End Time Prophesy
Emile or Encephaloidead please help
do you know the game Make Me Laugh?From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Make Me Laugh is an American game show in which contestants watched three stand-up comedians performing their acts, one at a time, earning one dollar for every second that they could make it through without laughing. Each comedian got sixty seconds to try to crack the contestant up.
So what now?In the game, the person is under their own control of whether or not to laugh. The jokester cannot assume a laugh from the contestants and make it happen. There is still only a 50/50 chance. Depends on the laugher. He is in control.
What are you trying to convey here? How does this relate to this exchange that you are having with us?
Some are saying that my imaginary God is making them do stuff just because he knows them well enough to know what they will decide. Make them stop!!! Please???
Uh...weren't we just discussing God (who most "evidently" is NOT there) being responsible for our actions because he knows what we will decide???
I said no such thing. Show me where I said God was responsible for our actions?
What did you mean by predetermined actions???
If God sees the future or the future already exists and physics explains then our actions and decisions have already been made. I didn't say God made them for us.
So you're blaming your helpless condition of puppetry on physics? Or anything?
Only some parts of the future are predetermined. Your part in the grand scheme is based upon your decisions.Living in a deterministic universe is not a matter of psychological helplessness. I mean, we may all be living in one right now, many Christians believe they are, there is no real way to tell.
PREDESTINEDI
PSALM139 I SET YOU APART BEFORE YOU WERE BORN JEREMIAH BEFORE YOU WERE BORN I SET Y OU APART AS A PROPHET OF ALL NATIONS
You should really learn the definition of the words "PREDETERMINED" and "PREDESTINED. And you should really pay attention, as it is glaringly apparent that you have not grasped this concept....even after exhaustive attempts to get through, your delusion is making your mind impenetrable. Remember, also, that learning is a passive experience.
Seems the terms of predestination and predetermination are not thoroughly clarified. A thing predestined is one whose outcome is established by its beginning, regardless of the in-between. A thing predetermined is those events, with or with a destination, in-between. Philosophers have often noted determination as the conscious mind at work, or Reason making decisions, to think or determine (alter or succumb) the elementals of said in-between.
Every human is predestined to have a body, a brain, a spirit, free will, etc. yet not predetermined on how they should use them. As with the circle of life, nature is predestined and predetermined. A plant cannot uproot itself, sprout feathers and fly, regardless of ten billion-billion years of evolving. It is immovable, unable, inept. Its course was determined for it, as well as its destiny.
In my opinion, it is often the negative connotation associated with predestination that stirs people to both believe it is the same as predetermination and that it is a bad thing. If putting it into context, regardless of the in-between humans are enabled to do, they will ultimately become (restored to) their original form; receive the outcome of there desires, there interaction with predestination, based on the probability of outcomes.
And, regardless of knowing every probable angle of action one would or would not take does not negate predestination as determination. It proves even more the two are not the same. As a simple example, I known 366 methods for cooking eggs, yet cannot determine how you will order them, eat them, cook them, etc. I can only prepare for any possible outcome, and the results of said outcomes to make your experience complete. That makes me responsible for the experience, not your interaction with it.
Perhaps, just perhaps this is the greatest thing misunderstood concerning Creator/creation. Creation is providing all probabilities, pro or con. That is the core meaning of predestination. Predetermination, at least for humans, would completely remove the experience of any and all of those probabilities aka a potted plant.
JamesOooo!!! My turn...
Eph 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.James 2:13-23
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
Ephesians 2:9-2:10
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.I will show you my faith by what I do... did you hear that? Abraham believed God; so he moved as God said to move. He showed his faith by belief and then action to move as God said move. We have instruction. And no matter how much we love our fellows we cannot "work" opposite of what God said. If He says tell them your shirt is blue. You must show your faith in him and commence the "work" he said by saying your shirt is blue. For if you say turquoise, you've "worked" yourself away from him.
Yes, that's what we are supposed to do. It's what most Christians I know do. They follow his lessons to feed and cloth the poor and help the needy. Aid the sick, give comfort to those in pain. That such.
Yes, but that alone is not salvation. Many horrible people are nice enough to give a brother a sandwich occasionally.
Man shall not live by bread alone; but by every word that comes from God. We gotta give them "good" food.Again, I think most of the Christians I know do that. I'm sorry to be blunt, but what is the point you are making again? That you need to have faith and do good deeds? Yes, you have to do BOTH. From a Christian standpoint, all talk and no action is bad and all action and no faith is also bad.
I don't think any Christian is doing volunteer work thinking, "Well, I don't believe in Christ but I'm going to do what I didn't think he said anyway"My point is that we must align with what the bible says. It is here to teach. When we put our feeling into the mix, we err. We cannot lean to that. The bible tells us that we don't think like him. We have to agree with what he says is right by faith. He works out the kinks with us as time passes. But we start with faith in him.
Yes, again, that's what most Christians I know do, obviously. Can I ask why you are saying all of this? I mean it really is basic stuff I think everybody knows.
"...prepared in advance for us to do."
Think about that. The work was prepared in ADVANCE. And wrote down.
We cannot call it tainted (because God didn't sit down with pen in hand) and then lean to what WE feel should be ok. We must align with him.
BY GRACE HE TURNED THE CHEEK FOR ALL SIN.
COLLOTIANS "PUTTING ON THE NEW MAN"
eph ^ 10 ARMOR
IT IS PURPOSELY PERPETRATING JESUS UNTIL WE ARE FREE
LOTS OF ACTIONS
Oh! To add to one of my previous posts: he does not like Christian pride or pride pride either. We boast in the Lord. No more I.
What about atheist pride? Because I am happy for everyone to proud of their identity (to the extent it harms none)--and I expect the same consideration in return.
Pride is an interesting thing. From my POV, it makes no sense for me to take pride in anything over which I have no control-things that I didn't, or couldn't, make happen. I can't be proud to be a woman, or an American, or a blond. I am those things by birth. I am proud to be a wife, a mother-those are things I chose to do and put every effort into doing well. Does that make sense?
It does. But people are bad at neutrality so I am happy for them to be proud of their life as a [x] or with how they experience and express their [x]ness rather than ashamed. So long as they do not denigrate non[x]ness.
Pride goes before destruction. Guess where I got THAT one from...
From my understanding, God made man in his image. He lived with the man it seems for a while until he made the woman. I figure God is male. Jesus called his father he, not it or he/she.
Both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2 show us God creating both male AND female in his image. You can believe anything you like, of course, but I just don't see the female of our species having been created as an afterthought "for" man. As a complement to man, certainly, which would indicate, to me at least, that divine balance requires both male and female energy.
Sounds interesting. My thought is, Jesus would have made clear his idea of the male/female God. I haven't seen that. Additionally, he made no special remark about his own mother who is revered to this day.
The custom was that man be circumcised. Women be submissive. Her head was her husband. From God. Now, would he submit himself...? Would not his woman side have kicked in? Or is this one of those "shady" words of scripture?I am not going to argue this with you. If you believe that God is male and that as such only men were made in his image-despite the fact that his word-THE BIBLE-not me-says otherwise, feel free. Your God sure lives in a tiny box and is unbelievably narrow minded. I'm gratef that mine is not. Funny, you're certainly not concerned about being a submissive woman when it comes to preaching and such.
Go ahead and argue this one with someone else-I'm not interested. This time you aren't fighting my words-you're fighting the words of the bible-which in this case have a plain meaning that doesn't in any way need interpretation."Your God sure lives in a tiny box and is unbelievably narrow minded. I'm grateful that mine is not"
You wanna rethink that???
Narrow is the way... few find it.???The path may be narrow, Genaea, but HE is not. You minimize him constantly without recognizing it. That's sad to see.
What's sad to me is one who says he follows God, but does not agree with him. We must serve in spirit and truth. (Bible says so)
God has one mind. Not millions.You see what you choose to see in others, Genaea, with never a consideration for the fact that you may be wrong. Pray for me, please. If you are truly that concerned for my soul, please, please pray that God will show me the error of my ways!
Has God recently told you that it's you who will be reading my heart and judging me in the final days? If not, I'm going to continue to follow HIM and change and grow according to HIS directives rather than yours.And, just out of curiosity, how does my supporting that God created both male and female in his image disagreeing with him?
That was not the prompt for what I considered disagreement. I went back to homosexuality.
God being man? I'm not sure it will make or break.
My idea is that the woman was called the weaker vessel. God is mighty.
She was made from man. Adam was formed with the stuff of God. She, the stuff of man. Maybe the quoted scripts were God created them; and the other, how he did it.
Again, I do not consider it a weighty matter. Women are here. We have purpose too.I didn't mention homosexuality. At all. You just assumed that you know what I believe about that. But thanks for the clarification.
Actually no. I have a tendency to talk about what im talking about. It was the disagreement about what the bible says/does not say about it. You, if not in that conversation, caught some crossfire
sorry...
Your bible tells you absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Your opinions about it are formed from within your own presumptions which are totally devoid of facts yet loaded with bias.
Now, some facts: You have allowed yourself to be indocrinated by other minds with an ulterior motive. In allowing yourself to be swayed by what you read in ancient, ambiguous, mythological texts of another culture, you show yourself to be extremely unintelligent, regardless of your attempts here to show yourself otherwise.
You have found yourself a medium of communication which allows you front-of-stage spotlight exposure for your views. You give out statements as though you have memorised them parrot-fashion. You don't give the impression that you have thought them through critically or with understanding.
How many hours per day do you sit at your computer? Have you a disability that keeps you from getting out of the house? Can you walk around and get yourself company? Fresh air? Exercise? Food?Uh-oh... I done gone and made you angry??? Didn't mean to.
It says that homosexuality is wrong (to my eyes) but I know you have a different set.
I'm not handicapped or without company or air. Thanks for asking. just broke!
I have no real appointments. School a couple nights a week. No JOB!!! but maybe it is my lot for now. Im cool with it. I got everything I need and a few I want. Cool as a cucumber.
I've got aaaaaalll day with you jonny!!! Idnt it neat???
So you think God literally has gender specific genitalia, beard and pointless nipples just like human males?
Why is everything sexual with this bunch?
God is spirit. Not flesh. He made man in his image with parts for sex.
Men and women are different. They walk, talk, act, think, feel, realize much differently. Women are smaller and weaker too. Different creatures altogether.So if your god is spirit why would "he" be concerned with such a physical phenomenon as sexual intimacy? We are not getting in his way so he should not vet in our way.
He's not in your way. We are supposed to be in his. Sex doesn't bother God. He just has rules.
Yet you have never even SEEN a God, let alone HEARD any God assert any RULES. You have seen no Gods nor heard any Gods, yet you blatantly state that you know what "bothers" him. This delusional worldview suggests a dangerous disconnect from reality.
So God is a Primate?
Then He huffed and He puffed.....and blew the house down! Whoop! Wrong fairy tale...same outcome.
How can a woman even begin to think such misogynistic nonsense, let alone accept it as reality? And you just outright reject the truth...that the authors of this nonsense were misogynistic, racist, homophobic ignoramuses.....ergo, male chauvinist patriarchal pigs, who had a very low opinion of women.A male chauvanist pig is someone who still thinks 'harrass' is two words!
THEY??? I may only suggest. No way for me to do you. I have my own thoughts. Thanks.
That's not true. You FOLLOW the writings of ancient dubious authors, and you have no way of knowing who these people were. You just regurgitate what someone else told you, after they "interpreted" the writings of these ignorant goat herders. And, through your indoctrination, you believe that this is a direct connection to the Creator of the universe. ROFL!!!!
How can that be your own thoughts?
There are at least 613 sins in the Bible. Why is everyone so focused on homosexuality?
Because according to some, the other 612 are bad but okay as long as you aren't gay?
Good question. They are all wrong as has been MY point. But the same-sex debate continues because I guess; well I don't know. Maybe we needed this.
"We have purpose too." How apologetic. I am increasingly please I do not subscribe to the same philosophy.
It appears that the confusion about God and what is coming in the last days has to do with identity. God is Spirit, it was never a man and consequently has no sex. Therefore it never fathered a child and cannot be manipulated by men. Read Isaiah 45:4-8.
The New Testament was compiled by Jerome on the orders of Damasus, the then Bishop of Rome, at the end of the 4th CAD. The book of Matthew reproducers the story of Chrishna (Krishna) the third person of the Vedic trinity. This is where the idea of three gods arose. Jerome wrote of the way he changed things in the OT to make them align with his creation.
Constantine, who is identified in Revelation 13:13-18 as 666, also invented Jesus Christ, according to these words. He then forced everyone to worship the image he created. He eatablished the Catholic Church in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea and built the Vatican and the first Christian churches.
The Spirit is jealous for its children, who are called the House of Israel. They have nothing to do with the Jews but they know and serve God. They have been tested throughout the course of the day of the lord, which is 4,000 years long. They are the children of the Job, that were given over to the dark mountains to be tried there, They are the religions that have manufactured their own gods and tried to change the nature of the Spirit to suite their purposes.
We are at the end of that time now and judgement will be for those who oppose the truth and helped build the wall of confusion which is evident when reading through this debate.
Jesus Christ came in the middle of it and in Isaiah 59:10 it explains how it brought about the darkness that you most are groping in looking for the light. That was 2,000 years ago and now it will come to an end as the Spirit is back and pouring over its people universally. They are speaking in tongues, healing the sick and communicating with God in ways that religions cannot imagine. The fact that they condemn anyone who claims these things is a signal of their refusal to believe in a real and powerful God who is bringing the world as we know it to an end.Those who are not deaf and blind through religious teachings will.
hmmm...I'm not deaf and blind due to religious teachings as I'm an atheist, and I don't believe it either. It is JUST close enough to parts of the truth, but just not quite.
I can probably agree there. But deaf and blind are within as well as outside of religion.
What is this? Where is this being taught? By whom?
You said that Jesus was manufactured. Then a ways down, you say (out the blue) Jesus came in the middle of it. But middle of what, remains a mystery to me.
I noticed the scripture quoting but you have rewritten the scripture. Do you readthe bible?I have not rewritten scripture but religions have. That's why they all have different versions of the bible. I am quoting from King James published 1642 from original. Jesus Christ was manufactured by Constantine and Revelation 13:13-18 states just that. Open your eyes and you might see. But I think you wallow in your deafness and just like to make fun of anything you cannot understand. That's fine as you were not meant to know the truth that is meant only for the Spiritual Children of God. No offence.
Oh I understand. No offense taken. The truth is not hidden. You are new fangled. You sound like the ones the bible speaks about coming in the last days with signs and wonders. Maybe you're the one jonny's been looking for.
Do you do majick???I'm probably going to regret this, but where do you come up with that?
Most of that actually sounded a lot more sensible than YOUR worldview.
pre·sup·po·si·tion
/prēˌsəpəˈziSHən/
noun:
1. a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.It seems important to say that I know that I am laxed on citing my source. But it, for some reason, is just not committed to memory to the point where i may. and I generally do this freestyle. I know it's there...
More than likely, some "study" occurs.
Thanks for doing what I most often cannot. (You know who you are)My family here is spotless. Again, you know who you are...
No condemnation. No spot or wrinkle. No fault. No stain. Redeemed. Faithful.
I am full to the point of needing another cup.
I just had to say. ♥Yep, anyone who doesn't require you to think....is a real relief from the burden of honest debate. As long as you have people willing to support this shared delusion, it will continue to fester, like the deadly cancer that it truly is. This bible verse shows just how little respect these goat herders had for the masses. What?....become like CHILDREN....so you can trick us?!!!
Matthew 18:3
Verily I say unto you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.And you running yo cancer all by yourself. Respectfully, Sir.
Become as little children??? You don't say... What does THAT mean??? Come as little what? Please explain.My world view has not made me into an unthinking, blind, flunky. Therefore it is not a cancer....like your primitive worldview, that wipes out it's follower's intellectual honesty.
Look around at most of the believers on this forum. It's even a trait that you all have boasted about, with pride. Just plain embarrassing. SMDH!
Why do you ask? Is one of your kids grounded and making you crazy in an attempt to get out early?
Hey Mo. We made-up didn't we?
No, my heart has been agonizing over a situation that seems a bit like some sort of injustice.
My brother was stopped DWB... illegal search and seizure... he was just minding his own (and my dad's) business. And the cops came... locked him up.
Thanks for asking.I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers and hope everything works out for the right. I haven't ever been in that situation, but I imagine it's a difficult one.
Take care.
All PKs are brainwashed. And YOU turned out "just fine..." what makes youto tthink that others won't be so "lucky"???
Another important aspect to note is that Jesus (pbuh) never folded or conceded in the face intense and seemingly deadly opposition. Not only that, his true followers endured severe and persistent persecution for generations but never conceded or compromised even in the face of death. Fabricators who are pursuing gains and power do not and are not able to endure like this.
Great points, and an interesting point of view. It is because they knew it was true, and fabricators are into fabricating and at some point what is the point of taking the heat for a fabrication?
I would have to question just how many followers DID "fold or concede", and had their names wiped from the roles of followers as a result.
Most non-fabricators do not and are not able to endure like that either.What do you mean wiped from the roles of followers?
If they caved in, if they folded or conceded, suddenly they were never one of those "true believers" amer786 mentioned. Just another failure, or maybe a pawn of Satan, pretending all along. Anything but a "true believer" who would never cave in.
It's a very convenient method of making sure that all followers are pure and would never compromise their belief. If they are driven to compromise, by pain or other method, then they were never a follower in the first place.It may not be widely discussed in certain circles but it's well known that a great many people recanted in the face of death. However, it serves to make the cases of the true martyrs stand out even more. And the Roman state was not usually all that eager to kill these people. Nero's persecution notwithstanding, most of the time the Roman government, whoever the representative was, tried very hard to make it as easy as possible for the person to live, they didn't even have to really mean it.
The way you phrase it makes it sound like church leaders wiped the names of those who recanted from church records. That's pretty unlikely. More likely is that those records didn't survive the sacking of Rome.Ok. Depending on what Amer meant exactly, I would have to disagree slightly. I think people could totally cave in under pressure, and have still been a true believer. This is kind of sad to say, but it would be almost like a temptation that was given in to. The temptation to want to have some horrible torture stopped or death averted. That person may not even be a weak person, considering the horrendous situation.
The stranger situation which was part of another conversation here and not Amer's, is that it would be must stranger to picture a person enduring serious torture for what they KNEW to be a lie, then dying for it. It makes no rational sense to trust that would be the case.but we do know that people throughout the last 1500 years have undergone serious torture for things that they KNEW to be untrue, but chose to undergo and persevere anyway as to save their friends and/or family members. For example, they would refuse to name names of others, who would then be arrested under crimes of witchcraft or being a jew in the inquisition - even under torture and inevitable death. We had others admit to being witches even when the charges were NOT true in order to either hasten death or try to escape from it or prevent others from being harmed. These stories are plentiful throughout the history of the church.
To expand on what I meant . . .
Looking at persecution and perseverance as criteria should extend and span sufficiently for it to establish as criteria and a core trend or position should be discernable. People definitely would have folded. Who was really a true believer or not we do not know. And others may wrongfully have died or killed for a cause. But we are looking for a core trend here, and one that repeats often enough.
In the case of the three great Abrahamic religions this is something to consider. Moses (pbuh) and the Jews faced off against the powerful Pharaoh. The early Christians vs. the Jews and The Romans that lasted 300 years! And the early Muslims bore through 13 years of intense persecution and boycott at Mecca before migrating to Medina when a confederate army was raised against them in an attempt to exterminate the nascent movement of Islam once and for all.
The Quran makes several mentions of those believers whose hearts folded and they deserted when they saw armies several times their size. The Book of Exodus is full of the agitation of many Jews against Moses (pbuh) as he led them out of Egypt. And yes, Jesus’s (pbuh) disciples ran for cover during the crucifixion. But the key is, in all instances it never changed the outcome.
That's not true. 9 Muslim extremists crashed airplanes into buildings, and since Christians believe that Islam is a lie (at least most of them), it is fully possible to die for a lie when you believe it to be the truth. Look at the trial transcripts for the inquisition and the witch hunts. People died for lies to protect others or preserve their dignity under torture. It's not as uncommon as you think.
This is what made the apostle's martyrdom so incredible a witness and testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ. They lived with and followed Jesus and KNEW FOR A FACT whether or not what he did was ACTUALLY true or not. So when they went to their own deaths, it was legit, and for facts. So no other martyrdom for Jesus that came after those particular witnesses died will carry the same weight, and mean so much. They COULD be dying for a lie or not, you don't necessarily know it like in the case of the apostles. They would have been IN FACT dying for an actual LIE, in that case, IF it was a lie. Its a concept worth trying to wrap your head around, though it seems strange.
The Muslims that flew the planes in the buildings died for what could have been a lie, or not. They don't know their beliefs for fact like Jesus' followers did, that saw him raise Lazarus and later himself from the dead. The inquisitions and witch hunts example, they died for lies to protect others or preserve dignity, etc. People drank Koolaid and died... it is so sad, and yes that happens. Apostles of Jesus, and whoever else that saw and died the same, a totally different story.but the only evidence that exists for the martyrdom of the apostles is limited Biblical sources, which may or may not be true, and early church history/mythology. there are lots of stories about them, but they all come from relatively biased sources that claim a lot of far-fetched things. So no, we don't KNOW what they knew/didn't know. We know what is said of them and what is claimed that they knew. Nothing more.
The same could be said about almost anything really. I mean, no one really disputes Socrates existence, despite only two authors who were contemporary referring to him ever, and one of them extremely heavily biased. And our oldest surviving work of either of these authors is about 1100 years after Socrates time. It could be argued that Socrates never existed, and his students risked their lives on a fable designed to teach moral character and Justice, the same things Martyrs all over the world believe they are dying for. (Of course, no record exists of Socrates claiming to either be a god, or a medium by which mortals can know god.)
yes, but nobody is claiming that Socrates was the son of god, and unless you believe in him, you're going to burn in hell for eternity - now are they? Socrates was just a man. Whether or not he actually existed is relatively unimportant. Extreme claims require extreme evidence. There is not extreme evidence for the person, works and deeds of Jesus Christ. Period.
I think what you say there is very fair. I know all that I ask of people is to be fair while being intellectually honest with themselves and compare things apples to apples. When they will not or cannot for some reason, I think it gives a kind of back handed support for the texts in question, which is incredibly ironic.
The only evidence for almost anything at all prior to the Middle Ages is limited. When Rome was sacked, the illiterate tribes didn't see a need to keep writing around, and many of the statues had been burned for lime. It was pretty much monasteries that copied what we have. So that in and of itself is not really the best gauge of whether something is true or not.
exactly. The monasteries weren't exactly unbiased were they? They were definitely trying to sell the message to convert the heathens - and when the heathens weren't exactly as receptive as they had hoped, they just killed them. Wonderful. The Romans wrote a lot of things down. They wrote a lot, actually. And since none of the apostles survived to the foundation of the monasteries, the point is pretty moot.
Okay, but that sells history a little short because it's also how we know Plato and Aristotle and Euripides and tons of other stuff that most certainly wasn't selling the faith to the faithful, yet it was monks in monasteries who were copying this stuff that allowed it to survive down to present times. There is no way you can say that the only stuff they preserved was stuff that sold their version of Christianity.
We have more than just the monks to thank for the works or Plato and Aristotle. A lot of it was rather carefully preserved from more than one source. The monks did copy a lot. The Eastern church copied a lot too - but how much more would we have if they hadn't discarded anything deemed heretical? How many books did they choose to destroy, rather than preserve?
Additionally, Plato, Aristotle and Euripides don't have a world-wide religion based on following them either, do they? Does it mater whether or not Plato existed, or if someone else used the name to write? Did he perform miracles and say that the only way to heaven was through him?So it would have been better had the monks copied exactly nothing? Because if not for them, a lot of stuff we just plain wouldn't have today.
The point about Plato not having a worldwide religion is true but then you have to start digging even deeper. Jesus and his followers didn't come from Greece and didn't subscribe to Greek thought. Would the world actually have been a better place if Paul's writings had perished after the sacking while we had Plato but based on maybe a third of the sources?
And is it not possible that the monks were God's agency for preserving Paul's writings?
So, Chris, how come you and so many other people claim to "know" so much about that Jesus and that era of history, when there is so very little written about it?
Cgenaea, and others like her, spout so much rubbish about your "savior" which they have conjured up in their minds, to satisfy their preconceptions. They extrapolate what is written, twist meanings where it is felt appropriate and make up their own "gospel" in their effort to convince us.
Your faith, your beliefs, your interpretations are yours alone. They can be offered to others, but not with the precept that your views and understandings are true.
As for that presumtion that anyone has the right to go out spreading the gospel they cook up, that for me is erroneous. Just like my understandings here, and my disbelief, each of us needs to step back and just let others be, in our own belief patterns, without pushing them on to others. Then the world will be a much more harmonious place to live in.I know what I read and whether there is little written or much, there is writing. I don't pull it out of the air and say, "HA! I'M RIGHT!"
Some things are going to be, interpretation is not the best word because I don't claim to be an authority but an attempt to understand what is there. But to simply say that it's mine and mine alone sells history, community, God and lastly me way, way short.of course, one must learn to follow ones own advice if they are to permit folks with beliefs to step back and let others be. it is the individuals responsibility to focus solely upon their own belief patterns without pushing their beliefs on to others.
Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that we KNOW, like they did, but that the apostles KNEW for a fact one way or the other.
I am going on some studies based on what textual criticism shows us about how we can know things from the past. Comparing apples to apples there is nothing quite like the gospels and the New Testament history, not even with some undisputed historical figures and their writings from just a few centuries back.
On a side note, even if the gospels and the New Testament had never come to us or survived, the history and ideas they share could all still be true. The truth of the past and our actual reality isn't dependent on any texts from the past, but they help to shed light. That is a different conversation all together and it was just on my mind, having nothing to do with this really lol. None of the people living in Jesus' time had any texts, they were observers and then upon seeing the proofs, believed. I think its no accident that it has survived with the proofs they have for them, compared to others. This is taking into account too, all that were destroyed along the way. It is like a miracle in itself if you think about it. Which is in keeping with the teachings. IF they are meant to be saved for posterity, so that people can know and respond, they sure have been. It is just what a good God would ensure would happen if he wanted his biggest revelation of himself to be still accessible to all after that.
One of the very followers of Jesus himself denied knowing Jesus at all; even to the point of belligerence. Probably not that much pride in lie-torture/death. This man lied to stay alive.
So now the question becomes this, since he denied knowing Christ did that mean he was no longer a follower? Could he have possibly lied about knowing Christ to protect not only himself but also Christ? Denying some things does not mean it isn't true. Sometimes denial protect the innocent (so to speak). They were torturing and killing Christ's followers to find out where Christ was.
In light of the fact that Jesus predicts the act based on the fact that the disciple, I think Peter, was boasting about his loyalty; it stands to reason that the lie was in protection of the self. "Yeah right Peter...you gon deny me three times before the night is over."
"If you deny me before men..." He knocked himself out of the box. But Jesus gave him another chance.
That is a good point, and example of showing a super strong follower (Peter) lying in a way that was even predicted! They were scared to death and very human.
Contrast that, with then hiding away after the death, then going to his death later, crucified upside down. Something happened in a huge way, in the mean time, for a man that was so quick to deny Jesus just being questioned about it. He seemed to want to never make the mistake again.and what are your sources from antiquity that say that Peter was crucified upside-down? It's church legend/tradition. It's not unbiased, and it's not something that can be confirmed independently.
Are there records that say he was crucified the "right" way?
There aren't any sources aside from church tradition that state that he was crucified at all - much like the large majority of the martyrs.
Not believing it is a choice available. It makes no sense to most. There IS not enough evidence available. Blood does not come from turnips. Lol
But seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.Your platitudes are really nice and undoubtedly provide for more faith in the believer. Unfortunately, you use them inappropriately, to the non-believer that has tested them and found them to be false statements.
I've looked, and so has JM, but no god. We've knocked, but the door doesn't open. We just hear more meaningless platitudes from someone who has nothing else to offer.Ok. Well if you have sought earnestly and knocked (not to just peek in at the party but to join in) each to no avail. You're probably just not welcome in. :-P
Jk...needed a laugh with my coffee.
Wilderness! Seek. Look under some stuff. You have probably at this point done made him mad enough to hide from you. Once you find the address; knock hard. If no answer DONT RUN AROUND TO THE BACK DOOR... there are traps set. Just keep knocking. The lord hears and will answer.Yes, I know the claim is that the lord will hear and welcome all who come.
It just isn't true. The believers say that and say it, but nothing changes - all the words in the world don't get anything done. It just goes on and on, with the believers making the same claim proven false, the non-believers waiting for acceptance that never comes.
I don't imagine it will ever change, not for an eternity.Isn't it just plain logic, that if any claim became "proven," then the need for any "belief" would immediately cease in respect of that particular claim? It would cease to be a talking point and render any further discussion about it a waste of time.
Once you have proof, and it can be seen conclusively to be a fact, then you no longer need to "believe."
So maybe we should leave the believers to enjoy themselves, and we atheist get on with our lives. In parallel, with mutual respect, yet maintaining our differences.Yes, of course. Once we have knowledge, belief is unnecessary.
Would that we could leave the believers to enjoy themselves, but they continue to insinuate themselves into our private and public lives. That fly planes into towers, they demand myth be taught as fact in our schools, they demand obeisance to their gods at public meetings and places, they demand we purchase icons and symbols to their belief and maintain them.
If only we could (would) keep our beliefs to ourselves, both believers and non-believers. Kind of hard, though, when the believers tell us they have a mandate from their god to proselytize and to force everyone else into their outdated, barbaric, immoral and just plain wrong mold.Pol Pot, Mao, Hoxha, Stalin, Jim Jones. These are atheism's most notable historical contributions. Meanwhile Christianity brought Hospitals, Charities and Schools for centuries.
Elation of a spiritual sort warms the cockles of my heart...
Hey Babes!!!How are you? Are you still giving the dozen or so, anti-religious folks that spend their lives trespassing and being disrespectful in the religion forums, the Good News?
Well, I guess she is if you think spreading the word that God purposely brought African slaves to North America and held them captive for centuries to help make America a strong Christian nation is Good News.
If you would like to debate, perhaps you could put an embeddable chatroom on some other site where if anyone were hypothetically inclined to tactics such as, swarm tactics and rat finking among many other tactics, they would not be of any use and I will debate YOU there.
Look, I didn't make that up, those are her words and her words are what you seem to be calling the Good News.
Show us a genuine goodness, without any of your bible-punching stuff, then we might start considering what you say with a bit more credibility.
Hey there!
haven't seen you in a min. Thought about you several times though. And shut up! aint nobody even talkin' about the slaves no mo'. Always bringing up old stuff. Lol
Fa sho!!!
it is my lot for now. We finally got to the homosexual conversation! Boy that was a bit scary. I never want to offend, but truth does that sometimes. I hope I crossed the point that God accepts even them with the right mindset. Just like the rest of us.
I am SO glad to see you. Thanks for helping to jumpstart the day gleefully.I love that one. It's got so many implications, consequences and interpretations. Beautiful. I'm welling up as we speak.
You are simply two of a kind..... wallowing in your cosy belief system. How does the reality of your lives stack up against your "faith?"
Great list (except for Jim Jones - he was a man of God). But we need a Christian list as well. Let's start with
Jim Jones, Hitler, Pope Urban II, Pope Gregory IX, producing the KoolAid fiasco, the holocaust, the first of many crusades and the Inquisition. We can go on to more modern times with those keeping slaves, murdering doctors and killing gays all in the name of the Christian God. We might mention the church members imprisoning Galileo for life because he pointed out that we weren't the center of the universe: that made a valuable contribution to our knowledge base, didn't it? Or the ones that threatened Darwin to the point he refused to publish all his work - the church has been a real bastion of knowledge!
Yep - Christianity brought charities (listen while I preach and I'll give you a heel of bread) and schools teaching mythology as fact, too. They've even brought hospitals that refuse to prescribe or provide birth control to employees so as to "populate the earth". Christianity has brought much to the world - about even between evil and good.
What was your point again?Jim Jones was a communist/socialist and admitted atheist. The only reason you would think otherwise is because besides being the worst mass murderers in history as far as sheer death toll, atheists are not honest in regards to Jim Jones.
Meanwhile Christianity brought hospitals, charities, schools and colleges, Besides giving the world mass murdering dictators, atheists dont do much, historically.You do understand that being a socialist does not preclude a belief in a god? Not even the Christian god?
From Wikipedia:
" In 1952, Jones became a student pastor in Sommerset Southside Methodist Church..." He was also the founder and leader of "The Peoples Temple", a religious organization by definition.
It seems Jones was a Christian, after all. You may not like it, but that doesn't change anything.
Yeah, we already discussed the Catholic schools, teaching myth and lies as fact and truth, and the hospitals refusing medical care to employees because they weren't Catholic. Kind of what I said, isn't it - Christians have a rather mixed history of doing good and evil. Just as everyone else in the world has.Jim Jones
Religion Atheist (self-proclaimed)[2]- Wikipedia
Jim Jones admitted many, many times he was an atheist and said there was no heaven.
I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist -Jim JonesOK - we'll take him. The atheists need a good preacher, too - someone that can convince people that their tale is true just as the Christian preachers do. He qualifies, and can go on the evil side of the atheist group.
Of course, Jones would have to say that, he preached that "he was the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi (murdered in 1948) and Father Divine (died in 1965), as well as Jesus of Nazareth, Gotama Buddha and Vladimir Lenin." His mother believed he was the Messiah. He was a social outcast, grew up obsessed with religion, killed a cat on his front lawn in some weird religious ritual, the guy was really messed up.
When in doubt, we could test these theories as shown in Jones' own actions. Did he act more like he would, or would not see a God one day? Seems he was telling the truth in that regard.
THAT is precisely why the bible lets us know that not all who cry Lord are his. Not everyone giving themselves the coveted title of Christian is worthy.
Reminds me of… Yes What was I saying?
http://youtu.be/64yianfGvzcAre you that uneducated to the history and facts regarding charities and colleges founded by Christianity?
I don't accept your christianity or your evangelism because I see it as false. Period.
Therein lies the rub. We would never ask believers to keep their beliefs to themselves if it weren't for the fact they have been mandated. In fact, if believers weren't mandated to proselytize, the discussions between us would be far more interesting, and no where near as conflicting.
I agree with what you have said here. For me, all the argument is over symbolism.
Christians don't say all are welcome. So many feel special. The bible says that all are welcomed. The bible speaks the truth. Think about this...God has a very keen sense of hearing the heart's desire. He knows when one comes for what he has; as opposed to one who comes just to see what all the noise is about. He knows when you are knocking earnestly. He knows when you seek him. He knows when you are ready to change your mind. We humans have a different mindset than that of God. We must be willing to allow the renewing of our minds in order to gain entry. The bible talks about that.
Peter was an excellent example of the patience of God.
After trying to read through 4-5 pages of replies, I give up folks. It's mostly about people who already "believe, " anyway, so it leaves me out.
Having arrived in India yesterday, my access now to the Internet is very limited. So will catch up in a couple of weeks....I might have been converted to something nice and heathen by that time and have something really enlightening to add to the comments....Enjoy your trip, jonny. Be safe and blessed.
have found a reliable internet cafe for this evening at least. Baking hot, sweating like a pig, ceiling fans going 100mph, mossies eating at my bare feet!
Hmm...sounds delightful...lol
I'm not a fan of hot...and I'm a terrible slave to creature comforts. You have my admiration, friend. Any particular reason for a visit to India?Yes, Mo. Connecting with an associate who is also involved with research into the various uses of Azolla. (If you are really interested, please see one of my hubs about it.)
I have arrived right down the most southern end of India, to a most delightful sea breeze coming off the Indian Ocean. It is mid evening, in an Ashram at Kanyakumari, a very peaceful feeling to it already, and I only arrived by train a hour or two ago.
I am not here specifically for the Spiritual Path, only the environmental aspects which are researched and put into practice here. But this ecological pursuit is really my "meditation" if you like to see it that way.
This and many others of the Asian pathways are quite in tune with the Christ-principle and can be used fruitfully by anyone, regardless of their particular religion, so I feel totally at ease sharing it with you all in this particular Forum.Jonny, the Azolla thing is absolutely fascinating! I have a deep respect for your daily life and every effort that you make to improve our current environment and to preserve and increase its strength and viability for the future. I hope that the visit is a productive, educational, and enlightening one!
I'm a little in awe of your "natural" genius-and I am in no way being facetious. Peace, friend! Enjoy your trip.
sometimes people just need to know that there is someone who has gone thru the same issues, dont bow out. we r trying to lift your spitits
That's your stuff, not mine. You keep it.
It's ALL your belief and your opinion. Nothing of that belief can be substanciated or proven to any one else. They might agree with you but still does not amount to proof.
I am happy to remain unaccepting of any idea that there is a life for myself after my physical and mental death.
Therefore all of your religious stuff is yours, as my denial is my stuff. I don't impose my understandings on you. You have no right to assume your beliefs are right for me - or anyone else.
The situation is not by accident. Faith is key.
Can I ask you a couple of questions about your deconversion?You get verses. You interpret them and evrything...selah
The parable about the publican was about pride. I'm sorry you misunderstand. We can NEVER do enough to EARN the mercy of God. The bible tells us that. We ARE small in light...and never are we to the point where we may STAND in the face of God's judgment. To the public, we are kind of like crawling insects. That's why nobody likes this message. People would rather be proud of what they DO. My example: "Genaea, but what are you DOING for Jesus? (emphasis mine) you just sit around on the computer all day while Iiiiiiiiiii am about to DO some volunteer work!!! And Iiiiiiiii am about to play with my children spending quality time!!! While YOU just sit there spouting off your big mouth (about what the bible says let me add) and your children are neglected, and your old folks are hungry!!! I'm doing!!! And YOU are just sitting there talking!!!" And, "I will not speak to my children about the God I serve because I fear they may become INDOCTRINATED. And they don't understand it anyway! So off to the park we go!"
Does any of this sound familiar???
You said that you didn't receive biblicalsscripture in my post but off the top of my head, I gave you at least 3. Now they were not called out verbatim nor each scripture # called out. But it's in there. You seem to have OVERLOOKED them.I'm having a bit of trouble dissecting that post. It seems like you got your feelings hurt by other verses I posted. I'm sorry sometimes the Bible's words hurt. However, since it's about your emotions and not about anything Biblical, I would rather just stay on topic.
The publican and the Pharisee parable is about pride. It's about saying that one is more faithful than another. I mean that part is pretty clearly stated. I'm not sure where you are pulling the opposite meaning from...
Also, I'm still not understanding why taking my child to the park is against Proverbs 22:6. Since that's the only behavior you mention that goes against the verse, I'm going to have to ask for verses again. I'm not certain how that is not "Training up a child in the way he should go". Did Jesus say something against park trips? Otherwise, I think I'm doing a pretty good job training them up in the way they should go. It's kind of what I do.
And still, it isn't saying that one doesn't need to do good works. You seem to be really against the good works thing. Yet still no scripture.
I'm sorry to mistrust your "off the top" of the head verses. However since you seem to be saying things that are different than what the bible says, I have to ask for verification directly from the word. I do apologize, I'm not doubting you one bit. I'm just not suppose to take a human's word when the Bible says different.- sorry. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. Really. This is about truth. I say it in a really practical way. I guess that my interpretation could be based from opinion in your eyes. I base what I say upon other things that I have read in scripture. I do understand the inability to grasp what I am saying. No issue between us.
No, there isn't an issue between us. My feelings aren't hurt. I'm just trying to have a discussion about the Bible with you. Since you say you are basing you interpretation/opinion on things that you have read in the scripture, it shouldn't be hard to show me where. I mean it's always good to learn more things about the Word. If I'm incorrect, I most certainly would like to be made aware of it... but the bible specifically warns against taking advice from those who seem to be saying different that what we are taught. I'm sure you understand why I need actual scripture to be sure I'm not being led astray.
Nothing personal. Maybe the other Christians on the forum could help with finding those verses?
Works OF faith. It's spiritual. Works that prove you have faith in God. What better proof is there than to say what he said?Oh! I think we have a problem there if the words he said "cannot be fully trusted because man has touched it. So, we can just make-up what he meant since the words here cannot really be relied upon. ALL lines of thought can be acceptable!!! Hooray!!!" No...come in at the door. The door is faith. Did you know that speaking was an act? And speaking what he said is a faithful act???
Doing what he spoke (ALL OF IT in consideration) is even more faithful? Not comparison. He judges us according to our own standard (it's in there). Our own faith. Along his lines, I mean the narrow gate.
We must be doers of the work, all of it (study of it is necessary) not a few trusted passages).I'm sorry... Again I must disagree.
James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
That is pretty concrete. It says feed and cloth those who need it. It says that preaching does no good without actually doing something about it. That would go against what you are saying. Are you saying the verse is incorrect? Is there another verse that says that this one was just a joke?
and
James 1:26-27
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Also, again from proverbs...
Proverbs 18:2
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
and also
Proverbs 30:32
If you have been foolish, exalting yourself, or if you have been devising evil, put your hand on your mouth.
Obviously, I do study the Bible. Which is why I'm so confused that the things you are saying don't seem to be in there. Could you PLEASE give me the verses?This is a really good example of the cherry picking idea. Faith is the main idea. I am not approached by hungry people all day everyday. So am I not able to become saved? Watch this... You want a sandwich Melissa? Uh, please don't say yes. I haven't the resources.
am I not going to heaven?
Did you read about who should bridle and on another page who should speak up??? My guess is not.
In all of the master's documented time on earth, how many meals did he provide?
He fed the people figuratively. And most importantly. One perishes without the food he gave.
If one does not take the time to get to know Jesus; they risk misunderstanding all that he came to do and all that he said. Do not let the practicality throw you. It's what I have. My biblical interpretation is based from all of it. Not just that one passage. People tend to see contradiction more readily when they look at your favorite verse and then flip on over to. "...for ye are saved by faith ... not of works lest any man should boast." they would scream that the bible contradicts itself. We are required to study.So you're saying Jesus didn't say to visit orphans widows or feed the hungry and clothe the poor? Perhaps you can show me how context would make those verses say something different? Again, with verses.
And yes, it's rather difficult to NOT read proverbs in context. I'm sure you understand why.
I've been a Christian for many years now, I know Christ. I've studied the Bible extensively. Still, it's not saying what you say it is.
You really could rectify that problem by giving verses. I'm not understanding why you are seemingly unwilling to share the word of God. Please, just verses. Otherwise, I have to believe that you are incorrect because the word of man never wins out against the word of God.Did anyone offer you help or anything to eat since you made it known you do not have the resources?
Oh, I thought she said she didn't have the resources to give me a sandwich... if she and her children are hungry, I will most certainly help.
The sarcasm makes what point? Don't waste good sarcasm.
Absolutely no sarcasm whatsoever. I'm sorry you see it where it doesn't exist. I truly am.
Edit: Or were you talking about your own sarcasm in the original post? I didn't see a point in that. To be honest, I rarely see your point though and asking you to elaborate generally doesn't help.
I just love your mind
Me? Serving up a platter that will never be forgotten.In all seriousness, sarcasm aside, do you need help?
Yes Melissa, I do! Guess where my help comes from, ALWAYS...
So you don't need help finding food? That's all I asked. Phoenix said you didn't have any.
She probably found something to eat, while waiting on your low calorie boasts.
Thanks! I'm good. The point was that I didn't have resources to mail you a sandwich. Keep calm. You'll get it.
Oh, I get it. Phoenix misunderstood your post and assumed that you didn't have any food and corrected my behavior (rightly) that I should help you find some, because that would be what the Bible says to do. I then moved to rectify my mistake...
But since it was what I thought in the first place, rather than Phoenix's misunderstanding, it works out.Maybe you and I can start a program where we go around and give some needy folks the "works" , but instead of a drink like BOOST® Nutritional Drinks, we can call it BOAST.
Helping the needy is always a good idea Phoenix! Good suggestion. I've made the suggestion that she obey God's word by helping the needy as well!
I'm glad you two are finally making some steps towards that! That's quite a turnaround from denying that the directive exists!Instead of making the suggestion why dont YOU go do it?
Why don't I do charity work? Whatever makes you think that I don't? After all, again, the bible says that such is required. James says show me your faith thorough words, and I'll show you my faith through works. Good thing he wasn't boasting huh? Or was giving God's commands boasting?
James is not the only book in the Bible. You are supposed to give charity in private not boast about it and claim we do something all day in the forum. Ironically James says that if someone has the means and denies someone they knew were in need, then their faith aint right? The same example could be made about having 5 cars and when your neighbor needed a ride, they said, walking 30 miles to work is good for you, go with God. You give away some cars lately? Or is it that you are preaching false doctrine? You do not know scripture. You and Deepes need a good teacher like Cgenaea if you want to become a good Christian. I sincerely hope you consider it someday.
Whoa there. Pump the brakes. You have neither the basis nor tje authority to claim that I am not a good Christian. What defines a good Christian from a bad none in your eyes? Did you not state earlier that we cannot judge another? Now you are judging. Maybe you can provide a scripture (in context) that says its okay to say that one Christian is better than another? Sorry bit attacking the faith of another Christian is not something I need to learn, thanks. Nor do I need to take any lessons from genaea. If I want to learn how to be a good Christian I will consult the original teacher. We know scripture and do not use it to elevate ourselves above anyone else. Nor do we state that another Christian isn't a Christian. Perhaps you should consult scriptures more (namely romans, 2timotjy, Matthew to start) to understand Christ as well. Seems that you follow false doctrine if you are allowed to judge who is or is not a "good Christian".
And under what authority to you make that assertion?
On other words a judgment which is against Matthew 7:1-5 as well as Romans 14. So youaaren't batting 1000 in the christlike actions area either. Does this mean that you aren't a good Christian? Because you are violating the word of God
You misunderstand. Like I posted earlier. Its not about judging. A 10 dollar Rolex either keeps good time or not. Dont make it a Rolex though.
Actually it does because the brand says its a Rolex. Whether ten dollars or a thousand dollars it is still a Rolex. A hundred dollar Rolex either keeps time.or ot doesn't does that disqualify it from being what its creator made it and Named it?
You in the market for some 10 dollar Rolex's? I know this guy that has a watch shop, well really its the trunk of his car. He has a franchise or an outlet, well mostly some guys with raincoats.
OK, Phoenix, I'm giving you a specific chance to list everything that makes me not a Christian right here.
Everything-mind you.
I would like you to cite everything that I do and think as well as give me an indepth analysis of my relationship with Christ, how much biblical study I've done, all my prayers, exactly how I raise my children etc.
Explain how I don't really believe in Christ, including all my thoughts on it and every emotion I feel.
It is your chance to expose me...
Let's start with how I came to Christ. You go ahead and tell the story.Then you provide all that information I just asked for. Since I have forgotten
This is a dream for you two, come on.
List them out... tell me about my relationship with Christ.My point was without that information directly from me, you don't know. Nor does Phoenix, therefore can't make any decisions about my faith. Obviously, since both of you have questioned my faith, yet can't give me any information on it. Since both of you have said or implied that I am not faithful, yet know nothing.... there is AGAIN absolutely nothing to back up what is obviously an opinion.
So I've asked for verses to back up biblical claims, and not received them. Asked for proof of boasting, and not received it. Asked for proof of my unfaithfulness, proof that I'm "not a Christian"... and not received it.
Is there a reason, given that track record, that anyone should take anything that either of you two say as being anything but opinion?
Oh, anything you want to know, ask away. It's better than making assumptions. I believe I have directly answered each question put before me... can you say the same?The proof of boasting is presented. The scripture was actually provided and it was like forgetting the image huh? I understand. I have seen how that can be.
But I have reviewed your scripture and here you go: James 22-27
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.Oh, I must have missed that proof... did someone post links? Could you repeat them please?
Ok, my question was why do you think he said "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."?To me, the first part meant that he wants you to care for people. What, in your opinion is unspotted...? Edit: I mean what is keeping oneself unpolluted?
Not cynical, purely loving and giving, caring and forgiving.
Faithful missed the list. Is it not the first thing required?
Now that the forums aren't eating the posts, I can respond in full.
Much as Phoenix so eloquently pointed out, James is not every book in the bible. Just so, not every verse in the bible is about faith. The book of James handles several different topics, and separates them quite clearly.
James 1 verses 19-27 are addressing action, the DOING of things. Faith is passive, it's not a verb, it's a noun. James goes on later to talk about the relationship between faith and works (2:14-26) and faith and prayer (5:13-20). But no, I don't believe faith is being discussed in 1:27.
Show me where I've boasted of my charity works. Not said we should be doing them, not spoke of James, specifically where I, unasked and without being accused of not doing anything, have boasted.
Go ahead, I'll wait... but do remember that I will be finding the post and posting those related to it...
But no, I have always given a ride to those who have asked or who I have seen need it, since you ask. I have indeed given a car to someone without one, free of charge, since you ask. I would be happy to give you his contact details.
I do indeed do as the Bible says to do, I'm not sure how that could be false doctrine... since it specifically says so.
And if Cgeneae ever offers me a lesson that I don't know and that is not different from the Bible, I will gladly be led to the word by her. I will need the word though, not just what she says it is.I could use a car if you have any extra laying around.
*Grins* I would gladly give you one... I don't own one right now. I'll try and help you find one though.
I am Irish and I unfortunately have the temper that goes with that. When I see the enemies of Christ, making sport of His children, at places, with dishonest impunity, and distorting His wonderful words and lessons I get angry. Then I think about it. I consider how people like you, Cgenaea and people like Oceans, will wake up the next mornings and still be themselves, Likewise the enemies of Christ also awake to the mirror, which is themselves, as we all do. And the karma or Godly justice of that is ironically, so fair and just. That is why I admire people like SirDent, Oceans and you. Yall almost have supernatural patience that I do not have.
Gee, calling other Christians enemies of Christ, that's also an unusual take on the Bible.
Didn't you know, Melissa, if you aren't with them, you are against them, you are their enemy whether you like it or not or whether it is true or not.
Oh, I don't really care about that. It shows more about them than about me.
Nope, I'm just not around people who do that on a regular basis. I only really run into it on these boards... and then only from one or two people.
My granddad is part Irish. Nice! So I guess I didn't get the "fire"
My mom is super-human and the epitome of our description of virtuosity. I'm mild; until...
It's important to remember that it is not personal. It has always been true that when the lights come on...some people look horrible to themselves. Biblical truth is light. I'm just the one who hit the switch. I catch it. Promised, right???
What, in the name of all that is holy, are you even saying here? This makes little to no sense at all.
Thanks for the emphasis.
The "way" is spiritual. Without the spirit of God (that has been disclaimed already as an evil tactic to appear holier than thou) We may not come to know the faith that it takes to act accordingly. We must know what it says (meaning what it MEANS) before we can DO anything. Faith is the BEGINNING of the formula.
Now let's talk about faith. Faith puts into action. Faith makes you humble (which has ALSO been disclaimed). Humility brings about the urgency to "learn of him" and then KEEP to it. ACT based upon FAITH. Abraham believed God, so he ACTED accordingly. "Come on here Boy! Gotta git up to this here mountain...God said..."
We base our lives upon what his truth is. Not ours. We, in faith, believe him and wholeheartedly agree... so we THEN act. But we know we cannot boast. (Disclaimed)
I'm no one's enemy. Emnity...maybe.If the bible (the WORD) does not mean what it says that would mean that someone has intentionally falsified it.
As God oversaw and inspired the writing of the book we can assume it wasn't Him. I think.
That leaves Satan as the only being able to circumvent God to the degree necessary to change His words into something else in order to fool man. Which in turn means that Satan has effectively written the bible with the intent of fooling man into believing something that isn't true.
So either the bible is true as written without need of "interpretation" or spin, OR it is a tool of Satan. Which is the best fit with reality?
Are you aware of the apparent contradictions in Paul's writings vs James? James speaks a lot about works, and Jesus does some too.
Paul in Romans and his epistles are full of that stuff, and surely you are aware of them if you know the bible so well, which I am not doubting based on your words.
Isaiah weighs in also about works, being as filthy rags...
Isaiah 64:6
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
I have not been on here much, so have not followed this convo closely. The point I think she is making more from the one post, is that our works can't save us, they never could. We have a great example of this in the thief on the cross in the gospels too. He was a total criminal and charged for his crimes, and while dying, unable to do one good work was welcomed into God's paradise that very day. Its a perfect example of a person conversing with Jesus not doing even one good work. Its not about that, is part of her point. Paul does go on to say that people shouldn't just sin because they know it will be forgiven... but has to say that because his points are SO much about the grace and mercy of God. Romans 8:1-4
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
In short, can you share each side you are both taking? What is at issue exactly?I think they are just cherry picking a few random verses to use as put downs. In my opinion They are just distorting scripture, so they can spread their own misery to others.
The one verses about fools speaking out, from Proverbs, and people sharing opinions or whatever, the fools that do, seemed a little out of context, so you might be right.
I think what is happening here is that she doesn't have a way to quickly search and come up with verses like others that are more used to searching say, Bible gateway, etc. For me, I type some of the text of a verse in my mind it searches and I pick the biblegateway link, and find it in seconds. CGenaea is probably used to reading her bible, and that is a much harder way to quickly pull of the verses that are being kind of demanded (for her to be right at all), or else she must be wrong. I think that is what is going on if I had to guess.Bingo, Jack!!! I hope you watched Good Times.
I studied the bible intensely for an entire year with little to no interruption. I grew up in church so some of it I already heard. But to study it for myself opened an entire new world of answered questions. It was a marvelous 15 month "course"
He knew I wanted to know and he taught and taught and straightened and corrected and renewed.
So you are right AGAIN... I was not prompted to know where it is found. Just didn't seem as important. Plus it seems a lot for me to handle. I use Bible gateway too for context sometimes. But the bible tied together in a way I had never imagined. I know that what I say is in there. But that would include "seeking" now wouldn't it.
You're a star...
I guess of my main points was about pride. It leads us to bad. The man who prayed the prayer about his things he did as a righteous man somewhat as with a bill for services. The other prayer was sorrowful and humble. Jesus told the parable. Sorry for the quick synopsis
but it just seems like you know. Anyhow, to me it was pride about works. To Melissa, it was more of a pride held over the more humble as more holy somewhat putting down the other. If I'm not too off.
Then we went back to faith. Well Faith's no good without works." She said.
Round and round we go...Yes, the book of Proverbs and other places deal with how dangerous pride can be and we also see that play out in our world. The parable you mention echoes many other parts of the bible where the heart is the issue with Jesus, or God. God has always cared more about the heart of a person, we see that in the Old Testament too. He cared much less about perfection than the heart, as does Jesus. Seems not like two opposing sides to me, but two different arguments almost. Its true, that faith without works is dead, and its also true that there are no amount of works that can save us, or make our heart right before God by the works alone. My two cents, sorry for butting in but Melissa did ask if others could come up with some verses to back the points maybe, or something like that.
Thank you Oceannsunsets.
The criminal on the cross is a very good point. I guess Christ could choose whomever he wanted to enter into heaven through him and, after all, the Criminal didn't have a whole lot of time to do good works after accepting Christ.
My stance is that it requires both good works and faith. That has always been my stance. I'm not aware of any contradictions between James and Paul just stressing different sides of the same coin. I'm not meaning to be insulting, but are you saying that James was wrong? That we can ignore that book of the Bible?
Cgenaea keeps insisting that the bible doesn't say that works are needed. I'm not sure why she would claim that and I think that it's harmful to tell others that they can ignore parts of the Bible... I was simply asking her why she believed that. I think that's fair as she was implying that my belief in the bible meant that I wasn't a true Christian. She has been unable to provide those verses.
She is also espousing the view that it is OK for those on earth to judge that one person is a Christian while another isn't. I was asking for verses that explained why that was OK.
There were several other views she sat forth that also seemed contrary to what I have been taught through my study of the Bible. I also asked for those verses.
There were several subjects. You'll have to read back through because honestly, many of her views seem to fit that definition. Again I wasn't getting verses... and when I did, those verses were very very different than in any Bible version that I could find.
Obviously, that perked my ears a bit.Fair enough Melissa. No, I do not think James is wrong, and it was one of the books I actually memorized once in segments and I haven't done that with any other book of the bible, lol. So I love that book. There aren't actual contradictions, they just focused on different points of the same coin, kind of like you said. My point is that James is more rare in that focus compared to a lot of the rest of the books in the NT especially. A repentant heart and faith are other topics that are big, and the two greatest commandments are huge.
Is she insisting that works aren't needed for something in particular, like salvation? Where do you stand on that? Do you think you need to do works to be saved? I don't think we can judge who sincerely is or isn't a Christian, and that it is a job belonging to God. We can only go by scriptures that might speak on that more. Even then, I tread lightly, and wouldn't want others to judge me. I didn't see her say you weren't a true Christian.
I think it is good to ask for evidence to back up people's claims. I will have to pay better attention to see what is going on I guess as I have time. I think asking people to back their positions is an excellent thing to do, to reiterate.Repentance and faith are fairly standard in a Christian. I think that choosing to follow Christ requires both of those things from the outset...After all, you have to have faith to believe in Christ in the first place, and you have to have repentance to want to follow him. If you think you are just fine and that he doesn't exist... I'm not sure what the point is. I'm sure someone could find one, somewhere, though.
Anyway, once we get past what it takes to "join the club" for a lack of a better word, I think James gives us further instructions. Not a conflict, but an addendum. A list of "These are the things that Christ did, and he'd really like it if you did as well."
I will concede the point that I am completely unconcerned about heaven or hell.
Salvation to me means acting in a way that Christ would approve of, of striving to be as much like him as possible. A goal that I will, obviously, fall short of. James gives directions to how to help do that. Not through believing, which is a given, but by taking the next step. (Faith without works is dead. No longer growing) He's pretty specific with his examples as well.
I guess it's the difference between doing the bear essentials and committing yourself fully, IMHO.
So yes, for true salvation, both are necessary. Dead faith is not truly salvation, is it?Thanks for explaining your views and understanding. I don't have a problem with what you say there and I doubt CGenaea would either.
See, I don't think you two really were disagreeing as much as you thought you were. That is my take from this point of view, lol.
You are absolutely correct. Nobody here on earth can judge who is or is not a Christian. Unfortunately, that happens very often here on HP by various people. There is more to that discussion that meets the eye. There is a specific reason that some scriptures are being asked for (and obviously reasons why the requests are being ignored). I appreciate you and Phoenix providing most of what was asked for though.
Exactly. And it's the Christian 101 stuff that goes a long way toward helping others come to a better understanding of Christ. Those that try to be deeper than what the word calls for hurt Christianity (especially when asked for references and a breakdown). We should be ready and willing to provide instruction for others without judging their faith and walk. Thank you again
I am so glad that spirit tries spirit. Deceit is against God too. Your implications and accusations are laughable. I would bother myself to go back over the conversation but my views are known. I was sure that I heard you a while back rallying for the tainted status of the bible. Which led me to believe it responsible for you having the views that you do.
I'm sorry if you took the meanings to be insulting. The fact is that you weren't saying the same thing as the Bible. That's not an implication, it's a fact. I'm sorry that upsets you to be shown that. I truly am. If it's any consolation, I don't believe you were doing it on purpose.
To Melissa and CGenaea, I found a quote from Genaea that helps me to see her side and point of view, unless I am mistaken then correct me please, lol. She said in one post,
"We can NEVER do enough to EARN the mercy of God. The bible tells us that. "
I would agree with that comment, from what I understand the bible to teach. Here are some verses that show works don't cut it necessarily in Jesus' eyes on judgement day,
Matthew 7:21-23-
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
The book of James keys in on how important works are, that will flow out of person that is a Christian, and that the world will see. Jesus speaks of the fruit that comes from healthy and live plants, and how they can be pruned as need be, etc. I think the two topics really go hand in hand.It is self evident, that someone that 'boasts and brags' about how 'they are all about the works' is an obvious contradiction. Jesus makes it clear they get their reward for that, that is assuming they actually did any work at all.
The law of the Old Testament and the followers of it, sometimes took things to extremes and tried to be very out in the public with their "pious" ways. They would pray loudly for all to hear, fast and look gaunt in public as if wasting away for the looks of things. Jesus said they just got their reward.
Is it boasting and bragging to post Bible verses now? To encourage other Christians to help others in need?
Could you show me where Jesus said that spreading his word was boasting and bragging? I seem to be missing those verses as well.I have helped people in need. Some were not Christians. But that does not matter because those would be fruits anyway. I and other Christians are saved through faith because it is the gift of God: Not by works.
The problem I see is some fakes will distort the NT, for whatever agenda they got. But the NT is taken in full context, not a verse here and a irrelevant verse there, as a put down.Ah, I seem to catch that as referring to me. Do you think you might be judging my faith? Do you have the verses saying that is OK?
I keep missing those.When you were posting irrelevant, out of context verses like bridle your tongue and being a fool, were you talking about yourself or were they just meant as a put down?
Sorry, but when she is saying that preaching is a good deed in and of itself, yet not actually preaching but giving her opinions without verses, even when they are being asked for, and then misrepresenting her opinions as biblical... I feel they were pretty accurate.
After all, I asked several times for the verses, yet none were given. Since I am told not to trust any man who's words are contrary to my teaching, and that was what she was doing, they were fitting. As a warning to others that might be persuaded by words being represented as biblical yet differing from bible teachings..If I were you, I would not worry about a Christian Teaching/Preaching the Good news as Commanded as well as being A Witness and letting their Light Shine, Like Cgenaea.
The great commission, if obeyed by people is a great deed indeed, as far as deeds go, I would think.
If no one had told any of us, how would we know of the Salvation by our Creator the remedy we need? It is one of the hardest things to do as well. It is like a person sharing the remedy for the disease that is killing us. Who wants to hear they have cancer, for example, when they are sure they are not, and the doctor has said so and given the remedy for those that want a remedy. I actually know of people that wouldn't fight their cancer, which is sad, but nonetheless a fact. The doctors make the diagnosis, and the bearer of the news often probably gets an angry or upset "earful" (Speaking in general here...)
She has likely done other nice things, and it could get dangerously close to comparing "my good deeds vs your good deeds" if we aren't careful. That just gets judgemental too, if being judgemental is something we want to avoid. This seems to be the case to me anyway.I don't argue with spreading the word, but I do argue with spreading paraphrased word that doesn't line up with what the Bible says.
And, also not to be insulting, but I never found the word of Christ to be hard to take at all. Certainly not like cancer. I understand what you are saying, of course...But I've never understood the like comparisons. I don't get angry over hearing Christ's words.
I do get angry over hearing words presented as Christs but not being his... I'm sorry but non-verbatim doesn't cut it. The only true word is his. It's not as big of a deal when it is in agreement, I guess. But when it isn't in agreement, it's a big deal indeed.
At least now we know why she wasn't giving the verses, she explained it. Not the verse verbatim with references attached anyway.
Right. But the non verbatim verses aren't saying what the verbatim verses say.
Do I go by what she's saying, or what the Bible says? That's rhetorical, obviously, I go by the Bible. I'm not sure where there's fault with that.
I'm going to continue in truth. You seem to be distorting even what I say. And it is posted for all to see. The point made about the prideful prayer at Luke 18:9 seemed to coincide with the way you considered me being one to "only sit here" on the computer "preaching" while my children were being neglected and volunteer work was left undone. And you volunteering and spending time with your husband and children being much more like Christ; seemed to kind of be judgmental. As well as imply that you were better. It is not about what you do.
I spoke of your not being willing to "risk" the indoctrination of your children by not telling them about the message of God. But the bible says to. Is that faith? We must agree with what is right on the "narrow path" which was another big point of our discussion.
I have no scripture that states that the person being "rescued" by God was probably in trouble; I assumed that part.Ah, more about YOU and your opinions of me.
Sorry, not Biblical... therefore not the truth.
Please keep on topic. Genea is not in the Bible.This was a conversation between you and I. No opinion needed. It's what you said. We made this long and drawn out. We spin round and round and each time but we always get back to truth. We must. No amount of sarcasm will deter it.
If you say so dear. I never left the truth though. I was speaking about verses in the Bible, how could they not be the truth?
You seem to be talking about other things though, let me know when you want to discuss the Bible.
You keep up the good work Cgenaea. You know the Bible and its intent., the Spirit of the Words.
Ha! You said spirit...
It is of sheer importance.Genaea, I have a sincere question. What does the spirit mean to you? And why do you think that you and other professed Christians who agree with you about everything have it and other professed Christians don't?
Do you believe in things like speaking in tongues? Being able to handle serpents? Exorcise demons?That stuff is figurative. I handle snakes daily.
Spirit tries spirit. All who believe are given the spirit for remembrance and right thinking of what he said. When one speaks as he did his spirit exists. If they adamantly go against; how may they be called faithful or followers much less both.Wow.
How can parts of the bible be literal and others figurative? Who decides which is which?What if your spirit says something different than mine, Mo? Is there some book or something that gives that determination? I mean if someone is claiming that their spirit is telling them something other than that book, wouldn't that book be correct and therefore that "spirit" be just the other person's own thoughts?
I believe that the Word speaks (sorry for that pun) for itself, actually. But I do not embrace a Christian denomination that takes every word of scripture as literal.
Still, I have always been guided to ask God what he wants, not try to ferret it out on my own or accept it blindly from someone who claims the distinctive understanding.
And at the end of the day, we're both Christians, Melissa. The Spirit is the same for both of us. One God, one spirit.
Who are you referring to as snakes, exactly? How do you determine what parts of the bible are literal and which are figurative?
In a parable, it's easy to understand that he's creating a metaphor. But there are Bible believing, fundamentalist Christians who DO handle poisonous snakes because Jesus told them to. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong? Because their interpretation of scripture differs from yours?
I have a sincere question for you. Do you genuinely believe yourself to be infallible? That YOUR version of scripture is absolutely correct, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must therefore absolutely be wrong?Absolutely not. I just know for sure what not God looks like. I will be learning until the end of this world as we know it. Those of the spirit will help me
what does "not god look like" to you? Anyone who disagrees with you?
I learn from people who disagree with me. I learn from them, and I learn about myself. If you confine learning to only those who agree with you all the time, how can you learn from being pat on the back?Not God looks like everything that is not pro God. Outward appearances of not God definitely manifest as disagreement with biblical scripture.
Not to be judgemental, but weren't you disagreeing with James just a couple pages ago?
No. I disagree that works will get us into heaven.
Let me quote the WHOLE passage.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled,” without giving them those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
So, what do you think James means when he says "Can faith save him?" Save him from what?
Or are you saying that both works and faith are required. Because James goes on to give examples of those works. So the question would be, if that is the case, are those with faith that aren't doing the things listed not obeying the word?
But Christians discuss and debate scripture all the time. That doesn't make them any less Christian. It means that Christians understand the scriptures differently, just like you understand it differently than many other believers. That doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong. It means that everybody can be led to different passages and understand them to mean different things to different people. Jesus did that all the time. It's one of the reasons that he spoke in parables so often - to make difficult concepts easier for his followers to grasp - and even in some instances - he did it deliberately so people WOULDN'T understand. When interpreting a parable, people see different facets of the same base. Judging another based on a different message or interpretation is hardly christ-like.
she certainly believes she can exorcize demons - on a forum and against a complete, also christian, stranger I might add. It's why she lost her hubpages account in the first place. All that the poor girl was doing was quoting scripture in gigantic block text for page after page after page and telling Genaea that since she disagreed with her methods, she wasn't a true christian.
Now where have I seen that before?Really? I remember you being here before as Genaea C or something close. Maybe I'm mistaken.
I closed it. Kinda mad at the hit n run tactics used. I was genaea. Not lost. Upped.
Hmmm...I am being honest. You used to be JUST Genaea, when you started the "hot button topic" thread. Would you like me to pull it up for you? Once you were banned from that specific forum, all of your hubs mysteriously disappeared and the message on your profile page said "this user has been banned from hubpages".
Do you not remember? Maybe YOU should be honest.I deleted the account and all else that I could. It was during a ban for speaking as spoken to. What happens later is not my business nor done to me.
So you're saying that hubpages banned your account...AFTER you deleted it? I see. I don't see a lot of post-deleted account bans, really. Therefore, I am skeptical about it.
How is her Hubpages account status any business of yours? Her account status is between her and Hubpages.
Sure. I don't see a lot of people here (this post included) intended on minding one's own business. But it's all okay if it's on ONE side of the discussion, not the other. Blatant sarcasm, accusations, insults - it's all fine if it comes from someone that somebody agrees with. If it's on the other side, it's insulting and unreasonable. I understand.
Her account status is between Hubpages and her. Her relationship with Hubpages is between her and Hubpages. Why does that status or private /relationship/ information concern you? It does not have anything to do with the Bible or her beliefs, you seem to be intruding upon the relationship between her and this website. Why are you doing that?
how is asking questions and pointing out what actually happened interfering in that in any way? Do you think that i have some kind of pull over her account status? I was there, in that thread. I saw it go down. I have heard her admit that she got banned for it, and when I went to her profile page afterwards, it said "the user has been banned from hubpages". Since I really doubt that hubpages would ban a user who has already deleted their account retroactively, it's a point that deserves to be pointed out. There is more than one side to the story.
My inquiry is if you see fit to pretty much tell me to mind my own business, why don't you do the same with my posts on the matter? Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? I was active in that thread when it happened. I don't recall you being there - so aren't you (in the attempt to tell me to mind my own business) doing the same thing that you don't like me doing?
Again, once I was banned for defense reactions, I was angry and deleted my account. I had been banned I think for three days and it was more than I could bear at the time. Banned indefinitely was not the case when I deleted. What happened next is not my concern.
Faith is the illusion of knowing without the ability to know. What is it good for? Only for deluding yourself that you actually know something you can't know.
No thanks.And who asked you, Mr. Smartie Pants?
You know I jest. But I've come to a realization recently that arose from the question of whether or not one can choose to believe. I have looked at all of the logical and rational arguments against the existence of God. I have become more and more aware of his apparent absense from our world - suffering that happens daily, horrible poverty and illness and the like. Nothing that atheists have said or will say to me regarding God's non existence does NOT make sense in a logical and rational world. I have no evidence of God's existence that is observable, testable, or substantial enough to prove objectively and beyond doubt that he exists.
But I can't shake my faith. No matter what I do. And it's not indoctrination, it's not insanity, not ignorance, not lack of education, etc...
So what's up with that?
I've been following a lot of your posts, and it has been great to see you back a little more frequently. Truly.Faith and reason or rationality are not at odds.
Duh...you quoted the same Matthew verse I did (correctly verbatim verse and chapter cited THANK YOU!!!
To me, the works are of faith. How can the faithful not say what the word said first??? We know that is right... well, some of us.Again, I never said that faith wasn't necessary. I was being told that works weren't. I assume that Christians have faith, or they'd be atheists.
For what, I guess. This argument or discussion seems to be about the thing that isn't being specified...are we talking salvation here? Faith and works for salvation? Or just faith for salvation (agreed upon by all), and works will necessarily flow out of that?
Or being just a witness so that others can see your good deeds and glorify your father in heaven?
"In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16
On the other hand, justification by faith.. (may not be best verse, but shows how we have peace with God through)
Romans 5:1 & 2
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Ready whenever you are. But we have a different set of tools; that's for sure. I have not gone against scripture once. I cannot say the same for you.
The things I say are biblical. Those who know; or care to know; will.As I'm actually quoting Bible verses... I'm not sure how that can go against scripture.
I believe we have the same tools as well. The Bible. Maybe you should consider using it rather than paraphrasing.
I am respectfully asking that you keep yourself out of the conversation... as I am not interested in your emotions and issues. They aren't biblical, and the bible is what we are discussing...
So which verse would you like to discuss?Matthew 7:13 - 14
Why do you consider the path that most people are on to be the one leading to God? You stated most people are Christians??? The words of Jesus have been found to be easy on the ears?That's not what I said at all. See how that paraphrasing thing is bad?
I said most Christians are Christians. All of them in fact. Yes, the words of Jesus have always been easy on my ears.
But the verse says: 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Christ is the gate. There are few that find Christ. We call those who have Christians. All Christians have found that narrow gate, so all enter it.
Do you disagree?Disagree. Why do you believe the bible says that not all who cry Lord (meaning all who call themselves by his name) are his???
It is not verbatim, I know. Do you know the scripture at all? Does what I ask sound familiar to you?Yes, I know that verse. It means those who haven't found Christ... therefore haven't found the gate.
Not an unusual statement to make when the people being addressed believed in the Lord, but not in Christ.
Do you disagree?You must have faith in Christ yes. Now here's where it gets tricky. The bible tells us that faith in God looks a certain way. Faith acts. Like Abraham and Rahab showed faith by acting on the words of God. Never disagrees. Disagreement with the word of God is a huge give-away.
but don't you keep saying we should move past the Old Testament and move to the New Covenant?
How would faith like Abraham and Rahab differ from those in the New Testament? Also, they are both mentioned among many others in the "hall of faith" chapter in Hebrews. So that is New Testament.
did Abraham have faith? He walked and talked with god.
The apostles supposedly walked and talked with Jesus, saw his miracles, some of them put their fingers in the holes of his hands and side. Is that faith? Or would you consider that evidence?Well first what did you think of my point I made? You seemed to have a problem with her referring to people having faith in the Old Testament over the New. So that is all good now?
Yes, they all had faith, though Abraham didn't walk and talk with God like Adam and Eve did. Rahab surely did because of the mighty works she saw him do with the different nations and Israel. It isn't much different than now, we have those proofs and our own.
God has always used evidences since biblical times, yes, to show himself. Both God and then Jesus did that a lot. God has never just asked people to believe blindly, he has given what he sees as more than sufficient revelation. It is why I think we have the records we do for the scriptures, natural revelation, moral revelation, etc.Hebrews 11:1 says that Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. If they're seeing miracles, talking to Jesus after his death, walking and talking with god - that's not things unseen, is it?
I see you didn't want to answer the prior, that is ok.
As for faith, and those that were there vs those that were not there, that has been commented on but I can't think of the exact verse at the moment. It touches on that very idea, that some see and believe, but how many will not see and believe... What is your point? The people in question, Abraham and Rahab had incredible faith. Abraham didn't walk with God but believed him that he would have a family more sizable than the sands of the sea, or stars, or something like that. He was past child bearing as was Sarah and she laughed at first at this. She was barren. Abraham was credited as having amazing faith, and later regarding that God would provide a sacrifice for his son, which he did with a ram in the thicket. Those are just a couple of examples. That is all without seeing. Same with Rahab. Mentioned both in the NT and Old.
Maybe we can see why they were mentioned in Hebrews 11 now, and the disciples weren't. By the way, Rahab was a foreigner, not an Israelite and a prostitute. She was credited with having faith and believing in God, that is kind of cool. He isn't partial and his character is so often maligned that people miss these great examples.what question was that?
But Abraham DIDN'T have faith in that circumstance. He doubted god, and went and slept with his slave girl and had a son by HER. Is that a demonstration of faith? To laugh at god and then go do things your own way because you don't believe what god told you?Joh_20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
yet somehow it doesn't say "damned are all who have seen and then believed" or "cursed are you for having to see to believe". Just blessed are those who have believed without seeing.
I see a lot of abuse of this verse all over the place. It's kind of funny.Yes, thank you Sir Dent, I knew it was Jesus and couldn't find it on a quick search. He wasn't unaware that not all got the same revelation as he provided, and says they are blessed.... a special blessing for them. It is really cool when God has things covered that might concern people, and answers it in advance. He didn't have to do that, but seems to have, many times over. It is like it is true, and that he could see into the future, lol. Thanks for the reference.
I agree that disagreeing with the word of God is a giveaway that you don't believe in him. That would include saying things are in the Bible that really aren't and misrepresenting one's opinions as His.
Disagreeing with another Christian is not disagreeing with God though.
I'm glad we agree.
After all that discussion earlier, this is so sad to me to observe. Wow. Just incredible. Not just this post but all surrounding.
Just so you know Melissa, we can all see that you are dictating to CGenaea how she is allowed to even discuss ideas from the bible, UNLESS she quotes verses verbatim with references. Or else you feel justified in this ongoing treatment you are giving to her. Every time I come to these forums I forget how horrible they can get.
We spent a lot of time showing how her views are correct using verses from Old and New Testaments, and your other point, which wasn't counter to hers (just another point) also had backing from the book of James. You were both not even discussing opposing points, just totally different points. You were discussing how its a good thing to do some good works when a Christian. She was discussing how a Christian can't be saved by their good works. You feel like its ok to condemn her for her point for not showing verses and their references, and have not let up for a long time. So others get a pass for not posting verses and references, but CGenaea is held to a totally different standard. I think by now this ought to be a compliment to her. No other way to look at it. If there were legit things to rebut her points with, you would have used those instead of this demand for chapter and verse and book stuff. To answer you, that is how you were wrong, even when you were posting scriptures. It didn't even take that long to figure it out and I was trying to be very fair to all. Others noticed it too. Hopefully this helps in future discussions for people that want to truly discuss and care about others even if they don't like their "style" of discussion or debate. Just maybe debate those that you dont' mind not having references and verses or those that will post them when you ask. Her points were not odd, unknown biblical concepts.I'm curious, genuinely - how you see Melissa's posts as condemning Genaea, but you don't seem to see Genaea's posts as condemning to her in return. Is this intentional? In your brief time on these forums, do you genuinely not see anything that Genaea has posted that was less than productive to continuing dialogue? You said that you would be the first person to point out negative behavior on ANY side of the discussion, but I only seem to see you do it towards atheists and Christians who disagree with Genaea. Is this just my perception, or do you really REALLY just not see it? I'm just curious as to your point of view.
No, I see people going hard after CGenaea, and then defending the behavior. Tonight's by Melissa was very clear, and she kept on after it was all dealt with which shows intent. I don't see the malice from CGenaea towards others, even with all the baiting that seems to be going on. She has learned the hard way to have to be stronger and not give back in kind or else be silenced, and this is in my short observation. Its not massively horrible, but a constant going after, as if trying to discredit using fallacious reasoning, and when I see it I point it out. Do I see some strange dialogue from her, I mean not your usual way of wording things? Yes, I do see that from her. In this latest case, can you show how Genaea was dictating how maybe Melissa had to post her ideas from the bible or anything else, or else her views didn't count for things that were common knowledge? I work a lot, and can't read all the posts. If you want to provide an example from the last few days when I was gone where she was giving back in kind, in context, I will look at that. It saddens me to have to even answer this, because you actually seemed like you were being sincere in the asking. That you can't see it says scores. How about, just leave her alone? One of the atheists was in here saying people should leave people alone.... how about her? How has she really hurt you? I am being dead serious...that warrants this treatment?
how am I treating her, specifically? I treat her the exact same way that she treats me. How are you, then, comfortable passing judgement on ME for asking you a sincere question. I'm not going after her. I disagree with her on a lot of things. If I called her names, I would be banned for it. If I attacked her personally, i would be banned for it. She, like many others, attacks a lot of people's ideas, and that's perfectly fine. Ideas deserve to be critically examined. I'm not above admitting to when I'm wrong. I can find example after example of her criticizing people personally, but I don't really see the point and I don't have the patience.
I was asking you a sincere, genuine question - and you answered. You see something wrong with my posts, with melissa's posts, etc. But Genaea is golden. Standing firm in a sea of her own creation. I'm truly and genuinely sorry that you can't see that. She's never hurt me. You have to give people power in order to hurt you. And I'm truly disappointed that I asked the question of you, and your response.
Agreeing with Genaea's message doesn't mean that someone has to agree with her method. Since she has no qualms about arguing with other believers and saying flat-out that they're not "true" christians, I'll take that to mean assent. I'm glad I know.
Genaea is the one that has said over and over again that she "speaks bible" yet seems to have a problem providing verses that back up her points and invalidate the points made against her. I don't think asking for biblical backup is therefore unreasonable - especially coming from the person that she has called numerous times not a true christian.As we saw, the scripture provided was overlooked and/or not recognized. One would have to know the words of the bible to recognize the paraphrase. Is that why Jesus spoke in parable? The bible does say that it will not be understood by some. It also implies that the messages are somewhat encoded or something right?
I've read the Bible several times. Your paraphrase was so inaccurate as to represent no identifyable verse in the Bible.
Even the section you did quote was horrible skewed from any version of the Bible available... including not having the correct number verses, the verses not lining up, and the meaning being changed.
Why would you not post the verses, since you knew them so well. If it was just ignorance of what specific verse you were quoting, the problem has been solved by the link to an online bible portal.
So you should never have to "paraphrase" again.
Now, again, when James says that faith alone will not save you... what do you think he is referring to being saved from? Here is the original question, along with the passage that you haven't answered:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2532033
That is your opinion of course. Since you can't see my heart, you are obviously just using your opinion to pass judgement.
That's fine, however, since I can see my heart I know you're wrong. To show her views are correct, you would have to say that the Bible lies. I can't accept that, no matter how much you want to stand up for her.
I thought we had agreed on that. Apparently, I was wrong.
I do wonder, however, how it is that me asking someone to speak the Bible without adding/subtracting/embellishing is incorrect? Especially when they say they ONLY speak Bible.
If she cannot Google a bible verse, here is a site...
Problem solved.
http://www.biblegateway.com/
Now, when she says that she is speaking biblically, then she can actually do it... instead of making things up based on something she says she read that no one else can find.You are so quick to say people are passing judgement on you I notice. I was pointing out exactly what I saw and that is just observation. I was being very kind, genuinely looking at all sides. It isn't rational or reasonable to dictate how people ought to post or else their posts don't count. That isn't me judging you. I will always stand up for anyone I see being treated unfairly. Her ideas weren't foreign ideas, and my guess is that you could have found the verses for her, or any of us could. I don't think it was about that. She was right, you were right, both talking about different subjects.
It is nice that you posted that link, though she said she uses that on occasion. Still, that was MUCH more than before, so thanks.That's what you saw throughout that discussion?
Fascinating.Well, as you are assigning motives to me that I obviously don't have, it's pretty obvious that -failing omniscience, you can ONLY be passing Judgement.
It is completely reasonable to ask someone for a bible verse when they are saying they speaking Biblically? Do you disagree with that?
In addition, I really don't want to discuss her issues and emotional turmoil. She has said before that she isn't speaking for herself anyway, but only for God... so that shouldn't be an issue.
If she would like to discuss her emotional issues, she is free to do so, however I have no interest and won't be discussing it.... which is exactly what I said. It's setting boundaries for my own conversation. Not directing her posts.Nah, my pointing out how "not cool" that was, isn't passing judgement more than to say it isn't cool. If someone had done that to you, I would do the same. I think its is a great idea to not discuss with anyone that you have problems with, so you get no argument from me for not wanting to discuss with her. It is probably a great idea. I am sure that if she wants to discuss works vs faith for salvation with people without posting verses (if she continues to not want to for whatever reasons or the ones she DID affirm and give), there will be some that may or may not want to discuss that. Sounds fair.
I don't have any problems at all with her. Although I do think that leading people away from what the Bible says is a problem, but it's not with her personally.
I asked her if she wanted to discuss any other verses and we continued in that vein.
It is completely acceptable for me to state my limits (being not to discuss her emotional turmoil) and ask if she wants to continue with the conversation. People do it all the time.
And it wasn't the cool part that was passing judgement, it was assuming that you knew my intentions... which requires a skill you do not possess.
do you not see it as unfair treatment when Genaea, phoenix (both with sarcasm) and you were all addressing Melissa at the same time, but when two or three people address Genaea's posts critically, it's suddenly unfair treatment and should be addressed? I see that as blatant hypocrisy. Melissa doesn't need to be defended. Genaea has stated that she doesn't care about being defended and can handle herself (since she has the spirit and all) yet you automatically jump to defend her - from what? From more than one person talking to her? Telling them that it's none of their business? Saying that it's an attack? Why is it only attack when someone is criticizing a Christian (at least a christian that you happen to agree with more often than not) but have no problem jumping on the bandwagon when it's three against one - against ANOTHER christian? The way that genaea addressed Melissa was identical to the way that you say melissa addressed her - but you see no problem with it at all, yet only criticized one. Why is that?
No, not from more than one person talking to her. She can definitely hold her own, but it doesn't make being treated unfairly ok. Addressing people at the same time happens all the time, and no that isn't the issue. Sometimes it is though, but not tonight that I saw. It was between two, now more though. I don't find your evaluation of the discussions to be totally fair, and somewhat biased. I was trying to be fair to all involved. I will continue to try to be. If you go back a few pages, you wouldn't disagree with me. Going back a few more pages, you will see that CGenaeas big crime tonight was not posting the verses verbatim with references and she took heat for it. So Melissa asked for others to help and we did. That is nice. She thanked me, others did too and to Phoenix. If you care to show a post from Genaea tonight that shows she was acting in kind, please show, I probably missed it. Since you seem to know for fact, I know it won't be hard for you to find, and then we can hopefully resolve it for you to your satisfaction. If I don't see it though, and you don't provide the same treatment (identical you said), then I will maintain my position. Thanks and I will apologize for not catching that sooner.
Ocean,
I'm not really interested in having you apologize for missing something. People miss things all the time. Sure, I could dredge back through the thread and find your examples, but we won't see them the same way at all - and that point has been made abundantly clear.
I think Melissa's point was that she disagreed with something Genaea was maintaining, and asked for specific Bible verses that supported her point. Genaea couldn't be bothered, and since what Genaea was saying went against what Melissa knows the Bible to say, she requested them again - to no avail. Sure, my observation may be biased - but I find yours to be slightly biased in the other direction. We're each entitled to our own opinion, so I suppose we'll just leave it at that. There's really no seeing eye to eye. We all have our own biases, but not once did I see melissa insult her personally or launch an offensive attack on her. It was a biblical disagreement. It happens, which explains the 40,000 denominations quite clearly.This is what I thought. I just wanted to offer that opportunity to prove me wrong with actual facts that I might have missed. I didn't think I missed anything vile from Genaea, but did notice some verses from Proverbs posted to Genaea that were about fools speaking opinions and needing to cover their mouth, etc, in a discussion about faith vs works, lol. It wasn't just a biblical disagreement, if you read my posts, Melissa and CGenaea were defending two different things, which I explained in detail as I saw it play out. It was totally unnecessary actually, and when we all posted verses for the different sides anyway, it was seemingly cleared up. Hours later I saw her being gone after still, to explain what you saw when you arrived. Both were right in their stances, as I saw.
Okay.
I can't count the number of times that genaea had called me and others fools because "a foolb days in their heart there is no God" even though that's not at all what I say.
It must have been before you were following.
We just disagree. That's okay. I can live with that.
Please don't think that because I'm unwilling to wade through pages of posts to find one that I'm sure we'll disagree on anyway that none exists. I'm just not willing at the moment to spend my time for further disagreement.Its ok, I get it. Great faith in the unseen in this case. ;p You can just trust that I must be wrong in my assessment. I was asking you to back up what you said was all, which was your whole basis for speaking to me about it, and claiming I was being biased or unfair, etc. When I said all I did, I gave my reasoning and showed how I was saying what I said was true, etc. It would be cool if we could all do that. I understand the not wanting to go back some pages.
*Shrugs* Whatever helps you sleep at night. Like I said, you have no idea what my intentions are so your opinion on them is ignorant by definition. I feel no particular need to be affected by ignorant opinions. If you feel your friend needs defended, by all means do what you think is right. If that involves assigning false motives to excuse your actions, then so be it. Like I said, no skin off my nose and it obviously makes you feel better.
I don't know your intentions, true, how could I. I can only go by what you write and say and expect from some by the words you type. CGenaea is not a friend of mine, I have only seen her posting a few weeks now and I am gone most of the time.
It isn't about me feeling better, as what feels best is to not come to these forums at all because I always see people treated in a poor manner, over the years. I see some people getting banned while others skate, scott free for doing much worse. Stepping in is a harder thing for me to do, to be honest. Notice many posts and days go by and I don't say a word. I did tonight, and new I would maybe have to pay for that too, but it seemed the right thing to do anyway.
I don't regret pointing out how I thought there was really no disagreement between you two, I thought that was maybe truly helpful, and shared in detail why I thought that. I then showed how I agreed with you both in the different points you were making and why. If you think I have ignorant opinions, based on all I have said, then that is fine too. I can take it, though I disagree, and hope that I conduct myself here in a manner that defends that without saying. Glad no skin off your nose though. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If I truly missed a post where you were mistreated and didn't speak up, my apologies, and would love to see that. I care about fairness and coming from me too, not just asking it of others. Have a good night.You posts are ignorant, so far as I can tell, only when they come to your opinions on my motives. Those opinions are obviously made with no knowledge what soever.
I'll not lower myself to prove my reasons for posting the verses, as frankly I don't have to explain myself. I'll also not whine about persecution. If you want to read the posts, read them. If you feel you have enough information to conclude I was treating someone badly without reading them, have at it.
I do thank you for completely derailing the conversation so that we can all talk about Cgenaea. That's much more productive than a conversation about the Bible. Thanks for aiding in the spreading of God's word and encouraging conversation.Ok, Melissa, and just for clarification, I did read what I thought to be most of the posts, and spoke about possible other posts I might have missed with the possible troublesome posts from CGenaea. In other words, welcoming the opportunity to be shown wrong since a couple here think I am. I was assuming the best that maybe I missed something and can clear things up. I admit I don't know all the finer nuances, things, and motives within the conversation, and the hearts of those involved. I did, in looking back see some defense with scriptures at least one with the reference and the others examples like I gave of the thief on the cross.
As for the verses you posted about James, I totally get why you did and agreed if you recall. Lets not forget I supported you too when I did. I wouldn't conclude what I did without reading posts. I also don't deny that she didn't give a list of verses and you kept asking for those. I took a chance at speculating why that might be with her, and she agreed that I was right on the money. At least we know why she didn't. (Even if you don't agree or would do the same.)
While not always the most fun, I truly believe that there are certain ways that good conversation can be had for all people involved in conversations. I think that is true, no matter what the topic. I was happy to help share the verses when you put that out there, I did and wish they and the others given had been enough support to satisfy you. That they were not is unfortunate, but I don't think sharing them is wasted ever. I appreciate the time spent regardless, by all parties.Well, like I said, she has now been given a link to a site where she can easily search for those verses. If she still doesn't post supporting evidence, then there must be another reason.
I'm still waiting for her to answer the question I've asked several times. Do you think that's because she can't use a keyboard either?
The verse (singular) that you gave was not supportive. It was one exception while James provides the rule. But regardless, it's not YOU I'm now asking the question to.
You posted a verse, she NOT HAVING ONE OF HER OWN, said it was the right one. Now I'm asking her specifically why. If she doesn't know the answer, she obviously shouldn't be saying that her opinion is God's word. That's a very bad thing, biblically, quite fitting, I'd say, with those "random verses" that I posted.Again, I am not admonished to cite book chapter and verse for you. That is your job. Jesus never said, "In the book of Genesis" for some reason he didn't need to. Maybe everyone already knew what was written already. Get busy...only my suggestion. No wait! The bible says it too.
Study.Jesus was getting his words directly from God. Are you saying that you don't need to provide/prove what you are saying with the word because you are getting YOUR messages from God? Want to hear some verses about what the Bible says about that?
I'm sorry it bothers you to type the exact word of God rather than what you think. Does it burn or something?Oh you don't know the bible very much now do you???
Jesus said, "it is written" more than the one time I have in my head i think. You got any of his words in your head??? Or is Gateway your "work of faith" too???Oh, gateway is a place where all the versions of the bible are. They don't change the Bible there, just have it in electronic form. I think Jesus would approve of a place where his words were accurately represented and easily accessible.
It goes far to combat charlatans who seek to bend his word to their purposes. It's not so easily bent when it is directly quoted.
Now, back to that James question you are trying to avoid. Saved from what?
You haven't answered me either. Do your actions prove faithful to God, or fellow men? Actions show what belief is. To go against scripture is sin. To proudly go against it and give it a political justification is your "work" that proves faithful to God?
I'm sorry, could you please show me a question that I didn't answer? Go ahead and permalink it and post it here. I'll wait.
Uh that WAS the question reasked. Ok, I will spell it out for you. Some of my ignorance must be rubbing off on someone.
Do you consider the act of not teaching ones children about the bible to be a faithful act?No? No what? I asked what you thought the man wasn't going to be saved from by faith alone?
Here's the question and the verses:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2532033
It appears to me to be the ultimate and perfect act of faith. And I personally give Melissa my full respect for understanding that faith shouldn't have to be indoctrinated. It's unfair to take advantage of a child's young and developing brain and it shows that she is faithful that the faith will come to the child, rather than not being faithful and indoctrinating.
Now we who are spiritual know better than to take spiritual advice from an atheist. It's not the same mind. I bet Melissa agrees with YOU here. Those were similar to her own words. Now how'd THAT happen again? Oh, I know...
See oceansnsunsets? Nothin... it happens a lot.
It is not about judging or passing judgement or being judgmental, thats just a game.
A ten dollar Rolex either keeps good time or it does not.
Exorcism and "other" tongues are very possible acts of faith.
I don't know about that. Acts makes it pretty clear that those things happened for real - not just that they were possible. Is Acts a parable? Metaphor? Allegory? Or are we to interpret it literally? What does the spirit tell you about that?
The bible states that the "body" of God has many parts. Each part serves a certain purpose. But it is the same body. Not each of his people receive the same gift or fruit or amount of talents. But each is responsible for their talents.
Okay. I know what the bible says about the gifts of the spirit. You said something completely different. And that particular passage doesn't address this issue as it is addressed in Acts.
So is that a yes, you believe in those things or no, you don't?Not everyone has the gift of tongues, or snake handling, or excorcism. Some are capable not all. So POSSIBLY still stands. Can you see that??? I'm smooshed against the corner but my answer is intact.
Okay...I'm taking that as a yes. You do believe them as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but not in them all happening at once in the same person at the same time.
That was already a given.Some not happening in some people ever. Not all God's children have the gift of speaking in tongues. Or any other gift for that matter.
Now this brings up a question of its own. You mentioned different functions but one body of Christ? If there are different parts of the body with different functions, then how can a hand tell the foot that it does not belong to the body just because they do not have the same function and their functions contradict one another? Even though their functions are different, each have their own role to the working of the body
The only time that one looks at the foot's position it is to say, "hey, you're a little cocked today, straighten up" which is what the body was instructed to do. Not according to opinion; but according to the very valuable and must needed word of the bible that is to be trusted for reproof. This is not a personal endeavour. The bible speaks to the body of Christ. Those who do not believe are not of the body. To walk with someone harmoniously, there must be agreement.
There is a difference between telling the foot to straighten up and telling it it does not belong. Now as far as walking harmoniously, there does not have to be agreement in all things for two to live in harmony with one another. There can be disagreement between two people in one aspect of life but still respect for differences and bonds formed from other shared interests. The primary thing necessary for people to live harmoniously is an understanding of one another as well as a respect for differences. Also in the midst of that is to also avoid discussion of things in a manner that would bring disharmony. This is what I've learned in my life. Its not simply about being liked. Its about having an understanding of whom you are speaking with before trying to be understood yourself. It's very difficult for me to see one thing about a person that I disagree with and write them off as that being the total of their existence.
I understand. But my observation was not a once or twice occurrence. It was consistent agreement and harmony.
Jesus agreed with God alone. All who didn't, got...well you know.
When one agrees with God, he agrees with what is written as a whole. Jesus did. He said it is written more than once. What he said is of the most importance. He sent us a whole spirit to help us remember. (Did you pick that up as being a biblically considered phrase??? I'm just testing something) Yes, we are to be kind and gentle as followers of Christ. But truth is more important than any of that. Jesus would never stray from truth to reel them in.
He said, "Are you coming Man? You gotta sell your stuff. Going once... goin... gone. Take care..." Or something like that.
A pause for, "What's wrong little Buddy? Dontcha WANNA believe in my father?" just does not seem as something Jesus would have done. If he doesn't accept truth as it is; he probably won't.
My foot cant be stuck lollygaggin...we goin this way. lolTrue, Jesus never strayed from the truth. However, he did adjust his presentation of the truth as according to who he was dealing with. He was hard where he needed to be and also gentle where he needed to be. The key was in discerning the specific need. Other than helping others and teaching love and tolerance, his teachings were not a blanket one size fits all teaching. There are two things with observed behavior. The first thing is that what you see may not be (and in some cases certainly not) the full story. The other thing is that even if there is a full story there, a discerned need must be met more often than not in order for a message to be received. If a man is hungry, he is more likely to listen to you if you feed him. Unfortunately, some would withhold food until the message is accepted rather than give the example of the message then the words of the message. Ultimately, as you pointed out, we each have an assignment and a function within the body. Just because one person doesn't understand the assignment of another doesn't mean that the assignment is false
Right. Jesus did not stop to talk to people who didn't believe him unless to blast.
The women and children he fed were the people who listened to him speak all day.
The people he served requested his services because of faith they already had. He healed the faithful. He walked with and reached out to the faithful. Only.That's interesting.
How exactly did the believers become believers if he never reached out to them? Are you saying that he taught that we should only help those who believed and others could starve and die?
Yeah, I'm going to need the verse on that one too.
Edit: When Jesus says " Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13)
How do you think that lines up with your assertion that he was only reaching out the faithful?He SHOWED us that one. Ask Deepes. He knows where it is.
Does Deepes have some knowledge you don't possess? I mean you made the statement, I was assuming that you had some basis for it.
Again, please share those verses! I'm sure that Deepes and I both would appreciate hearing something from Jesus that neither of us have heard before.
We discussed it. You are not listening to me. Neither is he. So maybe you two may continue with that and whatever you so desire.
Did you ever look up the scripture on who the bible tells to bridle?
Maybe you two can discuss that. Would be interesting.
Tomorrow...if the Lord allows.Of course I'm not listening to you, I've already explained why I'm not listening to you. I'm not required to listen to someone who is not speaking Biblically. I'm encouraged to not listen to those who are speaking against the doctrine I have been taught.
That's why I'm asking for Bible verses... because without them it's your word verses the Bible. You are going to lose that fight everytime.
I'm not seeing what is so hard for you to understand. If you are truly wishing to show me that I am wrong in my thinking, then all you have to do is show me the verse. Since you are not, even when provided with a link where you could easily find whatever verse you like, I have to assume that there is no verse.Unfamiliarity with scripture is not my problem but yours. "It is written" is enough! Somehow I just know it is...
maybe you should try studying.Again I have, that's why I recognize that "it's in there somewhere" doesn't invalidate what the Bible actually says. The sign of a deceiver is that he doesn't know God's word. Or says he is saying God's word but can't back it up. You are saying things that aren't in the Bible are "paraphrasing" doesn't excuse that. Sorry.
It's fully backed. You didn't read Deepes post? The paraphrase is what you get from me. The Lord holds me responsible for the delivery of false or almost false ideas. I won't mislead. And I trust my father. He sends help when needed. The spirit backs me up. Are you familiar??? No...wait...I forget. Spirit is not really something you "like" either... right?
So you are ashamed to post the word of God because your word is better? The Bible is false and your paraphrasing is superior?
Sorry, that is DEFINITELY warned about in the Bible.
I've never met a Christian that was reluctant to discuss the word, to share the word, before. That's interesting.
I don't suppose you could paraphrase the verse that says that is what we should do?Train up a child in the way that he should go (but there's no way to be sure what that is huh? So many options...) I will send you a keeper... (and we call it the Holy Spirit) what's your name for it Melissa? And last in question; "it is not of works lest any man should boast." Google or Bible Gateway should help you just fine with all of that.
I will answer all those questions as soon as you answer the James question.
I've answered straight -forward every question you've put to me, now it's your turn.None of this was done straight-forward. But here goes... Faith does not save you if you have no works to prove your faith. As in the children's teaching, the indwelling of the holy spirit and working your way into heaven by washing only the OUTSIDE of your cup and "looking like" you are cooking with gas for God because you made some sandwiches and volunteered at the Y.
did you get all that???That would mean that the Christian only does works in order to prove their faith, which is very selfish and has nothing to do with doing good for others because others need the help.
Nonbelievers will do works because people are in need, they don't do works for selfish reasons.The works are being misunderstood. The works brought up by Luke was to be understood as naturally occurring because of the faith one has. Not as a "commission". Do you see otherwise?
No, actually I don't see otherwise... which is why it confuses me that I don't see them naturally occurring. I see Christians talk, but I don't see them actually doing good works. As a matter of fact, I see them openly scorning good works as unnecessary and prideful. I see them saying that talking IS good works. James says even demons believe that there is only one true God. So saying it really doesn't mean anything. In addition, James says SHOW me your faith by words alone, and I'll show you mine through good works.
Why do you think he said that, if not for the Christians who profess belief but do no good works to be seen? Do you think he was being prideful?Are there not Atheists who do charity work? Are there not nonbelievers who do the works listed by Luke??? What makes Christian doers different from nonChristian doers?
Based on what you said, Christians who do works only do them to get in good with the big guy while nonbelievers who do works do them because people are in need of help.
See the difference, yet?Of course there are Atheists that do charity work. The difference is they do so without it being required, in their minds, by the word. We, however, are required to do it because it's part of committing our lives to Christ. As James says.
Excellent point EncephaloiDead
That is why the Bible and Jesus do not teach a Spirit of the Anti-Christ false and twisted doctrine purloined from James.
Ephesians 2:8-10
King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As far as James, the example is someone that has a million bucks and wads of cash and drives a Mercedes and comes across someone who is starving to death and tells them, "be warmed and happy its all good with God " - OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REAL FAITH OR LOVE IN GOD. Just like if a fake Christian makes a career out of one verse or uses selected verses as put downs to a real Christian or, attacks Christians on a daily even hourly basis and does not EXHORT his fellow brother sister, we know that they OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO REAL FAITH OR LOVE IN GODOh, don't come down so hard about Ggneae using the Proverbs 22:6 so much. That's not fair. Obviously she was concerned about the welfare of my children. I've shown the Biblical reasoning... so she should be OK now. I expect that she will be exhorting me any time now, as I have been exhorting her. Her concern, I'm sure, just caused her to overlook that.
I am glad, however, that God finally found another human that can look inside the hearts and minds of others. Were you blessed with any other gifts?
So faith alone doesn't save? Good, we'll come back to that. And to why James specifically gives the example of feeding the poor and clothing the naked.
Now, to answer your questions:
Train up a child in the way that he should go (but there's no way to be sure what that is huh?
My answer lies within Matthew 19:14
13Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
It is not for me, or anyone else, to hinder my children from coming to Christ as children. When they seek Christ, they will do it with a pure, clean heart unspoiled without anyone else's thoughts on what Jesus should be, including mine. They will receive the word, new, with open minds, directly from God, not from me or anyone else.
That day he blessed the children. He didn't teach them, he simply embraced them blessed them with his love.
I will send you a keeper... (and we call it the Holy Spirit) what's your name for it Melissa?
My name for it is conscience.
And last in question; "it is not of works lest any man should boast."?
It is exactly that. One should not boast of what they do. If you would like to ask me about my specific volunteerism, then I will be happy to share. However, it is not boasting to remind another of the word and suggest they follow it.
Now, what specifically do you think James was referring to when he said to visit the orphans and widows and to feed the hungry and clothed?
Be careful, my friend. You are sliding into Scotsman territory. She is sharing the word, just not the exact verse in some areas.
Not really, I've just never met one and it's an interesting view. Just as I said.
Borderline because of the implication the statement carried. Unless I'm just too used to hearing others say it
Oh, I think that presenting one's words as God's word is warned against in the Bible, but I don't think that makes the person not a Christian. I mean I know that the WBC members are also Christians, even though I certainly don't understand their interpretation of the word.
And the heavens sing... HAAAALELUJAH...!!!
like music to my ears Dear Brother. Truth is what matters here. I know it wasn't FOR me per se...but the work is accomplished.
Actually, I am listening to you. The things you have been saying in this conversation have been biblically sound and based. Unfortunately, they have also contradicted previous statements that you have made as well as conclusions you have tried to draw. And you are still maintaining your stance of me and Melissa not being christian despite your insistence earlier that we should not judge. I have even offered you insight as a means of understanding us both and (in my case) even where it lines with the bible. It would appear that you are choosing not to hear what I am saying to you
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saul was not faithful before he encountered Christ. Saul was killing the followers of Christ. But still be that as it may, you have an issue with the fact that I have become friends with two atheists here (and I assure you it is only two though I do have respect for some others), but what you do not see is that there have been some subtle (though they wouldn't admit it) changes in them. We cannot expect anyone to suddenly accept and embrace the message in this day and age. As such, we cannot as quickly write them off as being lost. In my opinion, true ministry is when your child is lost, you do not simply stand on the stoop and call their name, nor do you promise a beating if they don't come back. Ministry is being so concerned for your child that you go out and find where they got lost then bring them back. Yes, there may be animposed urgency because we know not the day nor the hour, but a person is more likely to stay if they come of their own accord with encouragement than by being dragged and beaten along the way.
The words stand.
Character in the eyes of others changes on a whim.
Persecution was promised on the narrow road.
...belief without eyewitness...
oopsididitagain...No one is persecuting you. You are not being thrown in jail or threatened. Your life is not in danger. Claiming persecution because people disagree with you on a forum completely diminishes the real suffering of others who genuinely are being persecuted for their beliefs or lack thereof.
And I agree with you. Now this brings up another question. Is that persecution only limited to coming from those of opposing faiths? It seems that Christians persecute each other as well. Just because persecution is promised doesn't mean it will come from everyone who does not believe. There are some who don't believe but are still seeking more knowledge and information. As such it is still assignment to provide instruction and word to those who ask.
Persecution can be given within and outside of the "brethren" but it is the one who says and does as Jesus commanded who the bible promises this persecution to. The bible tells us that the road is narrow and not preferred. Often times lonely and unpopular.
To you and Melissa: no Christian may judge another. But obvious errors are to be discussed. If you see a brother overtaken in a fault you are to restore them if you are spiritual. That means if I see you type, "yeah, the bible must be tainted in some areas because it was touched." I am supposed to say, "then what do we use for reproof?" Or if I hear you say, "Jesus accepted all kinds of mindsets into his camp. " I need to say, "God has one mind. The gate is narrow, Christ is the way. Not just speaking the words but acting on them." The works of Abraham and Rahab were mentioned in the works section because their works were acts that showed they believed. Abraham believed God. Adam didn't. But we don't call Adam the father of faith. Adam believed another message.Indeed, and such discussion requires the actual word of God, not the word of another Christian that says "It says so in the Bible". As a matter of fact, the Bible says not even to associate with those who are teaching differently than you have learned. (Romans 16:17)
So yes, the actual word of God (the Bible) is required. Even then, saying that a verse means something the the other doesn't think it means requires other verses to back it up.
So, saying "That's wrong, or that's against God" is being judgmental. Saying "Here is a verse" is instruction. There is no Christian wiser than another. If both are believers and both are following the words of Christ, then both are equal. Therefore, there is no one "true" Christian.Right. But the behavior you have exhibited has not been solely on those statements. Neither myself nor Melissa have an issue this the statements you just made. Those are not judgments. Those are serious questions in the discussion of the bible. Where it falls under judgment and condemnation is when you state that someone that may have a different view is not a real Christian or that they are on the broad path. It is not your place to judge the walk of another believer as you cannot know where they are in their walk with Christ. You, Melissa, and I all agree that the path is through Christ and both Melissa and I accept Christ. You have stated that there are some elements of the bible that you are not concerned with (such as history, also when and where some things weresaid and done). That does not make you less of a Christian for not being concerned about those things. Melissa doesn't care much about a majority of the OT because most of those laws were for the Jews and Levites. Her focus is Christ and living as good of a life as possible. My perspective of the Bible surrounds the one whom my faith and beliefs were named for, which is Christ. Now how I apply that example does not take away from the message in Any way shape or form. Yes, I'm kind to a lot of people in general, but I am also firm in my stance on the bible andy beliefs. I am also straightforward with the message and have no problem saying I don't have the answer but seek the word for it. My faith only make up one part of who I am and I do incorporate that faith in the things I do in other areas of my life. But I cannot and do not limit myself solely on my faith in God. As part of my faith, I also put in works necessary forthe fulfilment of my faith because as it was mentioned, one cannot stand without the other.
I did not pick your views out of a hat. Neither view. My so-called judgment is based from your output. You side with atheists more often than not. She does not feel it necessary to "indoctrinate" her children. Do you or anyone else see either of those actions alone to be faithful acts?
You keep mentioning my Children... Are you seeking guidance on how to raise yours?
Oh, and might you be answering the one question I asked several times about the James verses?The bible tells me how to raise mine. Who tells you?
The Bible also. That's why I homeschool. Do you need those verses?
Again, that question on James?Proverbs 13:24 ESV
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 ESV
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Look at what I have agreed with them on. If a certain behavior does not make for productive discussion, I point it out. If I note an action that may not be lining up with Christ, I point it out as
Well. The fact that atheists say the same thing is secondary to the fact that I am observing a behavior. I also speak to the atheists as well on correction when they go too far overboard. Once again, observed behavior does not tell the entire story. Sorry, but you do pick my views out of a hat. You choose to only focus on those actions that run opposite what you would do(mostly because I do have atheist friends). Your picture of my views is very inaccurate. There is a saying: It's easy to dismiss one person's observation, but when several people observe the same thing it becomes harder to refute. When i have pointed out where some of your actions may not line up, i provided scripture to back it up. Youre saying that when you tell the foot that it is crooked and needs to get in linewith the body then it is crooked, but when that foot tells you the same regarding your actions you dismiss it as false. You cannot have it both ways. You choose to only accept it from some Christians, but when others do it you dismiss it even when you are shown the bible in context (no I'm not referring to some of the earlier scriptures).I am not really sure what the argument here is. Many people do not like my posts. It was promised in scripture that those who speak what it says would not be popular. It is so often seen as judgment when it is rather a reminder one would rather not be reminded of. Atheists do not want Jesus/God reminders and the skeptical are not sure rather they do or not.
As for the foot correcting the hand. There are rules. One would sound silly holding one's hand from doing its job. For instance, you told me to stop communication with you because we argued about your approaching me to tell me how harshly I delivered my message to the fragile and precious ears of your friends who basically said to me, "shut your freaking pie hole there aint no evidence for your foolish delusional very mean-spirited God who most likely does not exist."
I had a nice little discourse with you and a few others about how my actions were definitely outside of the spirit of Christ. And nothing like him because he was gentle and kind to ALL he encountered. The conversation ended though and I was barred from speaking to you (by you) ever again under threat of the authorities because I was THEN "harrassing" you by asking for an example of Jesus buddying up with or pursuing one who totally denied his message. No response for that ever came.
You came to me to tell me how cruel I was being to the ears of your pals and to report to me that my actions fell short of Christ. To me, I had him down; you seemed a bit wavery.
Do you feel that the entire bible is a sound document and should be used for correction? Let's see if you may provide a response...Yes, the bible is a sound document to be used for correction when actually USED for correction. The argument here has morning to do with the bible. What the argument here is (and always has been between me and you) is how you make the claim and assertion that I am not a christian because you disagree with my friendship with some atheists. Also as it relates to your actions against my friends, I have not only tried to correct you with my friends, I have also attempted to help and correct you with those who are not my friends as well. As I stayed before, I have only four friends here on HP that o interact with outside of HP, two Christian and two atheist. I have no issue with using the bible to correct and clarify things to anyone who is willing to be open to correction. There is a difference between using the bible as a tool or rod of correction and using it for attack and abuse. I already know how you're going to respond to this, but your use of it often falls in the latter category. You have even done it to other Christians. The spirit gave you what you needed to get you through. But the holy spirit also works within others the same way. A relationship with God is personal. He deals with each of us individually as according to what's in each of our hearts. You cannot rightly judge someone to be false because God's message to an individual spirit within the general message may be different from your own. Even in correcting others, it must be firm but gentle as well. On top of everything else, we are told to love our neighbor as ourselves. I know the things I speak to my self shows a lot of love for me. As such my speaking to others also reflects the love I have for myself.
For the record: you started the flow with your confrontation of my not being like Christ. Remember??? So the finger-pointing and labeling started with you. In defense of my journey, I stated what the bible states about where the loyalty of Christ was. And was NOT...
Actually it didn't. It started with you making a comment on my comment to another. So yeah it started with your judgment. I merely showed you (with scripture) how your actions go against the bible. I guess you disliked the word being shown to you . But I never questioned your faith nor said you were less than a Christian. It was a case of one Christian correcting the behavior of another. You were the one that said I wasn't a real Christian. There is a difference between telling a Christian that a specific behavior is not Christ like and telling someone they're not a believer at all. I used the bible for correction. You took a direct attack at my faith.
Do you remember what post I commented on that showed me to be not like Christ? I stand firm on the fact that I am not unlike Christ in my approach. I have studied his moves. I know what he did for what and for whom. I must follow. I am no good on my own. You that day were kind of up in the air to me. And still have not provided one single incident where he stopped to rub shoulders with anyone who did not believe him to sweeten their experience; to win them.
I have never been angry with you. Truth is my intention.
I came to become a writer, because it calms me. My situation is currently low totem and my phone is my only accessible mode. Im hampered. But this has been something unexpected.
Ordered? (shrugs)Which I expected from you. Even if someone provides you scripture of your behavior, you have rationalized and justified your behavior based on what the spirit shows you that the word says rather than what is printed. The fact is that it is written that he did embrace those who did not believe and helped their experience. How else did they come to belief? Now to borrow your phrase, its not my job to show you verse and chapter. It is up to you to study for yourself. You seem to be of the belief that he only spoke to those who believed. That's not true. He converted people in different ways. I also studied his ways. I've never been angry with you either. But I do take issue when I see a Christian judge another christian to not be Christian. It is not our job to attack the faith of another Christian.
Have you written a book yet? Or are you in the process of writing? I kust published two books last week and have three more coming later this yearHey You ever see a weirdo liberal parent or father, who is in love with their own voice and they will be trying to rationalize with their 13 year old who is throwing a fit like a 2 year old? They are so self absorbed that they dont even notice everyone else is rolling their eyes at each other in a knowing way, understanding how the kid got to be so incorrigible, in the first place?
Completely agreed. Although it is kind of rude to compare Gcenea with a two year old. Someone should probably report that as a personal attack on her. That's not cool.
I was talking figuratively about the types of personalities and types of mentalities of the people Gcenea has to deal with. But your response is expected or confirmed.
Oh, OK. I'm sure you have lots of experience with 13 year old's that act like two year olds. I don't have that experience, so I'm sure you know best on what it looks like.
Could you point those people out, giving examples? That'd be greatMaybe some folks could just reply- Im rubber youre glue etc" and then another dude can post five pages of how everyone on the planet should not be judgin them?
Wow, I have no idea who you are talking about... could you elaborate? A quote would be sufficient, really anything to identify who you are talking about.
Or do you have a specific reason for not sharing that information? I would think that if you were going to personally accuse someone of such terrible behavior, that you would be willing to share that name.
You know the type. They blah blah blah and then usually wind up feeding their own ego about all their alleged future accomplishments.
Anyway, Is it possible that you can change these folks hearts and turn them to God?Well, there are some whose hearts do need to be changed and led to God or back to God. Thankfully, I am already there. And until you are
Able to let me dip my hands in the woundsin your hands and side you are in no position to judge otherwise. Its a shame you had to resort to attacking the faith of other Christians. I had high hopes that you were different.I am not attacking a faith. I doubt its very existence.
If you say so. Well, I guess there is no more to be said. Obviously your grasp of the bible is good but your application of it is not. Its fine if you doubt my faith. You are man and as such have no authority over it.
Are you attacking my faith? Victimizing me? You judging my application of the Bible? Thou shalt not judge me and give me a 2014 Challenger. Those are the rules. It says so in a couple verses.
Not attacking your faith at all. Noting behavior that is not biblical is not an attack of Faith. Claiming someone is not a good Christian or not even Christian because of said behavior is attacking faith. Nice try though. I have not questioned your faith at any point. I hadn't even questioned your behavior until a minute ago
You judging my behavior? Dont be judging me. I am feeling all "victimy". But by all means- Feel free to question my relationship with The Lord Your God anytime you feel froggy.
Again as Christians we are called to correct behavior, not say who does or does not belong. I'm discussing behaviors and how they don't line up with scripture. I did not say that you do not belong to Christ nor that you are not a good Christian. A Christian is a Christian. There is no separation. We all have been redeemed by Christ our savior as we all accept his death, burial, and resurrection for our sins. Hence the reason we are called Christians. We all fall short, but we are to build each other up, not throw any out. You, genaea, and other would throw any out that disagree with you as far as what the word says rather than exchange discussion. Just saying
Is that what you and your friends do, is it? Build each other up? But who corrects your behavior?
ROFLMAO.
I will, with the permission of others involved in the matter, invite you into our next private conversation on religious matters. Failing that, please friend me on facebook and feel free to join in with my other friends when we have one.
If you lived closer, I would certainly invite you visit my Church.
Just because you fall back on the friends must share the same opinion thing, don't assume everyone else does.Actually, we do both. We do discuss the bible in depth on the process of building up. We also correct one another when one of us is o correct about a verse. I also try to reel the others in when they may be sliding too far oit there. Some like to call me the peacemaker at times. They don't always listen to me though. But I do try. Sometimes what you see or choose to see do not tell the whole story of a situation. Often there is also a background as well, which may or may not be relevant based on beliefs.
Oh, was there a contest? And no, it really doesn't rhyme.
So you are admitting that your attack on my Christlikeness was about judgment of my faith? Oh. I didn't notice...
Not at all, ma'am. I never once said you were not a Christian nor that you were bad. My assessment was purely of behavior, not faith. If you believe the whole bible and keep its word, I would hope you wouldn't mind a fellow Christian showing you where it may not line up.
Guess I was wrongWhat you say, shows faith. Jesus said that it is what comes out of you that defiles you. That's true. My observations of you have been a collection of concessions. It seemed to me an avenue toward so much freedom, there is no command.
In this day and age we are moving away from what is right; to what is politically correct. The bible says that God says that he declares what is right. We cannot go against that, for "good" reason, to appease our own understanding.
The bible says that if you say what he said (an act of faith) the world will not like you. Which brings to mind another question, "Does the world like you?"Concession of a point is not the same as agreement with a point. Concession of something is merely an acknowledged understanding of where someone may be coming from. I can acknowledge an understanding of where someone is coming from without agreeing with a person.
As far as whether the "world" likes me or not, it depends on who you consider the world. If you are talking about the world as a whole, then not hardly. There are plenty of people that dislike me for various reasons whether they know me or not. If you consider tjw world to be HP in general, the number of people who actually like me is a very small minority. In fact I can count that number on one hand. If you are only counting the world as those who do not profess a belief (whether agnostic or atheist) again the answer would be that there is a small minority that like me personally (and those two that do like me in spite of my beliefs). When it comes to religion, there are those who dislike my beliefs vehemently though they appreciate the fact that I treat them like people. There are others who dislike me and my approach altogether. So the short answer is that realistically, no. The world does not like me. And I'm okay with that as I do not answer to the world regardless of belief structure or lack thereofNo problem for me... any example of Jesus conceding his points?
You are not Jesus. His points were law. Yours aren't. Are you saying you are the Christ?
His points are listed only in scripture as far as I know. To say what it says is to say what he says. In that light, may any of scripture be conceded?
No, it can't.
Which is why I asked to post scripture. When you are doing that, it can't be argued that the words are from you. When you are "paraphrasing" then the words have been processed through you, and are therefore not the word.
Now, if we discuss actual scripture, we may work together to try to understand it to the best of our ability.
When we discuss your "paraphrasing" we have to go through the corruption to get to the word, making it questionable.I understand your plight, but you seem to be the only Christian who has no idea what I am talking about. But I guess you probably are still at a loss. But it only takes a real long look at it. Not only the verses that jump out.
I am not trying to fight you (though we do it so well )
A good conversation. I have learned a bit.Yes, my plight to hear the actual word. Not just someone's view of what it is. Yes, I am at a loss at why you think others would prefer to hear your paraphrasing instead of Christ's words.
Otherwise, I'm pretty good.The paraphrase brings a clearer picture. As you see, many understand it to be what it is and you do not. May be intent?
I apologize for confusing you. But paraphrase is what I have most often. I have been given what it means.
Study is another biblical admonishment. It's important to keep it readily available on the inside of you rather than a click away. The holy spirit...nevermind.
Interesting that you are looking for a biblical example that you are willing to provide. But we'll leave that one alone.
Now to be fair, I can admit there is no actual biblical printed record of Christ conceding any points. However, the bible does not give record of his every move. If you wish to take that and claim a victory, be my guest.I also note that I never stated that Christ conceded any opposing points. I stand firm on the fact that me understanding where another person is coming from does not make me any more or less of a Christian. Matter of fact. I still maintain my faith because the bible says that we are to love others like we love ourselves and also to do into others as we would have them do unto us. What that means to me is that if I want my points to be understood, I must also understand the points of another. Whether there is agreement or not is irrelevant. Productive communication calls for the understanding of the topic of discussion as well as understanding the person with whom you are having a discussion with. Failure to understand either results in communication issues such as ones we have now.
Since we are discussing the bible, what do the verses I referenced (love thy neighbor and do unto others) mean to you?...but I say unto you: Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you...
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
They all say the same to me. Real love cares about you. Feeds you clothes you watches out for you. Not superficially.
As I performed a skit for Melissa earlier to confirn, I can't make and deliver to her a plate. But I got food... she doesn't seem hungry though. lol
- only God may change a heart. Once the mind is made-up. One may only try to help with the other stuff.
One must have an ear to hear.
And me telling you not to speak to me is had nothing to do with what you were saying to anyone else. I told you (and I stand by it) that there is no need for us to talk if you are going to insist on saying I'm not a Christian. As siblings on Christ, we are supposed to correct one another, not attack each other's faith and pass judgment on who is or who is not a Christian. You and I can discuss bible all day and I welcome that. But if you don't think I'm a true christian even though I tell you that I have acceoted the narrow gate then there truly is nothing for us to discuss because if you cannot provide instruction biblical living without judging and attacking who someone is currently then people cannot learn from you. Its like presenting a meal on a filthy garbage can lid. The food might have been good, but it becomes contaminated by the presentation. Now if your goal is to say whatever you wish to say and however you wish no matter how the message of God looks to another when coming from your hands and lips, then by all means God bless you. But if you wish to save souls and change lives (which is what Christ wanted us to do) then maybe a slight change (not total because tje message must still be firm) of approach may possibly need to be examined. Ultimately, it all depends on your goal. What is your goal here on HP? What are your intentions?
I watched the Cosbys too!
But Jesus didn't. He separated the yeas from the nays. For biblical clarification since I'm accused... "He who is not for me... (Melissa! You know the rest of this one?) is against me. And NO! I don't know where it is!
It was you who approached me...to TELL me that I was OFF on my Christ...Yes, I know the verse... would you mind telling me how it is applicable? I don't see any Christians here against Christ.
Oh, I just asked where it was OK to say a Christian wasn't a Christian...
You still haven't answered that one.
Oh, I did suggest that you stop saying that works weren't needed, because the Bible clearly says they are.There is still a difference that you are not acknowledging or accepting. I said your actions appeared to be off from Christ and provided you scripture. You said I was not a Christian. I never accused you of not being a Christian.
The point being made about separating the 'yeas from the nays', as you put it, does not, in a Christ-like way, have so much to do with dividing people into friend-or-foe type groups, but more along the lines of what path a person may choose to lead their lives.
A Christ-like person would understand that it doesn't matter in the least if someone didn't give themselves to Jesus as you do, but were still good people, and did good works because they actually wanted to help people who needed it, they abhor violence, oppression, hatred and bigotry and very much want to treat other people with honesty and respect and love and protect their families and friends.
A non-Christ-like person would reject the person I just described only on the grounds that they didn't give themselves to Jesus as they would do or expect them to do.
It's of no consequence either, whether or not you can produce a relevant verse from the Bible providing some generalized command or admission to go out and spread the word as reason to reject such a person, it inexplicably and automatically ignores everything else Jesus may have taught us.Romans 14:4. It's about judging someone else's servant. (It says NOT to do it)
Actually, the whole chapter works for that
Yes, but talk about meat and vegetables might confuse the issue
I'm sure we would soon be in a debate about whether vegetarians are going to hell or not.And pork... and technically goat and sheep... because of the cloven hoofs. Beef not specifically blessed by a Rabbi, meat that hasn't been allowed to let the blood drain completely, meat on certain days... food at all on certain days...
Basically, starvation. Cope.
Melissa not indoctrinating her children into religion is different from not teaching them about faith.
Both are acts of the faithful as I am helping by telling them toake sure their actions are lining up with Christ's teachings and example. Melissa does not want her children exposed to doctrine set by organized religion. Her acts are of faith because she does teach of ChristWhat I heard sounded a bit more like. They may believe in whatever they want when they get old enough to ask and understand that God stuff. And she will not be shoving her views down their little innocent throats because ice-cream's much better!
or something else just like that.Well obviously, from your butchering of scripture, your "paraphrasing" skills and memory are a bit off. Maybe you could post what I said again... in my words.
Because I compare what you say to the Bible and it doesn't say it. Now, saved from what?
You must know what is being said in order to look it up. In turn, when you don't know scripture, you may only guess using some assumption based from one or two carefully selected slivers of it.
Yes, I wish you would stop doing that. I'm glad you recognize that it's a problem.
That James question again?
Often there is a difference between what is said and what is heard, especially when what is "heard" is not what we want to hear. In either case, the ultimate goal is for us to come to him but also in our free will make an informed decision for ourselves
But Christians base their decisions from what?
The Bible. Of course. Do you disagree?
Do you think we shouldn't? I thought that was what Christians did.
Just for the record, and certainly not to push, I had asked you a question a bit back about why you think that James used the specific examples of clothing, feeding, visiting orphans and widows. I never really got an answer to that.I think it is a better question for someone else. My opinion is not focused there because I know that some really stank individuals do every last one of those things to the letter and it gets him no closer to God.
Faith starts the process.Oh, I specifically said that faith was needed... the bible says that. It also says that faith alone will not save. You have to have both... if one just has faith, then aren't they like the demon's that also know that there is only one true God?
I'm saying both are needed. I distrust anyone who says they aren't.... and remind those who say that works aren't needed that they only have one side of the coin. It's what God says to do.
Like I said, I'm curious why I see so many professing faith, yet showing no works.
I've never known anyone I would describe as Skank. I would think that calling someone such a name would being judgmental.Oh... bad attitude... why didn't you just say that? Yes, there are bad attitudes all around. If that was a preclusion from being a Christian, I would say that no one in this thread is one... Except Mo, maybe.
I will agree that good works doesn't necessarily cure bad attitude. I've seen it make many much happier, and much more at peace but it isn't a guarantee.
Being given the information about Christ and the bible and making a reasoned and informed decision. Some Christians are programmed into belief into an organized religion which is not always in line with the spirit of God or Christ. Her point is that she didn't want to program her children's minds at too early of an age for them to make their own decision. By not doing so, they would have their own personal faith and relationship with God rather than adopting someone else's idea of God.
Something else I am compelled to point out. You said your so called "judgment" is based on my output. But you consistently say that you do is Bible based. So this statement appears to be more personal opinion than actual Bible.
Um... Cgenaea, don't you mean that Christ hit the switch? It is his words, the words of the scripture, that are supposed to lead. Not you. That's why I suggested you use his words not yours.
You seem to be against that suggestion, for some reason.Well, it sounded like you were taking credit for flipping the switch. Obviously, you wouldn't be doing that, so I clarified your post so that other's didn't misread it as you taking credit for leading people to Christ (although honestly, I've not seen that happen from any of your posts)... instead of giving that credit to Christ.
I was told that I should let my light shine. Not under a bushel; but on a hill.
I turned on the switch.
@ Phoenix Ah yes, and I strengthened my faith while reading God's word while I was waiting for her to post it...
I guess she's lucky I wasn't a volunteer worker that she was dependent on, and I'm lucky she isn't a prophet than anyone depends on for God's word.- Beth37posted 11 years ago
0What if we answered 4 questions?
1.What do I love about God?
2.What do I love about the lost?
3.What do I love about other Christians?
4.What does God love about me?
1. His love is pure and all consuming. He rescued me.
2. That they are just like me and in need.
3. That they are just like me and in need. They are family.
4. That even when I fail, He see's Jesus.1 The genius, creativity and compassion
2 Potential miracles
3 Strength, character, integrity
4. God only knows...Hi Beth
He forgives and hides fault.
They have an opportunity to come to know.
He has chosen well.
My faith in him.
We must study and die daily. Our word does not count.
The argument did get a bit silly; but I do feel it was very important. You were right on schedule.
I'm glad to finally speak to you.1. I love that Christ provides a perfect role model for love, forgiveness, peace and compassion.
2. Everything- in broad terms. Individual traits in specific people.
3. Everything-in broad terms. Individual traits in specific people.
4. I don't know what Jesus loves in me. I wouldn't presume to know his thoughts.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
It's funny... there is only one person here who claims to be an Atheist (and he has only made one comment)... so maybe we should have a conversation that causes less contention?
Actually, discussions between Christians especially disagreements on scripture are generally a good thing. We just need to get over this little issue of one Christian saying that another isn't a Christian. That's kinda gumming up the works.
Have I told you lately that I love you, Beth? Good timing
It's also funny (not haha) that from what I so often see, Atheists and the non-Christian religions never really have/need to lift a finger to devalue Christianity or hash on Christians really. I'm not saying that they want to in the first place, mind you, but if they ever do/did take the notion, they needn't bother because, frankly, there appears to be seemingly enough Christians doing exactly that all on their own! If anyone out there is one of those that accuse their own brethren of having no faith or accusing other Christians of not being a "true" Christian, think about that. Aren't you then just helping the "case" against Christians/Christianity in a way? All of the division stemming from the -us against them- and the -we're better Christians than they are- within the same "house" can appear to be that as a whole, none of them can see the forest for the trees. Just an observation.
I'm speaking in general here, Beth. In no way directed toward you specifically.Before believers were anything, they were human. So if you are surprised that we have the same human nature as non believers, you shouldn't be. It sometimes takes a lifetime to die to the flesh. Most of us battle it every day. It's not easy, believe me. The flesh is strong... stronger when you fight it. Weak only when you deny it completely. No easy task. One only God can assist with.
Beth, when was the last time you saw atheists arguing about who is a proper atheist? When was the last time you saw us judging each other or even disagreeing with matters of faith? Are you sure it's human nature?
I, for one, am not surprised at all, we do indeed have pretty much the same human nature.
Although, you may want to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think Christianity teaches us that we are actually evil sinners, by nature, and that if we don't make Jesus our lord and savior, we would automatically go off and commit acts of sin, as it is in our nature to do so?Sort of. If you read the Bible, you will see Christians committing sins. Christ admonishes them and sometimes punishes them severely for their sin. Take King David. God took his child for his sin of lust which caused him to murder another man after bedding his wife.
I spose the difference would be that a non believer would not ask for God's forgiveness and he might continue on doing as he pleases. A believer is called to ask for forgiveness when he sins and is encouraged to flee from the sin that has a grip on him. Much like Joseph fleeing from the Pharaoh's wife. He just flat out ran, leaving his coat in her hands. We as Christian's have a lot of examples for what to do and not to do in circumstances that might lead us to stay in sin.+1
The sad thing, as it was pointed out, is that when some Christians sin, others seek to throw them out of the faith rather than correct their behavior in a manner that edifies.
Great points, BethI'm not sure how that answers the question of human nature, but a non believer would figure things out for themselves and realize they wouldn't want to murder anyone and don't need forgiveness from anyone, let alone someones god. Perhaps, murdering people is an epidemic in the Christian community running rampant such that they need Jesus to stop, but that isn't the case for most people in the world who prefer not to engage in violent activities because they know its not in their nature to do so.
Well, that's not what I was meaning, Beth. I know everyone is human, regardless of whatever faith or non-faith. We will all have common human issues and drawbacks, etc. I'm just saying that when some Christians tear other Christians down, accusing other Christians of having no faith, etc. that it can/does reflect badly on the whole and hurt Christianity and it's purpose, from the outside looking in. Everyone makes mistakes, yes, but it just seems from an outside viewpoint that there is much division within the Christian community sometimes. It's confusing. I'm not saying Christians should and have to behave perfectly but tearing into their own brethren and questioning if they have faith at all or right out and accusing them of having no faith is easily prevented and crossing the line, especially if they have the best interests of the whole in mind and not their own above all else. Yes, they will stumble, of course, but repeated accusations and doubt to some of their own just seems detrimental to me. Just my opinion.
Focus on those who are having victory in their walks. It's less confusing that way. Or check in with those who are struggling in a few years and see if they're doing better... life is a journey. It's not all defined in one moment.
I agree. That may seem hypocritical, but this whole exercise actually did have a point. I'm big on that... and it's likely one of my more annoying traits. I've discussed this point with others. My intentions, I think, are actually good.
I believe your intentions are good, Melissa. I totally get and understand where you were coming from and where you were headed in and with your points and posts. I want to also just say that although both you and Deepes were repeatedly having your faith questioned and doubted by other Christians here, you guys never did likewise unto them. Even in heavy disagreement with them, you guys did not doubt or question their faith. That said a lot about you guys and your character. A great Christ-like example from you both!
Deepes is great like that. He generally stays calm no matter what.
I am given to episodes of sarcasm and irony.
But no, Christianity shouldn't be about "I'm holier than you are" (among Christians vs. Atheists or other faiths) or "I'm a Christian and you aren't" (among Christians verses Christians). When I see someone start walking across a lake, I might accept that judgement.I have never met anyone that is more adversarial anti-Christian, in over a decade (over 10 years and hundreds, if not thousands of people) of debating Christianity, even back on AOL and Myspace. Even atheists are not that adversarial anti-Christian 100% of their time and even atheists know that a "made up" doctrine of Salvation or Faith that is only possible through works is a complete fabrication or distortion of Scripture. So I am not sure what planet you live on or what color the sky is there, but that is my experience.
I have a sincere question for you, PhoenixV. Do you treat others like you wish to be treated? Do you think your posts here to me and others reflects the admonishment of Christ to turn the other cheek and be good to others who treat you poorly? It seems with all the sarcasm, the mocking and the everything else that you're more of an eye for an eye kind of guy, regardless of how someone who disagrees with you speaks to you.
Here is a sincere answer for you. Create a website, throw an embed chatroom on it and we will discuss it all you like
That way we can discuss it uninterrupted. Trolling, flaming, rat finking etc a no holds barred nice chat betwixt you and I so....no answer. You have no problem jumping in on posts that other people address to others, but when asked one sincere question about yourself, you are unwilling to answer in public, yet you have no problem putting others on the spot in this forum. It's not a debate. It's not about arguing or interrupting. I was just asking something about you. Is there a reason that don't particularly want to answer in public? Maybe because the answer is no? It doesn't embody Christ's teaching at all, but you do it anyway?
Create a chatroom, I would love to explain stuff to you.
You know, some place that people can flame and troll and rat fink all they like. You would like it.contrary to what you appear to think, I'm not a fan of the flaming, trolling and "rat-finking". I get quite enough of that here. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question here? What would a chat room provide that this forum does not? The inability to permilink and be held accountable for your posts? What is it that you expect to be able to teach me? Sarcasm plus? I've got that, thanks.
JMcFarland Do Not Contact me through my email again. Considering your unwarranted fixation with other people's account status, I do not want to correspond with you via my personal email.
Then perhaps email shouldn't be an option on your profile page. You don't want to answer a simple question here, and you don't want to answer it privately by email. Perhaps you just don't want to answer it.
I'm not sure why emailing you privately has anything to do with your (or anyone else's) account status. I'm the one who put myself on the line due to the fact that you now have my personal email address while yours remains hidden (not like mine is any big secret or anything). As you wish. Why you felt the need to say that here of all places is strange.
Whatever You Say, Mr. PhoenixV - since we're randomly capitalizing words and all. I've got nothing to hide, obviously, but you apparently do.
Was someone talking about a salvation through only works doctrine besides you?
Your words are thick with bitterness and seething of distain...NOTHING at all like Christ. Oh well, it's only you that it's harming. Have a great night, PhoenixV.
You dont know Christ then. You maybe know some candy coated PC version of Christ perhaps?
Christ said untrue things and then wouldn't explain himself? You seem to be saying that you are acting like him. Yet he never said something that was obviously untrue.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Sorry.Sure, sure. Whatever makes YOU feel superior to me and to anyone else that holds a different opinion than you do. Knock yourself out being holier than I. I really don't care what you think you know about me. If you are in someway implying that you are behaving like Christ, well ok, if you say so. I'm just going to say that I'm pretty sure that even I can figure out that Christ didn't appear to others as having some major and obvious anger issues.
how does this "christ" you talk about shape up with a great interest in war planes....machines that are designed to kill, to force others into submission?
The melodrama in your posts is amusing. Adversarial anti-Christian? From a Christian? Interesting.
Where has over 10 years of debating christianity got anyone? Sounds like a huge waste of time to me.
LMAO, actually, if done correctly, it's quite helpful. It helps increase understanding and encourages growth.
Debating isn't "You're wrong and I'm right" though
It's "This is what I believe and why I believe it. Now tell me what you believe and why you believe it." Then evidence is examined and everyone learns something, even if it doesn't necessarily change their beliefs.
That doesn't bother me, as one can not really lie by stating their opinion. (Unless they say it's someone else's opinion, or God's) And, all things considered, I mean who cares about that kind of opinion? Dishonesty bothers me, though.
My response to having my faith questioned is not all biblical. Yes I believe in turning the other cheek.. mostly. I also believe in loving others as imyself. But outside of that, its more practical. For me to get totally upset about my faith being questioned, you would have to fall under one of two categories: 1)You have to be someone who has some importance to me in my outside life. 2)You have to he someone I have to personally care about outside of a shared belief. We actually have to be friends or family. No offense to Genaea (whom I actually like on spite of our differences) or Phoenix (whom I do have a small measure of respect for in spite of our disagreements), neither of them fall under either category (I'm sure that's no big loss to either of them given their ideas regarding my faith). In either case, neither of them are Christ or his father and as such their judgments of me amd y faith do not place my soul In jeopardy of any type. But I do thank you for your compliment
Beth, What specifically do you think Christians should be dying to in the flesh? Glutony? I've seen many a minister or evangelist who looks like he ate all the pies? Perhaps sex then? Thing is whether we be believe we evolved or were created we all have sexual desires dependant upon hormone levels, which are the natural human being state, our hormones directing our thoughts and desires 'as designed'. To deny these as denying the flesh is asking for trouble because it's a denial of who we are. Hence the number of pedophile priests. As far as I can recall it was Paul who created all the hysteria about battling with the flesh, but as he chose to remain unmarried, what else could he expect?
Other matters of the flesh suchas wanting a pint of beer, or prefering to watch TV than go to church seem so minor and inconsequential.
Oh, OceanSunsets? I have your examples for you. I'm sure that the next time you read this, you'll rush to condemn this type of behavior as well....right?
@Cgenea... In the context of that verse, no. I don't believe so.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
I believe it all comes down to this. We are all the same. A true Christian is someone who saw that he, like all men, was a sinner and unable to atone for his sin. He saw that without God's help, he would not only never overcome, but that he would never be able to please God. So are we better than anyone? No. But we did recognize that we needed Jesus.
Thank you, beth. That was refreshing. Truly
We are not all the same, according to you. Most people don't believe we are sinners, but instead, reasonable and honest people know we are good by nature.
So you asked her to discuss things, then freak out when she tries. Nice.
Still waiting on why you made a claim that was obviously dishonest...Or is that another untruth that you can throw out with absolutely no proof then run away when someone asks for it?yea, I am not going to waste my time, or how do YOU always say it to other's?
Oh yea lower myself to go dig through posts, to educate someones ignorance on what they said.
Perhaps you could "go fetch" some material where you twisted someones stance so you could make up some point of contention.Oh, I can post several statements where I said that both faith and works were necessary. In clear words.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2532444
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2532324
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2531913
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2531923
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2531907
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2531743
There is my proof that your accusation was completely false. Now the question is why are you making false accusations?
Oh, where? Oh, I forgot, you don't show proof...you just expect everyone to take you at your word.
- Dave36posted 11 years ago0
I'd like to mention my take on religion/spirituality etc, and i started really looking for some big answers a year or so ago...Now iv'e got a good knowledge of the basics of everything, quantum physics, evolution, the Yin/Yang etc etc.....I'm not an expert on anything, and iv'e never been religious....Iv'e worked in nearly 40 countries, and met many different nationalities/cultures etc....Iv'e met thousands of peeps, and their all basically the same.....They have the same problems as i had, and dare i say it "there before the grace of god, go you or i", it's too late now iv'e said it!lol....There hasn't been a subject to do with life, that i haven't spent a lot of time looking into....Anyway what i discovered along the way, is that it's no good looking out there for the answers as far as if there's is a god....For that particular answer it's like what the lady says, who posted this post....You have to look inwards, and you defo have to silence your mind....Don't let your mind tell you something is a fact, if in your heart you know it isn't a fact....Your mind will trick you and say that evolution must be true, because Stephen Hawkins etc says it...Like i say look inwards and let some answers be revealed to you, instead of using your mind and logic....So what do i know as a fact?, nothing, so i'm "not" brainwashed....Iv'e never been religious, but since i started looking inwards, and meditating etc....I have felt something unexplainable, iv'e had glimpses of an energy of some sort....The thing is though is i'm not gonna join a religion, even if i do feel this energy more, and start really believing in god....There's already a basic religion in theory, and that should be to love & help each other....In my opinion no one will ever be able to prove to another, if there is actually a god or not, as it's all got to be done on "faith", and we have to do it personally, so it requires a lot of "effort".....So that's the game/test for us all, do we side with good/god, or let our ego mind/evil over come us?.....Remember folks i don't know this as a fact, but it's what i feel in my heart.....So i believe in some sort of a creator, and i swear that creator "CAN" be tapped into, if we're actually open to it in the first place.....However i'm still on the fence, but i have asked for some signs in the past, and i have got them...Like i say my mind was/is still trying to sway me away from religion, but my heart keeps pulling me back.....So what i'm basically saying is see for yourself, as that's what i'm still doing....At the moment if i had to choose anything, i'd go with Buddhism as that's like a default setting for me, a good place to start :-)
A beautiful, honest post. Thank you for sharing!
That should be the other way around. Don't let your HEART tell you something is a fact, if you know in your MIND it isn't a fact. The MIND thinks....the HEART pumps blood.
No. There is ACTUAL evidence that support the Theory Of Evolution....including the fossil records. A person's mind does not have to trick itself into discerning facts. It does, however, have to trick itself into denying facts.
Sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous. How can anything be revealed to me without the utilization of my mind's five senses?Simply unbelievable. Turn off the brain to find answers? I don't know about any of you guys, but when I do that I go to sleep.
And even then....your mind is still active during REM, but incoherent.
Haha, yes, when most of you people are still battling with believers, I have fallen asleep and have to catch up with all the crazy posts in order to find, if it can indeed be found, the logic of any argument..
@Cgenaea - why would paraphrasing what the Bible says be in any way clearer than simply quoting from the book itself? If the book is the word of God, and adding/subtracting from it is a sin punishable by hellfire, saying that paraphrasing is somehow better (when your paraphrases change the meaning of the actual verses) seems like a dangerous hobby.
The paraphrase is not wrong. You must check. Misrepresent, I wont. Err? Yes. But where is my change? She has no choice but to be confused. But you know.
Let's check your example of paraphrasing, disquised as a direct quote, that says something completely different from what every version of the bible available says (see, it's good to have them all at your fingers)
Yours:
Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; 4 say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness; it will be for those who walk on that Way. The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it. 9 No lion will be there, nor any ravenous beast; they will not be found there. But only the redeemed will walk there, 10 and those the Lord has rescued will return.
The KJV
4Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.
5Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
7And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
8And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
9No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:
10And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
There seem to be some verses missing there. And the ones that are there, don't say what the KJV says... Those missing verses are present in every single version of the Bible available to me.
You altered the word of God and then presented it as evidence.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118740? … ost2531227
So, yeah... "paraphrasing"should be met with scrutiny... for this reason.My posts speak of very real possibly based upon all of scripture. We talked about the wide gate and narrow and OH! Forget it! It just seems so pointless.
I cannot allow you to get past our past. I see your vengeance is fierce!!!
I guess we may not speak then. The paraphrase needs polish for conversation with the subject skipper. I will work on it but paraphrased it will be. None of what I say is untrue. You simply are not familiar with my subject.Obviously, you are not familiar with your subject either. For me, it's a question of wanting an accurate representation of the word. I'm not sure what it is for you. It is not OUR past I am concerned with, as there is no US.
There is the word of God. That's it.
You can make all the excuses in the world for not wanting to present it accurately. However, your excuses can ALWAYS be countered with the word. No attempt to provide your version of the word as truth should go unscrutinized.
In your words, sometimes it hurts to have the light shined on you. That's what you are experiencing now. That is what you experienced when you were forced to admit that works are necessary and why it still makes you squirm to admit it, so you are seeking every way in the world to avoid that obligation.
It hurts when the light is shown on your unbiblical belief that it is okay to declare that another follower of Christ isn't a Christian. It hurts to admit there is not backing, just your desire to put down others.
It hurts to be shown that you believe your word is superior to Christ's... that the Bible isn't necessary, just your word.
And now those actions are on record, along with others, to provide ammunition and example to every person that you try to belittle using the Bible as a weapon. To every person you say isn't a Christian because they don't follow the word... evidence that you don't either. That you don't talk the Bible, you talk Genaea and explain it away with paraphrasing.
I've done to you ALMOST what you do to every other person on this forum on a regular basis. I couldn't go as far as to say you weren't a Christian... and I couldn't go as far as saying that you didn't walk with Jesus... because my conscience (spirit) wouldn't let me.
Honestly, keeping it up for a couple days made me slightly ill physically.
But, you were just treated like you treat others, except for the things the spirit drew a line at.
Now, maybe we could all discuss Christianity and the word now, without discussing what Genaea says it should be...and instead saying what Christ says it should be...
I assume if you step too far out of line, those who you are judging now know that the actual word seems to upset you. Of course, the word is what should always be used against those claiming to know Christ and trying to sway you with THEIR words, not Christ's.
Now they just know how effective it is.
Go in peace, Sister.I will stay in peace, thanks. There is only the light of the word that shines. You see misrepresentation because you may not be familiar with it. You may go in peace if you like. But our hope is in him. Not of works lest any man should boast.
Yeah, I've gone back to IDGAF. I think we all know by now that boasting isn't what you are worried about and why you don't do good works...But whatever makes you happy.... it's your walk, not mine.
Cgenaea,will you just for once look at yourself and own your own responsibility in your discussion. Stop passing the buck onto the god or holy spirit of your dreams and take ownership for what you say and write.
It matters nothing to me the subject of the discussion, because as you know, I am a total disbeliever in any of those biblical matters, but I do see others here whom I respect for their intelligence, their honesty and their commitment to what they believe in.
I hear the zeal and the commitment coming from yourself, but very little intelligence and honesty.We are never bound by the opinions of others
I belong to a God that you may not fathom. So naturally, my speech will be foreign and somewhat asinine in your "humble" opinion. Lol
I make no bones about it...Yes, but, you are being responded to by people with belief in God; in some instances. You are being responded to by others who have read the Bible and understand it, in other instances.
Your opinion is not necessarily that of a higher power. To imply otherwise is dishonest or delusional. There are no other options. By your argument I think (and this is just my opinion on having read the Bible) you may be one who will complain about calling in his name and get the response'I never knew you'.Yikes.
Speaking of that final judgement for even Christians when God could say that, is a tough thing. I think we will be surprised by both who is there and who isn't there in the end. I heard it put that way one time, and it seems to line up with scripture.
God knows who his children are, and vice versa. He doesn't care about our fine speech or not, thankfully. Just saying that hit me wrong to see it said to her.
For whoever does get that statement from God, it will be plenty of judgement enough to go around. To get it now, seems to me could be a huge discouragement to someone, and why do we do this to each other?Yes....true. I know of a worldview that answers that question, lol.
This post came in response to pages and pages of judgment of others. I suppose it makes sense, on some level, to complain when the table is turned. I'm not sure how much sense, but I'm sure some.
Oh, if it was just giving back what she was giving, she was speculating on people being sent to hell, in particular, by God on judgement day? If so, you are right, and it wouldn't make sense to single it out. To the Christian, this is worse than the non Christian who jokes about not caring about burning forever, etc. To be told "I never knew you...." and speculating that a particular person could be told that to, CGenaea in this case. I did look back some posts, and she was really quiet that day actually. I actually did miss such posts if they were there. In that case, I think both would be wrong to tell another they will be likely, or could be likely in particular to be going to hell when they face God one day. I am consistent like that, because I think we cannot know such things, and I don't understand the point in the harsh judgement when we can't know ,and find it would or could be hurtful.
I feel that you were supposed to say that, kinda. Did you feel compelled???
To take truth and attempt to fit it down into a nice carnal box with carnal colored ribbons and paper; is damaging to one's spirit. Have you read about the carnal mindset; or the reprobate mind??? God has one (1) mind. He does not allow our hearts desire to be right because we really cannot think any better. He has a standard, contrary to popular sway. We need to live up to it. Say what you will about me, I aint that important at all.I'm not sure who has attempted to package a carnal box and wrap it in ribbons. But, I have noticed that you appear to believe that whatever you say is God's law. I simply don't understand why so much of the teachings are ignored by those who appear to revel in sitting in judgment.
It is not clear to you that I am not judgmental? I find it really strange that people feel as if I sound judgmental. What have I said that was judgmental? Bible scripture??? Well yeah...that's the point. It is not I that decides; it's God.
I feel that most of what I say is biblical.; therefore God's law.
As was already pointed out; I am not infallible. My words are no good. My words will never be error free. But I have bible back-up available. If I slip. Someone spiritual will catch me. It has happened before; it will happen again. I have no fear of being misleading. I am colorfully creative; I speak from my own point of view of scripture. I say what it says though.
Truth...that is what is important. Truth. Not no watered-down form of Godliness where the Lord looks upon the heart and sees perfectly shiny and capable adults. He is not of this world. In matters of spirit, it is incapable that he looks for. Like children. In the WORLD'S system; capable is where it's at. Strong bodies, physically fit, athletic, rich, and working towards adoration by the minute is what we strive for, as far as the world is concerned. But there's more.
Cgenaea,you squir away from clear evidence when it is presented to you.Your credibility is once again put very much in question.
And again, that wouldn't be a problem if what you were paraphrasing lined up with what the Bible actually says. It doesn't always.That's where the confusion comes in.
I find it funny that you imply that I don't study the Bible, since it also implies that you are omnipotent...
I mean, I don't care whether you think I do or not... just pointing out that you are AGAIN placing an opinion out there with absolutely nothing to back it up. In this case, it is also a false statement. Which seems to be catching....That would refute what you just said about sinners. You can't be in a good mood if you're evil by nature.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Why not? Hitler was probably giddy when he was killing ppl. Besides, being something by nature and acting on that nature are two different things.
Hey, good morning! - Beth37posted 11 years ago0
James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.
Rom 2:15
They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
When I read these verses, I get a clear cut picture of what God expects of me. I also understand that I am without excuse. I know what sin is, and I am betting that you do to.
Your example of sex; is it wrong? Of course not, sex is a gift from God. I think we all know within ourselves when we have gone off course. Same with food and drink.
I Cor 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.Are you sure you understand those verses?
James 4:17 says, "knows the good they ought to do", which should clearly show that by nature, we know what we ought to do and that if we don't act in our nature, but instead act out of our nature, that would be considered a sin.
I would totally agree with that.
Rom 2:15 says "written in their hearts... their own conscience and thoughts telling them they are doing right" clearly says that it is in our nature to do right and that our own minds are telling us that.
Again, I agree with that.Did you just hack those verses in half, ignoring one half and then state that you agreed with the half you found more agreeable? Alright.
Strange, both those verse clearly state that people are good by nature and we should listen to that nature. Is that not how you read it?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Show me what I ignored and why I didn't agree with it?
Those verses tell me we dont need rules and regulations about what is or is not sin, but it is simply up to each of us to live according to conscience and the norms of society.
Where in any of those verses did you see the word "society"?
It referred to God's desire and your heart.
There was no group dynamic.Society.....my bad. However, the point remains those verses clearly state that if we live according to conscience we dont sin. Indeed 1 cor 10:23 as you quote says all things are lawful but not necessarily beneficial. Thus taking these three verses together, we are not evil sinners at all.
First of all, those are only 3 verses... there is an entire Bible of verses to include in our learning of God's desire for us.
Second, does your conscience tell you that you are without sin? I would be very surprised. I know very few men who don't struggle with porn or lust or drink or "pie", as you mentioned, or selfishness or anger or laziness... there's a lot of sin out there. You're conscience must allow you a lot of leeway 'cause in order to spend eternity with God, the level we're looking for is perfection. God knows we're incapable, He does not hold our sin against us, all we have to do is confess, ask for forgiveness and turn our backs on that sin. In other words... avoid the things that might drag us away from Him. He is all about sparing us, He is all about loving us. It has nothing to do with control and everything to do with freeing us from the things that would control us.Sure, but those 3 verses show considerable evidence that we are not evil sinners by nature but are instead compelled to do the right thing, our own minds are telling us that. *hint* (evolution)
Why should it? Our conscience only gets activated when we behave out of nature, when we do something evil.
So, you are projecting your personal environment onto us, assuming we live like you? If those are the men you hang out with, you may want to consider changing friends.
And no, there isn't a "lot" of sin out there, quite the contrary.
That makes no sense. If God knows we're incapable of perfection, then it's obvious we'll never attain perfection. So what? Is that supposed to be a sin?
Many of us have self control. It's not that hard, actually. If you have no self control and Jesus is the only way you can get it, good on ya. But, what does that have to do with human nature being evil?I have never met a human without sin. You would be the first.
It rather depends on whose list of sins one is using. I believe in unethical acts, but not sins.
Has everyone sometime in their lives behaved OUT of nature and acted immorally or unethically? Sure. So what? But, it is not our nature to always behave immorally and unethically.
Only point I care about... but sometimes I believe the conscience gets activated when given the chance to do something good. I think for some, it actually is more frequent that way.
Porn - the bible is silent on the subject and is thus we are free to decide whether or not it is sin according to conscience.
Lust - is nothing but desire, normal sexual desire driven by God given hormones and functions exactly as designed. Itself is no sin but the actions that follow may be dependant upon circumstances.
Drink is no sin at all fullstop. Alcoholism is an illness and the afflicted wish to be free, therefore it is no more a sin than any other mental or physical illness. Getting drunk is usually a byproduct of people having fun. It cannot be a sin unless the degree of drunkenness can be defined explicitly. One man's drunk is another man's merry.
Selfishness is not a sin, it is merely ensuring that one's needs are met before anothers. No sin of itself.
Anger is no sin as the bible says 'be angry but sin not'. Thus the actions following anger may be sin, but anger itself is not sin.
Is lazyness a sin? If so it must be accurately defined. How many hours in bed or watching TV constitutes lazyness? I can't be arsed to go to Church anymore, is that a sin?
Fcuk, swearing isn't a sin, it is merely using Anglo Saxon vernacular which polite society has convinced us are now bad words.
Sorry you have to do better. Unless the bible is explicit to the letter in the definition of a sin, it is left up to the individual conscience to decide. Don't be like the Napoleonic French legal system that ruled everything is illegal (sin) unless specifically permitted, be like the UK legal system where everything is legal (withou sin) unless specifically forbidden.1 John 1:8-10
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Except for possibly statues or little boys drawing in the sand with sticks, you would probably be hard pressed to find porn in Jesus's day. They lacked computers and the printing press... God always goes to the heart of an issue and at the heart of porn is lust. The sheer space it would take to list biblical verses on lust would implode this post in on itself taking the rest of the forum with it. May I ask, have you read the Bible? It is quite clear on lust.
1 John 2:16
"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world."
Galatians 5:19-21
"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
As far as some of the other sins you mentioned... they are well covered too. I will post one verse.
Galatians 5:21
"Envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Here's the thing... you cannot tell ppl to "do as you please, don't sweat sin, don't worry about eternity" etc. etc. with the possibility of being wrong. If you're going to be cavalier, if you want to give ppl life threatening advise, do it concerning *this side of eternity. If they ask what kind of car to buy and you feel strongly about the Pinto or the Yugo... ok! That is your prerogative, but when it comes to someone's eternal soul... and you are giving out an opinion which is in direct opposition to the actual Word of God, I just want to caution you, in love, to be very careful. This is heavy stuff.
Please don't think I'm putting myself above you either. Of all the sinners I know, I'm one of the worst. I have a propensity for specific sins, that I wouldn't even pretend to deny. As I have maintained constantly, realizing ED and I do not agree about this (or anything) at all... but we are *ALL sinners. We all must avoid anything that poses a threat to our relationship with God.I can watch HOURS of porn and not feel one iota of lust. I do feel lust towards my husband.
The second isn't a sin, because it's "acceptable" lust. The first wouldn't be a sin because I didn't feel lust.
Just points.I'm not sure why you'd want to watch hours of porn if it wasn't feeding your sexual needs.
Editing, classification, search engine "safety" sorting, closed captioning... etc.
Gotcha.
Well, I can't. Illicit sex and tequila... these are the things that could separate me from my God if Im not careful. (And yes ED, I know this makes me a loser. So be it.)
Surely there are things you know to be sin that you know could drag you into a place you don't want to remain in?Oh I have my temptations, sex just isn't really that big of one.
You both are arguing the same thing, just one is insisting on using secular language and the other Biblical.
Ask him if there is anyone out there that has NEVER violated their conscience. Most do, at least once or twice. BUT honestly, most don't on a regular basis.
Once does not need to believe in Christ to have morals. Hell, there are people that have never heard of Christ that live a surprisingly Christ like life.
Those who are habitually unmoral generally don't do too well in society, the reason is that they are so unusual as to be easily noticeable. These people come from all religions and none and generally are fundamentally broken psychologically.I agree, for the most part. I would only say that no matter what we call it, no matter how much or little it matters to each of us, the point will always be, if this matters to God, if it could separate me from Him, is it worth it to continue on?
This is something each heart has to weigh on his own.I was unaware we were talking about you personally, of course don't do anything that separates you from God.
However, what separates me from God would be different.
I can't imagine anything ED could do would separate him any more from God, since he doesn't believe he exists.lol... true.
I wasn't talking about me personally, I don't think... I don't remember now, except that as ppl, you and I will relate to all these things in one way or another.Oh, I think we all do
I think we're just arguing semantics now.
Now, an interesting question -and one that I would not participate in- Is whether the fact that we all (with the exception of psychopaths/sociopaths) have consciences, prove there isn't a God (Because even atheists have them) or does it prove that there is a God and that he made sure that we all felt his word, even if we wouldn't hear it?Sorry, bedtime for the kids.
Well, to me, that is an easy question 'cause yes, according to the word, He has written His law on the hearts of His children, "They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right."
As for unbelievers, I found this link that I thought explained the human condition, as a whole, well.
http://bigchurch.com/blog/8932/post_168547.html
What do you think?I think I was throwing you a bone (figuratively) and that I've had THAT conversation to it's ultimate conclusion several times. It's an enlightening conversation if you've never had it, for both sides. I'll sit this one out though
A complete fallacy. That does not explain the human condition at all, it is an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to belief fallacies. Pure nonsense.
Something I've always been meaning to ask, just because my Philosophy professor handled the fallacy thing a little differently: Does an argument being fallacious prove or disprove it's ultimate trueness? Can't claiming fallacy against fallacious arguments become a fallacy in itself if one doesn't address the conclusion as well?
I mean I always understood that recognizing fallacies was a way to question the methods used to draw a conclusion, rather than questioning the conclusion itself. A way to apply critical thinking, rather than a way to dismiss conclusions.
It would appear, to me at least, that claiming something is UNTRUE because it is a fallacy would eventually lead to poisoning the well if used as a way to DISPROVE an argument rather than a way to point out the weakness in the way the argument is presented.
Been away for a while with other things, but the question of sin depends very much upon your interpretation of the bible.
1 John 2:16 Doesn't say that things of the World are sin, just not of the Father. Everything manmade around you is from the World, but are they all sin?
Galatians 5:19-21 Sexual immorality: it's left to the individual to define this. Some couples enjoy oral sex, but others think it is sinful. The bible has nothing to say.
Impurity? What is this specifically?
Sensuality? I would hope married couples enjoy sensuality with each other but Paul thinks it's a sin. It's all too vague, and coming from Paul who looks to have has sexual hangups, not surprising as he refused to marry.
Idolatry is defined as worshipping pagan Gods represented by stone or wood carvings. Who does this in the 21st century?
Sorcery is harmless as there is no supernatural power to be harness from wing of bat and eye of toad. Superstitions that most in the 21st century have grown out of but Paul believed was real.
Enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger? You may have a case here as these are real antisocial behaviours, but enough to send to hell? I think not. Plus these are the main drivers behind historical American foreign policy.
Rivalries can be very good fro promoting competition and advancement of technology and business. But if we consider this activity in the Church, how does this send someone to hell?
Dissensions are good as it allows people to challenge authority in Church and government. Would you demand people just do what they are told without question?
Divisions? 20,000 Church denominations.
Envy can lead to bad behaviours but in itself is not a sin.
Drunkenness, again needs a definition and a an an explicit blood alcohol content to be enforceable.
Orgies. A small minor it of the population perhaps goes dogging but this is more a question about societal norms.
What I'm saying is that you have to allow people to be grown up and live according to conscience. You can't pull out vague human behaviours from the bible and then call them sin without explicit definitions. As the bible often does not provide such definitions, the individual must decide for themselves. Religion is not about obeying manmade biblical laws, it's about living free in accordance with personal belief. As you well know I don't buy into the whole eternity being set on fire and wilfully tortured by God as you do. It's illogical, defies the concept of justice and does not represent a loving God who commands people to love their enemies. Notwithstanding the arguments over Paul's validity as an apostle and his own brand of Christianity different to the apostles, or the dodgy book of Revelation. You must also appreciate that we are not necessarily subject to the opinions of writers who's cultural frames of reference are so far removed from 21st Western society and whose writings were only declared scripture by an unelected unaccountable committee of men.
James 4:17 says :"If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." Which in the context of the rest of the chapter means that the good they know they should do is according to God, not their own inner light.
Romans 2:15 says: "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)" The Law here referred to is the Mosaic Law, the laws God handed down through Moses.
It's one thing to take whole verses out of context, which I run into a lot. But holy cow! To chop it up like that is something else entirely.
Seriously, dude.Here is the title and chapter, notice how it talks about boasting.
Boasting About Tomorrow
James 13-17
13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. 17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.
Again, here is the chapter, notice that it talks about Gentiles acting by nature without Moses Law:
Romans 12-16
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
You can see I did no such thing.Um, you did.
I give props for being willing to go back and quote the actual text verbatim but you did not even attempt to show how what you said the text said (and which it did not say) was really there. It's not. You got it to 'agree' with you by chopping it up. When you don't chop it, it doesn't agree with you.Now you're just being dishonest again Later tater.
No, I'm not. But since all it takes for you to be right is to SAY it, not actually BE it, 'while 'dile.
Comparing human nature and setting the bar with Hitler?
In other words, you're actually and honestly saying that it is in our nature to not only murder people, but be "giddy" while doing it? This is what you're claiming about human nature? And, from this, Jesus is supposed to save us?
This is also what you're claiming about own human nature? That you actually consider yourself, by nature, to be equivalent to a psychotic mass murderer? Seriously?
Perhaps, what you're failing to understand is that humans by nature are pretty good, although we do indeed have the capacity and ability to be psychotic mass murderers, but it certainly isn't in our nature to be such that way, but we could be if we wanted.
And yes, acting on nature is not the same as being it, because we can indeed act 'out' of nature. The point is that by nature, we behave accordingly simply because it is in our nature to behave that way. To act out of nature, one then could be a psychotic mass murderer, like Hitler, for example, or an "evil sinner".Here's the thing; if you were interested in a subject, you would bring up a point, and then I would share my point, we could then weigh them and see if either had validity.
You however, just really like the fight... so you bring up "points" that lack weight making refuting them kind of just an effort in silliness. I'd rather have a good discussion than just a meaningless debate, you know?
Do you really need me to go over the points you just made?I don't think you can, you're already making up excuses. Clearly, I have presented you with a huge point, a searing contradiction in your faith that has to do with human nature. You can choose to continue believing in the contradiction, that is your prerogative. I understand completely that if you decided to agree that humans are by nature not evil sinners, that would begin to crumble the core beliefs of your religion.
There's a great deal written about human nature in biological and psychological journals that show evidence we are not evil sinners by nature, quite the contrary.
It's yet another case in which our understanding of nature through science precludes the ancient myths of the past.
But, you miss the point entirely. If Hitler had "happy moments" which he did, often, was due to human nature, he was acting within human nature, whereas committing the atrocities he committed was clearly acting out of nature, probably because he was a psychotic mass murderer, in other words, he probably had serious mental disorders.
Yes, I have seen the news and it DOES NOT report that billions of people are running around taking the life of someone else every day, which by your reasoning, it is in our nature to take their lives, we would should be doing that by nature, but we aren't
. The news reports very tiny portions of our population are NOT behaving within their nature, but instead our behaving out of nature and taking the lives of others.
Most of us do, only a very tiny minority don't.
Yes, a LOT of well meaning ones, and only a very few evil ones. We also know that many of those so-called "evil ones" have serious mental disorders. Once again, our understanding of science precluding ancient superstitions about demons.
If by "better than a murderer" you mean that I won't be going out and murdering someone, or even thinking about murdering someone, that would be correct. If you mean something else, please explain.
Sorry, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that man purposefully killed someone or was it an accident based on the fact he was impaired?
Why do you think I'm better than him and what does that have to do with anything?
Where are you going with this discussion, you're not making any sense.
Is there a point to that? Certainly, that does not show we are evil by nature, if that was the point you were trying to make.
OMG I am currently watching DECODED on History and come across of this discussion!!! The segment is about End of Time Prophecy too.
Sorry I had to go
didn't miss much.
Beth is fantastic. The mind of God. Brains don't count.
The conscious is not activated every time you do wrong. If you feel that what you do is ok (sin or no) you keep walking without inner cues. But if you "let this MIND be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, you will not fail. If even a fool...- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Let me also ask about "acceptable lust."
Is this a biblical term or just a term you use?I just made it up. However, it's kinda necessary for go forth and multiply. Sin is in thought/heart, not in action.
It just kinda caught my eye. My husband attends SA and he said that he has to be careful not to allow me to be something he lusts over. Not that he shouldn't love me, want me or be attracted to me... but that he shouldn't allow me to have power over him. Does that make sense? So like, let's say you're extremely attracted to your husband... that's awesome, but let's say your desire for him becomes greater than your desire to do what is right... or your desire for him could make you give up the things you love etc.... so anyway, I thought it was an interesting point. Love and have sex and multiply to your hearts content, but don't fall into a place of lust where your desire outweighs what is good and right.
Then that's another conversation... whether a sin is only a sin in magnitudes or if it causes bad results.
Not to get graphic, but Lust-while not strictly necessary-greatly eases the sexual process. Things tend to function more as they naturally should when it is present.I know exactly what you mean, but I would say that you are confusing lust with desire.
You can be passionate for a spouse. That's a great thing.
But let's say your husband just becomes an object of desire. Lust has everything to do with sex and little to do with love. You can have love and great passion, but lust itself will replace love.
I don't know if you believe in Satan, but I believe he is the pervert-er of all good things.
He is porn and masturbation instead of sex with a loved spouse.
He is reality shows in place of relationships.
He is stealing instead of working.
He is caffeine instead of sleep... that kind of thing. He replaces all things good with things that appear good.I would argue that there is a space as wide as the hair on a gnat's butt between lust and desire. They are generally used as synonyms.
For the Atheists, what you are saying is that even good things become bad without moderation... which most normal people know and follow... when they approach the edge, their conscience brings them back.
For the Christians, it's a lesson of Christ knowing your heart and your reasons for doing things. Most of the time, if you feel it is a sin it likely is.
Both groups have the same mechanisms-How they are formed and what we call them differs... as well as a few added rules for the faithful, but it's the same thing.Yes, you're right. But as for Christians, we have absolutes. Without them, we would veer off course. I would think motive would be the difference between wanting to do right as an Atheist and a Christian. I want to please my Father, an Atheist believes it is better for them as a person and for society? (I don't presume to speak for Atheists, this is just my assumptions.)
As far as lust/desire: (can I use you and your husband as an example, though any couple would work?)
Let's say you want your husband, you desire to sleep with him, you think about sex with him, night and day, but as for him... as for his own good... that doesn't enter the thought process. Because lust is not love. You would neglect his good, your good, your children's good, you would turn your back on God Himself for the physical pleasure... that's a selfish desire, one that could ultimately become a god in your life.
But loving him, his children, his well being... loving his whole self, desiring him and wanting to please him and wanting to be near him.... that's where the beauty lies. That's love. That's the difference I see between the two.I would think of Christianity of kind of a +1 motivation. All the motives/instinct to do good that Atheists have plus another. Now, that said, there are other +1s as well. I have +5 reasons with the kiddies, because now I have to be a role model for them and a +1 motivator for my hubby, to make him happy and even a +1 motivator for my mother, honestly so I don't have to listen to her lectures.
Others have whatever additional motives as well. Each situation is different.
I still think the definition, as you put it, still hinges on severity and consequences more than emotion and intent but I'll agree to disagree.
It seems trust is an issue. What is SA? I one trusts the other than lust isn't an issue. Does he feel you would use his lust against you in some way?
In our natural state, we are humans who don't see things as God does. We get a glimpse of him through Jesus. He thought like God. Our bibles tell us the way he thought.
It is not our hearts that decide what sin is or not. It is God. I know a person who steals clothes and sells them at bargain rates totally guilt and conscious free about it. Is he sinning? Yeah... stealing is a sin according to God. No matter how easy theif mania feels about it. The bible says that if God does not like it; we need to not like it too. We must be sorrowful/humble about sin; not proud.
That's why not many people like the path. People really like pride a lot!!! They will be disappointed one day.You think people like to be prideful. I'm not sure that is true. People want to be viewed in a positive light. They politic in order to give the appearance of a positive light. It is the appearance of pride, but whose fault is it that people feel the need to attempt to raise themselves in our estimation?
I would think moving past an existence where one felt there was a pecking order they had to claw their way into would be welcomed. I don't see many experiencing disappointment.Yes! By all means; people LOVE to be PROUD of themselves and they nurture prideful hearts. "I volunteer!!! You do NOTHING!!!" "I've got a college degree!!! While you're ignorant as hell!!! I'm going to write and publish! While you have NO works of creation!" "I'm going to always be bisexual; you just don't know the BLISS connected with SUCH wholesomeness"
The disappointed will be the children of flesh who call themselves children of God. We may not please him without faith in him. What faith is displayed in disbelief? We need to agree with what the bible says. It is right. Not we ourselves.
"The first shall be last." See, God even covered the "pecking order"
Pride goes before destruction. The humble are like Jesus. He boasted not of himself. He NEVER compared himself to another. He NEVER cared if he was viewed in a positive light by men. He lived to please God. Not many of us are striving with that goal in mind. People want to please and lift up themselves. Keep watching...I see the 'look at me, look at me' behavior patterns. My point is, these are driven by insecurity. Insecurity in the way we perceive we are viewed by others. Our need to be viewed in a positive light. This need begins by others giving us the impression we are not viewed in,a positive light. We are all responsible for our actions, but we do bear some responsibility in understanding reactions to our actions.
By constantly attempting to highlight the shortcomings of others we drive the need for them to counter. One must question what drives the need to point out the shortcomings. Is that also pride?I have no idea. You must ask one whose goal is to point out the shortcomings of others. That would probably also be the prideful though.
Just so you know: Not all people who are prideful are insecure. Most pride stems from totally SECURE in oneself.I think all prideful statements stem from insecurity. One secure in oneself has no need for validation.
No. If you make a point to impress me with anything about who you are....why? It all comes back to insecurity.
Because you know you're tha sh*t! Your sh*t has never "stanken"
and you do not want anybody else to miss it.
Insecure says please say im worthy too. Surety in self says, see how f'ing worthy i am?You are looking for the bad when there is good to be assumed in another.
You mean like "good" insecurity???
Truth is truth.Oddly enough, the church I used to attend in Tucson, a church I adored... just posted a blog sort of on the subject y'all are talking about.
http://www.calvarychapelblog.com/2014/0 … Q.facebook
"To be truly unique is to be humble. Admit your weakness. The inability to control and be perfect. Admit that you cannot attain perfection. But Jesus can, and He did!
An amazing thing happens when we are humble. We admit our frailty and ask God for help. In that time of desperation and need, He delivers grace. That grace not only offers forgiveness, but hope in the power of the Holy Spirit. Continually submitting to God, asking for His help in utter humility, offers daily renewal and hope."
Robert Furrow"Continually submitting to God, asking for His help in utter humility, offers daily renewal and hope."
Why is he saying you should always be asking for help? Is your life supposed to be that messed up? Or is this just a way to always get grace?
In other words he is making it sound like if you always act like you are in dire need god gives you grace every day like a hot lunch.
I'm not trying to insult anyone or anything of the kind, I'm just saying that's what is sounds like he is saying, perhaps without even knowing he is saying it.I have to be honest, I understand what he is saying, I do not understand what you are saying.
I don't believe there is a necessary measurement for *how messed up a life is before one has to ask for God's presence and help. I think the idea is for God's daily presence in one's life... and why I would want that and why you wouldn't... is a personal thing. It would differ with each person.
The Bible teaches that Satan roams around the earth like a lion seeking whom he might devour. B/c of this alone, I prefer to have as much of God's daily help as possible. My propensity to fall into sin as well as everyday life issues, such as paying the bills, sickness and how I might be of help to someone in need... these are other reasons. I am supposing that you feel great strength in self reliance and that is why you cannot connect with that msg.?What if you don't need his help? He's a busy guy. Why would you want to keep pestering him every day?
Because He wants to help us. He's never too busy to help someone who wants His help, even if He's helping three million other people at that exact same moment.
Surely you don't really believe that. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that if he does exist he doesn't care about saving children from starvation, molestation and cancers.
Maybe each of us, christian and non-christian alike, is on a path to understanding "MySelf" from a different perspective. The confusion comes when all responsibility for the outcome is placed on the shoulders of "some one out there."
I actually don't disagree with that last sentence. I don't think that anyone who claims to be a Christian and puts it all on God's shoulders properly understands what the Bible says. It's on us to do things.
Why wouldn't I believe that? How is the evidence overwhelming?
Walk into a children's hospital. Read the news. No God around that cares and is capable of helping. Lots of prayer and lots of people trying to help.
And lots of people trying to help is one of the ways God helps. We're never going to agree on this, but God's failure to be the candy man is not any more a sign of His lack of existence than His failure to simply create all humans as enlightened 21st century Westerners is a sign that He didn't create humans.
Have you considered the possible outcomes of what it would mean if He actually did all the miracles you think He should do?
And do you really think that a guy who spent a whole fucking year in hospitals taking care of a woman who died has never really thought about that?I never said it wasn't proof that no God exists, I said it's evidence that he doesn't help. A few months back my cousins 7 year old died a painful death despite the 10's of thousands praying for him. A few years back we lost this little local girl. http://www.shaniasunflower.ca
I'm very sorry for the losses. Still, because people die, because children die, because mothers die, even when many, many people are praying, is not proof that He doesn't care. And if anyone here has a 'right' to say it is, that would be me.
I heard the example given once of a child dying in a hospital bed, being comforted by his parents and the pastor came by to offer some prayers and any help he could. They talked about heaven, and all kinds of things. It was a great encouragement to them. It brought hope in a very dark time. When someone (an anti theist of some kind) balked at that idea later, someone wondered what they might say to the same dying child in that scenario. Would they say, "Sorry kid, tough luck?" This is all their is?
The point was made to point out that people get so used to just challenging theists, they fail to realize that all the problems they bring up against theism have to also be answered by their OWN worldview. Whatever it is. Every worldview needs to answer the biggest questions of life. We all hold a worldview. What does each say to the child dying in a bed in a hospital? That is just one of the big questions we have.I get that and it's a very good point. I'd lie to the kid as well if it made him feel better. That however doesn't change reality. Are we all being lied to or are most of us lying to ourselves just for comfort?
I don't know if we give kids enough credit. Why lie to them when to honestly tell them you aren't sure can be just as comforting? To a person, everyone fears death...because as a rule, no one has ever come back to tell us that things on the other side are okay. Except, of course, for Jesus.
Why lie so you can create a sense of certainty when being honest and supportive and truthful brings just as much comfort? For example, I don't really have any fear about what comes after death...but I dread the thought of dying alone, without the presence of someone who loves me.
IMO, if you feel the need to lie to a person who's dying, it's because you aren't secure about what comes after.That kind of was the point I was attempting to make. His/her argument seemed to be that we need to comfort ourselves with lies. I think that is essentially true for many. Would I tell a dying 6 year old there is no God? No. Would I tell there parents there is no God so don't even bother praying? No. I'd simply hope they don't ask. But if they did I'd tell them I don't know. There is a time and a place for these conversations.
I heard a story recently of a relative with pancreatic cancer who was lied to - his spouse could not face up to the facts, it was not a problem to the dying man, except he was unable to find peace in himself or with the world, until people came clean and shared the truth with him
When I get real with myself I can get real with others around me.That actually wasn't my point at all. It was a partial response to people saying how awful God was for letting little children die, and how the same worldview shares hope to a person in such a situation where many others offer the opposite of hope. I don't believe in comforting anyone with a lie. You are inserting your own beliefs and worldview as fact to even make the statements as a response to the point made. My greater point was that all worldviews have to answer the biggest questions posed in life, not just Christianity. We have to give kudos to Christianity when it does well on those marks, if we are fair.
It doesn't surprise me I was responded to with an idea that it isn't good to lie to dying children. What did surprise me was a Christian who joined you in that and added that it is a possibly insecure person that that would lie, when the example was a child in their death bed with their parents, discussing the future.There is truth, unfortunately, in the statement that insecurity can sometimes motivate dishonesty. A person feeling insecure because they themselves are uncertain about an afterlife might very well lie to a dying person to comfort them. My personal opinion is that love and honesty in the living moments are a greater comfort.
Of course insecurity and a number of other things can motivate a person to be dishonest. Can you show how the parents or the pastor in the example given would have being dishonest? Or if you aren't talking about that, then what are you talking about someone lying, as that was what Radman was suggesting?
On a different note, or angle, a person someone right now may be "lying" to someone dying saying they will be in heaven soon, or have a new body that will never decay, no more crying or tears, etc. They may not believe it, and that might very well still be an actual truth that was being told. Just an interesting point, to me anyway lol. The motivation to comfort was still nice, I suppose.
It still could potentially be a troubling spot for some telling the same child, what they actually believe to be true, that this is it. You die, and that is all there is. Wonder if they would be "lying" to not share their own worldview, because it would be tough to share that "truth" (as they understand it)? Just pointing out how all worldviews, not just Christianity, have to answer the toughest questions. Christianity's God, actually gives hope to such a child, with that worldview, the very same God being put down by people that let the child supposedly die. The very same worldview that would have to honestly tell the child this is all there is. I don't claim to know what they would actually say to a child. According to your words there, they should be honest in love. That is fair too.I'm not sure why "I don't know what's going to happen, but this is what I believe. Other people believe other things." is unacceptable.
It IS lying if you state it as a fact. Of my kids, 3 of the 5 would know it was and tell you about yourself. Yes, even on their deathbeds.Who are you speaking to? If me, like it appears, I didn't say that was unacceptable, and that isn't my view. That would be a fair response if that is what you really think.
Thanks for your input.
To be clear, I never suggested lying to a child, that was someone else that was. I will assume the part about "lying" are directed to the person that said that. I was relaying a story I heard. It made a great point, that God offers hope to all humanity. Jesus paved the way by example. Its a worldview with a great ending if true, and that it happens to be comforting is a by product. It shows that God isn't the monster God many make him out to be and that all worldviews need to answer the biggest questions life poses us.
Your last statement sums it up perfectly.
Be honest in love. For example:
Mommy, what's going to happen when I die?
Well, honey, I can't say for sure. It might be different for all of us but I (as a Christian) believe...or some (as an atheist) believe...
When I say specifically not to lie to them, I mean that I don't believe an atheist should tell a dying child they're going to a Christian afterlife if they don't believe it themselves. Children know when you don't believe what you're telling them and that creates discomfort for them.
That's how I see it anyway.I don't recall your belief concerning the word of God. Do you believe it is true or false?
I believe that is inspired by God, however it was written by men. I believe that is a holy and inspired word FROM God, but that Christ himself is THE WORD, as is stated very clearly in the gospel of John. I believe there is spiritual value in ALL of it, but that each book has its own purpose and that not every "law" in scripture is meant to be followed to the letter. There are books meant to illustrate points, recall history, and some meant for literal instruction.
Thanks for asking rather than just guessing, Beth. I appreciate that.So in your opinion, it is flawed? Tainted by man? The message has been tampered with?
I do not believe that it is either flawed or tainted. I believe that is a message from God that was recorded by human beings, who absolutely filtered it through the society and culture of their times.
Totally fair. I hear what you are saying. Thanks.
I'm confused because you claim that you don't believe in comforting anyone with a lie and yet you seem to think Christianity is the most comforting worldview and therefore must be correct. Or at least that's what I get from what your saying.
I totally appreciate telling me what you took me to mean, and asking for further clarification. To reiterate, these are my views.
I don't think that Christianity is the correct view because it happens to be the most comforting when someone is dying. I think that Jesus got it right on his views, when we look at humanity and its history. I think Christianity wins in all areas of life when compared to other worldviews trying to explain the realities we observe in life. (From science, to philosophy, history, etc.) I think that the idea of what Jesus taught regarding life and death, DOES happen to be comforting at the time of death though, and can't deny that. It is a by product, one could say. Does this help?It's funny that most people think they will be the ones getting into heaven and are comforted by that, but the bible also says only thousands will be getting in and the rest will spend eternity in hell. I'm not sure how that's comforting. I'm kind of comforted by reality.
That is one way to take the scriptures. I don't think that Christianity teaches that. So no one is suggesting (that I am aware of, but I could be wrong) that is comforting. When you say you are comforted by reality, you make the point I was making too, and good for you. Just to be clear, as I am not on here all the time, are you an atheist?
To be fair, to the second part of what you said, I appreciate the answer. That seems fair.
If you were to tell your own child if they asked on their death bed, and you told them what you had come to believe in your own worldview, even though it differs with mine, I wouldn't say you were lying to them. You would be telling them exactly what you thought was the absolute truth. If an atheist tells a child or any dying person, "no, there isn't anything after this.." then they are telling what they think is true to that person. I am a fair person in a parallel scenario in this case.
While I strongly agree that we should give kids a lot more credit, I'd have to disagree where you say that feeling the need to lie means that someone is unsure themself. If you volunteer the lie, maybe that could be argued, but if someone asks you, I think there could be different reasons.
Just because you fear dying alone more than death itself doesn't mean everyone feels that way. I personally welcome death. I don't want to rush it (I'm not suicidal, LoL), but if you told me I was gonna die in a week, I'd be like "Okay, cool." BUT, a lot of people are scared to death of death, I guess pun intended. I mean terrified. And so believing that there is something more, and believing that everything they lived for had meaning/had purpose makes them much more comfortable when facing that abyss. People are MUCH more willing to die if they believe there's something after. We see that sentiment taken advantage of typically in cults/religions especially extreme ones requiring (encouraging) martyrdom. But I think the sentiment exists the strongest in people who aren't living their lives to the fullest and/or have some serious doubts/regret about how they're living it. They need to know that there's more.
I would probably be honest with people. But it would depend on the depth of our relationship and how strong they were as an individual. The only person I'd probably lie to would be my mom. I love her, but she wouldn't be capable of accepting that death was likely the end (of consciousness), and so I would comfort her and lying would probably be best. And this is only if she asks me. I'm not going to voluntarily say that she's on her way to Heaven, but if she asks me, I will tell her whatever she needs to hear.I so see what you're saying, ATW. And I may not have expressed myself well.
I think you hit the nail on the head though in that it totally depends on the person with whom you're dealing. Kids can spot bullshit, IMO. If you don't buy what you're trying to sell them, they're not going to either.
And there just is no shame in not knowing for sure and admitting that. It just seems that the honesty is so much more comforting.I agree. I think in the case of many believers they confuse certainty with faith, or more accurately, uncertainty with a lack of faith or a sign that their faith is slipping.
That's very close to what I what I was trying to say.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'confusing certainty with faith.' If you have faith in something, doesn't that by definition mean you're certain of it?
I know this is not quite what everyone was talking about, but I remember one day when my wife was starting to go visibly downhill. We'd tried to bring her home once and it only lasted a few hours, but she asked me, "Are we still working on getting me home?" I knew that we never could, she was too sick and I couldn't take care of her and our severely autistic daughter, who literally hung off me when I was home. But it seemed important to Lisa so I just said, "If that's what you want!" She seemed to accept that.
I tried to do what I thought was best for everyone but it still tears me up inside. I still miss her.Believing something is not the same as knowing. I believe the Leafs will win the next game, but I don't know it.
I did the same thing with my mom. A day after we got her to the hospital she wanted to go home. The nurses looked at me and told me I should bring her. But I had no way of taking care of her myself. She was bed ridden and had days at most to live. I told her I'd work on it and that was enough for her. She tried to get up and I still remember the look of confusion on her face when she couldn't even sit up. It was like she was a thousand pounds.
I'm sorry, I'm told you will always miss her.Thank you. Yes, I always will. There another guy I work with (I didn't know him at the time) his wife of nine years passed away and he's since remarried but he told me he thinks about his first wife every day. How can you not?
I get what you were saying about "faith" vs. "knowing" but that's not what was being discussed. It was 'faith' vs 'certainty.'
Chris, I can hardly even imagine what that must have been like. My wife went through a stretch of years where she had a series of medical problems from blood clots to a tumor on one of her ovaries that quickly grew to over 8 pounds and all kinds of other things. A period where being in the hospital or constantly having to take shots or give blood or have tests done was the norm. So while I can't relate to what you've been through, I am familiar with sometimes saying what I felt I needed to say to comfort rather than what I actually thought.
I know there was a time in my life where my doubts about what I was taught felt like a lack of faith. Where just the act of doubting or questioning in my own mind felt like a betrayal. Like my faith was slipping because I wasn't just confidently and blindly following along with the pack. I feel there's a kind of culture of that, mainly amongst church-goers. Believers who don't question and don't critically analyze, as if asking and seeking answers to questions is one and the same as doubt, and confidently spewing whatever nonsense was one and the same as being strong in their faith. And if facts and common sense conflict, then it just requires stronger faith to stand firm in the face of it. Then one day I decided that my faith shouldn't deter questioning or criticizing, but rather it should ensure that whatever the answer is it's in line with what I have faith in.Thank you. And I'm sorry about your wife although I'm glad things seem to be better.
I agree that faith should not stand in the way of questions. I know what you mean about the feeling that you just didn't have enough faith, and there is a definitely a culture in some places.Ah, the guilt of questioning once faith. It's funny who guilt is wrapped up in there isn't it? I felt the same thing when I first began to question faith myself. We are taught not to question aren't we?
When I was 23 and the best man at a friends wedding my friend demanded we all go to confession. I walked in sat down and told the priest that I don't believe in God. He told me that I should have more faith. I told him I don't want to and don't need it. He told me to say 4 Hail Mary's and 3 Our Fathers and I thanked him and walked out.
I got past the guilt and was able to look at faith without the emotions that were imposed on us.Thank you. I appreciate that. Things are better, but that period definitely changed us. I remember that feeling of helplessness. Those doubts and fears, her looking at me, terrified, and not having the words she needed to sooth her. Finally getting her to the point that we could get her back home, just for things to take a turn and force us right back. Having little to no control in anything and just wanting her to be comfortable. And that period also alienated us from everyone else because we had been through things most around us had not and couldn't really understand. So we came off as cold or callous when, say, my mom was diagnosed with cancer. We just knew how pointless wallowing in the fear and the worry was when you're looking at such a long road ahead because we had already been through it. And even moreso in your case I would think. Because who around you can really get that? Trying to move forward, having a special needs daughter who also has to adjust. I can't imagine the strength you had to conjure to get through that.
How you ended that, of course you would, as would so many others. Thanks for your two cents on that.
Just FYI, no one was ever suggesting lying to a child, other than Rad Man. It was a response to me, but I wasn't suggesting that.
On a side note, I would be surprised if you don't believe in a resurrected body in heaven one day, for Christians.I do believe in that.
Quite without doubt actually, and have no reservations whatsoever telling someone that I do. I have many reservations about promising something to someone that I do not have the power to produce for them myself. There's a difference - a HUGE one - between telling someone what you believe will happen when they die and telling them that you KNOW.You believe it without doubt, as you say there, and that is in line with the story given. So you were seeming to disagree initially, but I see you really don't. The clarification is helpful.
For the record. If someone was dying (anyone) and said they are looking forward to heaven, I wouldn't correct them and tell them there is no heaven. There would be no need.
That is nice, and compassionate. It makes me think of the movies many of us have seen where someone is dying in the arms of someone else, and they are trying to talk upbeat to them, but knowing full well it is likely the end. It is compassionate to do that, and I wouldn't categorize that with "lying", like how I took you to mean lying before. It makes sense.
Don't worry - only 144000 going to qualify so plenty of space up there.
“The number is obviously symbolic. 12 (the number of the tribes) is both squared and multiplied by 1,000 — a twofold way of emphasizing completeness” (Mounce, 168).
www.christiancourier.comI think it is the Jehovah's Witnesses that take that literally. It doesn't make sense to me personally, so I don't buy into that idea, and for other reasons.
Is that your view? It isn't my view, if that helps clear things up at all.
Sorry to come in late on this but I see it from both your points of view.
We don't need to tie up every concept in absolutes. The world is made up of many facets, each of greatimportance to him or her that needs to see it that way. It is The World.
When I hear this understanding and love of diversity coming from a christian mind then I am not going to "lay in" with my a-theist point of view.
Do you see?Not a lie, and not very clever adding in your own worldview as fact in response. Assuming you know what a lie is, so won't go into that. I figured that would get a response like that from this crowd. Point missed as well. Every worldview has to answer the biggest problems that life poses. As far as answers go, and hope, Christianity wins compared to the others.
A fitting time to bring the point and story up, as it was partly in response to people saying how mean God is to little kids, etc. Missing the other side of the coin. Can't use the worldview to attack God, then dismiss it when it suits the user in a discussion. We all want to be fair now....Well, that's a matter of opinion as well. I can easily see Hinduism being far more comforting. I mean, telling a kid "Don't worry, you'll be back soon in a brand new healthy body" would be exceptionally hope inspiring.
Yes, maybe so. So while not getting to have a new resurrected body like Christ, and knowing your family and loved ones like before one day all together, a new life is still better than fertilizer. A much better worldview than some, maybe to adults more than children, but your point remains. I hear you.
By the way you tell it one would think the entire would would be converting to Christianity. The truth is we can make up all kinds of comforting stories, but that doesn't make the factual. I'm glad you've found something that is comforting to you, but I find it interesting that it seems to give you the urge to insult and belittle others. Not very Christ like if you ask me.
And as interesting as your message here is, I have yet to see satan roaming anywhere. Which satan by the way? There are probably hundreds since satan is not a name but a title.
In Hebrew it means watcher and accuser. What they do is watch humans and lay charges against you in front of god. Like cops.From the people who wrote the Torah. Where do you get yours from?
Which ppl?
My faith is based on what I read in the the Bible.
So when you say "they" you mean demons, b/c you do not believe in one evil being (Satan), but in fact you believe in many demons, is that right?I would assume he meant the Jews, who wrote the first part of the Bible. They view their holy writings a bit different, well a lot different, than we view their religious writings.
Since we adopted their religious writings and use them to form our religion, in part, the differences are enlightening.Yeah. lol
Im not sure I am correct, but I think they believe that Satan is more... a sort of temptation offered by God, in order for us to choose Him over evil, and not a physical being, also created by God.Right. Far more tactful then I was. Thanks.
No. I do not believe in demons. The people who wrote the Torah are Jews. Satans are angels in god's employ. Like cops. I already said that.
You read the bible. But you don't know this because you don't read other Jewish texts and you listen to priests or reverends or some such instead of listening to what the Jewish scholars say about the religion they wrote about.
Satan as a demon is a Christian lie. It was made up. Find me a passage that says satan was thrown out of heaven in the bible. Not there. So where do you get these lies?So, I will be more respectful than you are being... just 'cause it's a conversation, not a contest.
When you read Job, and God and Satan have the conversation about what will become of Job, I am wondering how you interpret that?No insult intended. Sorry if you took any of it personally.
My take on Job? It is a perfect example of what I am saying.
First of all. god calls all the shots. His satan does nothing god does not allow him to do.
Christians often take it as god being outwitted by a devil but that's kind of insane, isn't it? God not able to see through satan's tricks? Come now. what kind of god would that be?
The Jews believe the satan in this one represented god's doubt about Job. There is no devil in the Jewish faith. God tests Job and he comes out on top. Moral of the story? Take what ever god dishes out, have faith, and you will be rewarded.
We can't say the same for his first wife and kids but hey, Job was the important part of the story.
In any case, the relationship between god and his satan is obviously not adversarial. They are on friendly terms. The satan seems to be looking out for god, making sure he isn't hoodwinked by Job. But god was right all along. So he goes along with the satan's plan to test Job to prove a point.
That's my take, but again Jewish scholars seem to think god kind of thought Job maybe was too good to be true, and god took his satan up on the test because he wanted to be absolutely sure. .
So what do you get from it?They do? Serious question. I've read and heard many people speak on Job many times and I've never once heard that take on it.
Yes they do. Not in those words, of course. But that is what it amounts to. Give us your take on Job.
That Satan was doing what God allowed him to do. You're going to have to enlighten me, because your summation of Christian belief that the book of Job shows an 'outwitted God' is wholly and completely at odds with every discussion I've heard on it since I became a Christian.
Hi, Chris!
If you get a chance, try re-reading what Slarty said. I didn't get the same thing out of it that you did. I basically saw the same thing you just said-that what happened to Job happened because God allowed it-not because Satan outwitted him.
I could be wrong, but Slarty is huge fun to discuss with and I think you'll find that you can learn a lot from him. He's one of the best educated people I know as regards ancient religious writings and church history. Would hate to see y'all get off on the wrong foot.
If I remember correctly, Slarty pretty much said that Christians believe the book of Job showed an 'outwitted God, and what kind of god is that?' Or something to that effect.
As far as the take on Job, I don't see any other way to take it than that God allowed him to do it. This was in response to Satan making an accusation and asking God's permission to wreak havoc in Job's life. There is no outwitting of God, but a proving of how wrong Satan was in his estimation of why Job must have obviously loved God and devoted his life to him.
Job stood the test, worked through it and it was awful and hard. On the other end, God rewarded him many times over even what he had before. Satan just looks like the regular evil idiot and was outwitted even after applying all the evil he could muster up onto Job. Turns out Job and God were right, even when Satan gave the best shot he could come up with, after asking and being granted permission. Sure, that is a very loose take, but that God was outwitted makes no sense whatsoever.Very well put. To add to your statement, Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
God knew Job was perfect but Satan questioned Job's faith. The hedge was built around all that belonged to Job including his children, who may not have been perfect. What iut all boils down to is this, God proved, to Satan, that his faith was stronger and more powerful than anything that came upon him. In other words, Satan is under Job's feet.
The end of Job was greater than his beginning.Too bad his wife and kids didn't do so well. But then no one in the story cares about them. Not even god.
I can't honestly speak for his wife. His children went on to be with the Lord. Job also had ten other children after God restored him. Through all the trials and tribulations, Job held to his faith in God and proved that his love and faith in God was stronger than the power of the enemy. That is saying a lot compared to what would happen today. Most of us would have given up at the first sign of trouble, much like the disciples did when Jesus was arrested.
May I make a suggestion? Take it up with God. He still speaks even today and He doesn't have to speak in a language you don't understand.If you do not believe in a life after death .... then yes , it is a big deal that God allowed Job's children to perish. BUT, ... if we are spiritual beings occupying these physical bodies (?) then to be called back home to the spiritual realm .... WELL, ... the sting is not quite so bad.
Thank you, and I agree, Satan was in a sense put under Job's feet. Never thought of it like that.
-
It sounds like it is you that has not studied the text, Masoretic Text, Tanakh , the canon or non canonical
Some or most Jews would claim that the serpent in the garden is what is called an evil inclination. In Job, some or most Jews will claim that satan -does indeed exist-, but is an agent of God, only doing God's Will. When debating, if you bring up facts like God stating that "Satan "moved God" against Job without cause, or in Zech, where Satan was flat out rebuked, it does not take much honest, reading comprehension, to conclude that a claim of satan being a mere mindless, subordinate, is an insubstantial stance. Flimsy. So we have to dig further.
For someone to claim satan, as a demon or fallen angel, is some made up Christian lie, makes me think - novice.
Satan, fallen angels, and hell, are not some Christian 1st century, inexplicable oddity.
Wikipedia:
In Enochic Judaism, the concept of Satan being an opponent of God and a chief evil figure in among demons, seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple period
( The Second Temple period in Jewish history lasted between 530 BCE and 70 CE,),[15] particularly in the apocalypses.[16] The Book of Enoch contains references to Satariel, thought also to be Sataniel and Satan'el (etymology dating back to Babylonian origins). The similar spellings mirror that of his angelic brethren Michael, Raphael, Uriel and Gabriel, previous to the fall from Heaven.
The Second Book of Enoch, also called the Slavonic Book of Enoch, contains references to a Watcher (Grigori) called Satanael.[17] It is a pseudepigraphic text of an uncertain date and unknown authorship. The text describes Satanael as being the prince of the Grigori who was cast out of heaven[18] and an evil spirit who knew the difference between what was "righteous" and "sinful".[19] A similar story is found in the book of 1 Enoch; however, in that book, the leader of the Grigori is called Semjâzâ.
In the Book of Wisdom, the devil is represented as the being who brought death into the world.[20]
Mastema, in the Book of Jubilees, induces God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac. He is identical to Satan in both name and nature.[21]
Rabbinical Judaism
In Medieval Judaism, the Rabbis rejected these Enochic literary works into the Biblical canon,
making every attempt to root them out
.[15] Traditionalists and philosophers in medieval Judaism, adhered to rational theology, rejecting any belief in rebel or fallen angels, and viewing evil as abstract.[23] The Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5) is a more common motif for evil in rabbinical texts. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides as identifying the "Adversary" in the prologue of Job as a metaphor.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#JudaismI did not say the Jews did not believe satan existed. I said they have no devil. And if you read Enoch then you know that satan is not a name, it is a title. They are the watchers and accusers. And not one was thrown out of heaven in Enoch there were I believe twelve or so that left heaven on their own to mate with the daughters of man.
And in Enoch all are buried deep, and can not escape.
However in Jubilees god lets one out to tempt man.
But guess what? Nothing of this is in the bible. And Enoch is not cannon. Not Jewish and not Christian. So why do Christians believe in this story without knowing where it comes from, considering it is not in the bible?
And I stand by the statement I made when I said the devil as they see it is a christian fabrication. Yes, some Hebrews did believe in demons. But there were twelve tribes. Only the books written by the tribe of Judah are cannon for both Christian and Jew. Not all the tribes had the same belief and not all twelve tribes are Jews, as many Christians believe. Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained after the Assyrian deportation of the other ten in the north..You tried to portray satan as a demon or fallen angel as a "complete fabrication" by Christianity. That is just not the case.
Enoch talks about the expelling of impious angels and later talks about the ministers of Satan, and how they seduce those who dwell upon earth.
Plus we have to ignore the Book of Job and Zechariah.
Its a confirmation bias. They do not like the idea that a satan or an angel could fall. They believe that would be somehow against or outside God's Will, thereby diminishing His supreme nature of being God -as opposed to the possibility that God allowed satan or other angels free will.
The same thing with the concept of hell. When shown in the Book of Daniel that some will indeed will awake- some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. They will claim suddenly that the Prophet Daniel does not count, because somewhat like Catholicism, Judaism gives more credence to catechism or rabbinic literature than scripture. The Rabbis did not like a concept, so they made sure it did not make canon.
But one thing is for sure. Satan hell etc, was not some "made up" out of thin air Christian idea in the 1st century.No it was not made up out of thin air. It is not biblical. At least not from the OT. And their view of satan as this monster that embodies all evil is also not biblical. It was a Christian add on stemming from books they have never read and would normally say of that they are not biblical so don't believe it.
Remember that the first Christians were Jews but the Romans took over the religion. That is where the trinity idea comes from. A lot of the Roman gods were trinities, as opposed to the Egyptian gods who were paired up. Rome was a place of sun worshipers, and so unlike the Jews, they were used to having an adversary darkness, which they cultivated from the satan figures in the Jewish myths over time.
Constantine had two gods. Sol and the new Jesus cult, and he was supreme pontiff of Rome by virtue of being Emperor. Anyone who says he was not active and in full charge of the church doesn't know their history.Your understanding of the NT and Christianity is a "conspiracy theory" version. Debate is pointless with someone who has fringe unsupported theories. We have the NT authors VS later rabbinical interpretations/literature and canonization. Thats the bottom line. People have to believe that NT writers just "made up stuff for the heck of it" and these concepts were completely foreign notions AT THAT TIME. Or - LATER rabbis gave such a wide variety of possible interpretations or did not like material that did not line up with what they wanted to believe. So they made some metaphor or allegory, then they make a giant leap and ignore what the actual words imply, even with a small amount of reading comprehension. Then possibly even make sure it never makes canon. They have a propensity to do this and is why I brought up hell.
Your understanding of the NT and Christianity is a "conspiracy theory"
So I'm a little confused. Do you believe Enoch and other extra biblical texts or not?
What I am saying is historical fact. Speeches from Constantine show that he still believed in Sol Iviticus.
He tells Romans they must observe both religions traditions. Later Sol's holidays become Christianized. If you want I'll post his speech.
When he created Constantinople as the new capital of Rome he unveiled statues of dedication to Diana and Sol. Where do you hear of a trinity before the Roman take over? When he minted coins, Sol was still on them.
Constantine and his predecessor had a motto: One Emperor, one god. This was new because Rome had always embraced any religion. Judaism was the only one until Christianity that they didn't fully embrace because it said all the Roman gods were fake or demons and they refused to honor them. But they got along tenuously with the Jews. The Christians, on the other hand were prone to vandalism, destroying other gods temples. They were subversive and fanatical. It was no wonder the Romans persecuted them.
The last two Emperors had pushed for one major religion for Rome and Sol was going to be it. But Constantine had a civil war brewing and took the opportunity to do something he could not have done by force. He made Christianity the state religion and thereby took it over without a fight.
He was Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Empire in his capacity as Emperor. He had complete control over it and the Churches, and he never relinquished that title. So you bet he had his say.
Remember also that Paul was the one teaching the non-Jews. He himself Romanized the religion even before Constantine. There are letters from Matthew, correct me if I am wrong, that ask him why he is teaching a different version of things.
And what do the Catholics do? They focus on Paul's teachings more than anyone else's.Jesus, the leader and Guru of a "subversive and fanatical" religion? Is that right? Just curious if that fits with your understanding.
Say what? The Christians were prone to vandalism? Granted that it's straight out of Nero's songbook, where did you get that?
What you describe with Diana and Sol and Jesus is not, and let me be clear, not a 'trinity.' The Trinity doctrine of one God, three persons is different from three gods, three persons.
The way you paint Constantine is different from the way I've read about him other places, both Christian and secular. It's true that he was the Pontifex Maximus, the head of the church, but he didn't micromanage the theology. He let others arrive at it, he simply wanted unity whatever the outcome of Nicea might be.Why else were they persecuted? Not for their religious belief. Rome had a tradition of accepting all religious beliefs. The more the better. It is well documented by various Emperors that Christians were a pain in the butt. They would not accept other religions as being valid. They destroyed pagan temples. Read some history on this matter. They were like current fundamentalist Islam, not meek, mild pacifists.
And like current Islam not all were terrorists either. But when you get a small group of radicals it often spoils things for everyone.
I never said Jesus was in a trinity with Diana or Sol. I said that Rome often created trinities uniting various gods. Tell me where a trinity is mentioned by one of the apostles. Three gods in one is a trinity no matter how you configure it.
I only describe Constantine as the evidence warrants. Yes he wanted unity and he even destroyed another Christian sect to get it. He was not a hands off guy in anything he did. .I've read plenty of history and it's pretty well agreed that it was that "not accept other religions as being valid" (read: wouldn't worship the emperor) that did them in, not some kind of vandalism campaign. Secular and Christian both agree there. Got any history that is not biased that corroborates your statement? So, why else were they persecuted? Why would vandalism be the only obvious and acceptable answer to that question?
Yes, but three gods together is not the same as three gods in one. A trio is not a trinity. Where is trinity mentioned by one of the apostles? Are you serious? No serious Christian theologian or historian says they did. It's well known that it was developed later as a way of explaining how Jesus could claim to be God's son, which would make him equal to God, when he clearly differentiated between Himself and God the Father. But three gods standing side by side is not a trinity, and having three gods side by side is not, not, not three gods in one (which is still not the actual Trinity.)
No, he wasn't hands off in terms of organization. He was not a theologian, and the evidence does not warrant saying he was, or even a pretender. Again, no serious Christian historian paints him in such terms, either. Had the Arians won the day, he would've destroyed the other group just as zealously.A trinity is not gods standing side by side. Agreed. A trinity is when you take three gods and meld them in to one. Amon Ra is such a god. He is two gods in one, not side by side. I understand very well what a trinity is. The Roman trinities were three gods in one or three aspects in one. Pagan gods are not always beings in and of themselves. They can be aspects of life embodied.
In the case of Christianity the holy spirit is an aspect rather than a being in and of itself.
And thanks for admitting that the trinity is not derived from the bible. It was derived via Constantine's influence. He was indeed a theologian. That's what supreme pontiff means, and the Church wrote many letters saying he was limiting them and forcing some in directions they weren't sure of. They lost the freedom they had as independent groups because he insisted on standardizing them. They had too standardize everything. That is why out of the 500 or so Christian texts of the time only a handful made it into the bible, and why all major Christian holidays.fall on pagan holidays.
They decided that Jesus was god, but still human. Connected but separate. In other words an aspect, just like the holy ghost/spirit.
They decided it, but that was exactly what Romans did with their own gods. Who do you think argued that it was a good idea to do this non-biblical thing? Funny how it only happens when Rome takes over the religion. The separate churches would never have done it themselves.I didn't say that Constantine was the one who came up with the concept of Trinity so don't put words in my mouth. And yes, that's more or less what you said I "acknowledged."
THE Trinity is still not what you describe.
And Constantine was NOT a theologian. Julius Caesar was also Pontifex Maximus at one point and he was no theologian either. And many a pope has been a poor theologian. So that's a false logic at best, or at least a very limp bit of reasoning.
You're very clever but that's not the same as being right.Poor writing on my part. You admitted that there is no where in the bible that mentions a trinity. I said that Constantine had a lot to do with it. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just went from what you acknowledged to why it came to be.
Anyway, as I said, a divine trinity is a Roman concept. How can you say what they did was not create trinities? . Define a trinity for me. Of it is a "persons" issue then you have to know that the gods could and did take human form. Jesus is not the first. But how is the father and the holy spirit persons in and of themselves?The Trinity is that there is one God (the one and only God, no other 'gods') who is manifest in three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit.) Greater minds than either of ours have wrestled with it, but that's the nutshell. No "god taking human form".
What you keep point out is three separate gods, or gods who take a human form. That is not the same thing.Well you will have to look up trinity in the dictionary because there are many configurations possible. Anything in a set of three can be referred to a a trinity. It is, in fact just a set of three in one.
But as to greater minds than yours and mine, I hardly think so.
The Christians had the impossible task of making a human a god, and the Romans were good at that, The Jews being real monotheists would not have stood for it, and didn't.
Hinduism does them one better. There are 80 thousand or so gods, but all are just aspects or manifestations of the one. There is one god only. There is nothing but god. And yes, it is exactly the same thing. Same pattern, variegated form.
But how in the world can you call the father god of Christianity or the holy spirit a person? Now that is a problem in logic.The good news is, it is a free tool for anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see. Glory be.
May logic be with you.
(Congregation responds) And with you.
The Romans didn't 'make a man a god.' Jesus made claims that, unless my understanding of Jewish thinking is completely off base, would have put Him on a plane with God, doing things only God could do. The Romans didn't do that.
Saying that The Trinity, the Christian Trinity, is 'three gods in one' is either an intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of the the concept. It's not the same. Whatever the word 'trinity' can be applied to, the Trinity was developed from the monotheistic idea that there is indeed one God but Jesus, who many times made distinction between Himself and God the Father, still did things that only God could do. And claimed to be able to forgive sin, which again, only God can do.
Here is one of the definitions of 'person' from online merriam-webster "a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures"It is not a misunderstanding of the concept. Again, trinity is not a Christian word. It has several meanings. The Christian version is one version of a trinity, not the only one. One god, 80000 manifestations is however exactly the same as the Christian Trinity or one god three aspects or "persons" if you like that word better.
The Romans gods were fluid in that they were separate "persons"/beings but were unified and unifyable in to one entity. Pagan ideas of divinity are complex
The only reason that some thing Jesus is god is because he made conflicting statements. First he made a distinction between himself and the father. But then he did make it sound like he was god at times. At least you can read it that way.
But some, many, and particularly Jewish followers thought he was a man. A man who talked directly to god, was bringing us gods message, and a man who was sent by god himself. The messiah, not the son of god. That was heresy. If god has a son, he is a god by definition, and completely distinct from the father, though connected. The Jews could not accept that there were two gods. There is but one.
But the Jews did not have the tradition of creating trinities like the Romans did and until Rome took over there was no trinity and no talk of it. It was the non-Jew that had no problem accepting a trinity. Those taught by Paul in Rome. The followers of Matthew would never have accepted it.
No, my friend. It is all down to Rome, and all down to Constantine and his struggle for power and Roman unity.
The bible does describe God having a face to face conversation with Abraham and even asking him where his wife was. I'm not sure why he didn't know where she was?
The Bible also talks about 'face-to-face' conversations between God and Moses. However, do you really think God didn't know where Sarah was? Is that the only possible interpretation of the conversation?
He asked him where she is, what else do you need to know? Are you going to tell me that means something else?
This is from Genesis 18, and is speaking of three men, speaking of them as "the Lord", and talking about Sarah in the tent laughing at their prophecy of the two of them in their very old age. Here is the text I "think" you are speaking of....
'18 And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks[a] of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth 3 and said, “O Lord,[b] if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” 6 And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three seahs[c] of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” 7 And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. 8 Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.
9 They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.” 10 The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” 13 The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard[d] for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” 15 But Sarah denied it,[e] saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.”'
These same men go from there on toward Sodom and Gomorrah. It isn't traditional to take it as God himself but his messengers as if it were actually God, he would see and not live to tell about it, nor anyone else. I think it is a matter of terminology. What is the point you were trying to make about God speaking through them to Abraham? (Hope you don't mind my chiming in on it.) It does say Lord, but when interpreting it, we have to take other text into consideration also. Moses was the only that came close, far as I can tell, and originally Adam and Eve. The rest were like angels, some say Jesus pre incarnate, or messengers which is the same as angels at different times like before Joshua when going to war and being given direction, etc.Actually I think you need to look at what it say and not what you want it to say.
Genesis 18 1 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him.
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Genesis 19 1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening,
Note:The lord appeared to Abraham. Abraham saw three men. The lord asked Abraham where Sara was. The men turned away and went to Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord and approached him. When the Lord finished speaking to Abraham he left. TWO ANGELS arrived at Sodom, not three because one was the Lord and left when he was done talking with Abraham.I had a feeling you would key in on on the word "Lord" like that. It is fine. Just seeking clarification on the other times that it says no one can see God, the Lord your God and live. God himself didn't make a habit of doing this, but it seems to suit your purpose for whatever you are discussing at the moment, but I don't know what it is. You can have that interpretation and I can see why you give it and push for it. What is the point you are discussing if you don't mind my asking?
In the Sodom story, I never took that to be Abraham talking to a God in human form. Just to be clear that is an interpretation. Most the time people talk to God, he is in his usual form unless it states it to be so. We just can't know for sure, which is why I ask what you are discussing that God in human form in these cases matters? Other than Jesus, we get angels in human form, and Lord is used all the time for spiritual beings. Lord your God as specified many other times makes it more clear.
I don't have any reason for having it say what I want it to say. I don't even know what you are talking about. I am going for accuracy. I am not debating any point other than clarifying what you seem to be insisting the text must be saying. I have studied all of this book in great detail and cross referenced it years ago. It isn't foreign to me at all, but this point is new, and I was just wanting to comment on it.If you follow the conversation back I was having a discussion with both you and Chris. Chris stated or asked that God must have known where Sara way as he knows everything. I showed him the text God appears before Abraham and asks where Sara is. You claimed God didn't appear before Abraham so I showed you where in the text it says he did in fact appear face to face. It's that simple. The text is right there and is very clear, no interpretation needed.
What is my point? Please don't change the discussion away from the text.You have to ignore some key and well known scriptures like that no man can see God and live, also you have to have a case where the term Lord can only mean the Lord your God, and nothing else. I was the one that posted the text that you highlighted, and never missed the words, "Lord." You missed my points again.
Running with what you say as true though, even if it was the Lord your God as in God the Father that never appears before humans, why would you assume that God didn't know where she was when he asked them? God did this with Adam and Eve, who he walked with every day. You are allowing for only your pre judged conclusion, it seems to me, that God must not know everything as he didn't even know where Sarah was. It is just a very strange taking of the text, and allowing for only very rigid thinking that happens to also support your held worldview. This happens so much in these forums.
Thanks for letting me know what it was about.I'm attempting to help you see the conflicting information. If you tell me that God has walked among Abraham and Adam and Eve and then say no one can look at him there is a conflict. If you say God knows everything and yet asks where Sara is there is a conflict. If one says God loves all and is all powerful and entirely compassionate than we shouldn't have millions of Children dying a painful death every year.
There is no conflict.
And they <--- said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife?And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself <---, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? <---
14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
Just because something is written as an interrogative does not make it interrogative. What were you thinking? Is an example of a declarative, because we know you were not. Understand?There is no conflict with Adam and Eve in this case. They were perfect, and walked and talked with God every day it said. I don't know that they could after the fall however, it doesn't state it specifically that I can remember. They were different in that regard than to everyone that came after, especially before the fall. I do see what you were saying to some degree.
I am saying that you are assuming a lot,and you aren't alone in these forums, to maintain a rigid and personally held view. Have you ever asked your kids (if you have them) something you knew the answer to? Was it because you really didn't know the answer? See what I am saying now? If this is a proof text to you that God is no longer a possible all knowing being, then we have bigger problems. This was what I was trying to get at before, as I didn't understand the point, and appreciated that you pointed it out.If they were perfect how could they become un-perfect? A perfect thing can not be changed or it wasn't perfect to begin with. But you obviously do not mean they were absolutely perfect, they were just cool, right?
I think by "perfect" they mean "without sin," which is what they should say, because you are definitely correct. As the story goes, they were free of sin, but God created them with free will, i.e the capacity to sin. After they sinned, they were no longer "perfect." And apparently sin causes death, etc, etc... yaddah yaddah
But the problem is that before they knew good and evil they would not be able to sin. Free will perhaps but not the ability to use it. So potential free will then.
Sin has to have intent behind it. An accident or doing something you do not know is wrong, is not a sin.
So if they did not know that disobeying god was a sin then they could not sin. So did god want them to have free will? I don't think so.
If anything they took it without knowing that's what they were doing. It wasn't a gift, it was a curse.
And as to death. There is a problem here. If you either go to heaven or hell then you are going to wake up dead someday regardless. No one really dies. Death is just a transformation to either a nice boring place where you get to worship god all day long, or a place where you get tortured for eternity.
Loving god? Loves to be worshiped anyway.
So I already made a deal with him. When the lights go out it is over. No more shenanigans. God and the devil can both kiss my ass.They obviously always had free will. They were told what to choose. They made up their own minds to choose differently.
The snake told them what to do. So they were robots. Didn't see Adam having anything to say until after his eyes were open and he noticed he was naked and he became ashamed.
Potential free will before they ate? Maybe. But basically robots up to the point they actually had knowledge.That is SO wrong.
The Lord told them don't; and they did. Eve was out-witted. The serpent could not force her to eat. He cajoled. she made a CHOICE which robots do not have.So when you tell your dog not to do something, do you think it knows what you are talking about? She wasn't tricked. The snake told the truth. They gained wisdom and did not die on the spot. God lied. To her it was a tempting treat, nothing more.
So when people die they go to heaven or hell. In either case they are still alive. So god lied.Can you post a verse where they were supposed to "die on the spot"?
Can you tell me when they die if they either go to heaven or hell? He didn't say they would die right away. He said:
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Same day. In that day. But they didn't. He lied. But Christians do not believe that when you die it is over. You always wake up dead. So that is not death, it is transformation.Thinking about this, Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. God is spirit therefore we can conclude that Adam also was spirit. Spirit does not die.
Neither Adam nor Eve are alive today in the flesh. They disobeyed God and death was pronounced upon them. In the eyes of God, they both died on the spot, though they lived their lives on the earth until death overtook them.
There is no record in the Bible that either of them asked forgiveness for their disobedience. No one knows where they ended up but God.
In the book of Revelation it is written that there is a second death. Rev_20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Second death is written three other times if you want to search it out.So it does not say "die on the spot" - you just made that part up. But we do have verses where God places a sword, to make sure they don't eat from the Tree of Life, and other verses in context where God says: you guys will now have to return to the dust from which you came. In context it becomes obvious that a physical death becomes the results of men and that a Tree of Life, that if they ate from, where they would live for ever: is taken aside. So you cannot understand a physical carnal death as opposed to a Spiritual life, because a carnal body cannot "live forever". It would get all dusty and threadbare right? After a million years, that old body would get kind of worn out right? So now you can understand the difference between winding up in the dust and a Spiritual life.
Made it up? No. Die that day is pretty much on the spot. It's not 70 years later. And have they ever found that tree of life with the angels and the swords? You should be able to find it. The location of the garden is in the bible. If you find it, I'll believe it's a true story. I'd love to see that.
And death to me is the end. Lights out. Anything else is not death.
Bite your tongue!
God does not lie.
Adam and Eve brought death upon themselves and the world at once.Since it's all Gods plan, Gods creation and Gods doing, it's ultimately Gods failure. Taking His frustrations out on the humans only shows how selfish and petty He is, refusing to take responsibility for His failures and then blaming it on others.
That does not make sense. I'll grant that perhaps your version of Genesis is different than any of the ones I've read, but I have never read where the snake ordered them to eat the apple and they blindly obeyed. If you can show me that, then I'll agree with your 'robot' assessment but otherwise it's a pretty novel rendering.
You're exactly right about having to know there is a law and that you are indeed breaking it. Like the story of Adam and Eve. The first thing God did was He created a law. Just one law. Don't eat that. And when they did it was for selfish/personal reasons. It looked good AND it's said you gain knowledge. They even weighed the options in light of what God said. Then did it anyway.
This is part of why I don't believe in the traditional Christian idea of hell. For one thing it completely conflicts with what's described in the OT. For another this is what death would be. Even after physical death, according to the story, you live on. But if you don't agree to the terms that allows you to live on in God's kingdom, you don't. Not because He's mean or because He demands worship, it's simple necessity. When there are multiple individual wills, there will inevitably be conflict. So rules are necessary. So acknowledging the authority of the creator, the one who sets the rules, is also necessary.So now you are going to read in to the text that they weighed options? lol... No they didn't. At least it doesn't say they did. She saw it was good, looked delicious, the serpent said it gave knowledge. That's no more consideration then animal gives a meal. Then what happened? "and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."
What deliberation did he have? Zero. She gave it, he ate it, didn't say boo. Did not object. Was not talked into it. An animal. It's obvious. lol...Sorry, I should have said Eve and the serpent, but there's clearly a whole conversation about it. Whether or not what He said would happen would actually happen. What she stood to gain if she ate it.
The point is there was clearly a law created specifically for one particular scenario. Then the story describes how they ended up breaking it, knowingly. Just like the commandments. There'd be no point in commandments if not for free will. The whole point of the whole story is free will. Commandments, judgement, forgiveness, all of that. Pointless without free will.
Hey, I totally agree with you. Those are all valid points. Many I've made myself. I'm just telling you what they mean by it.
The God if the Bible isn't anywhere near fair, loving or just. Of course they didn't knowingly sin. In that book, intention is irrelevant, it seems.
Have you read in the 1 Kings the two accounts of men unjustly being devoured by lions?
The first one, a man is walking along a path, a prophet being chastized by God comes along. The prophet tells the stranger to physically strike him. The man refuses, as the man hasn't done anything to him personally to cause him to be stricken. The prophet tells the stranger again to strike him. The man refuses. When he leaves the prophet and continues on his path, GOd sends a lion to maul him to death.
The second one, God has told a man not to eat and drink in a certain place. He listens and does not. Then, a prophet comes to the man and asks him to go to this place that God has forbidden, and to eat and drink with him. The man says "no, God told me I can't eat and drink there." The prophet says "oh, God told me it's ok for you to eat and drink there now." So the man goes with the prophet and eats and drinks there. When he goes on his way, God sends a lion to maul him to death. (the man, not the prophet)
God obviously full of sh*t. I mean love.Not potential. They were given a distinct order and they chose to disobey it. Therefor they had free will.
Why do you think Heaven would be boring? I find it quite interesting that you think the opposite of eternal torture would be eternal boredom.Without the prior knowledge of good and evil, how were they expected to know that disobedience was wrong or sinful?
Because God directly told Adam. The whole point being the creator of the universe, who chapter 1 just described as being the creator by simply speaking/willing everything into being and that all things animate or inanimate adhered to, gave a direct order. Which they broke. The story illustrates what's unique about them, their ability to behave outside of God's will.
An ant has the ability to go against god's will. Doesn't mean it knows what it is doing.How do they know god created a universe and them? You assume so much.
How do you know an ant has the ability to go against God's will? As far as I can tell, from generation to generation, from one end of the world to the other, ants are ants. Doing their ant thing to the point that you pretty much know what to expect when you encounter them. Some have their particulars based on environment and type and such, but they clearly play their role in the natural order. We, however, clearly don't.
They don't have the knowledge we gained. They simply do as they've always done. Just like humans for tens of thousands of years. Until that changed. Before we lived in harmony with nature. Then we began to fight against it. Change it. Bend it to our will, rather than the other way around.An ant is not a human being.
Although you've said a couple of things that might lead me to believe you think we are.There wouldn't be much difference between an ant and a human mentally if we had not eaten of the magic fruit, apparently. I'm only working with in the myth.
Myth is right. You're certainly not working with the story that was actually written. Seriously, how does the Genesis account make us out to be purely instinctive and unreasoning? Which the fruit supposedly fixed?
Difference between an ant and a human would be an antithesis.
It's early and I'm not fully awake. Was I supposed to groan at your fiendishly awful pun? Or were you being serious?
Just groan! I looked up the meaning after writing the post and in fact it's quite apt...unwittingly.
Ants don't need to be human but they can certainly demonstrate greater intelligence and live more in harmony with their environment. We could learn so much more from them if we did not feel so superior.
The fact that ants live so much more in harmony with their environment is not a sign of any kind of greater intelligence on their part. Attempts by human beings to emulate such traits always break down because sooner or later we want things.
I don't feel 'superior' to the ant in the way I think you mean. But I do acknowledge that human brains are superior to ant brains.
They did know the difference between obedience and disobedience. They may not have had a complex grasp of 'sin' as such but they did have at least that very simple concept of right and wrong, don't do what God told them not to do. Childlike, I grant, but not robotic.
When you were younger, would you have understood the depth of disobeying your parents had you not made a mistake in the first place? No. Why are children afraid to disobey their parents? Classical and/or Operant conditioning. Can't take place without experience.
Before you understand what hot means, do you understand getting burned?
If you've never experienced a loss, can you understand someone who loses someone or something very important to them?
No?
Why?"They did know the difference between obedience and disobedience."
How do you know? Again, not having the knowledge of good and evil means not having the knowledge of right and wrong.She did know it, she showed it. She answered the serpent an reiterated the rules to him.
So therefor "don't do what I tell you not to do" and "do what I tell you not to do" would have been exactly the same, no difference whatsoever, in their minds?
I can't see how they could have known that to disobey was wrong if they did not know right from wrong. Not knowing good and evil means not knowing right or wrong. Remember. Don;y focus on the evil. They did not know good./right,
You've lost me there. They did know they weren't supposed to disobey. Any other explanation seems to torture the logic to me. You'll need to explain better.
It appears to me that the conversation could be viewed as one side needing God to be the guilty one in all cases in the story. Viewed through that filter, if correct, would make sense of the way he defines, etc.
Ok. Let's put it this way.
A couple has three kids. One is a young boy that's maybe 4. Another is a little girl who's 5. The other is a teen boy, let's say 13. They're all at the table having dinner. The parents have to step away for a moment, and the dad says to the kids "don't touch my dessert, or I will have to lock you in your room for a month." They all say ok. The little girl and little boy are young and new-ish to the world. They haven't experienced much, but they know that they don't want daddy to get mad or to get locked in their room for a month (yea, seems excessive on purpose). They've always done what Daddy says, so they couldn't possibly imagine disobeying him. Then the teen tells his little sister, "hey little sis, why don't you eat daddy's dessert?" The little girl says "But daddy said I'll get locked in my room for a month. I don't think I should." But the dessert looks so yummy (what 4/5 year old isn't wired to like dessert?). Then the teen says "nah, Dad was just kidding this time. He won't really lock you in your room for a month." The little girl lights up and eats the delicious looking dessert. She offers some to her little brother, who eats it too, but the teen's not really interested. He just wants to see them get into trouble.
When the father comes back, should he lock the two children in their room for an entire month? (Imagine there's no child services...)In your kind-of-tracks-but-is-missing-some-vitally-important-points-that-make-all-the-difference example, of course the father should not lock the kids in their rooms for a month.
Okay, let's adjust here. The father is perfect. Not perfect like Michael Landon playing Charles Ingalls "perfect" but literally perfect. The house is the template of Heaven, where only perfection can be. The 'kids' are actually grown, thinking, and sexually mature adults. Who sleep together since they are man and wife. The 'older brother' isn't just looking to get kicks watching his 'kid brother and sister' get into trouble, he really wants to stick it to the Old Man no matter what the cost is. And dessert is not simply a yummy food, it's the gateway to a lot (a lot, let me repeat a lot) of pain and suffering.
Change things any?Not really. That makes it worse. If Daddy's a "perfect" being, how could he possibly place such high standards on people who can't have experienced much (as they've never made any mistakes if there's only one rule)? They may have been thinking, but even sheltered people "think." It's the ability to make decisions based on previous behavior that curbs how we act or don't act.
What makes someone an "adult?" How much could they have known about the world without ever having been children, making mistakes, and learning what to do and what not to do? Would you be knowledgeable about what to do or not to do if you'd never made any mistakes or been around someone who's made mistakes? How could you have a grasp of "right" and "wrong" without ever having been chastized? You say they knew what it meant to disobey or to obey, but if they've never disobeyed before, and if there is no death and so they have no concept of death nor knowledge of it, how could they have really weighed their options? How could they have understood the weight of choosing to disobey? It's one thing to "know" something, and it's one thing to know something.
Adam and Eve may have been "sexual," but they were extremely sheltered, otherwise (again, if they'd never disobeyed before and did not know what death really was). No more than children morally. So, back to my scenario, it's no different.
God could have created a separate realm for them if they could not dwell with him directly, where they could've have learned what it really means to obey or disobey with minimal consequences before being presented with such a life altering temptation.
You say God doesn't expect you to be perfect from the get go. Why them? YOU know what it means to disobey. YOU know what death looks like. And yet you get numerous chances?
C'mon.I didn't say God expected Adam and Eve to be perfect from the get go either. There's a strain of thought that has been in evangelical circles for centuries that God knew what He was doing. And yes, I do subscribe to it. It was the only way that He could create beings who truly love Him (I've made this argument before, btw, so I'm not just switching tacks in the middle of an argument.) A lot of what you say is true but that can cut more than one way. Children who can't really know good and evil also can't really know love and hate.
In effect, God DID create a separate realm for them. The one outside of Eden.Well of course you all will think God knew what He was doing... you believe that He is "the" God and infallible. That makes sense if that's all you need. But I can dream up much better scenarios for beings I say that I love, and I'm just little old me...
I think it's confusing to think of sin as just misbehaving or acting in some way immorally. Sin should more be thought of as actions and behaviors that are potentially detrimental to the system we are a part of. It's clear from the story described that the point was that Adam and eve were capable of behaving of their own wants/will/volition. This in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is whether or not they adhere to rules put in place. If there's just one will then there is no conflict. But when there are many it is inevitable that there must be rules. So, will these beings who were created specifically so that they can choose their own behavior outside of God's will, still adhere to rules/laws that God dictates?
Just look at the rules that were given. They first have to do with acknowledging God as the authority, and all the others had to do with how we treat each other. Don't steel from one another, kill one another, lie to one another, etc. Like public roads. They enable us to freely go where ever we want. But because we're not the only ones on the road, rules are necessary. For everyone's sake.
If we exist but cannot actually act of our own volition then there's no point to existing because we can only 'naturally' do what we do, so life would ultimately be birth, eat/sleep/mate/poop, die. It's our capability to behave of our own volition that even makes existence playing out matter. It's a capability worth having, but for it to be possible there must be a respect for the authority, God (like DNA in a body or the laws of physics), and there must be rules.
Anyone can go out right now and choose of their own volition to enter a free way heading the wrong way, even though there are obvious laws that say don't. So there must be both rules, and an acknowledgement of the authority that governs the universe, for free will to be possible.Thou shall not kill… unless directed by me.
The people who made those laws had the right idea, those that came after and took advantage did not.I agree many have done things in the name of God that have seriously muddied the waters. And with one of those being not to take His name in vein, that's what I think that's talking about. When you speak or act in His name your actions reflect on Him.
But yes, death is a natural part of life. There were at least six mass extinctions necessary for us to have evolved the way we did. The body's DNA is much more qualified to determine when cells in the body should act and when they should die than other cells who have only existed their short lifetime.
But I don't think God's commands to kill in the bible are often seen in the right light. We have to understand that the introduction of Adam and Eve into the world changed the world. The world of the OT was one created by free will. Sumer and Egypt were civilizations born of free will. For hundreds of thousands of people to be freed from slavery, where they lived under the protection and were provided for by Egypt, to live out on their own, you had no choice but to take land by force and hold it. This was the way of the world in that age and those that didn't simply didn't exist.
I think that context is important to keep in mind. Just as reading about the bombs America dropped on Japan will always be a horrible story, but sound just plain evil if you don't know the context that these decisions were made within.Content is irrelevant if one is commanded by their God not to kill. Or do you think God meant to just not kill in ones own tribe?
Dropping atomic bombs on the centre of cities populated with innocent people does sound horrible. I wonder if Japan dropped them on over LA and NY we'd have the same understanding of the necessity.There's a deliberate story being told here. A specific purpose being carried out. Jesus, assuming He is as advertised, was the just cause. He was created by God, a son of God, for all the world. This was the purpose. But from Adam and Eve on free will existed. Unlike before when all the natural world adhered to God's will, like the animals walking two by two to the ark, humans often did not do as God willed. This world humans created, this world created by free will, was not in God's control. Those stories, while they sound horrific to our modern ears, were simply necessary. God, the creator, was creating a particular individual in this chaotic environment. Multiple militarized civilizations sprang up within centuries of one another in the wake of free will's introduction. Sumer, Egypt, Akkad. Only those in power, or those enslaved by those in power, survived.
God is clearly choosing specific individuals in the story that show favorable traits, like a gardener or a breeder would do. He chooses a 'specimen', like Noah and Abraham, that He's breeding from. Working towards a goal. And He's doing so in a volatile element. This free will turned humans 'wicked' according to Gen6 when it says Adam/Eve's descendants began mating with mortal humans, and it says it actually made God regret putting humans on the earth.
This is how powerful free will is. The capability that you and I have to pursue our own wants and desires. The architecture and art and science and poetry that's been born of humanity is born of this. Even writing is born of this. But so is war and slavery and all the horrible things that have happened throughout human history. I think the story is often read wrong. It's often read as if these things in the OT were exactly as God intended them. I don't think it's read and understood for what it is. The whole theme of the bible is about humans and their behavior and how that behavior was often in conflict with God's will. If we truly have a free will, that means we're not wholly bound by the chemistry/physics of the matter/energy in our brains. Without a free will, without a non-physical/spiritual soul, then all we are as humans, all that we've ever accomplished, as well as all the worst things we've ever done, can only be determined by chemistry and environment, with no deliberate willful choice made by anyone. With no more control of our actions than a waterfall controls where it flows. If we truly have a free will like this story is describing, then we're an anomaly in the natural world. We are something the God who created this universe went through a whole lot of trouble to realize.
Do you believe non-human animals are lesser because of their "inferior" levels of consciousness? Do you think our propensity to destroy ourselves is in part due to our level of consciousness? Do you think that the animals in the animal kingdom that more often exhibit our unpleasant behavior are the smarter ones for a reason?
Do you think that birds are unhappy/capable of being unhappy? Do you have a problem with contentment/acceptance vs extreme highs and lows?I do think our capability to be destructive is a direct result of our level of consciousness. In fact, I think it's a change in our level of consciousness that resulted in the modern human world. If you look at indigenous cultures and early homo sapien cultures, even after the discovery of farming and the existence of largely populated societies, you don't have the selfishness that's such a common thread in today's world. You notice they don't generally wear clothes out of shame for their nakedness, but more for functional, or decorative, purposes. But what's most significant is in their mindsets towards one another. They're very much tribe minded, and much less self-interested. Like Aborigines who don't keep one name throughout life, but rather names in the tribe pass from one individual to the other. They're also way different when it comes to possessions. There are no individual possessions, but rather all belongs to all. When attempts were made to acclimate Aborigines to our ways of living, houses were built and possessions given, in no time they were living in each others houses in more of a community setting than maintaining individual homes and possessions.
The same goes for native Americans. Early observers who used to write about them would often note how content they were. There's one in particular that comes to mind where the author noted how the 'white men', while waiting at government offices or post offices, would constantly figit and often had to get up and walk around. While, at the same time, native Americans would be sitting there, all day, still and calm, simply exchanging words with one another from time to time. And the same issue of acclimation came up there too when people tried to help them run their own businesses and shops. The concept of possessions was so foreign to them that they'd find it difficult to catch on. To them, the land, like the sun's light and the breeze, belongs to all the living. It's only those from 'civilized' cultures who had the audacity to cross a sea and stake claims, not just in land as a possession, but the native people as well. Both land ownership and slavery both started at the same time, in the same region of the world, and have been ever-present since.
All of this even though 'civilized' humans are no different than indigenous and 'first-nation' people. They're just as capable mentally, having the same brains and same genes. Yet our behaviors and our mindsets are completely different.
So, to answer your questions, I think most animals are capable of being sad, missing loved ones, all of that. But yes, I do think level of consciousness and level of capability afforded by faculties, level of awareness of their situation, all play a roll. But what separates those of us with 'free will' from the rest of the natural world, in my mind, is a much more pronounced sense of "I". Someone once said all of humanity's problems stem from our inability to simply sit quietly in a room. We are fundamentally discontent. That, I think, is the difference. I think that enhanced sense of "I" that made Adam and Eve realize they were naked, is what makes all humans 'of Eve' fundamentally discontent. And I think civilization and mathematics and astronomy and all of that are results of this psychological change."If you look at indigenous cultures and early homo sapien cultures, even after the discovery of farming and the existence of largely populated societies, you don't have the selfishness that's such a common thread in today's world. "
You are decades of research behind, it seems.I know what you're referring to in regards to the concept of the 'noble savage'. I'm familiar. I'm not of the delusion that we humans are not complex social and emotional creatures. I see the violence that can occur in chimpanzee social circuits and what's been seen in dolphins and such. I mean, homo sapiens pushed the Neanderthal out of existence, and the Neanderthal was no joke. Most species of the homo genus were often part of a balanced diet for megafauna. Huge cats and dire wolves and the like dominated the landscape. But in Neanderthal they met their match. It seems that just about all Neanderthal did was hunt megafauna, and they were really good at it. Yet homo sapiens pushed them out of existence, out of the very environment they had thrived in for tens of thousands of years, in a relatively short amount of time. So I'm not under the delusion that indigenous humans who have not come into contact with 'civilized' humans are some ideal version of a peaceful/noble/unsullied human.
But the behavioral change I'm referring to was a significant one. While I'm sure there were incidents of violence here and there, there was rarely organized violence. Early horticultural societies that produced abundant amounts of food were not fortified to stave off attacks to protect their resources. War-like actions were not yet glorified or depicted in paintings. Members of these societies were egalitarian, there was no class separation and no inequality between men and women. No difference in grave sizes or sizes of their homes. Just as they had for tens of thousands of years prior, early humans led rather peaceful lives. They lived in harmony with nature, like so many other species. There were certainly incidents, like in any other social circles we see, but there was also uniformity across the species like we see in so many others. Though there are differences in type and differences developed due to condition, for the most part bears are bears and lions are lions and tigers are tigers. Well, humans were humans, the world over. Then it all changed. And when it did, where it did, is very specific. It started roughly 500BC in southern Mesopotamia, and it changed the way humans lived on this planet from that point forward. What happened there created the modern world we know now.500 BCE? That's a little late. The Babylonians and Assyrians were war like societies by 2500 BCE. They were larger societies by then. Before that you are talking about small tribes of 150 or less. Hardly able to make a lot of war high scale war.
Tribes of 150 or less are the most sustainable and the most stable, as they are easiest to manage. Larger societies start having all kinds of problems which require solutions. A warier society is one such solution. So I can see that as a major event in our history.I apologize, that's supposed to say 5500 BC.
There are numerous examples, after the Neolithic Revolution, but before the dawn of true civilization, where there were largely populated cultures that came and went, mainly in Europe and northern Mesopotamia (modern day Turkey), that show the same lack of violence, lack of defensive walls, lack of differing grave sizes and home sizes, etc. Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey, the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula, which gave way to the Vinča-Turdaș culture (5,000-4,500 BC). This last one had populations over 2500 in some of its sites.
The change I'm talking about is first seen in the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia (5500-4000BC)...
"The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
So you really see me as a small-minded person who only needs to hear that God is infallible and I'm good?
Couldn't resist. But it does come off a little like that.You are actually quite intelligent. I had the same capacity for intelligence as a Christian as I do now. I've never bought that belief in a religion means a lack of intelligence. But you can be intelligent and knowledgeable even, while also being simple-minded by choice. The only difference with me now is that I don't give an idea or concept of a God a pass when it comes to things I can imagine better myself because without those filters I can imagine it better myself. I can come up with better and I'm no higher being. I can think past the walls that I allowed the religion to put up in my mind. And all of a sudden there's gray area. And all of a sudden the world becomes more beautiful and more cruel all at once. And the "secular" knowledge that I saw through the Christian filter became considerably more complex, interesting, and explicative in ways I'd never imagined. It all makes so much more sense. IMO.
From what I've gathered both within and without the forums that makes you the exception rather than the rule. All too often (not always, but often) the atheist tends to look through a lens that simplifies every bit as much as a religious lens does.
Yeah I did try to look through the simple lens but things kept popping up. The thing is, no matter how hard I tried (and I did try) I simply couldn't get away from the conviction that God exists. Anything I can imagine has to go through that filter. But God created a world that is very complex with many unanswered questions and I think about them all the time.You're completely right.
My filter says: until it can be objectively and physically proven otherwise, there is a physical explanation for phenomena, even if, for the time being, all the questions cannot be immediately answered. I am at most open to exploring the idea of deism or an Intelligent Universe from an Eastern perspective, but that's speculative and not fact. Simply a gap filler. The idea of a Western God from all I've learned about the world doesn't hold, imo.
Your filter is: through this subjective and seemingly collective experience with a Cosmic force I can only believe that Universe can be explained by God, and more specifically the Christian God, even if all my questions can't be answered (spiritually, though they can be otherwise explained in many instances). I must see phenomena through this filter, and have to assume that even though certain phenomena can be explained otherwise, my belief in this particular God dictates what I can believe is fact about the nature of the Universe and people.What exactly does "subjective and seemingly collective" mean? I'm always leary when people try to explain me to myself because they're almost always wrong but I'm wiling to give this one a fair shake but you need to explain that first part to me.
Your experience of God is subjective, as it only can be. You cannot show me God and I cannot test or see your experiences with him, so it is subjective. Christianity and religions (that have spiritual experiences with a separate Cosmic/spiritual being) are based on subjective beliefs and experiences of a collective group saying "Hey, I've experienced the same thing!" (Well, except for the crusades.)
Do you all agree on everything? Nope, as there are many denominations. But you have still collectively decided or been convinced that Bible is truth, even if you feel like you couldn't believe anything else if you wanted. Although ones acceptance of the Bible as truth varies, too, as far as how literally or metaphorically the Bible is taken.Okay. So I'm reading what I normally see, which is that my faith is in God and your faith is in science. A bit simplified but then your is too.
I don't imagine that my observation should be any different. Although we don't typically use the term "faith." But, technically yes. Or rather my "faith" is in the scientific method. There are plenty of things that can be observed and tested regardless of how we subjectively experience them. But there can varying opinions about what they implicate. Of course until the scientific method weeds out the really out-there ideas, or builds upon the existing ones. And then apart from "pure science," you have the behavioral sciences. Which I find to be fascinating. Although they tend evolve as we learn more from the "pure" sciences.
I love my field.By the way, although I've said this often enough and so have others, it's not like I discount science simply because I believe in God. Yes, there are people who do but they are few and far between (in my entire life I've only met one person who truly thinks that accepting scientific explanations means you don't have sufficient faith in God, and since it was in one of these forums I'm not completely sure they weren't a troll.)
No, that wasn't what I meant at all. I couldn't say that because there are plenty of people in the scientific field that are religious, although in some scientific circles it can be frowned upon. I simply mean that they see science through a Christian filter. For instance, a man may be brilliant and have a working knowledge of genes, DNA, and the like. But instead of believing that we don't know the origins, he would insert that God is responsible because it makes more sense to him. Or a scientist that understands and accepts micro-evolution, but on a macro scale denies it because he is a Creationist and thus doesn't think there's any significance to our relation to the other apes because he believes God created us.
