Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The end of the world.
It's mostly a doomsday cultish thing. Or in our modern day, it's a scientific expectation of doom. Mostly meant to demonstrate that humanity is evil.
As for the Bible, I enjoyed reading some of your blurb. I think we are still living in the early days of the church personally. Well perhaps the church is more adolescent than an infant, but she certainly is not anywhere near perfect, in one sense. Yes, through Christ, perfectly justified, but practically, a lot of work to do. And from what I see, the JW are just as bad along with the Mormons.
I agree there is a lot of misunderstanding in relation to the term end of the world, or end of the age.
I take the view that Paul and Jesus and Peter were talking about two different things. Not metaphorical, but two separate events. In Mark 13 for instance, there is what will occur in the generation Jesus lived, and then there was what will take place when he returns.
The Jewish understanding of history is linear, not cyclical. Yes, there are cyclical aspects to it but overall it was linear. They talked about the end of the age, or the end of the world, and they talked about new heavens and new earth. This has occurred several times in history. For example, after Noah's flood, there was a new heaven and new earth. The old heaven and old earth had disappeared. Literally, in the Biblical image, the firmament was gone, even as the earth itself was washed away.
Jesus, death sparked another transition of old to new. His death meant God tore the curtain in the temple from top to bottom. A new age was dawning, no longer did people require a temporary high priest, for Jesus now was the eternal high priest.(Proving by the way that he was more than an angel and was not created) Yet, the rebellious priests who rejected Christ continued to practice their now defunct priestly duties, so within a generation, the temple was destroyed. Then no more sacrifices were necessary. The abomination of desolation could stop. And with the end of the temple, the covenant between Israel and God came to an end. that was the end of an age and the start of something new.
Hence, from many people's point of view, the end of the world literally took place. And a new age, the age to come, started. Hence, many Christians believe we live in the age to come that was spoken of by Jesus. Now we consider we are in the Millenium. Not a literal 1000 years, but a period of time between the first and the second comings. We say Christ is ruling from his throne, the Throne of God, also known as the Throne of David. And the proof of his sitting on that throne was Pentecost. That was the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. We knew he was there because the Holy Spirit had been poured out. The great reversal in history was happening. From the days of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were divided, now in Christ, and by the Spirit of God, the languages were being understood by all.
Of course, a day is coming when the Lord shall return and judge the world. This might happen any time, but in my poor understanding, it won't happen until the world itself is converted to Christ and the last nation converted will be Israel. This is what the book of Romans 10 and 11 tells us.
I also don't think this is likely to happen until the church grows up a bit, stops wondering about its identity and becomes salt and light in the world. At the moment, like a young teenager, it is all over the place, emotionally draining, struggling with identity, and not concerned for holiness. This of course is a generalisation and there are many parts of the church, where growth is happening, both spiritually and numerically and where salt and light and holiness is pursued. I'm thinking long term historically, not as individuals that God is certainly working with.
We should always be careful when talking about the church. It is the Bride of Christ after all, and I know that I wouldn't be too pleased if someone called my bride, heretical, apostate etc.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
After all, why would I bother discussing which god is right - if you don't believe any god exists?tons of "god(s)" "exist"your argument for "revelation" is simply an argument for GNOSIS
Are you serious or simply being ignorant?
"tons of gods exist". Okay, if that is so, who are they? And when you say they exist? Do you mean exist as in actually exist or that exist as concepts?
As for revelation being gnosis, you are going to have to articulate that further before I engage.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Christian religion - at least the Reformed part of that religion says it is impossible for someone to become a true Christian. For me, that is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Christian God. We say that people only become Christians because God reveals himself to them by revelation. Hence, it is impossible to prove his existence.i'm not sure how this could be considered a "strong argument" for christianity specificallythe question of "god(s) or not god(s)" is one thingthe question of "why this flavor of religion and not one of the thousands of other religions" is a completely different question
I'm sure you don't know how this is a strong argument for Christianity. But that in some ways proves my point. You are not a Christian. You can't become a Christian. You won't become a Christian by yourself. I have made the claim before. Prove me wrong. Become a Christian, convince me you are one and not just pretending. Do so for a sustained period of time. I dare you. But I know you won't take up the dare. You can't even if you wanted to prove me wrong, since there is more going on that you choose to admit.
If people could just become Christians, then the entire point of the gospel is nonsense. Yes, some people say they choose to become Christians. I know that people say that. But to become a Christian is not a choice. that's missing the point of what is going on. Many people don't get this. Christians and non-Christians. Our culture plays into this a lot. In some respects it's the difference between a marriage by love in the West v a marriage of arrangement in the East. Christianity is more an arranged marriage. But given Christianity's trend towards individualism in the West, many don't realise where the horse is and where the cart is. This is why I use this challenge. And why so far the lack of people proves my point.
Yes the question of God's existence and the question of which god are two different questions. For me and for millions if not billions the first question is already answered. The second one is much more provocative. Many of course - have never got through the first question. Perhaps that is you. But please keep searching. When you catch up- then we can discuss the second question. After all, why would I bother discussing which god is right - if you don't believe any god exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
You should go back and read what I wrote rather than simply guessing. I said you never proved they were the same. Now you have provided some evidence to support your claim. Secondly, you still haven't proved that Michael or Jesus was created. Calling them the same is one thing. Proving that Jesus was created is another. I will await your score on that level.
For the record, you will find that I have indicated on this debate forum that Jesus and Michael are most likely the same. I don't have an issue with that view particularly. The issue I have is in regard to an apparent creation. That is where it seems you need to sustain a reasonable argument. Not seen one yet.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Ive been atheist for a while now, but I’m just realizing that I haven’t really heard both sides of the argument. No disrespect to Alex O’Connor, but I feel like sometimes the sources I’m getting this stuff from can be a little one-sided, and what better place to hear the other side, than right here?
The question of God is not really that hard. There are lots of arguments for and against God. No one will be convinced who doesn't want to be convinced about the existence of God.
Most people deny the existence of God at least because they haven't been persuaded by any evidence put forward to them. That's a matter for them I suppose. Many of these people have grown up and been educated in public schools and universities where the philosophy is secular.
Many others deny the existence of God because it suits them not to believe in God because of some personal traumatic experience they had as a child or at some time in their past.
Others have come from other cultures and religions and deduced rightly that their religion makes no sense and therefore because of that - they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Others like yourself - have never really given it a lot of thought.
Some have given it a fair bit of thought and concluded from their own arguments that there is no god.
On the other hand - many people are theists because of culture, tradition, they grew up in a particular place etc and have believed such from a time they were old enough to appreciate it. Others have come to a theistic position out of a desperate need to have someone love them or want them or because they were in a middle of a crisis and they cried out to what they thought was God and they were delivered.
Others have converted to God since they have been convinced of the truth of God.
Others have come from other cultures and religions and seen the difference and reasonableness of another God.
Some have looked at the world about them and had the insight to question other's positions and realised that there was God.
For me, the question is not about the existence of God. That part is not too difficult for those who have looked at the creation around us. It's the question of who is God that is a complex question.
The Christian religion - at least the Reformed part of that religion says it is impossible for someone to become a true Christian. For me, that is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Christian God. We say that people only become Christians because God reveals himself to them by revelation. Hence, it is impossible to prove his existence.
The non-Reformed part of Christianity has a different take on this. They suggest that all people can come to God and reconcile themselves with God. That anyone can become a Christian simply by believing. That's why they rely so strongly on faith. The Reformed part of Christianity agrees that faith is intrinsic, yet, the faith to believe is itself a gift from God. God gives faith to people to believe. IT's a matter of his choice. Not a matter of how good or bad we are. The non-Reformed Christian finds this position unpalatable. They say that's an arrogant thing. Whereas the Reformed person would say that saying there was somehow something a person to do to come to God is arrogant.
Hence, there are all sorts of arguments for God. And his or her existence. Most atheists I find rely upon very sophisticated arguments of the highest order. Yet they wouldn't do this for other objects. They also try and rely upon scientific arguments - as opposed to the many other types of arguments that exist. Philosophical arguments are rejected for a variety of reasons.
In my view - Atheists as a general rule haven't yet considered the type of evidence they would accept as being suitable to prove God's existence. They typically run around in circles - they ask - what is God what is God like. Tell us - so that we can prove God doesn't exist. Although they don't put it that way - they spin it. They say - tell us - so that we can consider the sort of evidence that will satisfy us. It never works that way though.
Yes, there are some sincere atheists. And many ignorant ones who are half sincere. Yet there are also many militant atheists - who don't want to discuss - they just want to attack and pull down others.
I hope you are one of the sensible and sincere ones - searching for answers. All the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there.Post 13
Hmm.
Post 13 provides lots of assertions. Not a lot of proof. E.g. That Michael was created. That Michael is the Christ. That the angels - spirit beings lived for a long time before humans. You essentially gave your theological position; Jehovah's Witness. Proof is not just stating what you believe. It is also providing a reason for that assertion or belief. It may well be that you think that asserting that this is what the Bible teaches is proof. Certainly, it was entertaining.
I liked some of your ideas around the Garden of Eden. Yet in many parts, your ideas were not so dissimilar to what the church teach's today.
I'd probably use the term YHWH as the name for God, not Jehovah. Not that we can actually speak his name anyway.
I also thought the notion of God allowing Satan to test his theories was ingenious. I suppose it goes with the idea of the Divine Council - with people like Michael S Heiser. It's all rather interesting. Some also put the story of Job into that category. I haven't ruled it out - but nor have I been convinced of it - not from Heiser and certainly not from your brief assertion in post no 13.
Thanks for the attempt though. Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well, okay, here's a list of the gods in the Bible.Kind of a lame list because they confuse various words for god/s as personal name of specific gods, which is, retarded, but whatever. It's a start. Plus, it doesn't mention men and mundane objects being called gods.People are so stupid.
I agree. Some people are stupid. Do you think finding a list of all of the different names for gods mentioned in the Bible somehow proves you right? The Bible clearly indicated that there is ONE GOD. Yes, it refers to gods, and other spiritual beings. None of these are GOD. Most of the names for gods relate simply to stone objects or rock objects that many of the tribes in Ancient times worshiped. These are not even beings. They are objects made by man for man. Some are possibly the names of kings or rulers that lived and were seen as divine-like. Not because they had divine powers or were divine, but because they ruled and decided how people should live. Some are possibly names given to spiritual beings that have revealed themselves from time to time. Some are the names given to natural objects like the sun, the moon, the wind, the storm, indeed the plagues and pestilences, animals, like the frog, snake, etc.
Much in popular books about the origin of religions and deities is true. But not all of it. But they can be quite helpful. But then we come to presuppositions and people's underlying ideologies.
The God of the Bible also has many names.
Yes, there is only one Creator. And there is one Redeemer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument; to demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument. I proved, or demonstrated, the Bible to be about what I thought it to be about. That is all that means.
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Why don't you prove it?I have repeatedly.
uh okay. I still haven't seen any proof of what you say has been proven.
But hey, if that works for you, okay.
I suppose proof means different things to different people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Let's clarify. My position on Christian baptism is that it involves full immersion and your position is specifically that it isn't, meaning sprinkled with water, correct?
Your position is SUBMERSION. The fact that you qualify immersion by putting the word "full" in front demonstrates that even you understand that immersion can mean different things. My position is that the Bible teaches aspersion. In other words, you say the body is applied to the element. I say the element is applied to the body.
We are baptised with water. We are baptised with the Spirit. You say - the body is applied to water. I'm not sure how you understand baptism in relation to the Spirit. One might assume it is the same. Yet, most are inconsistent when it comes to the mode. Many charismatics would say - be baptised with the Spirit or by the Spirit rather than baptised in the Spirit.
Romans 6 doesn't really help your position since the context is talking about sanctification as opposed to regeneration and it is specifically in relation to the union of Christ with the believer.
Still, I hope that clarifies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
There is only ONE God.
The God of the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.Is it? Why don't you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How on Earth could you know that GODs are not designed?
How on earth could you not know?
The Bible indicates God is from everlasting. Eternal. Never a time before and never a time after. Hence, no time to design.
Nonetheless, within the very brief context of the past few thousand years and the even briefer context of our conditioned existences.I know that we can do nothing, other than speculate about a beginning.Though I accept your faith for what it is and what it has become.
I'm not speculating about a beginning. Beginning may well pre-suppose a design. God didn't have a beginning. Hence, no design.
Have an nice day Trade.
Thank you kindly. I hope you have a nice day too Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
I did.
I'm still waiting to see where you proved it.
Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think that Adeism and Atheism are the same?
Interesting question. no deity or no god?
I take the view that there is only one God. Yes, I understand that many religions believe in their own gods or deities or superhumans.
I take the view that the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians all reflect the idea of one God. Are they the same god or not? Good question too. In one sense yes, in other senses, no. Is the OT God the same or different from the NT God? I say an emphatic YES. The OT picture of God is holy and just. The NT God is the same. Both are kind and merciful but also prepared to judge when pressed. Jesus talks about Hell more than any OT prophet ever does. In fact Jesus talks about Hell more than anyone in the NT or the OT? The OT picture or idea of Hell seems to be a very undeveloped place compared to the manner in which Jesus talks about it.
Is it true that the Bible also talks about other gods, supreme beings etc? Again, yes. But is the Bible insisting that these other so-called gods have real power? Good question. Or that they truly exist - like the God of the Bible? I don't think it does. the book of Job, and other places, suggests that angels exist - that they held counsel with God.
Are deities gods? That's part of your question, isn't it? If they are the same, then yes. If they are not the same then, no. All Gods are deities, but are all deities Gods? Is that true or not. In some people's minds, probably. In other's, not at all.
Perhaps after all my waffle, you might suggest a definition of both? And then I can know how to respond. Thanks for the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I will not obey respect or listen to God.That is by definition, not an atheist
A modern atheist sure. But not an atheist in the ancient times. Interestingly, though the same mentality is present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, GOD itself is a representative word.
Certainly God is used often as a representative word. But not only.
So we could also say that GOD and NON-GOD are the same as design and non-design.
Okay, if you think so. Except God is not designed and his creation is. Hmmm. Interesting. Anything that is designed is therefore NOT GOD.
Perhaps you will prove the existence of God yet???
And also not achieve anything.
Well not quite. You seem to be on a roll. Keep going.
Hmmmmmm, hang on a mo.When is an outcome not an achievement?
Yeah, not sure of this non-sequitur. But please enlighten us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Firstly, not all evangelical's love trump?
Secondly, those who do are either
1, republicans or
2, prefer his policies over Biden's.
3, see his trend towards supporting some Christian policies as better than the oppositions and a glimmer of hope.
4, agree with his sentiments that the political system in broken and needs to be fixed.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
There's only one sign really.
You end up in Hell. And sadly, it's not a sign, it's a result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Atheism simplied?
An atheist is simply someone who says "No God". Not that there is no god, but I will not obey respect or listen to God. So "No God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Design might have a specific meaning. Does non-design? Is non-design for instance the opposite of design?
Design - "the process of envisioning and planning the creation of objects, interactive systems, buildings, vehicles, etc."
What is one example of something that is not designed? Would that be something natural? Whatever that might be? And how would we know?
In a system where God designed and then created, it is ipso facto, a system where everything MUST be designed. Everything must have a purpose or it wouldn't be there. Think of a Minecraft world where some kid designs it. Nothing can enter that Minecraft world without permission from the kid. Things can't randomly occur unless the programming has been set to do that - and even then - it requires the designer of the program to purposely enable that to occur.
Interestingly, the only thing that is in and outside of God's system that is not designed is God himself. Not that God doesn't have a purpose. But that God is not designed since he is from everlasting to everlasting.
But the point of this topic seems to have not considered what the actual definition of "non-design" might look like. It does create an interesting dilemma. Too bad it doesn't actually achieve anything except more dilemmas.
Nice to talk to you to Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
I did.
I must have missed it. Can you please point me to the specific posts. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10
Please articulate you think this phrase means submersion and for instance the exact same phrase in Acts 8:38-39 doesn't means submersion. The only way you can argue it means submersion is if you also argue that both Philip and the Eithopian both submerged each other.
The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
I know what the words means. But immerse doesn't necessarily mean submerge. There are two different words here. And there is ANOTHER Greek Word for Submerge. In fact in the passage you referred to above - Mark 1:8 uses the words baptism in two different ways. With water and with the Spirit. Are there two different modes being referred to here. After all, people are not baptised into the Holy Spirit. Rather the Spirt as it says in verses 9 and 10 shows that the Spirit came upon Jesus. Not Jesus went into the Spirit. Similarly at Pentecost, the Spirit rested on them - as tongues of fire. That is a mode - that Most Christians use. A pouring out - a sprinkling indeed. We are baptised with water. Not into water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
Is it? Why don't you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
There is a difference between Jewish (or any other) thought and tradition. Jews and Christians often disagree with me and that's fine, I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but Jewish tradition is as corrupted as any other and that naturally skewers their thinking and education. Their schooling and learning on the subject aren't tenable from the start. If anyone disagrees with the immortal soul as unscriptural all they have to do is misinterpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28. It's pretty straight forward. Then they have to deny the historical documentation of the pagan influence.
Wow! People disagree with you. How fascinating. I wonder why? I think your thoughts are corrupted as anyone else. Jewish Thinking though at least initially and as understood in the OT, was high level. And that's because it's laws, philosophies, and morality and ethics were raised on God's Words. The 10 Commandments indeed were the very words of God, written with his own hand.
The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical.
The church was apostate, as Paul and others warned in the Bible. That's only natural. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish objection to me tends, oddly, to be more cerebral; linguistic, whereas Christian objection to me is more emotional.
Says you. Yet the Church is interestingly enough described in two metaphorical forms which make me disagree with you. Firstly, the church is the Bride of Christ. I am not going to have a go at the Bride of Christ. How incredibly naive of me to suggest that the Bride of Christ is immoral. Insulting. And I suggest dangerous. I know that if someone insulted my wife, I wouldn't take it very well.
Secondly, the church is described as the Body of Christ. This too would mean is important. And a very dangerous thing to have a go at Christ himself. He is the head. And if the church has gone haywire - or as you put it - Apostate, then that is well, a really big insult at the head of the church.
So by suggesting the church is apostate, you insult - the Bride of Christ and Christ himself. Not a very smart thing if you believe in God.
Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.No. Pagan means outside of. Baptism, tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes and many of the tenets of the Bible writers were first written about and practiced by the "pagans." The Bible is the source, not the church. I myself am outside the church because the church has become corrupt. Their teachings aren't in line with the Bible.
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though. I suspect your teachings are not in line with the Bible either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Apparently the appearance of design proves the existence of a designer (god)
Although it is undoubtedly true that God exists and that He is a designer, I am doubtful that the mere appearance of design proves God exists. Even if such a design existence obviously proves that a designer must exist.
Unfortunately the appearance of design must involve the appearance of non-design as a counterpoint or it is meaningless.
It might be helpful if the proponent of this might explain why it must be true. Meaning is not ALWAYS derived by the absence or the opposite of a particular thing. Yes, sometimes it's helpful. For example, the absence of heat is cold. Or the absence of good is evil. The burden of proof is here on the asserter.
The claim of a designer of everything is a claim that nothing can appear designed.
What does that this even mean? who says that? I think some things look designed and some things don't. when we walk into an art museum, some art is more natural than others. Some is better presented than others. Yet, all of the art is designed by an artist.
In that paradigm design can only mean exist and that makes the word design meaningless.
You need to prove such an assertion. I don't think that design means just "exist". It means that everything that exists has purpose. And that's quite different to mere existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Some suggest this. Others don't.
Jewish thought has different views. Ask Rosend our resident Jew.
I understand that Augustine might have brought it into Christian thinking. Yet, it existed prior to that time in the church.
Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it. Even the Pagans have access to common grace. In other words, pagans used to pray and sing. They used to make offerings to their superiors. They had priests.
And families and governments. I really don't see how whether the pagans introduced a concept into another religion reduces its effectiveness or even its validity.
OF course, the Mormons and the JWs want to suggest that such introduction from pagan world somehow diluted Christianity. That's quite rich really given that both are considered outside of the church in today's world for many reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Interesting opinion. A little simplistic. But interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"If I showed you a spot in the Bible where God HIMSELF divorced Israel, doesn't that demonstrate that it is a valid end to a marriage covenant? And given that I think Jesus is God, wouldn't that be enough? "NO. . I'm asking to show where in scripture where divorce of a man and woman was approved by Jesus . Something his father HATED by the way. Jesus the Son mind you.According to the scripture God will destroy body and soul from the second death. But the scripture is not teaching for others to kill putting one another to death because God has taken place to do so and will.Doesn't work. Instead of running from what's asked, just concede.
Define what "approve" means? Where does the Bible say that God HATES divorce? Are you just making that up?
It is Biblically valid for a man to divorce his wife and a wife to divorce his wife where the covenant has been broken by adultery. If something is valid, what does approval mean? Would I say that Jesus liked divorce? Of course not. But would Jesus say that divorce is NEVER an option for valid concerns? No. Death is a divorce. When someone is dead, the marriage is dissolved. That is what divorce means. It means that the marriage has come to an end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Satan has its roots in Judaism.
Christianity has taken some of those roots and given them growth.
I sometimes toy with the idea that Satan is simply an agent of God.
Yet, the NT also reveals that the Lake of Fire is reserved for Satan and his like-minded allies.
I don't think I have ever considered Satanism as Judea / Christian. I would have thought it was a rival religion. I am not sure that the teachings of Satanism are based very deeply on the Scriptures. Certainly, lots of their doctrines and practices are derived elsewhere, possibly in pagan culture.
Interesting fun fact. Karl Marx was a student of Satanism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
'm glad you agree with my point that these are scriptural ideas .Which are different from scriptural teaching, scriptural approval and condemnation.If I ask show me in the scriptures where divorce is approved by Jesus , you either can show it or you can't. I can show you in scripture where it says it's something God hates.That and Romans 7 all conflict with that. But in regards to what you think, your personal belief on it, you can believe divorce is justified now, apparently to what you learned in or from a false church assembly I guess.Not in scripture , oh no.
Romans 7 doesn't conflict with Jesus anyway. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. People reading the Bible wrongly and out of context find all sorts of contradictions all the time. That is another entirely different subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
'm glad you agree with my point that these are scriptural ideas .Which are different from scriptural teaching, scriptural approval and condemnation.If I ask show me in the scriptures where divorce is approved by Jesus , you either can show it or you can't. I can show you in scripture where it says it's something God hates.That and Romans 7 all conflict with that. But in regards to what you think, your personal belief on it, you can believe divorce is justified now, apparently to what you learned in or from a false church assembly I guess.Not in scripture , oh no.
If I showed you a spot in the Bible where God HIMSELF divorced Israel, doesn't that demonstrate that it is a valid end to a marriage covenant? And given that I think Jesus is God, wouldn't that be enough?
Do you want me to produce that passage? Or am I to assume you know the passage I mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
ou're saying all these statements but you have no scripture that states divorce is justified. You're just giving commentary of an idea.Notice that. I'm giving all this scripture that denies divorce. Just straight from the words of the book,not my own.
I don't have to cite a verse in order to demonstrate that these are Scriptural ideas.
Perhaps for people who are not Christians, it makes sense to quote verses, but people who have grown up in the church, know and understand what is biblical or not.
The idea of Covenant is an OT idea. It is there on almost every page of the bible. I could quote verses from Adam, from Noah, from Abraham who all understood and practiced covenant theology. I could take you through the entire idea of how it worked with the law and how breaching it caused them to be put to death covenantally.
But the fact is, you don't really want to know these things. You just want to make a point. A point that supports your pre-conceived view.
If I thought you desired to know the truth, then, I would take more time to articulate it. But the fact is - you have access to databases as well as I do.
There is another problem with simply quoting a verse. It tends to be a verse that is taken out of context and used to say what it never was meant to say. It's the MO of others on this site to do so. If it ever got to the point when people ACTUALLY wanted to discuss, rather than TELL, then perhaps it might be worth doing so. But some people on this site, have their own agendas, and won't listen to anyone else. Perhaps I am one of them. Who knows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Romans 7 doesn't justify divorce. You can't read that anywhere in the passage and Jesus never did either.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't using Romans 7 to justify divorce. I was using Romans as an illustration of what a covenant is and how one ends. Paul in that passage uses marriage as an illustration of covenant and of the the law in relation to it.
I didn't even go as far as he did. For him adultery was a breaking of the law. But he also indicated that when people died in Christ, they died to the law. So the law had no hold over them. Therefore, whereas under the OT, people could be put to death for adultery if you were a Jew. But now the law did not apply in the same way, they were free in Christ.
Not to sin, but to be free in Christ. Although the passage may not justify divorce, it certainly doesn't forbid it either. It provides certainty that for those in Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, the law had no hold over them. They were not obligated towards it. So the original poster is partially correct. These matters were nailed to the cross for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Everyone else has no freedom to divorce since they live under the law.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i think belief in reincarnation is growing among christians. the catholic church taught against it, and there's that bible verse that says something like 'we're appointed to die once, and then the judgment'. so that's why christians dont believe in it. i think it's being too literalistic, and i think considering it's so common with NDE type of people, and that there's good science behind it... it only makes sense to be open to the idea
I think the story of the Transfiguration proves that the Bible is not into reincarnation.
John the Baptist is sometimes touted as evidence for reincarnation. Apparently, he is Elijah come back a second time. Or reincarnated. In the last couple of verses of the OT, there is a prophecy that before the Messiah arrives Elijah will come and restore all things.
And yet, Elijah according to the OT never died. And the next time he was seen was after John the Baptist was killed. And the Disciples recognised Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. They hadn't recognised John the Baptist as Elijah until Jesus indicated in Matthew 17:11-13 that he was.
This at least implies that John the Baptist was a distinct personality and so was Elijah. After all, why didn't Elijah turn up in his new body if he was reincarnated?
And why is it that the Disciples recognised him as Elijah and not John the Baptist? It is simple. I think. John was like Elijah in character. The prophecy wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. John always remained John and will always remain John. And Elijah will always remain Elijah. They are two very different characters and people. Yet they share a similar character. Both called a spade a spade and called out adultery against their kings. Both call the people to repentance.
But Elijah never died. But John the Baptist did.
For reincarnation to be true, in the bible, Elijah would not revert back to his old body after he had clearly uplifted to John's body. And where is Nirvana in all of this?
No it simply doesn't stack up if reincarnation is even remotely a thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
So if u believe in penal substitution... do you think God punished Jesus on our behalf? I think it'd intuitively not sit right with a lot of Christians to say God punished Jesus. If you don't view it as punishing, how do you distinguish to say he wasn't punished but yet was our penal substitute?
yes, I think God punished Jesus on our behalf.
You need to think of it more as a civil punishment rather than a criminal one.
The wages of sin is death. Death is the appropriate punishment for people when they sin. And if they can't afford to pay for it, then someone else can stand in and take it for them. Think of it like a fine for breaking the law. The fine must be paid or you end up going to prison. But someone else can pay for it.
Isaiah 53 specifically says God punished Jesus for our sins. He paid the price we could not pay and live.
The fact that he was innocent meant that he would stay dead. He knew death could not hold him down. He knew he would live again. But we couldn't pay for someone else because we were not perfect and if we paid for ourselves, then we would die and that would be it. Jesus paid for those who trust in him. He paid their debt and now they have been set free.
Either Jesus pays for our debt or we pay for it ourselves. If Jesus pays for it then our debt is paid and we live. If We pay for it ourselves, then well, we do. But we don't live.
Jesus was willing to do this for his Father and for his people. IT's a civil debt as opposed to a criminal one. That's why it is acceptable for someone else to pay for it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The Bible talks about a covenant relationship with humanity that was broken. Colossians 2:14 Paul is talking to those who were once dead but are now Christians, having been made alive with Christ, when they were forgiven by God. This implies that they had sinned and needed forgiveness from God. God set aside the record of their debt with its consequences when Jesus died on the cross. In Christ, they died, and in Christ, they rose. This verse doesn't say we don't have a relationship with God, but rather the opposite. It says that now, in Christ, people can have a relationship.Yea but do u agree that literally the bible says we no longer have a legal relationship with God? There's not a lot in the new testament about it, but that verse I quoted said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Western Christianity hangs everything on that point, legal atonement, but it don't seem biblical so far as I can tell
Of course, we have a legal relationship with God. We have a covenantal relationship with him. And if we are adopted into his family, that too is a legal relationship. As his children though, those of us in Christ, are not facing the judge as a judge in a criminal sense. Although we will be judged for our good works as Christians.
I think the West does focus on the legal atonement. I also think it is correct. This doesn't make the other views incorrect. I think all three or four views are valid. Yet God has placed each of us where we are and he did so for a purpose. The person who deals with the honour/shame system, still needs to trust that Jesus' death satisfies God's wrath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Romans 7:2."For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. "Now how does divorce fit into this without conflicting with Jesus?
Adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce your spouse. It's not the only outcome of adultery, but it is a legitimate outcome.
And people don't have to divorce but if they did it would be legitimate.
To understand the principles relating to divorce, you need to understand what a covenant is. Marriage is a covenant. Notice, it is not a contract. Covenants and Contracts are similar but not the same thing. Both can be breached. And breaches have consequences. Adultery is a breach of the Marriage covenant. Committing adultery is damaging to the very core of the covenant. It is unfaithfulness, not just to the other party, but to the covenant itself. People enter contracts to improve the individual's interests. People enter covenants, for the good of the covenant. When people get married, two become one. This is not just a sexual thing, it is a legal thing. Each individual dies to themselves and they both become legally one person. This is still reflected in the law.
So if an individual decides to be unfaithful to the covenant, they in effect are choosing to kill the covenant as one new person. Hence, since the breach is so fundamental, it is legitimately at an end. This is why adultery is a legitimate reason for divorce. Romans 7:2 takes up the same idea. When people trust Jesus, they die in Christ at the cross. Their old man dies as it were. And when Christ was raised, then these people are raised as well. Their old man is dead.
If they did not die with Christ, then the law remains over them. They would be subject to the consequences of breaking every law. But since they have died, in Christ, then they are no longer subject to the consequences of sin. This is not talking about consequences here and now in the temporary life but in the eternals. Hence, if I commit adultery here, I can still face the consequences of my sin. Yet, in the Eternals, these consequences are no longer are a problem for me.
SO hopefully, this makes sense to you. And perhaps it doesn't it. After all, it does take spiritual discernment.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LOL! @ the obvious pain you are feeling. But like the other obvious lies you want to paint - and obfuscation, let me at least quote what I did say because of the liars like you:
"Mock me if you will, but this was a precious thing. Yes, it's a little thing. It's not the same as God going down to the hospital and making people well. It's not the same as providing peace relief in Gaza. But it is something that encourages the hearts of God's people when they hear it. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Did Jesus approve of divorce between man + woman that otherwise result in adultery?
What an interesting question.
Jesus doesn't like divorce for the sake of divorce.
Yet he didn't resist it if it was necessary.
In his time, many people were divorcing because they didn't want to be with their spouses anymore. It was mainly male driven of course. And mostly occurred out of lust. Or disappointment.
Adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce your spouse. Of course, it didn't make it mandatory. But it made it legitimate.
There were of course other reasons that made divorce legitimate. Jesus didn't need to mention everyone since the covenant was part of the Jewish system.
Any offence which breached the covenant was a legitimate reason to divorce. One was called death. Death breached the covenant and therefore brought an end to the marriage. People after their spouse died could if they wished go and marry someone else.
Adultery was one of these reasons that breached the covenant. Another was battery. If a husband was beating his wife or vice versa. That was a legitimate reason to seek a divorce. Today, we might call that domestic violence. Another perfectly acceptable reason was "abandonment". If a husband left his wife and went to live elsewhere, then the covenant was breached. She could divorce him.
Divorce was only legitimate if the marriage covenant had been breached. And then the couple needed to decide if the breach warranted divorce or could be resolved.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
My view is that miracles continue to happen. If I have said or implied otherwise, then I stand to be corrected.
I do hold to the view that "Special Revelation" has ceased. Warfield, the great Presbyterian theologian, along with others, like John MacArthur the Baptist Dispensationalist, ties miracles to revelation. I don't.
I call myself a Cessationist. But this is specifically in relation to "special revelation".
I believe God uses both general and special revelation. Some refer to this as the "two books" idea. General Revelation in my view refers to the Creation about us. It may refer to events or circumstances that happen. Or to wise words that people say in the course of a discussion or even a book.
Special Revelation is in my view the words which are written down for us. The Bible. Hence, I think the Bible is a closed cannon now. God is not still speaking to us with special revelation. Yet, sending a storm to move a bell would fall within general revelation. It doesn't tell us anything new. It reminds us - however that God is watching and wants to encourage us. It may remind us that God loves us. It doesn't tell us more than that. It is not a special revelation telling us - that we are doing the right thing. Or that we are too miserly with our money. Or that we are under judgment.
I hope that helps. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13:8 states that special revelation will cease. Prophecy, Words of wisdom, and tongues. I would say that all of these things are special revelation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I had an interesting experience in the previous month. I am not sure whether I would call it a miracle. But it certainly was far more than a coincidence. I would mark it down as a God moment.
Our church has a church bell. We are a reasonably old building in Australia. Our church turns 175 in 2025. That puts our local congregation's age as comparable to the Gold Rush in Victoria.
In about November last year, some of the kids in our church decided to launch themselves on the rope that pulls the bell. Yes, one of the old types, not the new push-button ones. And anyway, they pulled so hard, the bell swung over the top of where it's supposed to go and has been stuck upside down. It hasn't been used since. We had tried lots of different ways to fix it. And it was stuck to hard.
The building is quite high and to get to the bell tower, requires we hire a cherry picker or something like that. The local Board of Management has been a bit slack wanting to fix it - because of the cost that hiring this lift is not cheap. Several thousand dollars. We had hired one a couple of years earlier to get rid of a Bee Hive that had moved in over Covid lockdowns.
Anyway, we had a local couple want to get married. And they wanted the Bell to ring to commence the wedding. I encouraged the Board to cough up and hire the cherry picker - which they agreed to do. The problem was - it wouldn't be quick enough to fix the bell before the wedding.
So here is the interesting thing. As we were closing the Board meeting, one of the local girls, prayed. And she asked God, to provide a miracle, to fix the bell, before the wedding. And I recall chuckling to myself. But I added at the end, that it's a good thing to ask God for such things.
Anyway, the VERY NEXT DAY, Victoria and NSW suffered an enormous storm. Winds came through very high. And strong. Thousands of people lost power. My son's best man's old man died in a tractor accident - a tree fell on him - in Gippsland. Lots of tragic things happened - but the wind - blew our church bell back into place.
My wife and I were putting our son to bed about 7:30 in the evening, and the storm had stopped for several hours. Suddenly in the quiet there were two dongs as the Bell swung back into place. She said to me, has someone fixed the bell. I said, I wish. And I grabbed my keys and ran up to the church. There was no one around.
And I doubt anyone would have been foolish enough to get up on the roof in the wind. But there it was back in place.
Is that a miracle? It certainly was an answer to prayer. Did God send that storm just for us? I doubt it. Was it just a coincidence? Nope. It was God saying, "I like to please my people when I can".
Mock me if you will, but this was a precious thing. Yes, it's a little thing. It's not the same as God going down to the hospital and making people well. It's not the same as providing peace relief in Gaza. But it is something that encourages the hearts of God's people when they hear it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think that instead of us having a legal relationship with God to appease God's wrath, we have a parent child relationship to magnify God's love. The relationship is like the prodigal son.
Have you ever considered that there are numerous ways of attempting to understand our relationship with God?
God's wrath tends to be the Western World's cultural fallback position. Other places focus on shame and honour and others on other things. I don't think that if one focuses on one - that means that it is wrong or that the others are incorrect either.
I take the view that Jesus does atone for our sins. That's reasonably clear from Isaiah 53 that it was a substitutionary act. And that springs from the idea of the ScapeGoat in the first five books of Genesis. There is also the notion of the ransom. I think they both go hand in hand. It is not that one is right and therefore the other must be wrong.
God's wrath of course is something we need to deal with as Christians. God's love is real. But it is not unconditional. Nor is it to be assumed. I think that the better concept to consider is the holiness of God. God is holy. And I take the view that his holiness encapsulates all of the rest of his attributes.
The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.
The Bible does say that God's wrath is real. Jesus' death on the cross doesn't stop God's wrath completely. It will still be applied to those who don't trust in Christ. Judgment Day is still coming. And those who think that they can deal with God without Christ are in for a shock.
The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Literally, instead of saying we have a legal relationship with God then like is said in western Christianity, we no longer have a legal relationship with him.
The Bible talks about a covenant relationship with humanity that was broken. Colossians 2:14 Paul is talking to those who were once dead but are now Christians, having been made alive with Christ, when they were forgiven by God. This implies that they had sinned and needed forgiveness from God. God set aside the record of their debt with its consequences when Jesus died on the cross. In Christ, they died, and in Christ, they rose. This verse doesn't say we don't have a relationship with God, but rather the opposite. It says that now, in Christ, people can have a relationship.
There r verses that say Jesus became sin for us, and by his wounds we r healed. But these just mean that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. Love wouldn't let Jesus die, Jesus conquered sin and death with his sacrifice. He could have engaged in the Christian doctrine of self defense, but he chose to offer himself instead. The Bible says the spirit that rose Jesus from the dead lives in us and will raise us from the dead. We are adopted children of God and brothers of Jesus when we believe in Jesus and try to do his will.
Yes. Isaiah 53 amongst others. That passage describes how God took on human weakness. It asks us to consider the question of why would God become mortal. Humanity wants to live forever but God chose to give up mortality. Yes, I think love comes into it. But God also knew that humans couldn't atone for themselves. As that passage says, everyone else went astray. Hence, God has to intervene. Only he could do what was necessary. Jesus died but he couldn't stay dead because death couldn't hold him down. He was holy. Sinless. Perfect. Unlike the rest of humanity.
This is basically, christus Victor atonement instead of penal substitution. Christie Victor was the predominate view in the early church, the other was minority view. Penal substitution is also based in paganism, a blood sacrifice on a technicality, instead of a sacrifice of first fruit, an offering of ones gifts in sacrifice. The bible says god takes no pleasure in burnt offerings but prefers gifts of the heart. Of course, they usually talked in terms of ransom, I think, so me saying love conquers death as central might be heretical or not pure doctrine. My love conquers death ideas are present in all forms of atoenment historically, just not the critical part of the theories. it should be the critical part.
Thanks for your thoughts. Love is powerful there is no doubt. But what conquered death, was not love all by itself. It included very clearly the concept of holiness. God is holy. He is perfect and sinless. If Jesus had love but was not sinless, he would not have risen from the dead. Paul reiterated the prophets of old when he said the wages of sin is death. Death comes for all men. And will keep you dead, if you have sinned. Christ didn't sin. Death couldn't hold him. And those who trust in Christ will rise with him on the last day. That's the message of the Bible.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
There may be a similar argument with Atoms. I don't know.
I am simply using this particular formula and I thought it was worth popping it in here to consider. Of course if no one agrees that it is worth discussing, it's no skin off my nose.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Perhaps it's not the best argument but it is a helpful one.
If God doesn't exist, then life doesn't exist. Life exists, therefore God exists.
This is a typical if not p then q. But if q is not true then neither is p.
I suppose someone might raise the side issue that life might arise some other way. That actually doesn't negate this law of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So given what I said, the concept of "turning the other cheek" applies to Christians being persecuted for being Christians and following Jesus, are you suggesting that Stephen is persecuting me for being a Christian? Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, do you condone such behaviour by Stephen or will you call it out? After all, I think if you suggest that - there is a case to suggest he has broken the rules of this site and he should well, be banned.On the other hand, I don't think his bullish behaviour is to persecute me for being a Christian. I think he just is frustrated over a couple of things. Firstly, I have called him out for the fool that he is. In particular in relation to his gobbledly gook speculations about the Gospels. But more than that, he hates the fact that I am more educated than he is. This is why he is constantly attempting to make me out to be a liar. And there are other matters too. Exposing his crassness too.I don't think my blocking has anything to do with being persecuted for being a Christian. I don't see there is a need here to turn the other cheek. I blocked him because I can't be bothered with his nonsense. I'm not the only one on this site who has found his tactics stupid and unpleasant.Christians were not persecuted just for being christians but for being a danger for the stabiblity of other religions and cultures. There is nothing more annoying than a bunch of zealots trying to impose their beliefs, this is hardly tolerated by people. Think about Jehova's witnesses and why they are so "beloved", or why the state and church are separated today.
Seriously?
So, putting the useless victimization aside, I only see two adults (you and Stephen) discussing about a very controversial subject, and as any other controversial matter, it can get really heated and tense, turning the arguments into insults very easily. And from what I can make out, the insults come from both sides, the only difference is that you're hiding after throwing the stone, and don't say you don't. I mean, you can do it but this is called cowardice wherever you go.I've also given him a way out if he really wants to talk with me. He can apologise and then engage with our discussions. I am more than willing to unblock him if he desires that. But I know that will never happen. He doesn't want to do that. So surprise surprise, he can sit back and pretend he's waiting for me to just unblock him and in the meantime he will have his lackeys, that's you and Brother, attempt to guilt me to unblock him. He's the coward. I have no intention of unblocking him until he does.You're free to block Stephen or whoever you find "unpleasant". The only thing I'm going to tell you is that yours is the typical behavior of the intolerant zealot that hates everyone that doesn't agree with you. You say to be a christian but your attitude tells otherwise, insulting and calling the users that dissent from you "sons of the devil" (as if it existed, lol). Is this how christians address their enemies? Jesus not only turned the other cheek but also loved his enemies. You're an enbarassment of christianity, imho.
Thanks for the laugh.
By the way, you blocked Stephen because you can't stand his arguments and how he exposes your endless contradictions. So, I'm not going to call anyone out because this is a problem between you and him that should be resolved like true men.
endless contradictions? LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, you refuse to turn the other cheek to Stephen. You're practically flushing all what you said down the toilet.Jesus would be very disappointed with you.
So given what I said, the concept of "turning the other cheek" applies to Christians being persecuted for being Christians and following Jesus, are you suggesting that Stephen is persecuting me for being a Christian? Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, do you condone such behaviour by Stephen or will you call it out? After all, I think if you suggest that - there is a case to suggest he has broken the rules of this site and he should well, be banned.
On the other hand, I don't think his bullish behaviour is to persecute me for being a Christian. I think he just is frustrated over a couple of things. Firstly, I have called him out for the fool that he is. In particular in relation to his gobbledly gook speculations about the Gospels. But more than that, he hates the fact that I am more educated than he is. This is why he is constantly attempting to make me out to be a liar. And there are other matters too. Exposing his crassness too.
I don't think my blocking has anything to do with being persecuted for being a Christian. I don't see there is a need here to turn the other cheek. I blocked him because I can't be bothered with his nonsense. I'm not the only one on this site who has found his tactics stupid and unpleasant.
I've also given him a way out if he really wants to talk with me. He can apologise and then engage with our discussions. I am more than willing to unblock him if he desires that. But I know that will never happen. He doesn't want to do that. So surprise surprise, he can sit back and pretend he's waiting for me to just unblock him and in the meantime he will have his lackeys, that's you and Brother, attempt to guilt me to unblock him. He's the coward. I have no intention of unblocking him until he does.
He might be English but he's no gentleman. He might be a grandfather, but he's a terrible model for his kids and grandkids. He'd prefer to believe in fairy tales rather than the truth. but that's a matter for him.
As for Jesus, I guess he probably is disappointed in me, for this and many other things. I am not perfect. I have never pretended to be. I make mistakes and I apologise when I do. The thing about Jesus though, is that he is also very forgiving. And extends his grace quite generously. So, for the record, your comment is well, like water off a duck's back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Look at Stephen. And the Brother. They are two class A bullies. It doesn't matter whether I block them or engage with them. They just continue to try and attack. Of course they deny it. Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant. Yet the proof is there.This is interesting because as far as I see the attacks come from both sides. So, I think you're playing the victim card instead of standing up for your beliefs.Stephen and the Brother stand up for what they consider it's wrong. It's your right to block them but what you're doing is to throw the stone to them while blocking them. This is unfair.I don't know, man. It seems to me that you're always having a temper tantrum each time they find the way to make you fall into contradiction. That explains why you consider them as "sons of the devil" and that they sure will burn in hell for the eternity (I saw it in one of your comments). I mean, neither the devil exists nor the hell nor the eternal punishment, but these beliefs certainly exist as desires of the one who believes it.
Well find it interesting if you like. the FACTS are not what you suggest. Firstly, I hardly if ever respond to the comments from Stephen or Brother. I have probably responded twice since I blocked them 12 months ago. The last one was recently. I don't care what they say. They say what they like. And from my point of view they don't actually have anything half decent to say. Brother never puts anything up. Yes, he quotes scripture. But he doesn't understand what he is writing and if me or anyone else engages with him, he doesn't engage back. He just requotes what he said previously. Which is why most people don't bother with him. Me I haven't even responded to him for months. In relation to Stephen, his views have been refuted by many people. He repeats what he does - he doesn't add anything new. And to be honest - I can't recall him trying to engage with me - except to throw his barbs for a long time.
Hence, why I think you are incorrect about my point here. I am not the victim. But they are two class A bullies and not just towards me but many others. I have blocked them and I will continue to do so. I don't make a habit of throwing stones at them. I pretty much ignore them. But please prove me wrong. Go back in the last 12 months or so - or since I blocked them and find all of the times I have directed my attention at them. You will find two at Stephen. And perhaps a couple of others that I have commented on - like this one - since someone else has asked me to address something. I don't have an issue with that. But honestly, that is all you will find. But prove me wrong. I am happy for you to do that. I have nothing to hide. I just have the right not to have to deal with idiots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I take the view that this is not talking about any situation but only where it its related to Christians being persecuted for being ChristiansI guess you have Stephen blocked so I put his response below:
Yes, I have blocked Stephen. And will do so until he apologises being such a dunce and a liar. Since doing so, my time on here has been much more pleasant. He doesn't have the integrity to do anything but speak as he does.
Jesus was a Jew. There were no Christians in Israel/Judaea in Jesus' time. Jesus came "only to the lost sheep of Israel" not non-existent Christians. Jesus believed he was King of the Jews. The wise men came to pay homage to "the king of the Jews". The headboard on the cross read "king of the Jews". Jesus King of the Jewslived his life as a Jewish man, honouring the Jewish Ten Commandments and teaching that he did not come to abolish Jewish law. The BIBLE tells us that the "treasured and chosen people" of the earth were Jews and as the BIBLE attests to with over 100 verses proclaiming "Israel my treasured and chosen people".The word Christian appears nowhere in any of the four gospel's.Jesus would have been appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.Considering Stephen's response, yours seems to be utterly misplaced.
Not at all. Stephen's response is utterly wrong. Although Jesus was a Jew and although it is true that Christian became a term that was used much later and actually quite derogatory, the church was in existence as Matthew 18:17 indicates. Jesus did say in Matthew 15:24 that he had come for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet if you read the story he said this in - it was to a Gentile woman. And guess what, despite Stephen's protestations, Jesus healed this gentile's daughter. And in fact the story immediately after, he healed thousands of Gentiles and then fed at least 4000 of them with his miracle. The Gentile lady understood what Stephen doesn't. Not being one of the elect is not a reason to not seek mercy from God. And that of course was the entire message of Christ. If Stephen is right, then Jesus didn't even listen to his own words.
And this is the same view as most commentators on the subject, I think little old Stephen can just suck it up. Jesus came to extend the kingdom - worldwide. Stephen on the other hand seems to be like Jonah. He doesn't want it to be more than the Jews. Arrogant and stupid.
Pentecost was primarily Jews. But then the Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Peter's dream and vision revealed the difference Christ came by coming.
It's a honour to be persecuted for Jesus. That's the truth of it. And if we get slapped once because we are Christians, then to be slapped twice is even better. And it we get sued for our clothes since we are Christians, then losing two is even better.Contrary to all what you said here, Christianity hasn't been a peaceful religion throughout the history. Just to give an example: the Crusaders or the Inquisition were nothing but violent and deadly zealots.
Actually, I never said Christianity has always been a peaceful religion. I specifically referred to the time before Constantine. That was in my mind and the view of history as the greatest exponential growth of the church. And it occurred before it was made a state religion. From Constantine, Christianity changed. and became more influential politically. But it lost its way spiritually. I fully concede that when the State has used Christianity as a tool, it has almost almost used it in a manner which has caused harm. Yet prior to that time, it was visibly the religion of love and peace. And the history books support this.
Another aspect of it is this. The ordinary two courses people have in any conflict is either to fight or to flee. Standing up to a bully, however is a third choice when you choose not to hit back. To turn your other cheek is actually a sign of power. And it gives you power when you do it. The bully might take advantage of it. But the fact that you forced him to do it - takes his power over you away. Of course, you might get beaten to a pulp. And I've seen it happen. But I've also seen the results of it -both for the bully and for those watching. There's a tremendous and courageous sense in standing up to a bully.Every individual is free to react as he wishes. If a christian wants to be beaten to pulp or even to death (a very likely situation), that's his problem, but this is not going to stop me from saying how stupid, extremist and sectarian this behavior is.
Of course individuals are free to act as they please - within reason. I never said otherwise. I made a distinction between what the natural man does. Flee or fight and then what the person who has been given a third option has. I don't think Christians or anyone for that matter ought to be beaten to a pulp. Yet, for me, the gospel is the more important issue. If I am being persecuted or beaten up for being a Christian, I will gladly do so. If's it just because I am a fool or because someone does not like me, then I will fight. Self defence is a legitimate means of defending yourself. Running away is another. But if it's for being persecuted as a Christian, then neither of those two options are helpful. Hence turning the other cheek works.
On the other hand, you say you witnessed a happy ending in a fight with a buller, well, I have to tell you this doesn't happen all the time. There are also people dying in hands of bullers, unfortunately, so don't generalize. Self-defense is a completely natural reaction that everyone shouldn't refrain, otherwise our lives could be in danger.
Again. I never said it does happen all the time. It's not meant to be a magic bullet. Look at Stephen. And the Brother. They are two class A bullies. It doesn't matter whether I block them or engage with them. They just continue to try and attack. Of course they deny it. Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant. Yet the proof is there.
Moreover, this stupid behavior is at odds with Jesus' commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself". So, how could it be possible to love yourself when you let someone else beat you?
I disagree. Jesus knows that everyone already loves themselves. Paul said - no one has ever hated himself. Now I appreciate that some people kill themselves because they apparently loathe themselves so much. I think that's possible - but probably feel it is more a matter of pride than anything else. They feel guilty. Or they feel resentment. It's possible that some people have such mental health issues that they deceive their own worth. But the biggest thing that people have in this world is a view of themselves that is more than it ought. How this is expressed of course differs. I could give some concrete examples, but Mr bully Steve will just say I made it up. The fact is Jesus said, if you want to live, you need to die. Matthew 1624 and following. He spoke about a radical - upside down way of living. Deny yourself. That's the opposite of pride. Take up your cross and follow Jesus. Jesus plan to save the world - was so radical his disciples and most people in the history of the world can't fathom it. It was to suffer, then die, and then rise from the dead.
Pride has always been the issue. To love yourself - means in my view at least - to love God and to keep his commandments. It doesn't mean to hold yourself up in some kind of warm fuzzy feeling manner. It means having an honest look at yourself. Not just believe whatever the tv tells you. Yes, we are unique, And we have talents and gifts. But not having them doesn't mean we don't love ourselves.
But hey thanks for you response.
Created: