Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
How can one be happy when they know that their loved ones are engulfed in burning agony in hell? If you were to be happy in heaven, you would have to not be you.Christians like to say that the whole "burning in hell" stuff is all a metaphor, but if everything that gives Christians an issues is a metaphor, then that gives some credibility issues to everything else.
I suppose the question is one of truth or not. Christians may or may not be happy about the final resting place of their loved ones. But truth is truth. Non-christians may not believe such a situation, but it won't change the truth. They would prefer to think - "gee how do I feel about such a thing" as though one's feelings have anything to do with the truth.
For me the entire point of this universe is to be in a right relationship with the one who created it. If my beloved ones believe the purpose is to live for themselves and to do whatever they want despite the consequences, should I be happy that they end up where they desire or should I be sad that they were wrong in the first place?
Think about Best Korea - on this forum page. he's written numerous posts about how he wants to end up in Hell and how he rejects the God of the Bible. Should I be upset that he gets what he wants or should I be upset that he's wrong?
The truth is the truth. I can't change the truth. I might well be wrong. And I will have to live with that. Do I want everyone else to be sad about that? No. Everyone's tried to change my mind, but at the end of the day, I have made up my mind. And I will end up where I will.
I don't know what heaven is going to be like ABSOLUTELy. But I am not going to use a silly argument about wondering whether I am happy or not, about people who end up in a place - that they could have found out more about but chose not too because they were too arrogant or full of pride to really consider - the implications of their situation and choice - to make me not believe in heaven.
Truth is truth. I'd prefer people to make sensible decisions. But it is still their decision to make. And at the end of the day, what I feel or what I want them to make - is not going to change the truth.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Of course, it is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. It has absolutely to do with Jesus.I said one of the hallmarks of the genuine Christian church is the Trinity. Trinity, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Without Jesus there would be no Trinity. Without Jesus there would be no Christianity either. So Jesus is the hallmark of Christianity.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@Shila
It stands to reason, that people who don't agree with the Trinity, would argue against this teaching. But that doesn't make them right. And currently it does make them wrong. Until the Church decides otherwise, this is one of the hallmarks of a genuine Christian church.The hallmark of Christianity is Jesus.John 14:66 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
Of course, it is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. It has absolutely to do with Jesus.
I said one of the hallmarks of the genuine Christian church is the Trinity. Trinity, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Do all Christian denominations believe in the Trinity.Although the Trinitarian view became the orthodox doctrine in mainstream Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a relatively small number of Christian groups and denominations. . Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy
It's a fair question to ask.
The Trinity is one of the marks of Christianity. Even the World Council of Churches, the most ecumenical Christian organisation in the world, states that the Trinity is one of its marks of Christianity.
Other so called Christian denominations, such as the Mormon Church, attend the WCC but they don't have full membership rights.
The Ecumenical Council held in antiquity upheld that the Trinity is one of the doctrines that distinguished Christianity from other religions and cults. Hence, it is a measure which has been upheld and confirmed over and over again.
I would suggest that there are many so called Christian type denominations and cults all over the world. Many use the name of Jesus as part of their name, and indeed attempt to label themselves "Christian".
Are they Christian? Well the Church would say no, but the world would say yes. And the world would say yes, because if someone identifies as a Christian, then that for the world is the first step. Why would someone identify as something if they didn't believe they were?
There are several denominations - that hold to the Oneness idea. Or to unitarianism. Or to polytheism. the Church would hold them to be contrary.
Some hold divergent views on the Trinity doctrine. Again, most of these divergent views have been tested over the years and found wanting. Church history is a wonderful place to visit and to make enquries. Most things have been discussed before. There is not much that is totally new and novel.
A mormon would deny everything i have said. As would the JWs. And the Unitarians too. Most liberals would acknowledge its truth of history, even if they themselves though it an incorrect conclusion of the church. The Trinity is Biblical and it is Christian. To deny this is to deny the history of the church. And speaks of a profound ignorance.
Of course, it is true that the word Trinity isn't found in the bible. and possibly the word wasn't coined for several hundred years after Christ rose from the dead. Yet the essence of the doctrine is found in eternity, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Yes, Athanasius articulated it helpfully. But the questions raised in relation to Jesus from his time on earth and later had raged in the church from the beginning. who was he? Was he just a man or was he more than that? And if more, how much more?
The Spirit's role also was clear from the Beginning. And evident throughout the OT and the NT. Much more than just a mere power. - More than man. Much more but what? It was natural for the questions to arise - as they did. And it was natural for the church to arrive at a consensus in relation to it's teaching. people can continue to argue over it - and they will - but the established and confirmed councils of the church have concluded that one of the tests of orthodoxy of the Christian Church is a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
It stands to reason, that people who don't agree with the Trinity, would argue against this teaching. But that doesn't make them right. And currently it does make them wrong. Until the Church decides otherwise, this is one of the hallmarks of a genuine Christian church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You say what you only "think" a lot.
Probably. So what? What does that mean? Just that this is where I am coming from based on my observations. I could redact it, but I don't see any particular problem with it. I could say, I know or I feel or just make it look like a statement of fact. but unlike you and others here - I am open to being corrected. So to say I think - is the place I am coming from - is most appropriate when I use it.
2 Peter 3:8-9 says; We are not to Forget "a day is but a thousand years to the lord".
"But do not forget this one thing, ... With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
I notice you omitted the last part of this verse which gives us a much fuller understanding of what Peter is saying.
Peter is not saying, this is how you work out how old the Lord is. He's not saying that you can use this as code to figure out when the Lord is returning. What is he doing is making a very profound point. And that point is this"
Firstly, God's timing is not the same as ours because - what is soon for God who lives for eternity is different to what man sees as soon who lives for 80 years.
Soon, for God may well be thousands of years because God is not bound by the same time as we are.
Hence, with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years. Notice even the little word "like". Peter didn't say - a 1000 years is the same as a day. I'm sure you've heard of similes. And if you haven't, I'm sure you can google it.
You say this means:"The verse I mentioned from 2 Peter talks about the delay of Jesus returning."
Yes, it does.
Verse 9 says "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness".So when the lord says a day are we to read (not to forget) this to mean 1000 years?
You can read it any way you want to. I would read it as I said above, it is referring to the difference between humanity and God. God is eternal and immortal and humanity is not. I don't think it is a code or formula to work out the age of the Lord or even the time of his return. I think it is expressing that God's timing is measured according to the fact that he is God and eternal and that when we think soon, given our brevity of life is different to God's soon which is more in line with his eternal nature.
The primary reason I pointed this verse out to you was not respect the timing or delay of his return, but rather the reason why he was delaying it.
"because he is not willing that any would perish", . That is different to your suggestion that Christians and God is just snapping at the bit to torture and punish people. Hence, Why I said it contradicts what you wrote above.
Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont know. Can you explain?
I thought you must understand. Otherwise, why would you make such wild claims?
Christian Thought has three main views of the future. There is the pre-millenial view, the Amillenial view, and the post-millenial view.
The fundamentalists primarily take the first view. The evangelicals, are divided between the three. The liberals tend to be the last. The Roman Catholics hover between the second and third.
I hover between being an optimistic Amil - and PostMil. This means that I think Jesus is not returning any time in the near future, but rather is a long time off.
Of course, if I am wrong, then so be it. Not that it matters from a specific salvation issue, since one's view on eschatology is not a salvation issue. It is an issue of course, but not salvation. Most Reformed people tend to hold to the second view, although traditionally, during the Reformation and up until about the Second World War, most Reformed Christians did hold to Post Mill.
The verse I mentioned from 2 Peter talks about the delay of Jesus returning. The reason provided was to ensure that as many people as possible were saved. that clearly contradicts your notion that he's coming back to bring torture and judgment and that Christians love this idea.
Christians do look forward to Jesus returning. They look forward to a day when they don't have to deal with sin anymore. They are not looking forward to judgment day for people to be destroyed and tortured. that's why most of the Christians I know spend much of their time, sharing the gospel. Most Christians want most people to live in Heaven with God. Personally, I hold the view that Jesus' words to his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount about the wide and the narrow gate was a warning. It may be a prophecy, but it's a warning. In other words, like all prophecies, it has a purpose. A purpose to cause people to change the way they are heading and to take the right path. That's what happened in Ninevah with Jonah. He prophesied and the people turned.
Hence, I see Jesus' words primarily as a warning - and one which - I think in history will be heeded by the majority of humanity. Another reason I think we still have a long way to go before Jesus returns.
Now some people will surely point out all the warnings in the NT - of the coming of the Lord. The day of judgment is imminent. And how the NT Christians thought this meant Jesus was returning soon. And I certainly concede there are quite a few views about that - from some saying, it's proof that Jesus was wrong, to others saying the Disciples misunderstood. People will say what they want to say - me included.
I think there are a couple of things going on in the NT. I think Jesus referred to these couple of things in his sermons - that we see in Matthew 24, MArk 13, and Luke 21.
I think he used the word - this and that or these and those to point us to the Different events. And both can be called the Last Day or Judgment Day or the coming of the Lord or the Day of the Lord. Or the Last Days. Or his coming in or with or even on the clouds. But they don't always refer to the same event.
The two things that were going on in Jesus' commentary:
1. The End of Israel's covenant with God; and
2. The End of the World.
The first referred to the specific event within one generation of Jesus' death.
The Second to the physical return of Christ, the Last Day, and judgment day of the world.
Many of the warnings in the NT, referred to the Last Days of Israel. I think this is evident in Paul and Peter's writings in particular.
And some of the warnings are to the Return of Christ.
Hence, the coming of the Lord may mean as it does in the OT on many occasions, to God's judgment on the world. It may also mean - as it does in Ruth 1:6 a visit from the Lord. Not physically, of course, but rather that he fed them - by ending the famine. It doesn't require a LITERAL coming or visitation.
It of course may mean a physical coming. which is what Jesus' first visit was - and his second one will be as well.
In any event, 2 Peter seems to refute your view. But then again, you seem to understand enough. So all the best with you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not anti-Jew, nor pro-Jew.That's about the strength of it Trade.A sensible person, rather than a non-sensible person, might suggest that it is best to be as tolerant as one can be under prevailing circumstances.When people start adding various religious clubs into the mix, is when things have a tendency to get silly.Sort of, I finally understand why a Middle Eastern religious club tried to trick a hypothetical creator.Absolute non-sense Trade.
To be frank, I have no idea what the point of that paragraph was about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, Christians, but I just had a talk with my father Satan, and yeah, judgment day is delayed.Judgment day is delayed by 200 years, so judgment day will happen in year 2223 (2 + 2 + 2 = 6, and 6 repeated 3 times is 666.).I know many of you were excited by judgment day because Jesus would come back to kill everyone on Earth after brutally torturing them.However, Jesus is scared of Satan, since last time Jesus came to Earth, Satan nailed him and Jesus ran away and never came back.Its actually Satan who decides when judgment day will happen.Jesus isnt even a primordial God.
I'm intrigued by your thoughts.
That doesn't sound like a delay. That sounds like you are bringing it forward.
What do you make of Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:8-9?
Created:
t's all effing nonsense Trade.
As delightful as always, eh Zed?
The fact is the Church is not anti-Jew. It's not pro-Jew either.
You have your view. Good for you. I hope it serves you well.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
t's all effing nonsense Trade.
As delightful as always, eh Zed?
The fact is the Church is not anti-Jew. It's not pro-Jew either.
You have your view. Good for you. I hope it serves you well.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So Ill correct that bible dunce for you, Wylted.That's much better than I would have done, I was just going to call him a cuck
You can call me anything you like. I could care less.
The book of Revelation is God's wrath on Israel. It is the story of how God ended the covenant with them.
This reflects the lesser times God judged the nation of Israel in the OT. TImes when they broke covenant and God punished them by sending them into Babylon or Assyria.
The NT is the story of how Jesus, God's own Son came to this world and his own people rejected him. The punishment was a complete destruction of Israel and it's temple. See Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, all, which predicted it - even as Joel predicted it and Peter reminded the people in Acts 2 in his famous sermon at Pentecost.
In AD 70, within the very generation of Christ's death and the rejection by Israel of Christ, the temple was destroyed and the Jewish religion's heart was ripped out. This is the message that Luther and Calvin preached about many years later. As even Augustine and others have done so throughout church history.
Israel was destroyed as a nation. It's people scattered to the ends of the earth. Its covenant broken and God's judgment brought forth in accordance with the blessings and curses in Leviticus 26. In doing so they lost the legal and theological rights God had given to them. As they did in the previous judgments before them and mentioned above.
For Israel to regain the theological rights back to the place that God promised to Abraham and Moses and David, etc, Israel needs to repent of its sin and unfaithfulness towards God. It did so in the OT. You can read about it in Daniel 9 on one occasion. You can read about it in Nehemiah And Ezra on other occasions. It was only after their repentance - did God give the legal and theological grounds for their return.
After AD, Israel was scattered and dispersed into the world. In 1948 as a response to the destruction in Germany of the Jews by Hitler, the World League of nations took pity on the Jews and decided to give the Jews a place to call their own. there were many places suggested but finally, it was determined their current location in the Middle East was traditionally their place. And it was granted to them - by the League of Nations.
The dispensational Christians around the world leapt for joy with the Jews. The rest of the Middle East and other Christians from the Catholic Chruch, the Anglican church, the Reformed Churches, etc were not so happy about this situation. They knew the way things would unfold - indeed as they have.
The fact is Israel has never repented for rejecting the Messiah. And until they do so they don't have the theological or natural right to call it their home - as promised by God. So it doesn't matter that they call it home - and it doesn't matter that the UN gives them power. As I said, that's a man-made law - by the UN. But it's not a theological or natural right in the Scriptures. Israel breached the covenant. The book of Revelation tells that story. Until they repent it won't change. The good news is that Romans 10-11 predict that Israel will repent.
Of that we can be assured.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
We all know jews try to trick God with things like having an elevator automatically open up on a floor they are heading to as a technicality against breaking a rule or putting a string up outside and then declaring the outside inside.
Nonsense.
At first I thought, these people are assholes, but then a Jewish friend explained it to me this way.God is an asshole, which is well documented in the old Testament
Nonsense.
The asshole requires jews to follow very specific lawsThe laws were written by an asshole and thus are not designed to scale easily into new situations.
Nonsense.
Jewish religious scholars, therefore, need to figure out actual laws to make sure they don't get fucked over by their asshole god. This process of figuring out if the real laws (in the Talmud) are fulfilling the requirements of The Asshole's laws (in the Torah) is what "pilpul" is
Nonsense.
Since their god is a dick the jews only follow the letter of the laws, not the spirit. Why be considerate when your god is the equivalent to the ATF writing bullshit laws to fuck you over?
nonsense.
The silly tricks you see are this, following the letter of the law in a way that still lets jews do the stuff they want to doI really gotta say that Judiasm makes a lot more sense once you realize that Jews don't actually LIKE their God even though they follow his commandments. It's like if you lived under an oppressive government.
nonsense.
Jesus was a Jew. For a Christian to be bagging out someone simply on the basis of their nationality, race, or religion is nonsense. It's totally unacceptable. And even in if the worst case scenario that everything you have alleged is true, even then, it's still nonsense and unacceptable what you are saying.
I am a Christian. I am not a Zionist. I don't think the Jews have any natural or theological right to the land they claim as their own. They do however have a legal right since the League of Nations, or the UN have given them such. I might disagree with the UN. But this is the law and so far as I am able to determine, that makes it valid until someone can show otherwise.
The God of the OT is the same God as the NT. For a Christian to bag out the OT God is stupid. The NT God, if you read the epistles by Paul, Peter, and James, let alone the book of Revelation, demonstrate this convincingly. Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone in the OT. The God of the NT is even more harsh - so it seems than the God of the OT. I think they are the same.
This rhetoric against the Jews is madness. It disagrees with Paul and Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
" It is God - perfect and beautiful using the sinful parts of humanity for God's glory. "Just as the scripture says or teach, the use or through the foolishness of preaching.
I'm not entirely sure of your point here.
Yet, the foolishness of preaching is God's determined means of bringing many to salvation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
This questions is mainly for use CatholicApologetics, though it would be great it anyone else wanted to contribute their opinion.
I don't know why this question is for CatholicApologetics. With respect it seems a naive question to ask a Catholic. Although the Catholics indeed claim to have written the Bible. With all of their nonsense about various things. The Catholic on the other hand - DOES NOT agree with the REFORMATION principle of Sola Scriptura. They hold to the view that the traditions of the church, including church dogma and the pope overrides the Bible.
Grated, there is evidence for Christianity and the resurrection, but the Bible also has some pretty sexist things, as well as some messed up stuff about slavery, unbelievable stories about Noah's ark, and about the universe popping into existence, which has no scientific evidence, or how a loving god sends people to eternal suffering for being raised in a Muslim family. Not to mention all of the contradictions.
The Catholic church does not disagree with your argument here. Hence while it is futile. Protestants will of course. Me included. For example, I think that almost every reason you provide is one of ignorance and not much thought. There are not GENUINE contradictions in the Bible. Indeed, if one could prove one, then one would be a millionaire.
These are the main things that lead me away from the church.
Respectfully, such contradictions lead you away from the church? Pray tell, and where are you headed, that is so lacking in contradictions? People are inconsistent EVERYWHERE. LOL @ you. Evolution and Atheism teach that in the beginning there was nothing and then nothing exploded, for no particular reason. That's reasonable to you? Really?
The question is, how much of the bible do you think is the actual word of god, and how much of it do you think is flawed by the workings of man?
Personally, I think EVERY part of the BIble is God's WORD. And I also think that EVERY part is written by flawed and SINFUL humans. that is in my view one of the greatest and best reasons to understand and appreciate the Bible. It is God - perfect and beautiful using the sinful parts of humanity for God's glory.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
In short, If I believed that there was an all powerful being that created absolute moral truths, then I would do exactly as the being said to the best of my ability.
Why would you do that? WOuld it be because you thought that the all powerful being was also perfectly right? OR would it be because you were afraid of being punished?
This is why I don’t understand Christian churches that accept gay people and treat women as equals. Not that those are bad things, but if you believe that the Bible is the word of god, then you should follow its teachings.
I think that all Churches ought to accept anyone. The gospel is about transforming broken people and restoring them to God. That includes everyone including you and me.
Treating people as equals doesn't mean accepting that they are right or that their behaviour ought to be condoned or supported. It means - at least in my view, that the same law, applies to all people everywhere. This of course means less laws. Not more laws.
We ought to obey what God has required us to do and believe. We also need to consider how those laws apply in different contexts.
I hate Christian’s who demean women and gays, but I respect them more than I do liberal Christians.
Hate is such an ugly word. I must say that I never really know what it means. I certainly find some things disgust me. But does that mean I hate them? There are some things that I know are evil. Even then I think the word hate doesn't quite fit. But perhaps it does.
Is hate the opposite of love? It could mean that. I don't hate anyone. Not even the devil.
I think what you are saying is that you respect "consistency". I can concur with that position.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you think you could do better, then you have committed Treason.Well, I guess I go to Hell to burn forever then. Simple enough.
Yes, that's one option. On the other hand, you could acknowledge that you are wrong, repent of your disloyalty and who knows, perhaps God might extend some grace your way.
I always say, while there is life, there is hope.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Every person deserves to burn in Hell for ever and that includes meYou speak words of a psychopath, again.
Probably.
Which Psychopath in particular do you have in mind?
In my view, the offence must equal the punishment. You know, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
So, if the punishment is everlasting torture in Hell, the crime must have been pretty nasty.
What was the crime again? Eating a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree? That doesn't quite sound right. So there must have been something else going on.
This is why I keep coming back to TREASON against the God of the Universe. Only that crime fits the punishment.
And how do we know if someone has committed treason against the God of the Universe? Hmmm. How?
What's treason? Great question. I wonder how it would present itself?
Tell me do you think the God of the Bible should be the boss of you or not? Or perhaps we could put it this way. Do you think the God of the Bible does a good job, or do you think you could do better? If you think you could do better, then you have committed Treason. It's that simple.
now if you don't think the God of the bible is untrue, then so far as you are right, then it won't matter. On the other hand, - it doesn't matter. Just believe what you want.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Take a look at what tradesecret wrote:if people are burning in Hell, then they deserve to be there and be tortured foreverI find these words rather sick. Its like Tradesecret is trying to make Christianity look even worse.
If stating the truth is going to make us look worse, then so be it. I don't have to compromise on the truth to make people like me or Christianity better.
There are those who hate it. Those who love it and a whole lot of others who have either never decided or don't care.
Just to be very clear though. Every person deserves to burn in Hell for ever and that includes me. That is what the Bible talks about when it says everyone has sinned and deserves death. Death is the second death mentioned in Revelation. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, as the Messiah, died on the cross and paid for the consequences that I deserve. It's good news for me. Not so good for those who reject Christ of course.
In fact it is entirely wonderful news that the Creator and king of the universe planned that not all would suffer the consequences of their sin of treason. I didn't do anything to deserve his forgiveness. In fact, it's entirely a matter for him. I wish I could say it was because I am a nice guy. But I can't. The doctrine of unconditional election is the way I understand this.
Perhaps Peter in 2 Peter 1:1-2 put it best - our faith was given by divine lottery. Of course though since divinity is omniscient, there is no randomness about it. Does that make you hate Christianity even more? Yeah probably.
Some of my close friends are probably in Hell. Do I feel sorry for them right now? Absolutely. It spurs me on to encourage others to not reject Christ. Yet, I am not a miracle worker. I just speak it how it is. I am not here to tickle ears or make people feel good about themselves.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You wrote so much, yet didnt refute anything I said. Your delusions are trully great.
There's no point in refuting something that is nonsense.
Christians think that anyone who considers Hell a better location and place to be than in heaven with Christ as simply not understanding what they are talking about.
To say you'd be upset that your friends would be in Hell is a fair call. Yet it was their choice to be there. They were told as well as everyone else the consequences of living life like you think are God.
Yet to say there is no empathy - suggests that there ought to be some empathy for them - it's a bit like saying, we should have some empathy for pedophiles or mass murderer. Except in this case it is treason against the God of the universe. A crime which is far worse than the other two mentioned.
Created:
-->
@Owen_T
Korea actually has a point with this one. Heaven also sounds incredibly boring and pointless.
So tell me, what do you know about Heaven that makes it sound boring and pointless?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I wouldnt want to be in heaven if my friends are in hell.
Wow! Really. Would you join your friends in prison too? Surely you wouldn't enjoy being free if your friends were in prison? Ph yes, but that's different isn't it?
I wouldnt feel good in heaven knowing that my friends are burning in hell.
How in the world would you know that?
Only a person with no empathy could enjoy while others are burning.
Heaven is not about enjoying yourself anyway. Heaven is not a holiday resort. In any event, if people are burning in Hell, then they deserve to be there and be tortured forever. It's not like they couldn't have avoided it if they wanted to. But they chose to go there, knowing what it was like. Many of them probably thought just like you are now. So why should they complain? They are getting what they want.
Many people consider the fact that on earth, people are actually restrained by God not to be as evil as they possibly could be. But when they get to Hell, all restraints are off and they become evil. I think when we know what they are like, we will be satisfied that the penalty is fair.
This simply proves Christianity to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not at all. It only proves that you haven't done your homework.
There is no way to disagree with this.
And yet billions do. Go figure.
You are either a psychopath who can live in peace knowing that many people are burning alive, either you will constantly feel bad in heaven which then turns heaven into hell.
Or you are a person who accepts that the punishment is exactly what is fair and just.
Or God will make you forget about hell, which makes you a mindless sheep.
I don't think God will make you forget about Hell.
There is no way out of this one.
Out of what one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
o my point on the hostility was not directed towards you- Tradesecret but this other individual.I included you in the comments as you were being talked about
Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure I wasn't having a go at you.
Do others talk about me? I dunno. I am sure they do. And you know what? That's okay, after all the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"And punished if you disobey."Your response:Wrong."The people who will be punished are those who disobey"Yeah, thats what I said. So you agree that its forced relationship.
If a parent / child relationship is a forced relationship, then yes, I guess so.
My parents never asked me if I wanted to be their child. And I never asked my children if they wanted me to be their parent.
Are these forced relationships? They're relationships. Forced or not forced.
But I also noticed you omitted - deleted - did not mention - my sentence in full. It's not just disobedience, but rejection of God that is the whole equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
We are expected to obeyAnd punished if you disobey.
Wrong.
the child of God may be disciplined, but not punished. One is a means and the other an end.
The people who will be punished are those who disobey God and reject him.
It's all fair in love and war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sexual angst is an inbuilt trait.
I accept that humans for the most part are sexual beings. Nevertheless, not everyone has angst about it.
But you're correct, us oldies lose our edge after a while.
Us oldies, LOL, tis true that the older one gets, priorities change. One hopes never to lose their edge though.
Yes, I'm well, thank you.
Glad to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do need to serve your God, since you must do as he commands you to. I dont see how can you not know this, but then again, only my religion is based on knowledge. Yours is based on blind obedience.
In the Christian religion, if we can call it that, and sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, it is a relationship with God - restored as family.
We are expected to obey, like a child with their father, but the compliance with it is now within that relationship. It is not the master slave relationship as yours seems to be.
I have faith this is true. But this is distinguished from mysticism which is what it appears you understand religion as. The former is based on knowledge, the latter on magic.
I want for Satan to possess me, so that I can rise as a dragon of the Black Sun, and all the people witness its mighty glory.
It is you who is ignorant, not me. To suggest such a thing is as I said above, sad.
Satan has set me free. Praise Satan's infinite wisdom!
what has Satan set you free from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi Zed,
Thanks for the response. Thankfully, many of us are past the teenage years.
I don’t need to lie. I have unfortunately previously revealed some of my teenage life which some love to repeat.
Is my current life like that? Not really. I’ve been married for almost 30 years. And my intimate life is fine. No angst necessary. It’s been a long time since I have had to concern myself with fantasies.
Life changes though.
Is Satan made up? I suppose many people think so.
Me, I’ll stick with the Bible.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by “jizz will out’.
In any event, I trust that things are fine with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would rather fall with Satan as equal than serve under Jesus. I have nothing in life, but there is still darkness in my heart. As long as I have the mark of the Black Sun, I will worship Satan and his noble ideas. Its not even a choice, as I dont believe that people have ability to choose. We just follow what destiny has given us, and destiny has thrown me in the abyss of eternal darkness.
That's about the saddest thing I have seen anyone write for sometime.
Of course, Christians don't need to serve under Christ. As people of God, we have been adopted as his children and have been granted co-heirship with Jesus.
Satan on the other enjoys the darkness in our hearts - he wants us to be his slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I apologize if I offended you. I'm getting what is characterized as a very hostile interaction from you that wasn't before and I don't believe I have been that way towards you.Now I will say you're in error but I want to present that in an amicable fashion not to be taken as berating you.Alright.I just said not to debate on what you don't know which is the scripture. Again, amicably saying. We can still interact. Don't take what I said so harsh. Just don't debate those things. You see we just go in circles on it. I would think you would just agree not to debate those things we're non fruitful in.Alright.
Hi Mall,
thanks for your email. I did not realise I had started being hostile to you. I look back over this topic and I can see only one post I made. It didn't seem to be hostile towards anyone.
Still, if I have upset you or come across hostile, I apologise for causing you any kind of angst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
This forum is to post whether or not you're religious,
It depends on your definition of religion. In my view, there are at least three or four kinds of definition for religion. At times, I use each one and in such times that can make me look like I am either for or against religion.
There is the typical definition of religion. Something to do with the belief in a supernatural being, god or principle. This definition is the classic Western view of religion. At times I hold to this view. It is also the legal definition in Australia. It is appropriate at times to do so. Hence the idea of separation of church and state.
There is another quite general definition of religion. It is that worldview is identical to religion. This is more of a classic non-Western position. It holds the view that religion is inescapable. Everything is religion. Hence the idea that church and state cannot be separated on one level. I think I prefer this definition most of the time. Under this second definition - secularism, and atheism are considered religious - because religion is inescapable.
There is a third definition of religion. It is the idea that humanity is seeking to appease God or the gods and hence, requires humanity to live good lives, do good works, make sacrifices, etc. Opposed to this idea of religion is the view that man can't please God. The Reformation view of Christianity holds to this latter oppositional point of view. It would suggest that man can't please God and therefore that religion is evil and bad (taking into consideration of course James 1:27 of course). Hence the Reformation View of Christianity says - since religion is evil per se, God must take the initiative and save humanity, out of his mercy and grace. When I use this definition - which I do from time to time, then I say "I am not religious". I even call religion evil and that it should be abolished. Ironically, under this third definition, I would consider classic Reformation and Protestant Christians as NON-RELIGIOUS.
There are other definitions too but that is enough. Hence, I would be religious under the first and second definitions but anti-religious under the third definition.
why you think that, and if you are, why you believe your religion is the best and most probable religion.
I have explained my reasoning above. In relation to a religion being the best and most probable, I think this is a flawed question. How do we determine or measure what is best? Is it because I hold to already? Is it because I have considered other religions and therefore dismissed them. And what makes something probable or more probable? I think Buddhism is foolish, but it is more than probably a religion. It is a religion. The same applies to every religion under the first definition. It applies to every religion under the second definition. I hold to the view that Christianity is the only religion which will see members - and not even all of them - go to heaven. Does that make it the best? I also think that Reformation Protestant Christianity is the most accurate compared to the Scriptures. Scriptures defined as the Bible, 66 books. But in my view, all of the Christian denominations so far as they hold to the Trinity and that Jesus is divine are correct. Hence, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Church of Christ, many of the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, the Brethren etc are part of the christian religion. On the other hand, some so-called Christian movements are not part of it, the cults, like JW, the SDAs, the LDS, the Jesus people, many Charismatic groups, many Baptist groups, like the Westboro heretics.
My view is that NOT all roads lead to God or to heaven. There is only one name by which we can be saved. But salvation is not the only hallmark of a religion nor is it the only hallmark of what makes it better than another.
Please be respectful of other's views. Don't try to change anyone's minds in this posts. I just want to see all of the different perspectives out there.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Acknowledgement of a logical possibility, rather than of an objective creator.
LOL - spin again.
Which isn't to say that I do not acknowledge the idea of an objective creator.
Of course you don't. Just speak the truth dear Zed. Stop lying to yourself.
Though such a creator would be subject to the same causal necessities as every other creation idea.
Why? That is the question you never answer.
Same old problem.
Only for you. Not for me.
Whereas seemingly, you unquestioningly accept one particular idea.
Intriguing. What question is that? What idea do you think I never question?
Though it's fair to say that such an Idea is as analogically sound as any other.
I am not sure of what you are talking about.
That is to say:In the beginning there was stuff.And that stuff developed/was developed into other stuff.
Okay, yes, I do laugh. It is either - the following:
In the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded. (evolutional and atheist position) or
In the beginning - God created the heavens and the earth. ( the creationist point of view)
THERE is no other possibility or alternative that any one has posited. the idea of aliens - alien experiements, falls within the first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doing what is right.
yes, great concept. Of course, but what does that mean?
Doing what is assumed to be right relative to a collective idea of righteousness.
Hence your next question - and a sensible one too.
although why a collective idea of righteousness amounts to any more authority is a different question.
Therefore a social club ritual that has meaning within the context of the social collective ideology.Whether that be a pagan ideology or a popular Middle Eastern ideology, or any other collective ideology.As such, baptism/initiation rituals can be extremely variable.
I don't care about baptism in any other situation or circumstance or religion. It is a religious ceremony. I take the view - arrogant as it seems that Christianity is right - rite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The label of Christian and Christianity is man made man invented.But according to the scripture, from the beginning, the religion ordained for those that were predestined, is of being holy.
Okay. Christianity is a man-made concept. People even used Christianity as an insult. Nobody disagrees with this. But So what?
The people who followed Jesus and his teachings were different to everyone else at the time. It stands to reason that people who follow Jesus' teachings, would be called or named Christians.
Even the NT uses that term.
Scripture, the OT. for want of a better term. It refers to the Messiah coming in a particular age to do a particular thing. Was that thing vague? Perhaps. But not to everyone. The wise men in the time of Herod, the Great understood it. They knew when the Messiah was going to be born. They even knew where.
When the Messiah did rise to prominence, those people who believed followed him and those who didn't, didn't. The one who did eventually became known as the Christians. They could have come up with all sorts of names. The NT has another name, the Way. But eventually they became known as Christians. This is historical facts.
Are these the ones ordained from the beginning of time, or even before the world was born, to be holy and blameless? I say yes. I would also include the faithful to the covenant in the times of Israel's history and those who were faithful in the time of Noah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Correction: Yes there's no scripture that says Christianity came from God nor has ordained from the foundation of the world.Man invented the religion of Christianity. Where it says people were predestined or predestinated, it says holy, not christian.
Well thanks for correcting yourself. It's amazing what can happen when you "put" all of the words into a sentence.
God has chosen us (the us we can leave just a little bit) Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world. You are correct in that Paul continues to go on and say "to be holy and blameless". In love God has predestined us to be "adopted" as his sons through Jesus Christ. v.5
This is further argued over the next 5 verses beautifully and then in v.11 Paul repeats - we were chosen, having being predestinated, according to God's plan - ... in order that we who were the first to hope in Christ". Do you see that? It's not those who hope in something else apart from Christ.
The us are all those who are in Christ. Christians believe that is Christians.
2nd Timothy 1: 9 tells us the same thing. "This grace was given us in Christ before the beginning of time". But has been revealed through Jesus. in time.
Let me add, I am not talking about people being created before time. Or before the beginning of the world. I am saying that God chose who would be his before the beginning of time and predestinated them to be holy and blameless. I would suggest that chose and predestinated to be holy and blameless is referring to the specific thing that Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy - and what Paul articulated in Ephesians 1 as well as the Order in Romans 8.
This is the stance of the Reformed Church since at least Luther and Calvin and has its roots in Augustine and the NT, even going back to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Perhaps even back to Genesis 3:15. Thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes there's scripture that says Christianity came from God nor has ordained from the foundation of the world.
I'm not really sure of your point. The Scriptures do indicate that God has made for Himself a people.
And it furthermore declared that He called and predestinated them before the beginning of the World.
So if that is what you are suggesting, okay. I can live with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that baptism is simply a social club ritual, usually backed up, or preceded by, a more extensive period of brain washing.Which to be fair is how all social systems are established and maintained.Systems we variously refer to as religious, political, racial, cultural etc. etc.Probably based upon an age old familiarity and safety in numbers thing.
Okay.
Baptism is simply the bringing the child into the home by covenant. Everyone either has a wet baptism or a dry one. Once the child is named, they are therein part and parcel of that home until an intervening event.
In Christianity, we acknowledge the reality of the family in society but we also recognise the reality of God. Hence, despite believing in the separation of church and family, like many do the separation of church and state, we don't believe in the separation of the person to God.
Is it brainwashing? whatever? That's just a silly argument. Though to be fair, your next sentence qualifies your comment.
It's not based on numbers or safety, it is based on "doing what is right".
Still thanks for entering the discussion. I trust you have a good day.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Creation followed by a prolonged period of evolution seems pretty logical.More logical than the Middle Eastern Magic Bloke hypothesis...The one where he knocked everything together in 6 days.
I'm sure that might be the case for you. Good for you. At least there may be an acknowledgment of a creator in your thesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Indeed. It is as I have always said about the Reverend, the believability of his lies and fantasies seems to be of no consequence even when called out, he doesn't care.All that seems to count for him is whether the tale helps him rebuild the facade of his imagined greatness while just struggling to be relevant.Individuals such as the Reverend Tradesecret with narcissistic personality disorders often do not care who they manipulate or lie to or how much harm it may cause by lying.You've just described the typical trait of a narcissist. A narcissist is taken over by his ego and will never give in. He will make everything except giving in.It took me several years of deep analysis to find out that some relatives are narcissists, one of them a christian zealot. You can't imagine how tough is to put up with these people, but I took it as a challenge and I'm finally getting over it.And you're right when you say that narsissists don't care about their lies, this comment of him above shows him in his true light. You can tell me whether I'm wrong or not because I'm not a biblical expert, but I don't remember anyone in the bible saying to be pretty sure to have a place in heaven. As far as I know, there is only 144K reserved sits and this individual is pretty sure he will get there out of the 8,000 million people in the world (without considering the dead ones, haha).Moreover, according to the bible only the righteous will get eternal life (Matheus 25, 46), so this individual is calling himself righteous. Not even Jesus was so arrogant because he said "no one is good - except God alone" (Mark 10, 18).
I'm not a narcissist because I am confident I will go to heaven. That would make every Christian in the world a narcissist. And indeed most of the rest of the world's population of religious people. It simply is a generalisation that makes a mockery of real narcissists.
The Bible doesn't say that there are only 144 thousand people reserved for heaven. It tells us that a multitude that can't be counted will go to heaven.
Also the comment about righteous you make is helpful even though it is misleading. Christians agree that no one is righteous. We say - all people are sinners and DESERVE to go to HELL. Yes, that is all of us. So in one way you are absolutely correct in that none of us are righteous. I think your characterisation of Jesus is wrong though. He said - why do you call me good, only God is good. Firstly, he didn't deny he was good. He asked the question, why do you call me good. He didn't say, wrong, I am not good. His follow up line is the key here really. People like yourself - read it one way and Christians read it the opposite. You for instance have already suggested Jesus was saying he wasn't good. Christians on the other hand - see this as proof that Jesus is God. Why do you call me good? Only God is good. The conclusion is that I am GOD. That is the Christian teaching and the language doesn't refute that. If Jesus had denied he was good, then there might be evidence to support your conclusion. But it's not there.
Furthermore, it is on the basis that Jesus did not sin, that Christians are able to claim in faith - the righteousness of Christ. We call this the great exchange. On the Cross, he took the punishment for our sins. But at the same time he accredited to us his righteousness. We don't become perfect. Yet, because of this exchange, which we call justification, God looks down at people who believe in Christ and see only Christ. this is why we talk about our sins being washed. Yet it also explains how God can see us as righteous. It is a declaration made in heaven by God. Read the book of Romans, to see how it is articulated by Paul. I am not asking you to believe it, but to see how it is articulated.
Hence, Christians are saved by grace through faith. We know we don't deserve it because like everyone else we are sinners. Yet in faith, we trust that Christ's work on the cross satisfied the wrath of God against us, and also provided to us his righteousness. If Christ was a sinner like everyone else, then this justification would not take place - and Jesus would not have risen from the grave. And yet the best evidence is - that Jesus rose from the grave. Which proves the entire point that Paul made.
So, I believe that I will go to heaven, not because I am nice bloke or because I have done wonderful things. On the contrary, everything I have done - all the good things too - none of that is better than filthy rags. I deserve to go to Hell. God however in his grace has had mercy on me. He has given me grace. He has granted to me repentance for my sins. He has given to me the righteousness of Christ. And he has done this because of his own purposes. And because he is good and holy. Grace is a free and undeserved gift. It is Christ who is perfect. I trust in him. And God promises that those who trust in him will not die. I am confident God keeps his promises. That's why I am confident I will go to heaven.
So your mockery is nonsense - since it an argument of straw. You don't know me nor what the church teaches. And this is evident by the response you provided above. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work.The Watchtower I don't always agree with, besides that they, you and I are not infallible. What I use is the Bible accounts mentioned where the baptized came up out of the water.
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.
In relation to the biblical accounts mentioned by you, none were in relation to submersion, were they? Saying people went into the water and came up doesn't signify submersion. Even if you read the words, it has a pattern, they go down into the water, are baptised, and then come up from the water. I wonder if you noticed the three step process. Submersion if it means "going down under and coming up from beneath" doesn't require this three step process. That's the beauty of language here. It demonstrates that baptism is neither the going down or the coming up. Baptism is the water ceremony that is practised in the NT in some of these accounts that is within those two steps.
Of course, on the day of Pentecost, there was no river or large containers that people went to be baptised. Yet 3000 were baptised according to Acts 2:41. The interesting thing is water is not even mentioned. There are no rivers in the town. The other interesting thing about that day is: how do you baptise 3000 people in one day? There were 12 apostles. What time did they start and when did they finish? How much time was devoted to each baptism? Did the disciples ever take a break?
there's a much easier understanding of how it happened, than the very unlikely and almost impossible idea that each one was submerged, and that is that the disciples followed the ordinary manner by which the Levites anointed or baptised people - established in the OT.
There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever.I gave them.
No, you gave nothing of the sort. Don't tell me that people going into the water and coming up from the water means submersion. It doesn't mean that. Don't lie to yourself.
What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question?Public declaration.
???? firstly, where do you get that from? Secondly my question is - not what is it for, but which example of baptism in the NT is the most valuable for Christians when it comes to the mode and the meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
To be honest, I was refering to the other guy.And as for you, I dont think you're a con. I mean, what I can think of a guy who is pretty sure will go to heaven and sit right next to "God" for the eternity? Yeah, a lunatic. (or maybe a narcissist).
Well, there you go.
I am pleased you don't think I'm a con. But perhaps I am.
I don't know whether you wrote the next line about me.
I am confident I will go to heaven. I don't think I will sit next to God for eternity. I'm just a pauper compared to most of the faithful. Actually, I am confident that I won't be sitting anywhere close to God. Although, this doesn't mean I won't be in heaven. But mind you, I don't know the seating arrangements. And honestly, I think heaven is more than just sitting around. I imagine there's going to be a whole of things to be doing, work etc. It's not sitting on clouds playing harps. It's not one long church service. It's going to be a party up there. But there's going to be a whole to occupy our time. I don't know exactly, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
I am reasonably sure I am not a lunatic. And I don't fit the profile of a narcissist.
Perhaps some think of me that way. I can't help their feelings. People say lots of things. People quote things out of context. I don't care that I can't defend myself in some of those things.
In any event, have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The holy scriptures or nominally the Bible itself teaches that Christian or Christianity for that matter is man made,man made invention.Even the book that I guess is referred to as a "Christian " book shows in it was invented by man .Does this mean or prove the bible was just made up or fabricated by man?I continued to ask an individual on here has the bible been proven false?Person avoided to answer.I'll get your answers and feedback first .
So I take it you've never read 2 Timothy 3:16?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You two are Bible grandmasters.Bible grandmasters?You mean bible grandcons. 🤣
Ah I'll take that as a compliment.
I'm not a master. Tis true. But that anyone "cares" is just amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't have any desire to fight against Raymond.
As for him being a bible master or me for that matter, I think I'll pass. Raymond knows a few things. But not everything.
Take away his watchtower and he would fold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
I disagree. From the Watchtower Library, Baptism: Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”Your definition of baptism doesn't seem to comport with scripture. That means it comes from somewhere else. Personally, and I may be wrong about this, I don't think the technique is a terribly significant issue, as far as debate goes, but I would look to the scripture when contemplating the way it was done in Jesus's time.
So let's see.
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work.
There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever.
Jesus was baptised in the Jordan. This doesn't mean he was submerged. In fact the evidence is against that misunderstanding. John baptised around lots of water. How can that be evidence of submersion? He was expecting to baptise lots of people. It stands to reason he needed lots of water. And this would be the case whether submersion or sprinkling or pouring. Saying there was lots of water is simply unhelpful in this discussion and misses the point.
Have you ever been to Bangladesh? Or to a middle Eastern country? Bangladesh has lots of rivers. And lots of people bathe in them everyday. Some jump right in - that what's the kids do. But if you watch most of the adults, they simply wade into their ankles or sometimes their waste. And that's it. No further. Lots of water, having a river, doesn't prove submersion.
Your example of Philip is telling. I mentioned this before but I can see it went right over your head, no pun intended. They both went down into the water and they both came up from the water. Did they both baptise each other? Is that what you are saying?
Baptism doesn't symbolise burial. It doesn't. Baptism symbolises the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is the uniting of Christ with the believer. Romans and Colossians don't even mention water. And besides Jesus wasn't buried in the ground. He was laid in a rock cave.
What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The JWs are proved wrong because they falsely hold to the idea that baptism is SUBMERSION without any evidence to support it.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Evolution offers a better alternative to bible creationism. Let’s just have a fun debate
Okay. My premise is that there is no alternative to Bible Creationism. Hence, it is not possible for evolution to offer a better alternative, since it is not yet established as an alternative.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So do you reject direct personal experience?
I would suggest there is a further qualification to it. It is the direct personal experience to gain a spiritual or mystical knowledge that no one else has the capacity to obtain. Almost priestlike. It's the sort of spiritual knowledge that Stephen has. No one else comes to the same conclusions regarding the Bible but him. No one reading the same scriptures would ordinarily come to same conclusion unless they were led to it by him. He is a priest in that sense.
Most people simply read the Bible and come to the same conclusions about most of it. That is because most people can read at a simple level and comprehend what they are reading. Most misunderstandings about the Bible come about from not differentiating the genres involved. That's why the book of Revelation is difficult to read. And why there is so much confusion. If you read it literally, it will lead you down many roads. Understanding it is apocaplytic genre, containing lots of poetry and which is to be understood using the OT assists in understanding it.
It's the alleged secret meanings that are mystical and more gnostic like. Again, Stephen, is the arch type of this person on this site. My views are very well within the mainstream of historical Christianity. I learnt how to read different genres however in a secular school. And read a wonderful book named "How to read a Book". It's free and available on PDF for those who want to look - it's by Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Daren. I highly recommend it if you want to know how to read books properly. It's not a Christian book. it's not even religious. But the methodology they use is the type I use. It is not therefore mystical knowledge, although it is direct personal experience. That latter thing is something no one can exclude.
By the way, since I begin with the Bible, it is my starting point for theology and theological experiences. I don't start with a theological experience and let that determine my theology. That might sound silly, but for me it's a point of contention with others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
After all, we all think we are right, otherwise, we'd think something else.According to the Bible, we are all wrong.Romans 11:33 - Oh, the depth of the riches both ofthe wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments andunfathomable His ways!1 Corinthians 8:2 - And if any man think that heknoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.1 Corinthians 13:12 - For now we see through a glass,darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know evenas also I am known.Isaiah 55:8-9 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", saith the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Yes, the Bible indicates that humanity without the wisdom and knowledge of God is making his own rules and therefore wrong. That's what I said above.
But even believers think they are right, it is what everyone thinks. It is pride. And pride of course comes in many forms. This is one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Interesting question, but how would you know? And why would it matter?
After all, we all think we are right, otherwise, we'd think something else.
You think you're right. I think I'm right. Stephen thinks he's right. Best Korea thinks he's right.
All of us, whether we are right partly or wrong partly, are on a journey somewhere. Some like to think that truth is out there and all we need to do is find it. Isn't that the theme of Star Trek?
Of course, how do we know truth is out there? The modern philosopher has told us that there is no "objective" truth. Truth is subjective. We are told not to confuse facts with truth. And also facts with evidence. And if that's true (irony intended) then there is no truth out there.
Your question therefore ASSUMES or PRESUMES a modernistic worldview. You assume that "objective" truth exists. For the record, I believe in objective truth. I believe in facts and evidence etc. I think most of the people on this site do too - for most of us are older rather than younger. That's a presumption as well. And probably a generalisation too.
I think that the notion that "there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as an ABSOLUTE" is a wonderful philosophical argument and indeed proof that ABSOLUTES must exist. It is because it proves the self-contradiction of the statement. But that's me. No scientist would accept that because it doesn't meet the scientific standard of proof. It's a philosophical argument. Brilliant in its own way. But still just words. Scientists would never be able to prove that an absolute exists, even if it did. Therefore they suggest they are A-Abolustists. or they might say - we can demonstrate within a 99% percent interval that they might exist. Or not exist.
You however ask the question of absolutes, truth is an absolute in the way you posited in your OP. Yet, to the post-modern critic, your question is simply an exercise in futility. And the answers that flowed from your OP demonstrate that.
I, say truth, in the first place is a person. Whatever that means. There is in my mind, both an objective and a subjective element to truth. Hence, it originates in a divine being, so subjective, but its expression then becomes objective truth for everything else. The Garden of Eden and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was the test God gave to humanity - about truth. Humanity failed that test when it decided - that truth must be determined not by God, but by humanity. Hence, the understanding of meaning of truth has had quite a journey. And it's still going. Hence, today, everyone has their own truth.
For the Christian however, truth has revealed itself to them. Christians say God alone has the truth. And this bothers the rest of the world. Imagine having to subscribe to the teachings in the Bible, it's obviously wrong. Archaic, barbaric, etc etc etc. Just like Adam thought. God you are not right. I am right. Even Satan knows better.
Interestingly, the Christian view is neither modernistic or postmodernist. It is trinitarian. It is covenantal. that might be a bit much for the ordinary JW, but if Jesus is the truth and truth emanates from him, then he is the ultimate reality.
Still, have a good day.
Created: