Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Thanks for the comments.
The Bible is mostly hearsay. Not all of it. As I said, there are direct witnesses and then there are witnesses whose testimony has been recorded. Our problem in the 21st century is how reliable is the information written down.
But also let me clarify "hearsay". While I am willing to concede there is hearsay within its pages, this doesn't mean I concede it is unreliable. For while it is true that someone calling me to tell me that they are in England and that it is raining, is technically hearsay. Declaring it is hearsay, doesn't prove that it is not true. Only that its verification needs to be corroborated. How can we do that? I indicated above some ways that might give confidence to that - but also noted nothing was 100% provable.
When it comes to the Bible, or indeed to any historical book, there are matters that people look for to determine the validity of what someone is writing. They look for clues both of an internal witness and also of external evidence. They look for the quantity of material and the look for the authenticity of such material. They look for early material and they look for clarifying material.
It is an interesting study to see how much information of an early variety is around for many of our well-known historical figures. Along with the closest said documents to the time that such people ACTUALLY lived. One of the best testimonies for the NT scriptures is the sheer bulk of such material and also how early or close it was to the original writings. Whereas, with Plato and other famous philosophers, we have far less and all of the earliest manuscripts are from times that are much later than even the NT writings. I provided some of this material earlier in another post. I will dig around and see if I can find it again. You might find it interesting.
For the record, I take the view that even math can't prove 100%. Yes, I know the theory says it can. Yet the theory doesn't take into account presumptions. I accept it has "in theory" the view that it can. Yet there are difficulties even with that view. And I am sure that you have seen them and perhaps even discounted them. Nevertheless, they exist and are relevant especially, when we are talking about truth, and understanding the source of such truth. And applying axioms which by definition are circular arguments that can't be proven.
Definitions certainly need to be tidied up. And clarified. Nevertheless, I think that often we use definitions as an excuse not to think deeper. And more clearly.
The question of evidence for unicorns is an intriguing one. Why do you think one requires a different standard to the other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I think I understand now. I had been under the impression that it simply meant "without evidence." I now understand that it effectively means a rumor: it is not a first-hand account, nor is there any evidence for. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If I rang you and told you I was in England and that it was raining outside. What evidence from this can you give to a court room?
1. You can give evidence that someone rang you. 2. You might recognise my voice and state that you were confident that it was me, due to past knowledge. Of course, in our new world of AI technology, it is possible that someone has generated a copy of my voice. So if the court were to ask you if you were sure that you were talking to a real person or an AI-generated voice, you might have to concede that you can't be sure. Unless of course you are an expert and are able to determine such distinctions. You would need to establish your credentials and expertise and explain why it wasn't AI-generated.
You couldn't say where I was located. I said I was in England, but that is just me telling you. That is what we call "hearsay". And the fact that I said it was raining. Again that is hearsay.
3. You would be able to say with some confidence that when you spoke to me on the phone, I was alive.
But that would be about all you could say. Hearsay is not just a rumour. It is anything really that someone represents to you that is not first-hand evidence of yourself.
If I was to ring you and tell you I was in England and it was raining. And the court spoke to me and asked me where I was when I spoke to you on the phone. If I said England, I would be giving direct evidence. And if I said it was raining in England, then that too is direct evidence.
Your evidence about me that I am in England and raining- is hearsay. Your evidence about me that I am alive and rang you is direct evidence. My evidence about me is direct. Your evidence is only based on what I said to you. My evidence is based on my experience. Now of course, the interesting thing is - if I am phoning in - to the court - my evidence is still direct evidence to the court. But that doesn't mean it has been corroborated. If a jury was listening to the phone call between me and the court, if they had any questions about this evidence then they might ask for corroboration. If none is forthcoming then they have the right to accept its truth or not. If none is forthcoming, it doesn't make it wrong or incorrect, just not corroborated.
The Bible has lots of people writing lots of different books. There are people who were direct eyewitnesses to some events. There are however lots of hearsay witness accounts. Hearsay if it is corroborated is still hearsay. It might confirm the truth but doesn't necessarily do so. For instance, if someone was next to me when I rang you and they confirmed that I was in England, that might corroborate it somewhat, but it is not definitive proof. It really is just further hearsay from a second witness.
Think about it. How would you be able to corroborate someone was in England and ringing you? You might look at the phone number. That helps. You might know someone who says that they are in England and ask them to confirm it. Again - though, it's still hearsay. Their direct evidence to you is that they see me. And you could use that under an exemption of the Evidence Act.
These are fascinating questions. Finding out what is true is not the easiest thing to do in the world. All of us start with different approaches. How do we know that 1 plus 1 = 2? Mostly because we have been told so. Yes, we have done the experiments and proved it. Haven't we? Or are we just following the logic behind it to a conclusion that is predetermined? Why is 1 plus 1, 2? We have definitions. We have logic. Why is logic right? Why is logic a plausible measuring stick? Because it works. Well, most of the time. Sometimes. Depending upon if we use proper logic. But what happens if we don't use the right logic or if we are using fallacies? How would we know? someone comes along with an alternative view of the world, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. How do we know he is right or wrong?
We start with what we know. I jump up and I land in the same spot. Hmmm. the earth doesn't seem to have moved. How could the earth be moving then? I look at the sky. The sun comes up in the morning and it goes down at night. We still call it sunrise and sunset. Does that observation prove one thing or the other? I ask the world's best scientists at the time - 400 years ago. 99% of them say - there is a consensus - overwhelming consensus - that the sun goes around the earth and all the evidence points that way. Should I trust the one who denies this - and whose theory seems to cut away at all of my own observations? At what point do I say "There is enough proof" to satisfy me? And does my satisfaction really matter when it comes to truth?
This is one of the significant philosophical issues of seeking the truth. Of course, in our day and age, there are even more troubles. After all, it is politically incorrect to say truth exists or absolutes exist. We are all to embrace a relativistic approach. Flexible. Fluid even. 50 years ago we KNEW that males and females were different because they had observable identifying organs. Now, the identifying organs apparently mean nothing. It is what "I feel" is true that is what matters. Reason and modernism have been thrown out and replaced with post-modernism and feelings.
I "feel" for people of this modern age. The pursuit of truth has become a lot harder. And this incidentally is reflected in the court rooms around the world. And in our pursuit of seeking truth from "Revelation" and divine sources. I accept this is much more difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Let's go back to basics then. What is your question? Thanks by the way for conceding you didn't understand "hearsay" as well as you thought you did. I wish others were as genuine in their responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Thank you for the clarification. Do you have an example of me doing this? I don't deny that there might be one, but I don't recall such a thing.
Fair question. I can't provide a specific example. If I see one I will provide it to you. Perhaps I presumed that is what you were doing. Still, let me apologise for not having one at hand and making an accusation I can't immediately provide. Mind you, I didn't even look.
Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.
It doesn't because I didn't make such a claim. Your argument doesn't refute what I said.
On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further. There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility. None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other. Yet it provides us with a starting point.Yeah, I know. What's your point?
Seriously? I thought you were the detective.
But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument - that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum. After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.Wait a minute. The book claims its own infallibility, not Terry's. It just so happens to be called the "Holy Book of Terry." Why does it have to be written by Terry? Even so, yeah, sure, assume that if you consider it to be necessary.
Well, how about you tell us who Terry is then? What's he got to do with anything? Why is he important? To be perfectly honest, you are attempting to make a mockery of other people's beliefs and you don't actually understand their beliefs. The result is - you make a fool of yourself. while preaching to the converted. It seems to be a mindless pursuit.
And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible. We know it is a joke.Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.
You just confirm my last point.
Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus. Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history. It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story. The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay. The Bible tells its own story. It claims its own infallibility. Whatever I say about it is hearsay. Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay. that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.
If Terry didn't write the book, who did? You? and what are your credentials?
In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt. The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority.Thank you so much for assisting me in striking down that anticipated counterargument! Seriously though, between this and the last thing you said, I'm beginning to wonder if you're mixing up your arguments and my arguments.
I suppose anything is possible.
DO you know what hearsay is? It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.I just took about ten seconds to give myself one: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsayLooks good to me!
I guess it does.
Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room?Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!
Not if the 20 people give first-hand testimony of what they saw. They're not speaking hearsay. They're giving evidence. Of course, if I hear that evidence and tell someone else, then it's hearsay.
If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.It's still hearsay! Eye witness accounts that are still unsubstantiated are still hearsay!
There were 20 witnesses who corroborated each other's story. Substantiated. Not hearsay. And here's the rub, even if it wasn't substantiated, doesn't make it hearsay either, just that it is unsubstantiated. And therefore not as strong as other evidence. One example to make this point. A girl gets raped. Man denies it. No corroboration from any DNA evidence or other circumstantial evidence. Her evidence is not considered hearsay. It just hasn't been substantiated. And more than that - it hasn't been deemed untrue. Just not verified. But it is still not hearsay. His denial is also evidence. It might be corroborated by the lack of the evidence to the contrary, and he might get off. But that doesn't change the truth. And it doesn't make her evidence hearsay.
The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them. We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies. We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto. We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story. An urban myth.It is still hearsay! It continues to be hearsay!
Respectfully, you don't seem to know what hearsay is.
Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there? Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.Well. That wasn't part of the story, but in that case it would not be hearsay.
Very good. It's circumstantial evidence.
Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell. But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.Yeah! Exactly! That's what would make it not hearsay in that case!
Good - you seem to be learning.
We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses. What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it?It doesn't matter whether they were trustworthy or not, or whether they had motivation to lie or not, because without concrete evidence, it continues to be hearsay. (Remember: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay)
Wrong. that site says that hearsay is "evidence not based on a witness's personal experience". These first 20 people saw the pig. It is their personal experience. It's not hearsay if they are giving evidence of what they saw with their own eyes. That is called DIRECT EVIDENCE. Please learn what the word means.
The second part of your story - with one pig is no different. That is the point. Some people do their homework and some don't. You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that. It's simply not true.No, I am not. I am suggesting that both are cases of hearsay. That's it. This whole section of my post, from the Holy Book of Terry, to the story of the pig and the donkey was all just to demonstrate that the Bible is no less of hearsay than those few sentences of the "Holy Book of Terry" that I wrote on the spot. Also, it wasn't "with one pig," it was with one person claiming to have seen a donkey instead of a pig. The point was that the claim of there being a donkey was no more of hearsay than the claim of there being a pig.
And so that is where you fail to meet the standards. You need to know what the standards are in the first place.
And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people.Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!
LOL @ you. First you need to learn what evidence is and what hearsay is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Wow! That's a serious problem. But pretty hard to force as a general rule. I imagine it will be used selectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
"If you get paid for your work, then you are using a form of money." That's not true.
Yes, it is. Money is inescapable.
If you can't decide what you can spend your money on then you are working for the privilege to be alive.
I am not sure what you are saying. "If you can't decide what to spend your money on". Do you believe in money or not? Many people in this world work for the privilege of staying alive. Staying alive is a form of payment. It is therefore ipso facto money.
A true communist govt dictates everything a person needs to have to survive, not live. You don't work, they kill you with starvation.
That's right. Your life is your bargaining tool. It is money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you get paid for your work, then you are using a form of money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Step 4 suggests that if people don't do the desired work, they won't get paid.
Paid what? There is no money remember. Serious flaw.
Money is inescapable. It is impossible to have any system without money.
Money doesn't have to be printed dollar bills. Money is just a bartering tool. That is all it has ever been and all it ever will be.
Money has been rocks, gold, silver, toilet paper, smokes, etc.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Can a Christian who is saved decide not to be saved?
some Christians might say that's not possible... if they are saved, they can't be unsaved.
Saved from what? If the person who believes receives everlasting life, surely "everlasting" has some meaning?
but what about free will?
We are not saved by free will and we cannot be lost by our free will. That would put salvation into our domain as opposed to God's domain. "Salvation belongs to the LORD". Humans do have free will. But what is free will? And how does it relate to salvation?
I think as long as you are trying to be good and have complete faith that Jesus will save you, then you will be saved.
I don't think trying to be good has anything to do with being saved. Jesus said, no one is good but God. If that is the situation, obeying the law won't make you good. And being good becomes pointless in relation to salvation. Hence, there must be another method of obtaining salvation. Reformed folk suggest that God grants salvation by grace through faith. Faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST. But it is not our faith that saves us. It is God who saves us. We don't trust our faith we trust God.
but I think if we respect free will and all the bible passages about falling away, it's possible to become unsaved.
The question about losing salvation seems inept when Jesus tells us "that all that the Father has given me, will not be lost". Surely there is the implication that salvation can't be lost once it has been given?
afterall, jesus said some seeds will start growing, only to wither and die due to worldly concern.
The parable Jesus provides says that the seed will be choked. But it doesn't say that they will be lost. They become distracted from those things which are beneficial for growth. Yet, it is only the first seeds that never take root and grow. There are many Christians whose spiritual life has become stunted. But are they lost to the point that they lose their salvation? I don't think that parable teaches that.
Hebrews 10:26. ESV says 'For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins', to say they can't lose their salvation is like saying they can't choose to sin.
This verse doesn't teach that people can lose their salvation. It states that if someone receives knowledge of the truth, and THEN intentionally refuses to walk with Christ, there remains no sacrifice for their sins. We are not saved by receiving the knowledge of the truth. Just knowing something is not the same as salvation. Remember in James, the demons believe in God, but this doesn't save them. What this verse is teaching is that people can know what the truth is and still refuse to follow it. They can even believe that it is the truth but still intentionally sin. I would suggest that there are many people in this boat. People who have heard the gospel and know its truth, but have still refused to embrace it. But just knowing the truth is not the same as being saved. And therefore, by deliberately sinning is not them losing salvation. You can't lose what you never had in the first place.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Once saved always saved is a dispensational doctrine. It is not reformed. Perseverance of the Saints is similar but different since it is covenant based.
When I was younger, I thought the two were the same. I was wrong. Perseverance of the Saints is trusting not in a doctrine but in God. We believe that what God promises he will ensure to keep.
Salvation - regeneration is an act of God. It takes place in heaven and is a declaration of being justified with God. Sanctification is really the idea of us becoming holy in this life. It is the act of us becoming more and more like Jesus. It is work that is done by the Spirit of God through his Word. As Jesus through his Spirit took up residence in our lives at regeneration, so he by his Spirit is changing and redecorating and renovating our lives so that they become more and more like him.
The fruits of the Spirit are the fruit of regeneration. I don't think people choose to become Christian. I think God chooses to make us his people. The word covenant is key here.
We take the view that it is the trustworthiness of God that keeps us in his hands. It is not our work or lack of work that puts us in or takes us out. Yet without good fruits, it is doubtful you were there in the first place. Yet good works itself is not proof of salvation.
Many people fall away from what they consider to be salvation. They have tasted, but never swallowed. Yet this is why we say it is in the hands of God and not ourselves. Catholics as a rule hold to a synergistic view of salvation. Many protestants do too. Yet in the Reformed view, we hold to monogenism.
Hope that helps.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Love covers a multitude of sin. Yet to downplay the point of repentance is going to minimise sin. And the worth of the relationship. Jesus did walk on water, but every other time he took the boat.
In other words, there are exceptions to the rule. But the rule should be applied in most occasions.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think that sins before God require repentance to be forgiven. I think that offences between people require repentance before reconciliation can take place.
I do think there is a place for love. Love covers a multitude of sin. Some sins will never be repented of by some people - yet the relationship is too important to just lose it.
I don't think forgiveness means "forgetting it". Or ignoring it. It might mean that in the circumstances, but some offences warrant further action and even consequences.
I think it is also unlikely that anyone could repent of all of their sins towards God. So we acknowledge that God forgives generally all of our sins.
Sadly, however in our society, people forgive far too easily and without considering the consequences of doing so. For instance if I forgave someone for cheating on a test, and yet they never actually cheated on the test. I have condemned and judged someone falsely and that is also not appropriate.
Forgiveness in my view should always be attached to the idea of reconciliation. Sometimes people think they should forgive dead people. Really they just want to be released from something. I think there are probably better ways of dealing with it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you say there is sanctification in protestantism, which is a life long event. but the thing is, protestants dont usually say that sanctication is tied to one's salvation other than to say that someone who is saved becomes sanctified. is it your stance that most protestants view salvation as a one time event and a process? if that were true, then catholics and protestants dont really think differently on this view even though they're always said to be different.
I am not sure which protestants you talk to but the one's I talk to and am involved with - would indicate that sanctification is the fruit of salvation. If there is no fruit, then there is no salvation.
We are not saved by good works, but we are saved unto good works. If there are no good fruit, then this is evidence that there is no salvation.
I think the primary distinction between the Catholic and Protestant is in relation to what good works are about? Some say that being good is how we get salvation and some say that good is something you become after you have received salvation. In other words, Did God save me or did I save myself?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Thanks for asking.
I hold to the view that in most cases, people need to trust in Jesus to be saved. Salvation is saved from the wrath that occurs by not being in God's kingdom.
I note that many people don't want to be in God's kingdom or want to live by his rules, so God will grant them what they wish. I think people should be wary of what they wish for.
I also note that Heaven is God's home. Why would God wish to have anyone in his home, to live with him forever, if they have always thumbed their nose at him and treated him with scorn and ridicule? And moreover don't want to spend time with him anyway.
I also hold to the view that there are many people who will be saved by God's grace that are not currently within the visible church on this planet. They are saved entirely by the grace of God.
Yet as a matter of logic and principle, I hold to the view of exclusivity. The entire idea of inclusivity is self -contradictory.
The question about rejection is - who rejected who? Is it God who has rejected people or is it that people have rejected God?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I suggest you look up Luke 17:1-10.
Forgiveness requires repentance.
And forgiveness is also a command. A duty. Not based on emotion or feelings.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I don't think you understand Protestants very well.
Haven't you ever heard of the "perseverance of the Saints" doctrine? Part 5 of Tulip.
Christians even in the protestant view see salvation as both an event and a process. We are saved once and for all. And yet we are commanded to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
The first part is regeneration. That is - being born again. A once-off event and then there is sanctification which is an all-life process.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
' i need help here guys '
Yes I agree.
Yes i can trade .Scolls bac to the question .Name one place in the bible that ever took place.Oh shit. What have i done.
Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:14; Acts 16:11-15; Acts 16: 31-34. Each one of these examples cites - that a person and ALL their household was baptised. Anyone with an eye for cultural norms will know that a household in the days of the first century included adults, children, infants, babies, slaves, and a whole lot of extended family. It is INCONCEIVABLE that no babies were baptised. And we have several examples of this occurring. A household baptism is not an individual being baptised.
Well firstly . You are a bible fool trade .Your a dumb dumb faceAlso i want to add ' scrolls up toma brother d post .Did i mention you did a sex thing no what was it againYou did sexula deviance.
Seriously, was it the Brother or Stephen that asked you to say this? They know I don't read their rubbish and that I won't respond to anything they say. It's a bit sad and pathetic that you have become their stool. If they want me to respond to them, they just need to apologise for being bone head. But they will never do this. And I don't care since it is much more peaceful just responding to people who are civil and have a brain. And that includes you mostly.
I have indicated that I am not a sexual deviant. And even if I was - so what? Christians hold the view that what someone was prior to becoming a Christian is not held against them. It is how Christians hold themselves while a Christian that is more important. And in NO part have I ever suggested as a Christian that I had any sexual deviancy. They can look - but will never find. It's not there. It was as an ATHEIST I expressed that I had questions about my sexuality. Why don't they mention this or refer to this? Because it backs up my claim. And Assertions. I have conceded as a Christian that I spoke badly towards Stephen and used language that was inappropriate. I owned it. and I still do. But so what? It is irrelevant to me since as far as I am concerned it is now a non-issue.
Yeah trade . Have you got me .I own yuu rigt.
Uh no. You don't own me. Although it does look as though Stephen and Brother own you. You have become their stooge.
Hey miss trade . ?Does this answer your questions you put to me. ?
I never asked you a question.
' Scrolls back through the plethora of insults directed at trade daily. 'Why woild i tell you when you Just go aginst the jesus inspired passages any way .
Yes, Brother and Stephen are obsessed with me. I see that as a compliment. They dislike me. They speak about me every day. I wonder whether they secretly worship me. I think Brother prays to me. He shouldn't. But since I am on his lips constantly, it does worry me. And Stephen. WOW! Everytime someone NEW comes on the scene like David - Stephen immediately thinks that is me. He can't live without me. He worries about me. I think he dreams about me. Gee, I hate that I have got so much under his skin. Perhaps that is the Holy Spirit but maybe it's something else. And Stephen hates - yes loathes the idea that I am a lawyer, a reverend and a chaplain. It's bogus, isn't it? But for someone born in '54 or '55, I suppose that makes sense. Imagine someone with "smarts" being religious. How dare they?
Trade ? Are we good ?
Why wouldn't we be? You are just the messenger. I never shoot the messenger.
Trade secret haMore like trade fucking bloody idiot bible illiterate.
Not so nice. But maybe you are right. Ask me a question and let's find out.
You don't know nothing trade.Your half man half girl the other half pig.
No. all man. No female. No pig.
What more do you want .Please Stop abusing and attacking me please.
I'm sorry, have I attacked you? I didn't realise you were so sensitive. I will learn.
Trade ?Are we good .?I ve pretty muched covered what you asked bey. ?
What I asked? Or what your masters asked? Stephen? Brother?
Now its my turn .I bet you cant point to a part in the bible that talks about water dinking dunking'Scrolls back to the question trade put to me '
Hmm, not sure what your question is? I think I answered above for infant baptism. But I don't think ANY baptism in the NT was ever by dunking. It is ALWAYS by aspersion. I wonder if you know what that means. Perhaps you should read my book? But then I would have to reveal my name and Stephen would have a baby. I like Stephen too much to give him a heart attack. It is much more fun watching him squirm and act like a "????" .
How about you let your ????? drop and you ask a fair dinkum question?
I'll wait knowing you will take your time.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it's worth noting that i think the general understanding among church fathers was that baptism was an actual healing or washing away of sins. i dont think this is how modern protestants would look at it. i also dont think that was the only understanding among the church fathers.
It is also worth noting that in the early church, there was debate about what baptism was for. In fact, protestants tend to go back to the early fathers to understand their sacraments. The Reformation was the reforming of the church according to its early foundations. Not with new innovations.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Dunking kids in water aint half as bad as Dashing kids against rocks.God does both.
Not in our church. We don't dunk kids or adults. We follow the biblical mode of "sprinkling".
And yes I know the verse in the Psalms you are referring to - but can you be a darling please, and provide one example of where this ever took place in the bible?
Thanks and waiting in anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience.What do you mean "inconsistently apply?"
I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth.
It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time. It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position. Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't. The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim. In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true. This is why I am doing this in the first place. Look, I can do it to:
Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting. I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books. On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further. There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility. None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other. Yet it provides us with a starting point.
Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!
It seems you are a little light in understanding the meaning of infallibility. That's ok. I see what you are trying to demonstrate. It doesn't fly like that though. But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument - that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum. After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point. And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible. We know it is a joke.
So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?
Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus. Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history. It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story. The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay. The Bible tells its own story. It claims its own infallibility. Whatever I say about it is hearsay. Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay. that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.
Similarities:
- Both proclaim their own infallibility.
- Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.
The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes. Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you.
Differences:
- One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
- One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.
There are more differences than you have articulated. And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale. And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney. No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.
Okay, so one is more widely accepted, and by a large margin. How does that affect things? Let me make this comparison as clear as possible:
In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt. The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority.
Imagine that twenty people start telling everyone that there is a pig in my living room, and people listen, and believe them. Soon enough, one thousand people are going around saying that there is a pig in my living room. Now, one person starts saying that there is a donkey in my living room, and no one listens. Now, your claim is that I am basing my claims off of hearsay. Is the claim that a donkey is in my living room any more of hearsay than the claim that a pig is in my living room? The pig may have gained more traction, and his been around for longer, but how is it any less of hearsay? It isn't. Similarly, one cannot reasonably say that "Terry" is based on hearsay while also saying that the Bible is not.
DO you know what hearsay is? It sounds like you need to do a refresher course. Your story, lovely and sweet as it is is unhelpful since it doesn't even address hearsay. Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? That is the question. If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw. The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them. We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies. We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto. We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story. An urban myth. Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there? Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig. Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell. But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions. We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses. What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it?
The second part of your story - with one pig is no different. That is the point. Some people do their homework and some don't. You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that. It's simply not true. And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people.
SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking.The point is, everything that you are using against Terry and His Magic Cactus can be and often is applied to the Bible.
Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry. At least I have a book.
You're just dodging my question: How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?
I'm not dodging. I don't think that all religions work the same. Many work simply on fear or expectations.
In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true. For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests. They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught. But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige. Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get. But most people in the community would never question them. Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias.
Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority. Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
All I can say Deb is that we have just one service typically. Once a month we have a youth service from 5 pm til 6.
But spying on people - hmmm - and attending early morning services - sounds a bit crazy. Sometimes I will head up the mountain for the dawn service on Easter. But that is an ecumenical service.
4.22 am ?????? I am normally asleep at that time.
After our morning services - Half of the people do jump in their cars and leave - the other half stay for a chat and a cuppa.
What sort of church are you attending? It sounds a bit whacko. I would probably advise you to go to one that is a bit more old-fashioned.
Still, it is a matter for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I must go to a boring church.
We have a worship service every Sunday from 10:00 am til 11:00.
We have 6 bible study groups. Two meet in a different town. 2 meet by zoom and 2 meet at the manse. In those groups, we first have a cuppa and chat for about 1/2 hour. Then we spend an hour studying a bible book. At the moment in the 2 at the manse - we are looking at Ephesians and Job. Then we spend half an hour praying for each other.
Throughout the week, there is a Craft Group. Ladies get together for a couple of hours and make quilts to give to people in Refuges and other organisations such as hospitals. They might have 10 minute devotion.
We also have KYB group - a ladies group that meets on Mondays. KYB stands for Know Your Bible. It is a non-denominational group and they pretty much just use our facilities but that's about it. We also have a local Rotary Group that uses our hall.
We don't do healing services. We don't have prophecy meetings. We don't do exorcisms.
We do have a preaching group. Several young men and ladies to learn how to preach.
We have a Youth Group.
Apart from that - I disciple several men throughout the week. I have meetings with the Board of Management, Session, and Presbytery once a month.
But other stuff. Hmmm. Not sure what you mean. Presbyterians are reasonably conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
LOL @ you.
I hope your day is better now that you have let all that go. Smile. Nothing like a bit of stress relief.
By the way, there are probably about 40 people who wrote the bible. Over a period of about 4000 years.
And it wasn't English. It was Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
Not even any Latin in its original pieces. And it wasn't dictation from God, perhaps a little bit here and there - like the 10 commandments. But mostly - predominantly, it was sinful humans carried along by the Spirit of God. Using their flaws and their weaknesses and their bigotry and their baggage.
LOL @ your KJV. Does anyone even read that anymore?
It didn't need special people to write the bible. That is what makes it unique. Yes, there were kings and prophets but there were also tax collectors and shepherds. And at least one murderer. And probably a couple of bigamists and adulterers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
He was buried in a tomb, yet he lives today.Just read the next line. I'm glad I am not the only one who feels like he faked his death.
I know you are just taking the P.... but the facts - yes facts prove his resurrection from the dead.
One thing about Romans is that they are pretty good at killing people. Jesus was almost dead before they put him on the cross. If they hadn't got someone else to carry the cross for the last part of the journey, he would have died on the road.
The beating he took the night before was severe.
And there are only three possible suspects for stealing his body from the cave. The Jewish leaders, the Romans, or the disciples.
The first two can be ruled out because if they did steal the body, then as soon as people said he was resurrected from the grave, they would have produced the body and said - aha - caught you out you dumb dingoes. But they didn't. The Jews would have done this to save themselves. and the Romans to stop a potential riot. There was no conspiracy.
And the disciples who also might have had a motivation were actually too thick to believe the prophecies of Christ. No one else did in that time save and except possibly the Jewish leaders. John the Apostle tells us in John 20 that he didn't know and neither did Peter. That's why he and the others including the women were so upset.
The disciples, later on, died for the fact that they believed Jesus was alive. Now it is true that people will die for their causes they believe in. Muslims do it all the time. But people don't die for things they know to be lies. That's the difference. If they knew it was a fake death and a fake resurrection, they might have convinced others to die - but why would they die for a lie? They had no possible interest in that.
It's the best fit of the evidence at hand. Of course a presumption that God exists helps. But even without that presumption, it is still the best fit. Nothing else actually makes sense. Watergate proved that conspiracies don't really work. Or hold water for too long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Michael Jackson also followed Jesus.
I think you will find he was a Mormon. So he didn't follow Jesus as the Bible teaches but as the Book of Mormon does. Very different indeed from each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The issue is that even though you point out that some assumptions are reasonable and some are not, we will never all agree on which assumption can be made, or which versions of circular reasoning are valid.
Just because you and I won't agree, doesn't mean that many people won't agree with me or many won't agree with you. I for the record have no issues with any of the three axioms. All are part of our source for knowledge and each can be substantially argued for in a plausible and reasonable manner. I take it you have never studied what makes literature authentic or not. Or how they are validated or not? And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. That's not unusual though. There are different standards for ascertaining truth, on the balance of probabilities, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any lingering doubt, and others.
Even though I am pretty confident that we can all agree that Terry's infallibility is a fallacious assumption, when it comes to religion people don't always agree, and the "logic" that is commonly used to prove God is considered fallacious by many.
It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time. It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position. Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't. The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim. In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.
It is often said to be circular, and while you try get past that common counterargument, the issue is that what we as humans think is and isn't valid will always be subjective.
SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking.
Because of this, there isn't really any way for you to argue that the assumptions that I make in my argument for "Terry and His Magic Cactus" are fallacious, yet others aren't.
Well I already did. I said that your position is hearsay - not circular. We need Terry to verify his infallibility from his mouth.
We can't rely on our intuition either, because it isn't hard for people to twist our often flawed intuition into making us believe ridiculous things.
Everyone relies on intuition for some things. Most people make most decisions everyday by intuition. And mostly that means by their feelings. I feel like eating this. Or that. I feel like putting this on or that. The point is twisting things is what people will do when they don't want to accept someone else's point of view. You are correct it is almost dishonest at times. Yet this doesn't imply it is ALWAYS for ALL People.
If I and the resources, I could probably convince many people that Terry and His Magic Cactus are real and should be worshipped. How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?
There are lots of naive people in the world. There are lots of people who wants things and need things and are desperate. People tend to follow things that make them feel part of it. Many religions operate that way as do schools and uni's and secular places. Like footy clubs.
I also happen to think that there are many copy cats in the world. But a copy cat implies an original. The question is how do we determine the original from the copycats? Some skeptically add - how do we know there is an original? That too is a good question. I say - let's go back and examine axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything.But of course! Circular reasoning is critical to everything! That's why it is entirely valid and necessary in proving the existence and power of Terry and His Magic Cactus! I hope you can now see that surely Terry and His Magic Cactus are the most powerful beings in the universe!
LOL @ your response. Circular reasoning if axiomatic doesn't validate arguments. It merely provides a premise that is impossible to prove. It doesn't make it right or wrong, valid or otherwise.
Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.You're right. I should have considered that. This will improve my argument greatly! I take as an axiom that Terry is infallible. He is my source of information, so I must be right.
You can make any premise you like. Yet just saying Terry is infallible is not Terry saying he is infallible. Therefore just because he is your source of information doesn't make it circular. After all, unless you yourself are infallible, which you haven't claimed, then you might have made a mistake about Terry being infallible. Are you able to produce Terry, so that we can ask him? Or will have to rely upon hearsay?
Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent.Wait, you don't agree with circular reasoning?
I agree with the concept of axiomatics. I don't agree with circular reasoning outside of that. And only if the axiomatics can be substantially demonstrated to be axiomatic.
Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.Yep! Everything around us is defined by the Magic Cactus, so you are experiencing it right now! Surely you realize that it exists at this point?
So you keep saying. But where is Terry and what is the Magic Cactus? Yet everything so far is simply coming from you.
Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular. Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always. The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy. Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference.Oh yes, I know there's a difference. That which is consistent with the Magic Cactus is necessary, and anything else is a fallacy. Could you put forth an argument otherwise? I'm doubtful!
So you say. Yet from our conversation so far, it seems you lack a little background on how axioms work. Still good try.
In conclusion: You made correct conclusions on distinctions between truth and falsehood, but you were unable to use them to disprove Terry and His Magic Cactus. Better luck next time!
In my first post, I was simply drawing to your attention that not all circular reasoning is bad reasoning. On the other hand, you suggested or implied it was evidence of nonsense. I don't need to disprove Terry or Magic Cactus, they are from all accounts - simply products from your imagination. On the other hand, produce Terry and let's see if he has something to say for himself. He might be able to provide some more information and explanations of the Magical Cactus.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure.But we cannot reach C with out firstly establishing the veracity of the alternatives.Have a nice day Trade.Jobs to do now.
Ignoring the evidence is not reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest religious righteousness has never been dependant upon logical processing
I can't speak for all religions. Christianity is built upon logical reasoning. Faith without reason is mysticism. Faith requires a proper reason for it to be faith.
Religion only requires A so C. and will disregard the interim hypothesis in it's need to reach a state of righteousness.
Well there you go, you have proved Atheism to be a religion. Good one.
Whereas scientific method requires proof of B in order to establish the truth.
Science is a friend of religion. It is an enemy of mysticism.
Ha Ha.....It just occurred to me that religion is a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I would relegate Atheism to that description.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
No.
Dismissing the interim hypothesis is dismissing alternatives. That is even worse reasoning.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, at the end of the day we cannot prove something that is unprovable.And we both know that.We're getting there.
Of course, it's impossible to prove something that is unprovable. Who would really argue otherwise?
Of course, some things are true that can't be proved. We both know that as well. For example, assuming your great-grandparents had dinner on the 4th of April 1895 which they probably did, what did they eat? We don't know. Perhaps they wrote it down. Most likely they didn't. We can't prove it one way or the other. On your thinking, because it can't be proved, it didn't happen. I would agree it can't be proven, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yet we can follow logical steps of reasoning which might provide some grounds for thinking it happened. For example, most people eat food most days. Great-grandchildren MUST have had some kind of parents who survived. Can we prove EXACTLY what they ate? I suppose we could try and figure out where they lived, and what kind of food was typically eaten by whatever kind of people lived in those parts with that kind of money. But we wouldn't know really. There would be some doubt as to what kind of food was eaten - but we would be pretty sure they did eat.
It's the same with God and religion or spirituality. Some things we will never be able to establish and some things we can deduce from reasoning. Religions exist. We know that. There is a sense of spirituality that belongs only to humans and not other animals. The world didn't make itself. Nor has it always existed. It had a beginning. Why is it that this planet is relatively unique in respect of life?
Coincidences can only go so far. Why is it that EVERY human culture has had a religion of some sort? Why is it that almost every religion has a similar means of salvation? Why is it that despite the millions of planets in the universe, no aliens have conclusively visited our planet?
Doubt is fine. But it's also very personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Many religious arguments for God are dependent upon circular reasoning and logical fallacies. Instead of attacking these fallacies, I decided to simply demonstrate how ridiculous they are by using them myself. See if you can prove me wrong!
Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.
You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything.
Take reason for example. Or logic. How do we know that logic is right? Or let's put this another way. How do you prove logic right without using logic? You can't. It's circular reasoning. By your argument therefore - logic is a fallacy.
Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.
Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent.
Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.
Our brain, our senses, or revelation. Others interestingly rely upon their heart or emotions or intuition.
Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular. Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always. The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy. Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So we agree that spirituality is simply internal physiology and everything to do with internally created fantasy.
Nope. "Everything" mucks up your statement.
And therefore nothing to do with assumed external fantasies.
Ergo.
And religion as a concept is religion as a concept, this is a truism.
No that is just your rhetoric.
And adherence to an established modus operandi can be interpreted as religious behaviour.
It doesn't need an established MO. Unorganised religions or spiritualists exist everywhere.
Though I would interpret spiritual responses as special moments of brain activity, rather than as every day religious normality.
I think going to the footy is a spiritual experience for many. Almost religious for some.
Interpretation is always the name of the game Trade.
Easy copout but you like the easy, don't you?
And interestingly, just as you see everyone as religious.
Hmmm intriguing way you put it. I certainly think religion is inescapable.
I see a whole lot of undevout Christians whose atheistic conditioning often manifests in their comments. You included Trade.
I never claimed to be perfect.
Which if you consider how our databases become established is probably only to be expected.
Not really sure of your point.
There's doubt in most Christians.
Doubt is a human thing. Everyone doubts something. Doubt however doesn't mean not believing. Or that your view is incorrect. Doubt is a good thing. It helps us to realise that we are not brainwashed. People who are brainwashed couldn't doubt in the first place. Doubt is an emotion or a thought that enables us to continue to refine our positions.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Spirituality is an internal electro chemical response to an external stimulus.
You are probably correct when it comes to most things that pass for spirituality these days. Just not everything.
Incoming data signals cause the brain to react in varying ways, relative to our established databases.
Again, there is some truth in that statement.
We already possess data which was previously established as being either spiritual or non-spiritual.
If you are talking about the modern view that Spirituality is about the non-material then perhaps you are correct.
Some people have religion stored under spiritual, and others have religion stored in the non-sense section.
True.
So we react accordingly.
Who does?
I too find that specific incoming data occasionally flicks a sort of internal spiritual switch.
Everyone is religious. It's an inescapable concept.
Nothing to do with magical floaty about Middle Easterners though.
I totally agree. Spirituality has nothing to do with magic. that's why I am a Christian and not a different religion and also why I am not an atheist. Other religions and atheists rely upon magic to stop themselves from going insane with the inconsistency of their worldviews.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For me, the spirituality is connection with God and prayer. More of those means more spirituality.
and that is why at the moment you remain more Hindu rather than Christian.
In the Bible, talking about spiritual things is quite different to the spirituality observed in other religions and even in non-organised religions.
It is about the Holy Spirit. In the Christian worldview - it distinguishes those who pursue so called spiritual matters with those who are Spiritual. It is not a matter of pursuing such things so much as identity. Two completely different matters.
We are not in the business of making ourselves spiritual. that is God's job. Hence, why the traditional Christian would put a wedge between itself and the so called Charismatic movement. the latter is more about mysticism. This was part of the reason why the West and the East divided originally.
The West has always maintained that faith is based on reason. Whereas the East has maintained that faith is separate from it. Ironically as the West has become more multi-cultural, and embracing the East, it has moved towards a similar reasoning. We see this not just in the church but across the board, including our philosophy, from modernism to post modernism. From reason to emotion or feeling.
Christianity is obviously a broad church and there are many varied views within it, yet predominantly it has maintained faith is based on reason, and is not blind faith. It would lable - the Eastern religions, and even the dominant Western philosophies - based more in feeling and emotion - I identify as whatever I want and who cares about the objectivity of science.
spiritual pursuits have become more or less the same in the west. Following the east - it is more about feelings and connections to the spirit world or the community about us. And less about identifying in the Holy Spirit.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People with wealth have everything they need materially. They think this makes them happy. And perhaps in some way, that's true.Money cannot replace the lack of spirituality.
I guess it depends on how you understand spirituality.
What is the standard definition of spirituality? Oxford states it is:
"the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
- "the shift in priorities allows us to embrace our spirituality in a more profound way"
The shamans, healers, sages, and wisdom keepers of all times, all continents, and all peoples, in their ageless wisdom, say that human spirituality is composed of three aspects: relationships, values, and life purpose.
Spirituality and religion are often used interchangeably, but the two concepts are different. Some authors contend that spirituality involves a personal quest for meaning in life, while religion involves an organized entity with rituals and practices focusing on a higher power or God.
Spirituality can be defined broadly as a sense of connection to something higher than ourselves. Many people search for meaning in their lives. The sense of transcendence experienced in spirituality is a universal experience. Some find it in monotheistic religion, while others find it in meditation.
Being a spiritual person is synonymous with being a person whose highest goal is to be loving to oneself and others. His/her conviction that we are all One, motivates him/her to work for everyone's welfare and stay away from any harmful activities.
What is your definition of spirituality?
What is the biblical definition of spirituality? And moreover, does the bible ever indicate that we should be trying to be spiritual or more spiritual?
Personally. I think spirituality is inescapable. Everyone is somewhat spiritual. The bible is not interested in us being more spiritual. That in my view is a con.
In fact the bible - even the passage you have referred to makes it clear - that salvation is IMPOSSIBLE for people to achieve themselves. It's not just a matter of connecting with higher than ourselves. It's not a matter of transcending to a higher experience. In the bible, salvation is related to the word, make whole. Interestingly, the greek word for salvation is the same greek word for healing. Your faith has "healed" you or your faith has "saved you". Both sentences read EXACTLY the same in the Greek.
The biblical idea of salvation is to be made whole. It's interesting that the English word for "holy" is derived from the word "whole". Holiness or sanctification is a work of God in our lives. It is something we are commanded to be. Not do. God makes us holy or whole by reconciling us with himself. It is not something we can work towards, or achieve by ourselves, by looking inwards, or outwards, or even upwards. We can't buy it, or inherit it or gain by philosophy. We can't earn it by fasting or praying or being celibate, or not talking, or walking up and down stairs, or giving all of our money away.
Faith is involved. But not like the blind faith we see in some circles. Biblical Faith always requires trust build on a good reason to do so. Without such a good reason, it is not faith, it is mysticism. And mysticism is not biblical nor Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not sure that Saturday and Sunday were pre-Christian Jewish concepts.Therefore Sabbath was really just another tradition adopted from previous Jewish paganism.
Wow! You draw a conclusion from an "unsure" admission, that's pretty cool.
I think it's better to consider our sources.
In my view, the Bible is the best source for understanding the reason for the existence of the Sabbath.
The initial reason seems to be the Creation. God rested on the 7th day and therefore we should follow his example and commemorate it forever.
The second reason seems to be related to the fact that the Israelites were former slaves in Egypt before God rescued them.
The 7-day cycle of the week is an intriguing one. Possibly to do with the Lunar Calendar. I guess that's why we have 12 months in a year. 4 x 7 x 12 = almost a year. 336 days.
Genesis indicates the day of rest was a holy day. Deuteronomy indicates it's a holy day as well.
So was it pre-Jewish and Christian concepts? Yes. It goes all the way back to the Garden and Adam and Eve were not Jewish or Christian.
Of course, it is another thing to suggest it was Paganism. I take the view that the Bible clearly had God-fearing people from the time of Adam all the way to Jacob.
These are not pagan. For Pagan is not simply non-Jewish or non-Christian, it is those who are non-elect. The descendants of Seth, the people of ancient Israel, and the Christian Church are all drawn from the same pool. They all fear the creator God who also rescued Israel from Egypt.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think this passage you related to Jesus' time on earth is an excellent passage. Why, you ask?
Because it demonstrates persuasively that being "good" is not the means to get you eternal life. After all, Jesus just told the rich man, no one is good.
So obeying all of these commandments is not to make you "good".
It's the wrong question.
Humanity and pretty much every religion take the view that it is about being good. Whatever that means.
Yet Jesus also links obedience to eternal life, doesn't he? So why the disconnect?
Why say in the first place, YOU ARE NOT GOOD and by implication obeying the commandments can't make you good? And then in the second place - link obedience to eternal life?
Because dear Best. Korea (Harikrish) - it's not a matter of so much of what you do as whom you are obeying. In that passage v. 21 contains the answer and most people miss it. They are so busy with the first part - the part about giving away all of your riches, that they miss the 4 most important words. "then come, follow me".
To gain eternal life with God, doesn't take great effort on our part. We don't have to be "good". Or prove that we are good. God doesn't expect us to prove something or be something that we are not. We don't have to give all of our money away unless it is an idol and will prevent us from coming to God. And for many people, wealth is an idol. People with wealth have everything they need materially. They think this makes them happy. And perhaps in some way, that's true. After all, it's better to have Money and be sad than to have no money and be sad. Yet wealth is a very jealous idol. Not very many people could just give it up.
Yet some rich people - like this rich man in the story worry about the future - what happens after they die. Many rich people never worry about this. They live for today and hope that this will satisfy them.
the rich man like many others was focused only on the first part of the verse - and missed the last part. Then come follow me.
And when you think about it - this makes perfect sense. After all, if heaven is God's home, it makes sense to be on personal terms with him. He's not particularly worried about whether you have been good according to your own standards. But he will want to make sure you are there in heaven because you want to spend time with him. Not out of some selfish motivation to avoid nothingness, or something worse.
But Best. Korea thanks for bringing this to our attention. Perhaps - you too might come and follow Jesus. I certainly pray that you will.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that in modern protestant circles, baptism is largely about two things.1.Tradition.
There is some truth to this.
2. Co-opting new members into the club.
And there is some truth to this.
Thankfully there are other reasons as well.
And sin is something that most protestants pay little heed to.
Perhaps some. But definitely not all.
I suppose that it all depends upon how seriously one regards club membership.
intriguing thought and I agree that you are correct.
Not that club membership is the issue but rather how seriously the hierarchy take it.
For me, it is a very serious issue. We don't baptise everyone who comes through the door. In fact, if someone rings me and says "Hey can we baptise our Bub"? I would say - that sounds excellent. Are you a member or regular attendee at church? I would point out to them that to get your child baptised is going to take a 6-week course. And you will need to come to church every week over that time. After all, not only do you make promises but the congregation does too. It's only fair that if you want your child baptised in our church, you get to know us and find out whether you would trust us with your child. If you are satisfied that you want to be part of our family after six weeks, then we will baptise your child if we are convinced you are genuine. Otherwise, we will recommend a church down the street.
Yes. We take it seriously.
And the less serious masses, turn up on a Sunday morning when the mood takes them.
that too is quite true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It does not do well to apologize for poor or misleading interpretations.
I'm not apologising - just pointing out that lots of people have put forward views. Some make better sense than others.
What does its being a dictum or your personal opinion have to do with what Jesus, himself, said?
Do you comprehend what Jewish idioms are? Jesus used idioms all of the time. Hyperbole and other languages. We don't have to take it 2 dimensional literalistic.
I'm not sure of your point. The church has celebrated from very early that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, or as it is sometimes known, the 8th day.Which would start on Saturday Evening. Just like Passover--your reference, not mine--starts in the evening.
Everyone knows that the sabbath starts at dusk. What's your point? John says the disciples went down early on the first day of the week. Not on the Sabbath. Jesus was hanging around and was seen early on Sunday morning by Mary.
Like most religions back then - the lunar calendar was supreme. Every religion pretty much celebrated on that date. Hence, why I say coincidence. The Christians followed the Passover date. Just because you have gods venerated on the same date does not invalidate the Christian teaching. Your reasoning is arrogant and presumptuous.My point is not to invalidate Christian teachings; my point is to provide you with the tools to distinguish between Christian teachings and pagan rituals. There's no biblical reference whatsoever to "Easter Sunday" or "eggs" or "bunnies" as it concerned Jesus's death and resurrection. There's also no directive to commemorate Jesus's resurrection. This is not "arrogance" or "presumption"; I've read the Bible in its entirety several times, so if you have a dispute, please submit the appropriate biblical reference, and refrain from Catholic or Protestant "catechism."
And what tool is that? the pagan's book of philosophy. Why do we need a directive? The church, the early church decided to meet on the First day of the week. And they did this to teach and to worship. Why shouldn't the church have a say in how they worship? I have no interest in the easter bunny or eggs. Our church doesn't even call "Easter" Easter. We call it Resurrection Day.
Nothing you have said proves your point.Actually it does. We know that Good Friday to Easter Sunday does NOT amount to three days and three nights. We also know that Jesus did not resurrect on what we know today as "Sunday." We know of the pagan holidays that follow the vernal equinox. We know of the origin of the name Easter. We know that bunnies and eggs are not associated with Jesus, but with the mother Goddess in her Celtic, Greek, Sumerian, Semitic, Egyptian, etc. incarnations. It is not a "coincidence" that the Roman (Catholic) Church has conflated celebration of the mother goddess and her divine son/lover with the concept Jesus's resurrection.
Well good for you. You didn't prove your point to me. You can say anything you like, it doesn't make it true. I agree that bunnies have nothing to do with Jesus. But that doesn't show Jesus didn't rise early on Sunday morning.
Your argument seems to be - all of these previous religions celebrated on this date, therefore everyone after the event is simply following. That is very weak and thin.My arguments never "seem." My arguments always explicitly state; and I did not explicitly state what you've claimed. My argument states this: many of these religious celebrations especially in April are associated with convoluted and often misleading interpretations so that Luciferians can pervert these celebrations with their pagan rituals.
I love how you are so self-righteous. Your argument doesn't assert that Jesus didn't die or rise again.
And while the papacy might have weird ideasWeird? The papacy has institutionalized pederasty; endorsed homosexuality and transexuality; names the resurrection after Celtic/Sumerian goddess; Celebrates "the birth of Jesus" on the same day as the birth/reincarnation of the Sun God; and embodies everything against which Jesus stood, and your assessment is that it's "weird"?
who cares?
Some people do this - so what?And I just told you "so what?" They are being prompted to inadvertently indulge pagan rituals.
You keep coming back with the same fallacy. Guilty because some pagans did something similar.
Not all, and probably not even most.Since the majority of the Christian population is Catholic, wouldn't it be most?
The majority of Christians are not Catholic. Yes, they make up a large chunk, but not a majority. Once you throw in the Orthodox and other oriential orthodox, the Protestants and the Charismatics, they might make up a third. Many of us even deny that Catholics are christian - incidentally for many of the reasons you yourself have suggested. I am sure you have heard of the Reformation.
And so that is why we need to explore it thoroughly.Exactly. My perspective is from a non-denominational standpoint, while yours is writhe with protestant catechism and apologism.
There is no such thing as a non-denominational standpoint. Every church is a denomination of some description. Otherwise it is not a real church and has no standing.
I'm not catholic.Never stated that you were; that does not suggest however that Protestants are without their pagan rituals.
Again, just because you state it.
I have researched widely.Not enough. Research the Babylonian-Kemetic mysteries as well as the Elusinian mysteries; Research Sumerian, Kemetic/Egyptian, Celtic, Semitic, Estruscan, Greek/Roman, Russian, Chinese/Japanese, Mexican mythologies; research ancient and neo-paganism; research Buddhism and Hinduism; research Luciferianism, Satanism and Free Masonry. There are forces attempting to pervert your Christianity; I'm merely trying to bring them to your attention.
There are always forces trying to pervert Christianity. From my reading of you - that might well include you.
I can see your research is distorted and incomplete. Perhaps you should read wider.If you believe I have a blind spot, point me in the right direction.
A good book might be the "one and the many" by Rushdoony.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it's worth noting that i think the general understanding among church fathers was that baptism was an actual healing or washing away of sins. i dont think this is how modern protestants would look at it. i also dont think that was the only understanding among the church fathers.
If you at the early church fathers, they distinguish between baptism in water and what it represents. For them, the symbolism and the reality were however much more connected than in the protestant circles.
In modern protestant circles, most see baptism as a washing away of sins, just symbolically.
There was a variety of views in the early church even as there are today. Probably it is better to understand that these views were not necessarily competing with each other so much as coming at it in different ways. We still do it today. Baptism in the pressie's church for instance, is about the washing away of sins, but it is also about the coming of the Spirit. Furthermore, it also is about connecting with or identifying with the visible church. And more than that it is also about uniting with Christ. All of these views, you will see in the early church. Yet they are not competing views. They are simply coming at it in different ways depending upon the situation and which doctrine we are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Jesus died, I think most likely on Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath.Please explain how the difference in days between Friday and Sunday morning amount to "three days and three nights" after he was entombed.It is possible that he died either on Wednesday or Thursday since that week also contained a different Sabbath, that of the Passover.Please explain how the difference in days between Wednesday and Sunday morning amount to "three days and three nights" after he was entombed.
There are ample explanations on the internet that you could research. https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/plan-of-salvation/holy-days-vs-holidays/sign-of-jonah/3-days-and-3-nights/ or https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/crux.cfm is another. Personally, I don't think it was ever meant to be a literal understanding. It was more of a dictum. See Hosea 6:2 or the Midrash teaching on Genesis 42:17. The point is Jesus died, and was buried. And then rose again from the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead either on Sunday morning or Saturday. The disciples attended early Sunday Morning and it appears Jesus was hanging around at the graveside.The large stone entombing Jesus was discovered to have been moved Sunday morning while it was still dark. Jesus himself stated when he would resurrect, and it wasn't Sunday morning.
I'm not sure of your point. The church has celebrated from very early that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, or as it is sometimes known, the 8th day.
No, you are incorrect. This period of time is to do with Christ dying and being raised from the dead.No, I'm not. This period as I've said before is in veneration of the Mother Goddess. Starting with the Vernal Equinox (a.k.a. beginning of "Spring") to April Fools Day, also known as "Hiliaria" (the origin of the term, "hilarious") which was Cybele's tribute to her son and lover, Attis; then you have "Palm Sunday" which is not in reference to the Palm branches paving the way for Jesus, but instead for Myrrah and her son Adonis. Then you have "Good Friday" which is in veneration of "Friggs" or "Freyja" the goddess after whom the day "Friday" itself is named. But all these mother goddesses are essentially the same whether its Juno, Aphrodite, Isis, Hathor, Aset, Ishtar, Astarte, Eostre, Maia, Cybele, Demeter, Myrrah, Freyja, Friggs, Columbia, Inanna, Ashera, Semiramis, Rhea, Gaia, etc. They all represent the same thing in the Luciferian triune of the horned God, the Mother Goddess, and the Divine Son. Even the month of April is named for Aphrodite/Eostre. Then you'll have "Earth Week" which will soon follow Easter. That's because the "Mother Goddess" and the "Divine Son" are associated with vegetation. (Earth Week has nothing to do with "saving the planet.") And then the month ends with the night of "Walpurgis" which commemorates "Beltane" which extends to the first of May (named for the goddess Maia) that venerates "Bel" or "Ba'al."
Well again, yes you are wrong. Passover's date - followed the moon. Like most religions back then - the lunar calendar was supreme. Every religion pretty much celebrated on that date. Hence, why I say coincidence. The Christians followed the Passover date. Just because you have gods venerated on the same date does not invalidate the Christian teaching. Your reasoning is arrogant and presumptuous.
In essence, none of this has anything to do with Jesus or his resurrection. They (Luciferians) merely use it as a cover to have the masses indulge their rituals.
Nothing you have said proves your point. Your argument seems to be - all of these previous religions celebrated on this date, therefore everyone after the event is simply following. That is very weak and thin.
The fact that other religions celebrated their gods at the same time is nothing more than coincidence. Just like my birthday being on the same day as my cousins is nothing more than a coincidence.It's not a coincidence. The pope, who still refers to himself in accordance to pagan rite as "pontifex maximus" should be aware of these pagan rituals, as well as the inconsistency with the timeline of "Good Friday" and Jesus resurrection. He's not oblivious to these "coincidences"; he's confederate in them.
It is a coincidence. And while the papacy might have weird ideas, the protestant understanding of the resurrection is not based on Catholic understanding. Gee even the orthodox church which is anti-catholic and before the Catholics practised it. You seem oblivious to ACTUAL church history.
And while it is true that the Catholic church celebrated this celebration at the same time and perhaps brought other pagan celebrations into join with it, possibly the work of the empire state system rather than the church, it doesn't reduce the Christian celebration one iota.It does if there's no Biblical stipulation to indulge these rituals.
Who says there is no biblical stipulation?
And while I do find it offensive that so many people label it Easter,And many Christians refer to it as Easter, and embrace the label; not just the label, but the bunnies and eggs (which have nothing to do with Jesus, but with the mother goddess) yet bear no questions as to the reasons Roman Catholicisms push the concept on Christians.
Some people do this - so what? Not all, and probably not even most.
Nevertheless, most people in the society we live would are not church people who would not understand Resurrection Day but would know it as Easter.And that's the point. As it concerns the Abrahamic religions, there's the "right-hand" interpretation, and there's the "sinister" interpretation (e.g. those who liken Osiris or Heru to Jesus.) These pagan conflations, and transformations of holy commemorations are meant to pervert it.
And so that is why we need to explore it thoroughly.
Yet no church that I am aware of would ever see it as anything other than the death and resurrection of Christ.What about the Catholic Church?I'm not attempting to insinuate that you are "less" Christian; but I can only presume that many Christians, including yourself, are only aware of the right-hand interpretation of these rituals as opposed the "left-hand" or "sinister" interpretation. And you do your adherence a disservice by not educating yourself on both. You don't have to take my word -- do your own research into the subject (that should be protocol for everyone.)
I'm not catholic. I have researched widely. Yet even from your comments, I can see your research is distorted and incomplete. Perhaps you should read wider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Really. Have you ever wondered why he needed to be raised from the dead? Or why he died in the first place?I think we already covered why he died in this thread. The raising from the dead I guess I can see some reasons for that as well.
If that was the case and you understood it properly, then this thread would be finished. Besides I don't read all of the comments in the thread. I read your initial comment. I respond. And if you respond back I will drop so in kind.
Forgiveness is about reconciliation. Why would anyone not want to be reconciled to God? Why would anyone want to be an enemy of God?I certainly would rather pay for my own crimes than have an innocent person do it, to reconsider with God.
Forgiveness is part of the package of reconciliation. Repentance, forgiveness, recalculation. See Luke 17: 1-10. If there is no repentance, there is no forgiveness. Jesus is God. God knows you are unable to pay for your offences, which is why he did it in your place. That's better than letting you suffer eternal torment in Hell. And besides, you will pay for many of your offences in this life. But you won't pay for most of them. Most of them will remain unpunished and justice won't be achieved.
I don't feel guilty about Jesus dying for my sinsThat's pretty fucked up that you don't care about an innocent man being tortured and killed so brutally especially knowing it was because of your sins.
I never said I don't care that Jesus died for my sins. I said I don't feel guilty about it. He was brutally killed by the Romans in conjunction with the Jewish leaders. The Romans nor the Jews asked me for my permission. Nor did Jesus. It was a plan made in eternity by God.
Every time you look at a bloke or a girl and think about cheating on your spouse, do you go to your spouse and say- "gee I have been having naughty thoughts, you'd better divorce me or give me the flick.". Do you really?I think you need to separate actions that harm nobody like looking at a strange woman's ass or speeding when it doesn't result in injury from crimes where damage was done. Such as the speeding leading to an accident that murders somebody and your gaze at a woman taking you down a path of infidelity.With the speeding and gazing you can fix those things by changing your habits. How do you fix the trust with your wife when you cheat? Is it by saying "welp Jesus died for my sins honey so stop distrusting me" or how do you return the dead child do you say to her parents "Jesus forgives me, there is no need for me to do anything to make you whole, sucks to be you"
Now I know you are playing games. Jesus died for every sin. Not just for the ones that you say harm someone else. Jesus filled out the law in Matthew 5:17 - 48 explaining this detail. Lusting after a woman in your thoughts was in his mind adultery. Calling someone a fool was the same as murder. SO if Jesus died for your sins, then it was EVERY sin that he considers sin. Not just the ones you think are appropriate in your egalitarian brain.
. When my child hits his sister, he has to admit his offence and ask for forgiveness. Once she has forgiven him, he still gets a punishment. Forgiveness DOES NOT mean getting away with stuff.Well it looks like you are forcing your daughter to forgive here. That's not your place. Your place is to punish your son not to force her to forgive him.Besides that, if his sin of hitting her has been cleansed away, it removes the entire point of you punishing him. His sin has been erased by the forgiveness. Why are you making him pay for an erased crime that never happened?
LOL @ you. Who did I force? My children learnt about reconciliation from the get-go. They like each other and want to spend time together. Yet they both know they offend each other from time to time. And reconciliation requires work. Saying sorry on one part and forgiveness on the other. Besides, you don't get to tell me how to raise my children. My place is to bring peace to the home and to ensure that my family are reconciled.
Your second reason is plainly silly. How does forgiveness erase his offence against her? Forgiveness means "not holding it against him so that they can resume their relationship. But it doesn't ignore the fact that he committed the offence. His offence needs to be punished. Just imagine a pedophile attacked your child, she might forgive him. But does that take away the necessity of punishment? No. Offences need to be punished. Forgiveness is part of the process of reconciliation. And if the pedophile never repents, there can be no forgiveness.
I think people who urge people to this end don't understand forgiveness, reconciliation or the gospel. The bible doesn't teach that forgiveness means you don't get punished,Perhaps not, and you are part of the reason for that due to your shitty explanation. Please point me to the verse in the new testament that talks about punishment and forgiveness going hand in hand. Or give me a anything from the bible to support what you are saying. Because right now you are only giving me your thoughts and not even bringing the words of God into this conversation. Sadly brother Thomas has brought more of God's word into this conversation than you.
Thanks for your kind generosity. Personally, I think you are just playing games. If I was the Brother, I would be accusing you of being a fake alias. And if you think the Brother's usage of biblical verses is comforting, well good for you. As for the NT, and punishment and forgiveness going hand in hand, look at the cross in Luke 23:34. Jesus asks God to forgive people for their ignorance. Even here we see ignorance is "not an excuse." It still needs forgiveness. Also, go to the book of Hebrews, it provides lots of assistance. But why stay in the NT, look at the OT? The Jews would every year go to the temple and sacrifice an INNOCENT lamb or OX or dove on their behalf. The animal or bird would be provided for the people's sins. And then forgiveness would be offered. No blood, no forgiveness. Yet even within this Jewish system, offences both criminal and civil were dealt with separately to the sacrifices in the temple. In other words, sin is against God dealt with in the temple and offences against people are dealt with under the penal and civil law. An understanding of the covenant might be helpful to you.
This is true. Yet, there are many wrongs we do, that we will never get the correct consequences for in this life. And if we can get away with them, we willSpeak for yourself . I am seeking to offset some of the evil I have done.
And that is the problem. You minimise sin. You are thinking that it is about how much good you have done or how much bad you have done. The NT says that every person is sinful and deserves death. There is no one who is good. Not one. The Apostle Paul told us clearly in the book of Romans, that our very best is like filthy rags to God. We won't get a free pass because we did some good things. We need to be robed with the righteousness of Christ. And that can only happen at the cross. For believing in Jesus as John 3:16 tells us - is not just about Jesus dying for our sins, but also understanding how at the same time he takes our sins, he gives to us his righteousness.
It's a two-way transaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I can get on board with believing in Jesus, with thinking he was raised from the dead.
Really. Have you ever wondered why he needed to be raised from the dead? Or why he died in the first place?
Why would I want to be forgiven?
Forgiveness is about reconciliation. Why would anyone not want to be reconciled to God? Why would anyone want to be an enemy of God?
1. It's fucked up that he would be sacrificed for my sins. The guy was perfect, he doesn't deserve that. Literally slaughtering an innocent person. I don't want that on my conscience and so I must reject forgiveness.
Yes and no. Don't forget it was Jesus' decision to die. Did he deserve it? No, he was innocent. Yet he did for those who trust in him. He did so because it was just for someone to pay for the sin. And because he desired to reconcile us with him. Besides he knew he was going to rise again. If he didn't die, he wouldn't have risen again. I don't feel guilty about Jesus dying for my sins. It was part of his eternal plan.
2. Why would I want forgiveness? Why would I want to get away with stuff? I would much prefer to pay for my sins. I rather just take some sort of punishment than allowing some filthy Jew to die for me, particularly one who is not only innocent but the most innocent a person ever has been.
Yeah, this is respectfully a bit of a red herring. No one in this life ever pays for every wrong they do in this life. Everyone gets away with many offences every day. So respectfully, your argument that you want to take responsibility for your life is a little weak. Every time you speed in your car, do you run down to the police station and confess your speeding and ask for a fine? Unlikely. Every time you look at a bloke or a girl and think about cheating on your spouse, do you go to your spouse and say- "gee I have been having naughty thoughts, you'd better divorce me or give me the flick.". Do you really?
Forgiveness is not about getting away with stuff. What a nonsense argument. When my child hits his sister, he has to admit his offence and ask for forgiveness. Once she has forgiven him, he still gets a punishment. Forgiveness DOES NOT mean getting away with stuff.
What is with some people's urge to receive forgiveness rather than actually pay for their crimes?
I think people who urge people to this end don't understand forgiveness, reconciliation or the gospel. The bible doesn't teach that forgiveness means you don't get punished,
I have done wrong things. I deserve the consequences of those things and in fact so do you.
This is true. Yet, there are many wrongs we do, that we will never get the correct consequences for in this life. And if we can get away with them, we will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which came first the Pagan or the Christian?
Not sure why this question is necessary. Christians accept that pagans were around before Christ and the Church commenced at Pentecost. It doesn't change the significance of the Christian message at all.
And so surprise surprise J became a symbol of resurrection.
LOL @ you. Jesus is not a symbol of resurrection. He is the Resurrection. John 14.
The Christian Message of their God dying as the messiah and rising from the dead is unique. Of course, many people and religions and movies have mimicked it since.
And now we have consumerism, rebranding Easter and selling us a different message.
Yes, this is the obvious outcome of non-Christians exploiting a holy day for their personal pockets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
this topic reminds me of the differing views of atonement. penal substitution v christus victor, they are called. one focuses on jesus' death, while the other focuses on his resurrection. im partial to christus victor and easter, but there's good arguments to be made for penal substitution and good friday, focusing on his death.
Unless we understand the Cross, then we will never understand the Resurrection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It does seem odd that the holiest day of the year for the Christian, Good Friday, which remembers Jesus, dying on a cross, is called good.Jesus did not die on the cross on Friday.
Jesus died, I think most likely on Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath. It is possible that he died either on Wednesday or Thursday since that week also contained a different Sabbath, that of the Passover.
Surely it would make better sense to call it Black Friday whilst celebrating his resurrection on the Sunday.Jesus wasn't resurrected on Sunday.
Jesus rose from the dead either on Sunday morning or Saturday. The disciples attended early Sunday Morning and it appears Jesus was hanging around at the graveside.
I am not asking this question because I don't know the traditional church explanation, I am asking to begin a dialogue with people who might also have asked this question.Because this period isn't meant to remember the death of Christ; it's to inadvertently venerate the mother goddess, whether it be Juno, Cybele, Columbia, Aphrodite, Eostre, Ishtar, Astarte, Inanna, Isis, Hathor, etc. That's the reason it's venerated as "Good" as opposed to "Black."
No, you are incorrect. This period of time is to do with Christ dying and being raised from the dead. Its timing is with the Passover of the Jewish calendar. The fact that other religions celebrated their gods at the same time is nothing more than coincidence. Just like my birthday being on the same day as my cousins is nothing more than a coincidence.
And while it is true that the Catholic church celebrated this celebration at the same time and perhaps brought other pagan celebrations into join with it, possibly the work of the empire state system rather than the church, it doesn't reduce the Christian celebration one iota. And while I do find it offensive that so many people label it Easter, many Christians refer to Sunday as Resurrection Day and reject the term Easter. Nevertheless, most people in the society we live would are not church people who would not understand Resurrection Day but would know it as Easter.
So there are pragmatic reasons for why people call it Easter. Yet no church that I am aware of would ever see it as anything other than the death and resurrection of Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It does seem odd that the holiest day of the year for the Christian, Good Friday, which remembers Jesus, dying on a cross, is called good.
- Not the holiest day of the year by a long shot. Easter, then Christmas are the two holiest days of the year. In the Roman Catholic Calender, there are 62 days of holy obligation (days you must go to church) but Good Friday is not one of them.
Well from the protestant view and certainly from my view. Good Friday is clearly the holiest day of the year. Easter is significant and a holy day, but it exists only because Good Friday happened. We can do without Christmas, but Good Friday is the day God demonstrated his love in the most amazing way.
If the Catholic Church decides that Good Friday is not a holy day, too bad for them. But there are lots of differences between them and us.
Nevertheless, it is one of the more interesting days to go to church- the gospel is the very long very dramatic reading of Christ's execution and many churches do a "stations of the cross." In many churches, Christ's passion is illustrated according to 12 traditon moments- stained glass windows or paintings or reliefs. The old church I went to maintained a mile-long footpath with beautiful 18th century sculptures along the way. A walking talking springtime gospel was definitely a welcome change to the usual stuffy ceremony. Many Catholics choose this day to go to some church other than their regular church, maybe a fancy basillica downtown or some hippy church on the beach- just to see how they do their Good Friday tradition.
It is a day of much reflection.
Keep in mind that Jesus was following the much older tradition of Passover. Tonight is the night that God ordered every Jew in Egypt to sacrifice a lamb and smear the blood over their doorways so that the Angel of Death, the 10th and final plague would pass by. On Good Friday, Pharoah woke to discover that God had killed every first born son in Egypt except the Jews and he ordered them to leave. SO- Good Friday is Jewish Emancipation Day.
That is correct. Jesus is the Passover Lamb. Christianity follows the Jewish timer periods for their celebration of death and resurrection.
Jewish tradition holds that on the first Thursday after the first full moon after the barley harvest is ripe, the Jewish people thank god for harvest and exodus. This marks the first day of Spring in the Jewish Calendar. Each family brough a lamb to the temple for sacrifice and then had to eat that whole lamb before sunrise. Traditionally, every household had to made clean so this was week of the big annual spring cleaning that also meant removing a lot of unclean foods- dairy, breads, grain alchohol were given away or sold by Friday. On Good Friday, Jewish adults were required to drink four cups of win while all the non-Jews were enjoying free grain alchohol- so Good Friday was the drunkest day of the year and everybody had a full belly. There are traditonal questions and games and prizes for the children.
Yes.
In that tradition, the apostles gathered in the upper room to eat and drink except that Jesus offered himself to God as the sacrificial lamb to slaughter to take away the original sin of Adam and Eve and grant humanity peace. The choice that Pontius Pilate gives the people follows sacrificial tradition and ceremonially made Jesus the offering of the Jews to God.
Yes.
Christians don't call Seder Friday "good" because Christ died, rather Christ chose to be sacrificed on the first day of Spring, the big Jewish day of sacrifice, on the happiest day of the year in Jerusalem.
It's called Good Friday because Jesus' death atoned for the sins of the world. And yes we do call it good for that reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
As the alter ego of Tradesecret, I would like to ask myself if a partial preterist does believe in a second coming and the destruction of the present world and of evil forever. I have heard of Preterist doctrines but not not partial.
As your alleged alter ego DavidAZ,
let me attempt to answer your question.
Partial Preterists do believe in the second coming of Christ. Some believe in the destruction of the present world and evil. Some believe that there will be a new heaven and new earth, or perhaps a restored heaven and earth.
Personally, I think that we are living in a pre-Christian age. Yes, we have had lots of good fruits, but nothing like a total transformation of the world to Christ.
Yet Christ is reconciling all things to himself - this might take another 1000 years or longer. That's a matter for God. I take the view that all nations will inevitably become Christian nations, with Israel the final link in that chain. At this time, Christ will return.
There are many more partial preterists than there are full preterists. Most Amils and Post Mils are partial preterists. Although there are a growing number of what are called dynamic thinkers in the Amil camp. David Beale is an author of a commentary on Revelation that is worth reading.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it because the world killed the Son of God and decided to celebrate this fact?
Or is there another reason?
It does seem odd that the holiest day of the year for the Christian, Good Friday, which remembers Jesus, dying on a cross, is called good.
Surely it would make better sense to call it Black Friday whilst celebrating his resurrection on the Sunday.
I am not asking this question because I don't know the traditional church explanation, I am asking to begin a dialogue with people who might also have asked this question.
Created: