking here on the forums, the first answer given when asked why something is good or bad the immediate answer is "because the bible says so or because God said so", totally negating Christ's teaching of do good in the interest of helping your fellow man and loving thy neighbor
Ah, I see what you're saying. Generally, the no-God scenario I hear as far as morality goes comes from our basic ability to recognize commonality in others, recognize others have similar needs to our own, and our natural ability to empathize.
Right. The scenario I see is a scenario what morality exists whether there is God or not because it stems from our natural empathy.
Well it would seem that at the dawn of civilization that all went out the window. The 4th millennium BC is notably one of the most violent times in human history. This is when slavery first began, this is when, as the Roman poet Ovid put it, "There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."
From my viewpoint, this dramatic change in human behavior is the result of God introducing free will into the world through Adam, so it works. I don't see the empathy viewpoint quite working where that is concerned because everything about that period flies right in the face of a natural capability to empathize.You think humans didn't have free will before Adam? What would be the point of that?
Think about how Genesis describes it. God creates humans in Gen1 and gives them very specific commands ...
1) be fruitful and multiply
2) fill/subdue the earth
3) establish dominance in the animal kingdom
This is exactly what homo sapiens did long before the timeframe that the Genesis/Adam story is set. Now, if this were the creation of Adam, as most people assume, how could Adam and his descendants be expected to carry out these tasks, which would take numerous generations to realize, if Adam/Eve couldn't even follow the one rule God gave them in the garden.
At the end of Gen1 God looks on all He made, including the humans, and deemed it all 'good'. Could He have really done that if Adam and Eve were part of the humans in Gen1?
Without free will, however, it makes sense that homo sapiens did exactly what God commanded of them. Because they behave according to God's will/natural law, and not of their own.Hmmm. Maybe. Still don't see the point. Unless God is like a computer programmer, trying out different scenarios. I guess eventually he's get bored, and throw some AI free will humans into the mix, to see how it goes?
Yes, I think that's very much how it is. Like a programmer. If God can see all of time all at once, if free will is truly a will free of His, then God cannot see what we'll do until free will is introduced.
Think about it like a programmer would do it. You run reality, that's one timeline. One that does not include free will. Then you run it again, only this time you introduce free will at a specific point. This causes another timeline that plays out differently. Now, in this second one, something happened you didn't anticipate. These free willed beings you created mated and procrreated with the humans you populated the world with. This introduced free will into humanity and was not the desired outcome. So you then create a flood during that particular point of the timeline when all those affected still populate a rather small geographical location, where a flood can get them all.
This is why I think it says God "regretted" putting humans on the earth. The same goes for the story where God tested Abraham. God can see the entirety of the timeline, but if God hadn't created the situation that made Abraham make a choice, then God really couldn't know what Abraham would do. God had to test Abraham by creating a situation that made him choose. Once that situation existed in the timeline, God could then see what he'd do.That's disturbing to say the least.
Make you feel like a puppet kind of.Actually, I would think it would make you feel the opposite. This means God truly gave us our own minds and wills that are truly separate and independent of His. To the point that He has to let things play out to see what you'll do. Very much un-puppet in that way.
But the puppet part still points to him knowing what we're going to do beforehand. If he doesn't already know then it removes his omnicience wouldnt it?
Especially something such as putting Abraham into a very traumatic, stressful situation, to "see what he'd do" smacks of some kind of weird messed up mind game to me. Doesn't it to you?
Really think about it.But really, think about what He's testing here. Isaac was the son blessed to Abraham by God in old age. If there's any situation where your own will would override God's, I would think this scenario would be a key one. Will Abraham choose to take this child's life if God asked him too? Or would his own want/will override God's?
Still. It's a mind game. Wouldn't you agree with that? It actually seems a bit sadistic to me. It would be traumatizing for both Abraham and Isaac.
Oh yeah, traumatizing to be sure, but not so much a game I don't think. That's why I always had an issue with this story because God was said to be omni-everything. So why put Abraham through that? Well, think about it in the context of a creator who's testing His creation. A creation that, by design, does not work according to your will. If you're looking to breed particular traits, looking to create particular traits, then this is what you'd do. You'd put that creation in a situation that forces them to make a choice to see what they'll do. Much like the garden scenario was a test. If God didn't want us to have the knowledge of good and evil, why put the tree there and then tell them, "Don't eat that"? Why not just not create the tree?
In fact it was after Abraham 'passed' this test that God promised He would make Abraham's descendants numerous. So, basically it seems to me that God found favorable traits in this one specimen and decided to breed from him.What favorable trait? The trait to obey God? That's the only thing I can think of in your scenario.
I don't think God wants bling obeyers who does His will all the time only. I think he wants us to think for ourselves and have minds of our own.
To know right from wrong. I think God would have wanted Abraham to say, "No way God, I can't do that, sorry".But the whole reason the natural world works as it does is because all matter/energy adheres to a single set of natural laws. This would be God's laws, in this regard. Free will is the equivalent of matter falling up. For the system to work, and contain beings with their own minds and their own wills, I see this as necessary. See my example in the comment above about driving.
You didn't really address what I said specifically about Abraham. Will you do that?
Do you mean the "favorable trait"? Yes the favorable trait in this regard would be that Abraham obey God, even if his own free will really doesn't want to do what's being asked of him. Does that address it?
I suppose it does.
It just seems that God wouldn't really do that to someone. Or want us to blindly obey. That's just a personal opinion for me, though.Well, if you're looking to see if someone will choose their own want over a direct command from the creator, what better scenario can you think of?
All the matter/energy in the universe "blindly obeys" the natural laws. That's how the whole system works. In fact, that's how most systems in natural work. Cells "blindly obey" the DNA code of the body. That's what allows the system as a whole to work.
Think about how dangerous free will can be. That means that we're able to have an impact on reality, on how the entirety of human history plays out. We are, in a sense, creators. We alter and change reality as we see fit. That's a powerful capability, that I see as well worth creating, but something that is volatile and must be created very carefully. Like the flood being necessary. Genesis actually says this omni-God "regretted" something. That, in my mind, is the only scenario I can imagine that God would regret. Having to send a flood and kill all those people.That's only your assumption of what God actually wants.
The test might be to see if Abraham would choose NOT killing, over a direct command. Maybe God wants self-discrimination, not obedience.Maybe, but it seems telling to me that after this God promises to make Abraham's descendants many. It seems He wouldn't have done that if Abraham hadn't responded favorably. But you're right, this is just the way I see it. I don't think of it so much as what God wants, as much as it's just plain necessary for numerous free willed beings to live for eternity. Besides, He did stop it before it happened.
It does seem telling, yes.
But I don't believe in the Bible, either. I don't think God wants what the Bible portrays.Well I guess that's where we differ. Even when I had issues with some of what the bible said, I could never dismiss it. Something doesn't have the impact that document has had if it doesn't speak to a lot of people on some profound level. This view I'm detailing makes sense out of the whole thing for me. And there's ample evidence, I feel, to show these events really did happen in our history. In fact, the events detailed in those first few chapters of Genesis seem to be detailing a period in history when God did directly interact with humanity. It's these events that set the modern human world in motion.
What God was looking for in Abraham was FAITH. This is what Abraham came through with - he had faith that his loving God would make the way for his son to be spared, that God would himself provide the sacrifice (He even told Isaac that God would provide the sacrifice). And God did just that - he provided the lamb then, and in time he provided the "Lamb" of Jesus Christ.
We can see that the key was Abraham's faith in the references to Abraham within the new testament. "For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." (Romans 4:16)
Also keep in mind that the story was a foreshadowing of God and Jesus at the cross.
If one can see the future then one would know what decisions you make. God would know he would ask Abraham questions and he would know Abrahams response.
But the situation would have to exist in the timeline for Abraham to make the decision right? Before it could be seen in the future, it has to exist. If the situation had never been created, there'd be no decision to see anywhere in the future.
Which brings up another question, if people acted in accordance to God's will, then how can our natural empathy come into play?
Thanks for indulging my questions, by the wayIf people acted in accordance to God's will naturally, then empathy wouldn't need to come into play. We would all follow the rules naturally.
Think about it in terms of cells in our bodies. There are trillions of cells that are able to work as one collective system because they all conform to a single DNA code. Free will would be the equivalent of each cell in your body having the choice whether or not to adhere. As you can imagine, this could quickly become detrimental to the system as a whole. Unlike the DNA code, which has been honed over numerous generations, each cell only lives a matter of days, and doesn't have the wisdom to make its own decisions about how to behave and what functions to perform. Each cell doesn't have the proper perspective to understand how it's decisions could impact the rest of the system.
Like say all the cells in your left hand decided they wanted to be a hand twice as big and blue. What they may not understand is that this now twice as large hand requires more bodily resources to function. They're robbing from the system to be what they want, probably without realizing it.
But if free will was introduced through Adam, then are you saying that everything was controlled prior to that? If so then our empathy would not be natural.
Yes, but they have no standard for morals, nothing that lays out their morals for them.
That's true.
I'm a theist, but I have no standards either.
Just that little voice inside that tells me not to do bad things. I feel some things are bad, and others are good. This may or may not have anything to do with God.
Christian and Muslim (among others) "standards" are suspect in my book.
I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong. I just know it. It's a feeling.I want to elaborate a little here.
My American society "standard" is that it's OK to have an abortion. (Because it's legal, and many people seem to think it's an OK thing to do)
I don't need anyone to tell me that, in my heart, it's NOT ok to have an abortion, and that it's a very very wrong thing to do.
We all have to decide on our own, I guess, what we think is right and wrong. We don't always agree on that.What I'm trying to say is that atheists don't have any reason to be moral if they don't believe in a god. They can pretty much do whatever they want.
You can pretty much say the same things about Christians. They have a free pass to do whatever they want, and get a free ticket to heaven NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO if only you believe.
Actually, no. That idea of "once saved always saved" is faulty. Think about it - imagine you're the manager of a football team. A new player just signed on. But you found out that he's secretly playing for the other team. Does that make sense at all? It wouldn't be logical for a god to let someone enter a lifelong commitment and then do whatever they want.
But it's preached often about his grace and mercy. So for those who believe in God are still safe according to some and they use the same bibles to back it up
Not even.
Christianity ONLY requires faith and repentance. Belief that Jesus died on the cross for us.
Anyone can get into Christian heaven. While a moral atheist can not.
How can the Christian keep willfully sinning (not talking about slips here and there, which all people do), since the believer has "died to sin" and has been "born again" and is now "alive in Christ" so that they are "free from the bondage of sin"? (See Romans 6)
1 John 3:8-10 "The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother."
Is it more moral to do good things to either avoid punishment or to obtain rewards or to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do? I really doubt you've been exposed to many atheists if morality is still your go to argument.
You can also do pretty much do whatever you want. You would just have to live with the consequences of your actions.
It takes a rather ethically immature person to state that without the threat of God one would be killing and raping or doing what ever they wanted.
Is that what YOU want to do but the threat of God's anger prevents you?Not true. The reason to be moral is because someone is moral. To introduce morals as a divine standard is to take the responsibility from people for their actions. Let me ask you this, if it were determined that there was no God would that mean those so called "morals" no longer become moral?
God sovereignty never minigates human responsibility. God means for things to happen, but humans are still responsible for their actions.
But you said without God there is no moral standard. So that confuses things. What it appears that you are saying is that there is only accountability because of God. Which brings the responsibility and accountability back to God especially when people use the bible and their Christian beliefs to justify doing bad things
Your question is faulty. It will never be proven that there is not a god, just as it will never be proven that there is one.
I disagree. My question is not faulty. Even if what you say Is true about God not being proven or disproven my question still stands hypothetically. In fact it stands realistically because your statement calls your whole morality thought process into question. If god cannot be proven or disproven then how do you know that morality comes from God? It appears that you are trying to find fault because you would prefer to not consider the possibility that morality can exist with or without God
Morality can exist without god, but there really is no point to it if there is no god.
Why? What's wrong with just trying to make good choices?
What's the "point" of being moral for God? So you can get into heaven?So there is no point to making good choices that will benefit society without God? Did I hear that correctly?
Are you and Sam the same guy? Same writing style, both just joined, no hubs. Are you bored?
You are the second person to mistake me for someone else. Sam and I certainly are not the same person. I disagree with his views on morality coming from God and that there is no point in being moral if God doesn't exist
Then you might want to differentiate yourself a bit, so people will quit making that mistake. Maybe write a hub or two, put up an avatar picture.
Why are you here anyway? Are you a sock, or just someone who "happened" to stumble across a random website and join the forum?You are the second one to accuse me of being someone else, not just sam. As far as me writing a hub, I will once I decide something to write. What purpose does having an avatar picture serve? It doesn't change the fact that I am an anonymous person on the internet.
I'm new here so I have no idea what a sock is.
I'm here for the same reason some others are here for. To have discussions and exchange ideas. As to how I found this site, I did a search and came across it. I entered the forums and read around for a few days before I actually joined.
Why are you here?I am here for writing bad poetry and socialization. I'm a boring person with no life.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.Socialization is good. Helps to pass time. I gotta ask, why write if you don't believe in the quality of your work? Seems like a waste.
Glad I could clear it upTherapy:)
It feels good when I write, if I'm in the mood. I would never claim good writing, I know where I stand on quality. It doesn't bother me.Okay, I understand. Thanks for answering my questions
Well, if you think about it, if there is no creator that deliberately created the universe, then there is no point to anything. Existence wasn't created deliberately for a purpose, so there is no 'point' to anything. Anything we assign meaning to is just that, us creating meaning and assigning it.
This brings up a question. What is the point to having a creator of everything? What purpose is there to there being someone who designed all of this. What does a creator get out of the deal?
Personally, I think it all goes back to free will. If everything in existence works exactly according to your will, if you were a God capable of creation, then there's no real love, no real friendship, nothing. Everything, every behavior and choice is what comes 'naturally'. If someone 'chooses' to love or spend their life with you, then it's not really their choice, but rather something their predisposed to do. But if there is free will, if there are beings with their own minds and their own wills, and they choose to love or be a friend, then that is real. It gives every action and every decision weight.
I understand where you are going, but if I as a creator created everything from the beginning to the end, then that would mean that I created the thought process that would guide your decisions. So that kinda would remove some of the free will elements that we hold on to. People claim that everything happening is according to God's will. At the very least, in order for the will and the actions to truly be free, wouldn't god have just created everything then walked away? This of course would contradict and negate the old testament.
Not everything happens according to God's will. See the garden of Eden story. The whole point of that story is to show that these two, unlike everything else in the natural world that God created in Gen1, were capable of doing something that went directly against God's will.
Based on our grasp of the natural world via science, it would seem we can't have a free will. That all of our actions and decisions would actually be determined by the matter of our brains acting according to natural law. We cannot actually make our own choices any more than a river can choose it's path in that regard.
This is what I think is significant about the Genesis story. This is the capability that God created through Adam. The whole reason there'd even be judgement or commandments would be only if free will exists. They're unnecessary without it.
It is true that the environment God created shaped us, so in that way God did make everything including the way our minds work. But if we were given free will, and can make choices and decisions based on our individual viewpoint, from our own viewpoint, then these are decisions and actions that have an impact on the world around us, not from God's perspective, and not of God's will, but of our own and from our own personal perspective.Now this brings another question. If it goes against God's will, but he allows it to happen anyway so he can exact judgment instead of stopping it, then would it not still be in his will for it to happen so he can do whatever comes next?
Well, technically, it is within His will that we have wills of our own that are truly free, or independent, of His. So, yeah, in that way, it is within His will. If that's what you mean?
So there is truly no such thing as free will. It's all still tied up in God's will
It is, but in this case His will is to give us minds and wills of our own. To the point that you have the choice whether or not you even accept Him. Which would be more meaningful, for those you love to love you back even though they have a choice to go elsewhere, or for them to love you because they're pre-conditioned to?
Of course for someone to love you even if they have another option. But even this can bring up another point. Don't you think there is some reconditioning at work when some one has to make a choice that can be based on fear? How can you still call it a free will choice if the other choice is horrible? I mean this isn't like choosing between coke or Pepsi. We're talking about paradise or torment. That doesn't necessarily seem like a fair choice. Love born out of fear is not love any more than precondition
That's why I think God has stepped back and no longer directly interacts as He did. If there were an all powerful God looming on the horizon watching over all we do, would we really be behaving of our own free will? Or out of fear?
Personally, I don't buy into the eternal torture in hell thing. Think about what the most well known verse in the bible actually says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish..."
When I read about the eternal flame, I read it as the flame being eternal, not the torment. That above verse says you will not 'perish'. Burning forever is not perishing. I think of it more along the lines of cells in a body. A free will that chooses not to adhere to the DNA code and behave according to it endangers the rest of the system. So, once you die, once your essence is free of this mortal/physical form, you cannot pass through to the next phase if you are not in line with the creator. If you do not acknowledge the creator's authority. In that case your more like a cancerous cell that endangers the rest of the system.
Because our wills are free, and because there are many of us, especially in an eternity setting, conflict is unavoidable. Therefore there must be rules. Kind of like our roadways. We are all free to go whereever we want whenever we want. As long as we adhere to the rules of the road that make those roads safe for everyone. You can freely choose to drive the wrong way down the freeway, but if you continue to break the rules, and continue to show no respect for the authority that sets and enforces those laws, then your freedom to travel those roads will be taken away.
I think if you die, if you have not of your own free will chosen to acknowledge God as the authority and creator of the universe, which means you of your own free will choose to follow His rules, then you "perish". That's how I see it, anyway.So you think that those who die not believing simply are gone and utterly cease to exist?
Thanks for your answer. I hope you didn't think I was attacking your position
That would be an argument to support that fact there is no free will, but only the following of "His rules and not in line with the creator" which would automatically rule out any free will.
Not exactly. As free will is first necessary before any of this even becomes relevant.
But, there is no free will if strict rules are to be followed. Simple concept.
There is as long as you're capable of breaking them. Rules are only necessary if they're breakable. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for the rule.
Free will is all about doing whatever you want and not having consequences. Having rules and consequences of eternal damnation is not free will.
Say what? Since when did 'not having consequences' become a condition of free will? I don't know any philosophical system (except possibly extreme hedonism, maybe) that holds that. All systems acknowledge that there are consequences, even if they differ on what those consequences are or would be.
Free will is the ability to make choices unconstrained. What do consequences have to do with that? It isn't part of the definition at all.
If it's not part of the definition then it's not part of the definition. If you make it part then it's part. You have to decide which way you want it.
"Unconstrained" does NOT mean "without consequences." It means "without any restraints."
So which is it? The ability to make decisions without anyone forcing you to choose a particular way (i.e. unconstrained) or the ability to make decisions without there being any consequences (which, no matter what philosophical or ethical system you adhere to, flies in the face of reality. All actions have consequences.)I have no idea what you're talking about.
So what?
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sure, all actions have consequences, so what?
You're trying to explain to me that free will must have the consequences of going to hell, which is not free will at all. It's no different than a gun to your head.I believe you have no idea what I'm talking about. That seems to be a running theme between us. Yet you seem to be the only one who has that problem.
No I'm not. You're the one reading the part about 'going to hell' into it. You're also the one who said that free will means being able to do what you want without consequences. You didn't qualify that statement in any way. And I haven't specified what the consequences of any given action or mindset would be. All I said was that actions have consequences.
If you mean, "There is no free will if strict rules are obeyed with no possible exception to that under any circumstances" then you might have a case. But as long as it's possible to break the rules, even theoretically, then yes, there is free will.
Like the saying goes, "Even if you choose not to decide, you've still made a choice."There is no definition of free will that has rules attached to it. Are you making this up?
"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
Free will just means the opposite of destiny or fate.
You seem to be the only one who thinks "free will" means not having consequences.I don't see anything in the definition of free will that has to do with consequences or rules. That would indicate the term free will has been misused or is a facade to Christianity, hiding the fact there is no free will whatsoever within that religion.
It doesn't say that there aren't any rules either.
It just says that there isn't fate, or predetermination.
There is a lot of wiggle room in the laws of physics for free will to take place. Room for decisions.
Do you believe in fate?Exactly, but we can't just invoke rules into the definition where none exist.
That would not indicate any rules were necessary.
True, but they will always be constrained within the laws of physics.
I don't see anything in nature that would support the concept of fate. I see probabilities and possibilities.I don't see where we disagree on this subject.
What is there beside free will or fate? I see them as opposites. You can either make decisions (within the constraints of natural law-the "rules", with all the possible consequenses of those decisions) or have everything predetermined.
What else is there?Probabilities and possibilities, which pretty much rule all of reality.
Well, that's the way things work in reality. If you don't want to believe in how things work, that's fine too.
Of course, not everyone thinks reality is based on probablility. To each his own though. I'm glad for you that you think you know everything. It must be a nice horse to perch on.
That's not a problem, except when it comes to when reality shows us that whatever others believe it to be based upon are forced to conjure magical answers with invisible beings in their attempt to explain, when all they manage to accomplish is producing contradiction and confusion, to which they ultimate have to respond: "God works in mysterious ways, who are we to understand?".
I'm not sure where you get the notion I think I know everything, certainly I never said such a thing or would ever say such a thing, there is far too much knowledge for any troubled man to absorb in one lifetime.
What I am referring in regards to probability and possibility is there are many possibilities to explanations, magical ones included, however unlikely they are. But, that is where probability comes in, it gives us an indication of how "likely" a possibility is when compared to what we know about things, the reasonable and the credible. Magical explanations, although possible, have infinitesimally tiny probability, so small, that they are negligible to the point of being little more than a notion in ones imagination.
This is how science examines reality and how reality responds in kind.We were discussing free will vs predetermination. You said neither were true, and that reality is based on probablility. At least, that's what I got out of our conversation. It made me think you though reality is based on random chance.
No, that is not what I said.
And, possibility. They are both used by science to analyze reality.
"Rules" does not equal "consequences."
Yes, I'm convinced that you are indeed making this up.
Replied to the wrong post. Meant to reply to the one where you were going on about how without God life is meaningless.
But how is that wrong? If the universe were not deliberately intended, then there'd be no deliberate point to any of it, right? How can we humans, who only showed up 13.6 billion years later, assign purpose and meaning to an existence that had nothing to do with us?
But what would be the point of a deliberate intention for creation?
I think he's trying to get me back because he took issue with me saying his view of the biblical writers, basically assuming the worst of intentions at nearly every turn, I saw as jaded.
But it may not be jaded. It may just be an honest view based on what he read. I understand his mafia reference as according to if the fire and brimstone vision of hell is correct
The perspective that every action has a reaction would exist in this situation. However, no individual is an island. Therefore, in addition to the action and reaction duo, expansive good and evil within the human society exists. It is the environment filled with good and evil that then presents the dilemma.
Free Will is only a minuscule portion of the human landscape. Individual Free Will is bounded and restricted by the opposing Free Will of other individuals. This organization of multiple Free Will individuals then presents a dynamic society whereby good and evil clash.
Additionally, many societies have been formed using various sets of laws and rules managed by leaders based on fear of strength. Through expansion of the number of good and evil societies through fear and strength, the world is filled with deadly chaos.
During one period, however, comes a man spreading love through righteousness. He declares the leaders who use fear and strength to enslave the individuals as evil leaders. This enrages the evil leaders and they crucify him. But, the great man spreading love through righteousness is found to be much stronger than the evil. He is crucified but lives. This confuses many and they call him a devil, but when he proceeds to spread love through righteousness, those who follow him live a wonderful life through the righteous path that he has paved for them. A new righteous assembly is then generated by the righteousness that spreads like the wind.
The words are written and new generations begin to follow the loving righteous path the great spirit provides to them. They become very powerful and good through the commandments and laws provided by the righteous followers. Their mass of followers grows and so the evil ones become as terrorists in the night who kill and maim because they cannot overcome the righteous ones.
The evil then continues to attack through the spread of deceit and false tales in an attempt to stop the righteous gatherings. These reactions to the positive righteous actions grow and grow as the evil ones expand their quest to make evil more powerful than righteousness. These evil actions include many detrimental to each individual that result in physical and mental damage to the individual.
But, regardless of the evil chaos being thrown about, the righteous followers continue to retain the most power because they live through the loving righteous path spreading the glory word of the prior ancestors. So, regardless of the Free Will proponents, the righteous praise only those that recognize the limits of Free Will.
Thus, the evil world societies continue in their quest to degrade the greatest society by spreading false accusations just as the leaders did so long ago when they crucified the greatest human to ever walk the earth.
I choose to live and walk this same path regardless of the evil doers.
This is my Free Will.
This means that regardless of any other individual who spreads deceit opposing my Free Will, I will continue to walk my path to glory.
Ok.. And then what after that? Especially if you factor in a creator whose creation apparently had missed the mark of his presumed original intent?
There are some denominations of Christianity that think since you have been saved and baptized then you are safe no matter what and as such can do whatever as long as you repent afterward
Imagine this: you want to go to Montana, or someplace else that you've never been before. The only thing is, you don't want to use any maps or anything to get there. You ask six of your friends and a monkey to draw a map to this place. You recieve seven maps, and you look at them all. Six of them look basically the same - a compass, lines, and maybe a basic drawing of the place where you're going. But one looks radically different from the left. It's crazy; it doesn't look like any other map that you've ever seen before.
This same idea is true with Christianity. All other religions look exactly the same, but one looks radically different. In all major religions, there is heaven and there is earth. Picture a mountain. You have to do a lot of good in order to climb up that mountain and get to the religion's god.
Christianity is different, though. Instead of being up on top of the mountain, the god actually comes down from the mountain and leads you up the mountain for you. No other religion does this. So thus, if Christianity is this different and sticks out from the croud, it must have been made by a god and not by man. And thus, Christianity must be true, mustn't it?No, I don't see it that way. Christianity is only different in that a person is supposedly saved from eternal Hell by Jesus by belief.
Your reasoning is off in my opinion.
Christianity is a lot like many other religions anyway if you really take the time to compare the similarities, which I won't get into at the moment.Do you not want to get into the similarities, or are there just not any? Please tell.
It's because I've been up and down this road a thousand times. Christianity is based off of other religions, or comes from the same source (I don't know which). (Except for the faith part)
Mithras is the perfect example, the most closely resembling Jesus. Osiris/Horus is a close second.
Not really. It could be a construct of a human that just wanted to be different. Just because there are different processes doesn't automatically make it a divine truth. In some cases it could be the opposite
You said you were a theist by the way. Shouldn't you be siding with me janesix?
Theists disagree all the time. Look at these forums. The primary thing theists agree on is the belief in a deity. It's not a theist against the atheist battle. Everyone is in search of the truth even if some are already convinced of the answer
Not really.
I was an atheist once, and I have the same morals basically that I did then. The only moral I have that is different is that of adultery, which at one time didn't seem morally wrong to me, but now does. And that has nothing to do with theology, just a rethinking of the subject.
Atheists have the same moral capacity as theists. I don't think morals come from religion, they come from inside.
Let's examine this. If you think moral standards come from God, which God? Which version of god? Is everyone that does not accept that God therefore immoral?
Do you need a god or a book to tell you that it's probably wrong to kill someone? If so, why are all atheists not running around killing people at will?Fear of going to Hades is one reason that atheists do not run around killing people.
Fear of being incarcerated or put to death is one reason that atheists do not run around killing people.
My Christian Moral Standards come from my God.
Other people may declare their Moral Standards come from their personal belief.
I do not believe that everyone that does not accept my God is immoral.
However, many who do not accept my God continuously challenge my acceptance of him.
If I don't believe that the Christian god exists, why would I be afraid of going to Hades (which is the Greek version of hell, incidentally, not the Christian lake of fire). I am also not afraid of being incarcerated or put to death. I don't run around killing people because I have no desire to take another human life, and I can't conceive of being angry enough that I would have to kill because of it.
You may think that your Christian Moral Standards come from the Christian god, but chances are incredibly high that they existed PRIOR to your Christian god entering the picture. Are things moral because your god commands them, or are they commanded by your god because they are moral?
My moral "standards" come from society and the philosophy that life is preferable to death, and that harm is typically bad. I strive to not harm people. I wouldn't follow the commands of any deity that would order me to kill. I don't challenge your acceptance of your god. The only part that I would challenge is if you think anyone else should accept your god as well. Unless evidence can be provided that your god does, in fact, exist and that it is moral, There is no reason for me to follow it. That's really the bottom line.
How can you say you know moral atheists yet say they have no standards of moral behavior. If you think they are moral, then that means they must have some kind of standards
Good grief. So Atheists don't have basic human standards and reasoning skills, a conscience, or common sense to help them determine what is moral? Only Christians have these skills? Give me just a small break here. In my opinion, morals come from within, not solely from religions, holy books, or deities. You can have all the religion in the world, be devout, read from any holy book of your choice and pray to or worship whatever god you so choose but you can still be a cold, heartless, selfish, hateful person that cares for no one but yourself in every way. I've witnessed this first hand as a child and continue still to this very day.
I think it is mostly just metaphor/allegory etc. I enjoy your discussions though, your ideas are interesting.
Thank you for that. I enjoyed the discussion too. I tried to look at it as metaphor and allegory, but the whole thing breaks down for me because Jesus spoke of those early Genesis stories as if they really happened. The whole Paulinian viewpoint centers around this idea of Jesus being the last Adam. In this context that makes sense to me. Because it was Adam/Eve behaving contrary to God's will that made Jesus necessary. Something as simple as believing Jesus died on the cross and came back from the dead three days later, just believing that in itself, means you acknowledge God as the creator because He's capable of this. That puts Paul's take in a light that makes sense to me.
"Free will is all about doing whatever you want and not having consequences. Having rules and consequences of eternal damnation is not free will."
Says who?
To me, free will is just having the ability to make choices, within the laws of physics.What makes you think free will is about no consequences? Those of us that live in 'free countries' are free to do whatever we want, but there are still rules and consequences. If it were just you in eternity, then sure, you could do whatever you want. But to have many with free will, clearly not everyone can do what they want because the wants of one might infringe on the wants of another. So rules are necessary. Rules are only not necessary without free will.
Are you comparing secular societies that have laws with the Bible? Are you saying the consequences are based on doing good things compared to bad things?
That makes no sense, nor is part of the definition of free will.
A lot of people that saw Jesus do miracles didn't believe and that's partly why many don't see them today- nothing would make them believe because they don't want rules even though the rules are for their own good like a parent tells a child to look both ways before crossing the street- so our heavenly father watches over us and guides us with Love.
Related Discussions
- 67
"Christianity" vs. "Roman Catholisism"
by Dave Mathews 5 years ago
Christianity I see as the following of and the belief through faith, in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the acceptance through faith that Jesus is God.Roman Catholisism embraces most, but not all of Jesus teachings but not all, and then interjects different teachings into the Roman Catholic...
- 934
What Defines A Christian?
by Melissa Barrett 11 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is that not all Christians believe the same thing, and not even members of our own...
- 33
Is Christianity a Good Worldview and Religion?
by Paula 13 years ago
There are many worldviews and religions in the world. Sometimes it seems like it is just a matter of picking one over another. Everyone has a worldview, and a philosophy they agree with most.I think, its a good idea to examine our own worldviews, and see if they stand the most critical...
- 47
"Catholicism" Christian?
by qwark 15 years ago
Is catholicism the antithesis of the concept "christian?"
- 19
Christians - being Christ-like
by Madeline Perry 5 years ago
I wonder if people took the 'religion' out of Christianity and started to live life according to Jesus' teachings, then people's opinions of Christians would change?Many wars have been started over religion, but I want to ask you, did Jesus kill anyone? I don't recall Him doing so. Or did...
- 1620
Christian Discussion
by Brenda Durham 14 years ago
I've noticed there's a zillion threads about Christianity and other beliefs, etc. (Well, not a zillion, but ya know); and I think they're all hugely interesting. But haven't seen one that's specifically labeled for Christian discussion.Someone please point me to one if...