Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The NT writer Paul clearly articulates the message of the Gospel to all nations. He takes Jesus's words and expounds them. The Gospel went from being national - Israel to multi-national. Pentecost is a clear picture of this - the gospel being proclaimed in many languages. Paul in his gospel said there is no difference between male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave or master. Like Jesus, he broke through all the walls and pulled them down.
The OT from the Garden of Eden spoke this same message - that the gospel would bless all nations of the world through Jesus. Abraham was the Father of many nations. People from many nations came into the OT covenant of Israel - including Ruth.
Israel was selected not because of superiority but because it was the smallest and weakest of nations to be the nation that the Messiah came from. The Messiah had to be one nationality. Israel was chosen and singled out so that every one would be aware of where he was coming from. The Jews were the chosen nation for the Messiah. The Messiah who would come first for the Jew, but then for all nations of the world.
That Christians who are predominantly are Gentiles are able to see this picture is clearly an anti-racist sentiment. For us to not promote our own nations as superior is anti-nationalist. If someone calls themselves a Christian but thinks their nation or colour is superior then they are REJECTING the message of the Gospel. I would suggest that this is a clear indicator that they need to go back and see what the Gospel is all about. It is reconciliation between God and Man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Hi Dynasty,
thanks for the thoughts. I agree that atheists tend to say stupid things.
And many of what is on your list are some of the stupidest.
1. If you were born in India, you would've been a Hindu!
Yes, that one is a cracker. While it may be true that being born in India is statistically likely that you might be born into a Hindi family, there is also quite likely to be many other arrangements as well. This one is simply a generalization that relies upon stats. I know many Indians who are Muslim. I know lots that are Christians. I know some who are atheists. The generalization proves nothing though.
2. Hitler was a Christian!
Yes that is another cracker. Hitler of course was also a Jew and a homosexual. And A witch. A fascist and a socialist. His grandmother was Jewish. His best friend and bedroom buddy was Maynard Keynes in London. Keynes was a reknown homosexual. And we know Hitler got married but refused to have sex with his wife - apparently her anatomy scared him off. But was he a Christian? Not in accordance with the bible. Perhaps under some weird state church in Germany - but not in accordance with any ordinary understanding of biblical Christianity.
3. Bible promotes rape, slavery, and killing!
yes - more information by the Atheists. The Bible condemns rape. It forbids kidnapping. And it has the sixth commandment which outlaws murder. But hey - rather than noticing these laws - atheists hypocritically lie.
Just think of America. Does it condone rape and murder and slavery? Its laws don't, that is for sure - and yet the anecdotal evidence is that these things exist all over the country. And we will find leaders in America who will condone these things - but is it fair to say that America condones it? Of course not. But consistently the Atheist ought to.
4. Sky Daddy!
I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I suppose it is a generational thing.
5. God is evil!
Yes, one of the atheists biggest lies. But one that they continue to push on the vulnerable. The fact of the matter is that the God of the Bible is good and holy and perfect.
And anyone who can read intelligently knows this. Atheists call God's judgment evil. That is because they call good evil and evil good. They are about opposite in thinking and in morality. This is why they can say that killing the most vulnerable babies is justifiable and that killing murderers is bad.
6. Religious people are less intelligent!
Apart from the ridiculous view that so often the atheist determines intelligence by way of a piece of paper - academic qualification - there is simply no evidence for such a lie. Secondly, I would suggest that the two most intelligent civilizations in recent history are the Jews and the Protestant Christians. Not just the most intelligent - according to the number of Nobel Prizes but also the wealthiest.
7. Religion is a delusion!
Yes this one is a classic, isn't? Yet the atheist is not using the clinical definition of delusion - but a word that they make up and define themselves for people who disagree with them. Hence the atheistic definition for delusion - is a person who disagrees with atheism. The clinical definition used by real medically trained professionals would never use the word delusional in the same context as atheists do. And for good reason. Delusions as understood scientifically cannot account for the mass religions in the world.
8. It's writing in black and white!
I assume this is talking about the Bible - in black and white. As opposed to atheists textbooks which they believe blindly in faith. The next time I see an atheist challenge the findings in a textbook will be the first.
9. Jesus was a myth!
Yeah - gotta love this one. There is more substantial evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar, Aristotle and a whole lot of other historical characters put together. Yet for the atheist - you know the one who says - his atheism is simply a non-belief in God, he places this highest of all hurdles onto Jesus - which if applied to any one else would fail the test. Blinkered is what I call it. Delusional as well. Bigoted. Prejudiced. Ignorant. And scared.
10. Christians have killed people!
Yeah this is a good one. Probably not worded the best but assuming this means - religion causes more wars than anything else. I think anyone who suggests that it is talking simply about Christians killing others is smoking wacky weed. Christians have killed people. Both lawfully and unlawfully. Hence, this must be talking about religions as a whole killing people.
The problem is - there are millions of people killed every year around the world - abortions in probably every nation and no one blinks an eye. Well apart from the Christians. And the 20th Century is a century which clearly had more wars that killed more people than any century before it. These wars were conducted by non-religious nations. Of course non-religion does not mean atheist. Even though communism is self-consciously atheistic. We don't want to go down the path of no true Scotsman, do we?
Nazism - killed of Jews. Killed of Christians. Killed of Cults. Killed of all of its competition. But not to many atheists. Cambodia - China - Cuba - Soviet Union - North Korea - Vietnam - and the list goes on and on. Of course no atheist believes the same thing as every other atheist - no worldview. Yet there is this common thread - none of them believe in God. Hence - none of them actually believe in ultimate accountability.
The world would be a much nicer place - a more peaceful place - a much more intelligent place - a kinder place - a much less crazy place if we just got rid of all of the atheists.
Atheism is without doubt the scourge of the earth. A scourge so rotten - so corrupt - so evil - that the world will never heal properly until it is removed.
But - again - atheism is simply a non-belief - it is not a reflection of people or humans. It is just the most primitive form of humanity - that has an ego problem - So let us not kill anyone of them - let us just continue to reveal that religion is better than non-religion and hopefully - all atheists will actually start to use their brains and intelligence. I am not holding out on this of course.
As Dynasty quite eloquently put it - atheists are pretty dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
God does not go back on his word. The one thing about God is he keeps his word. This is what people hate. He means what he says and people dislike this immensely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
None of those stories are inconsistent with each other.
John seems to indicate a time before Jesus was known to Peter. None of the other passages necessitate they were first meetings. In other words, the Mark passage and the Luke passage both seem to have occurred after the events in John.
Just because Jesus calls Peter to follow him on two or more separate occasions is not inconsistent. I often tell my children to do something more than once. If you were to suggest that every time I repeated myself to them - was indicative that it was always the first time, then you would be incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Yes he does because in the UK they have a new covid virus and it is a new species therefore it could not be evolution and it can only pass through the humans and little kids they can get it to. You see these viruses dont know anything about survival because they have no brain to think so therefore that puts the kibbutz on the evolution theory. So there has to be a porpoise for the new covid because the scientists they were to hasty to stop the virus and God new that he had to wipe out some more peoples so he created the new strain.So that is a message to all the smarties pants scientists who think they can beet God because as we can see God just creates another strain that is more resident so he can finish snuffing out all the peoples that he wanted to be snuffed out in the 1st place.
Yes Utanity. There are lots of new strains of Covid-19 and there have been lots of new strains of coronavirus for several decades. and there will continue to be new ones in the future.
But with respect, evolution as taught by Darwin was specifically about varieties of species. He opined that the variety of species that he observed led to a view that all species had derived from one unique species. In that sense species continue to spread and diversify - and even form new species. Creationists agree with this position. They would not label it evolution or even micro-evolution since that reduces the enormity of it.
Hence, new viruses or strains of the same is exactly as planned by God in creation. With the ability to adapt and change or even mutate to its environment.
Is there a purpose for the new virus? Probably. What is that? I don't know. What is the purpose for any new species or any old species for that matter? just because I am ignorant does not mean there is not a purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How many times will it take you to realise that sin is not a thing? It is an action. An act or an omission. It was not created. It was done by humans.
But still you will keep on with your own personal myths in order to try and prove something. Yet Christians don't hold to the view that sin is a thing.
So, no matter what lies you tell yourself - it won't change a thing for Christians. God is the creator of all good things. Yet, we don't talk about the creation of love or hate.
We don't say God created love. I don't anyway. And I have never heard anyone suggest otherwise.
love is not a thing - it is an action or an emotion but it is not a thing that can be created.
When you figure this out - perhaps you might have an epiphany. LLOLL! Merry Christmas Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In relation to the above issue. Anyone withholding pertinent information could be accused of deliberately perverting the course....How the Law might actually interpret things is one for my learned colleagues to quibble over.
People in our society have lots of information about lots of things.
Some people have legitimate and lawful reasons to withhold such information. That is not perverting the course of justice.
How people obtain information is important. If people obtain in it ways that are legitimate to providing it to proper authorities then they should.
If people only obtain the information in the process of a privileged conversation then they do not have the right - to give it to someone else. And it is not perverting the course of justice not to hand it over.
Unlike you, I do not think the ends justifies the means. I happen to think the way we get somewhere is just as important as the destination.
I call that justice and equity.
If one person's rights are violated because it was done in a good cause, then that sets a precedent for every other person in the future. I think that puts us on very dangerous ground.
In Australia recently a barrister was seconded by the police to grass on her clients. Her clients who were very serious drug lords in Melbourne. She provided lots of privileged information to the police and it ended up putting lots of people into prison. Finally, what she did came out - and the Courts have been very scathing to her. She has destroyed people's faith in the legal system completely - people have lost faith in the police. Crooks no longer give information to their lawyers - they don't trust them. And now - because she - the lawyer who gave up this privileged information has effectively been the one found guilty of perverting the course of justice - and the police as well and the courts are going to eventually see all of the crooks go free because of her foolish conduct.
The police thought the ends justified the means. They were wrong. What happened means that no one will trust the police for a long time.
I think perverting the course of justice is extremely serious. The law must be equally applied to all - and no one should be above the law. Yet, this includes the lowest crooks as well as the most innocent victims in our society. And if the lowest crooks are going to be treated unequally then the system is corrupt. personally, if the law gets to that point - then there is no need for any legal system except a gun. And the strongest will survive - and then there will be no question of perverting the course of justice - it will be just whoever has the largest guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not lying. And you lying about me only reflects on you.
I have said on numerous occasions that sin came into this world when Adam and Eve fell to the temptations of Satan. We spent entire pages talking about it - or have you conveniently forgotten? I suppose I would delete such memories if I had copped the flogging you had.
Yet to then suggest that Ethang and I are sharing passwords, well - you are desperate aren't you?
Ethang5 is a good friend of mine. I have know him for a significant period of time. And if you think we are like each other, that is a huge compliment for me.
If I could be more like him, I would.
I bid you a merry Christmas Stephen, perhaps you might wake up and realise that Jesus came to save sinners like you and me and Ethang5. I pray that even your eyes might be opened to the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
answered before. But you can go and find it. I don't have a burning desire to so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Because pedo's will be less inclined to speak to priests who will dob them in. Just like in Australia where a dodgy lawyer gave her clients up the police - now crooks are not giving any information to their lawyers. Less and less people are pleading guilty.
Now the relatively small number of people who confess will have even less incentive to confess - and therefore less people speaking into their lives to try and get them to do the right thing.
Hence the children are still left at the mercy of child molesters.
It is madness. Really it is only going to target priests - by people wanting to catch them out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.Very good thought out post and all churches are now feeling the pressure to stop hiding such obseen crimes. In the USA you have the 1st amendment which covers the right to practice religion. It is a shame that these people talk only about their religious rights without thinking about civil rights.
We don't have the first amendment in Australia. It does not apply to us.
I think Churches ought to be exposing these obscene crimes. I think that is a no-brainer. Nevertheless, similar to the legal professional privilege which exists in order to ensure that people can speak freely in order to obtain proper legal advice, clergy professional privilege exists in order to protect spiritual advice. That some relegate spiritual advice lower than legal advice and or any other right is a matter of prejudice not of equity.
"civil rights" consist of every right including legal, religious, and everything else.
In Australia our legal system DOES NOT recognize the separation of church and state. It clearly puts the church in submission to the State. The Church must comply with EVERY political instruction of the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I think mandatory reporting for priests is more likely to cause harm than achieve anything of substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
In our Western Societies - assault is both a crime against the state and a crime against the individual. The State takes its remedy out in the criminal justice system and the individual sues in the civil legal system.
In some cases - gee consider O J Simpson - is not guilty against the state but found liable in the civil courts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you say without a shred of evidence. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Christianity has not always existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yes, an obsessive compulsion.
Do you think I should send him a Christmas Card?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As ever, there are two obvious uniformities.
Please be a good boy and explain to all of us what these two obvious uniformities are. Some of us are unable to read everyone else's motives and minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
1. God's law as revealed in the Bible.Example of breaking gods law2. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.Example of a transgression of the law of god.
You asked two questions and I answered both. Sin has no meaning without God. Sin is not something humans do to each other. That is an offence. Sin is the breach of God's law. I also said as is revealed in the Bible. One example is murder. You shall not murder. If a human murders another human that is sinning.
Your second COMMAND is answered in the same way because sin is breaking God's law by a human or angel.
Just to throw you into convulsions and to send you down another rabbit hole. God cannot break his own law. God cannot sin. Sin is defined as an offence by human or angel against the law of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
LOL!
Of course you don't!
You have just expressed complete bewilderment that God would commence his miracles at a wedding.
You confessed ignorance however is not a hinderance from anyone else expressing an opinion.
LOL! - @ Stephen.
No wonder you have to ask so many questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As i read the answers - everyone is saying the same thing - except in their own words. And when people say the same thing in their own words as others - then there is an obvious uniformity.
Well done guys - and girls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So out of all of the responses - you ask me? LLOL! Wow I feel famous.
1. God's law as revealed in the Bible.
2. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Well at least you are starting to get out of bed. That is a good start. I know it has been difficult for you for some time now.
I hope you have eased up on your drinking as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
For all sorts of reasons the word word can be translated differently.
Yet the Greek word is "logos".
And it is not incorrect to translate it differently on different occasions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
As to the topic headnote -
Atheists can and do get married. And this is lawful before God even if not conducted by a church celebrant.
This of course is anathema to the pope and the Catholic church which does not accept any marriage outside of the Catholic Church as a valid marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
And yet John tells us in John 1:1 that "in the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church", Ephesians 5:29.
We all love ourselves too much already.
Most of the time our pride gets in the way.
Are you suggesting that we should not stop trusting ourselves? Lean not on your own understanding but in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths.
-
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The KKK do not consider the bible to be their axiom. What a load of nonsense.Not every White Christian is in the KKK. But every KKK member is a White Christian.
I don't agree with you. I have met several KKK over the years and not one of them was a Christian. Not in the true sense. Some were what I might label nominal - meaning that they were baptized as Christian but that its truth never impacted upon them. They live their lives like any non-believer. In other words, the ones I met did not show the fruits of the Spirit. If they were to come to my church, they would not be admitted as members nor would they be admitted to the Table - not if they were members of the KKK.
I would put them in the same category as unbelievers. And personally I don't know of any bible believing church that would take a different view.
The other thing is this. Not all Christians see the Bible as an axiom. KKK don't obviously or they would not be members of the KKK. The Bible is anti-racist. The NT writers were the reason that slavery was brought to a screaming halt. Yes, some Christians fought to retain slavery. So did many Democrats. In fact it was the Republican Party which were against the Slave Trade. Abraham Lincoln was a white Christian - and an anti-slavist. HE was a Republican.
Saying the bible is their axiom is not the same as actually using the Bible that way. I am not trying to be arrogant in that - but there are proper means of using the bible as an axiom - and even within the Bible believing church there are a range of ways to do this - but the spread is within an acceptable range not just "however you want to do it".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.This is the most important verse from the Bible because it is like a deal between God and Jesus that was so intents and meaningful it means that we can live in heaven without having to sacrifice anything except believing. We should never forget that is what true Christianity is all about.
Oh utanity, you are a legend! LLOL!
Despite the mistaken view that this verse is more important than any other, every verse is important. Some have more substance than others this is true. But generally speaking we don't talk about one verse being more important than others. Some are certainly more significant and perhaps that is what you are saying. I am pleased to see that you are endeavoring to understand the bible somewhat.
Believing is not a sacrifice. Believing is in this sense in John 3:16 talking about trust. It is where you put belief into action. In other words, if there is no action, there is no belief. Belief is not a mere head nod or some kind of assent. To put your trust in Jesus means to stop putting trust in yourself. It is the reversal of the Garden of Eden. There Adam put his trust in himself and not in God. He thought he could eat the fruit and become like God. In doing so, he stopped trusting in God. This was as I have said before an act of Treason. It would the same as you building your own police in force in South Australia and to stop trusting the South Australia Police and premier.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son. so that whosoever trust in him - puts into action his loyalty to Jesus - will not remain trusting himself and reap the implications of that - but will instead be reconciled back to God, ready to be loyal to him in all that he does. This is the Christmas Story. Loyalty to the King of Heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
There are two ideas I want to discuss in this forum, the idea of a fallen world, and a finely tuned Universe.
Thanks for this topic.
The idea of a fallen world is a defense against the Problem of Evil, saying that evil entered the world when people sinned. thus, the Problem of Evil does not bring into question God's goodness and power, because it's man's fault. This "fallen world" idea is strictly contradicted by the Teleological Argument
God created the world. He created it good and very good. Perfect is perhaps one way to describe it. I am undecided however because I currently don't see good as perfect and yet some might argue if it was not perfect it must be flawed somehow. Again I am not persuaded that not perfect means somehow flawed. If we see three similar items for sale in a shop of a type of coffee machine. The difference being that they are degrees of good better best. Three prices. The more expensive has more features. Does this make the least expensive one, the one with lesser features, flawed? I don't think so. Yet I suppose someone might say - it is not the best one. And that might be true for some people. But not for all people. Some people might prefer the least expensive one - because the best features are useless to them. Degrees between good and very good - do not mean that good is somehow imperfect. Sorry for that digression.
God created the world and it was good and very good. He also created the heavens. Sin entered the world through one man. Human choice - decision was the impetus in this case of sin. Sin is not a creation. It is an action or an omission. Evil and Sin are not synonymous. I agree that the problem of Evil does not bring into question God's goodness nor power. I reject the idea that a "fallen world" contradicts the Teleological Argument".
The Teleological Argument (or the fine tuning argument) says that the world is so perfect, that a God must have created it.
I am not sure I agree that this is how the TA ought to be represented - but assuming for the sake of your argument you are correct. Let us continue to your discussion.
So what is the problem with these two mindsets?
With respect -
The fallen world describes an imperfect world around us, and the fine tuned world (from the Teleological Argument) describes a prefect world around us. These two ideas contradict each other, so the Christian must either drop the teleological argument (one of the best arguments for God), or drop the idea of a fallen world (the best response to the Problem of Evil)if you think the world is so fallen and bad because of sin, stop trying to find design in everything!
Hmmm. Firstly, do Christians suggest that the "fallen world" is referring to the "world" as defined as everything including the animals, plants, and the environment? Or is it just related to humanity and their relationship with God? Secondly, when Christians talk of a "fallen world" what does "fallen" mean? Does it mean 1, absolutely rotten, 2, tainted like a drop of ink in a glass of water, 3, some middle ground? In other words, what is the difference between a non-fallen world and a fallen world?
Christians believe that humanity is capable of doing great and wonderful things. And it is also capable of doing evil and monstrous things. Humanity can do good because it is made in God's image. And yet since God's image in humanity has been tarnished, it also is capable of evil.
Personally, I think it is human nature which has fallen in the primary sense. Nature or the world is also impacted. Hence why we talk of the entire world groaning. Yet the TA as you put it - and the Fallen World Argument as you suggest - prior to sin entering the world - even on your assumptions is the same.
It is the nature of the fall of the world which is the issue. To what extent does the fall of human nature impact upon the world at large? The Christian view is that the impact is significant for humanity - since sin brought about a division between God and Humanity. And humanity's decision has tainted the world and impacted the world around it ever since. Yet, has this sin or fall so distorted the world that we can not recognize its creator. Has it so distorted it that it actually contradicts who made it?
Even after a house fire - where the house has been altogether destroyed - we can look at the ruins and recognize it has a designer.
My view again is that the fallen world and the sin on it has not so impacted the world that it contradicts the TA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
sin is not a thing. In other words it is not a creation. It is a verb for want of a better of word. Sin is described as a breach of a law. It is an act or an omission. So strictly speaking it is not a thing - which has been created. In other words, it is not inconsistent with God creating all things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seriously, ask yourself, what kind of god would waste his maiden "miracle" on making sure the " wedding" guests got drunk?
I take the view that this first wedding miracle was instrumental in demonstrating that God was prepared sensitively to the culture of the people he was coming to love.
The West is quite culturally different to the Middle East. The Middle East is a shame honor culture. The West is not. The shame inherent in not being able to provide for guests in that culture is deeply imbedded in a way that ought not be discounted. That Jesus would initiate his first miracle at a wedding in such a fashion is a remarkable and brilliant stroke of genius.
That you have turned it into a "wasted" maiden miracle on account of some getting drunk - does not surprise me. Yet your comment reveals only that you are ignorant of other cultures, especially the one you seem to have latched onto.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh FFS STOP IT!!!!!!! You are making it all up in sheer desperation to be included in the Jews god fold. Gentiles were JEWS that had "LOST" their way . You really are desperate. How many times!!!??? THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS in Palestine or anywhere else in Jesus' time.. NOT A SINGLE ONE!!! you are out of luck , your church is built on sand that is softer than shite.
Who says Gentiles were Jews that had lost their way? Not me. Is this another strawman? Absolutely, you make up stuff as you go along. I repeat as I have on numerous occasions. I NEVER SAID CHRISTIANS were in Palestine during Jesus' time. Prior to Christians being called Christians, the book of Acts said they were called the "Way". Not that they had lost their way. And during Jesus' time, the followers of Jesus, his disciples all in general eventually took on the name of Christian after his death. You can continue to make stuff up. I don't have too - it is all in the Bible.
he day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God.Well from what I have read, and you agree god doesn't ask anyone anything least of all permission to do anything........I disagree with youHow many times on this thread have you said god doesn't need my permission, Reverend?........................this is what I mean when I say above that you cannot even remember what you write or what it is someone else writes for you. Just right here, you have contradicted yourself AGAIN.HERE IS YOU MOST RECENT#104 >>>>> "The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God" .>>>>>>>>>> I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.
Ahhh the missing pronoun makes all of the difference. I cannot help it if you actually read what you write before you send it off.
God does not need to ask your permission to do anything. He certainly does not need to ask your permission to die for you. He does not need to ask for permission for you to get down on your knees. Your words are so garbled - you cut and repaste - and omit so much stuff - it does not even flow with what we have been saying.
I can only recommend that you;(a) insist your script writer read everything that you personally have written before preparing your script for you.(b) tell him/them that their abysmal services are no longer required because you are fed up with him/them making you look a total dunce & braindead on every other post.(c) prepare your own script yourself reading and re-reading before posting.(d) read the fkn scriptures. and then as you say "pass on"#20 what it is that you have read for yourselfDid Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.So now go away, there is absolutely no need for you to be on this thread. NONE
Probably a good idea to leave now - because you have lost the plot again. buried in your own bullshite.
In any event - it is my choice to stay or leave. Just because you start a topic - does not give you the right to determine who stays and who goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
LOL @ you willow, I mean Utanity.
Despite your nonsensical comments, I am smiling at your attempts to be consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You have a different opinion and that is your prerogative.I do. And you don't like it that I won't allow you to lord it over me as some kind of authority simply because of your alleged qualifications in matters biblical .
LOL! You are the only one who raises anything to do with my qualifications. You do it constantly. It must really bug you. LOL!
Despite the fact that I provided details - generally at least of Jesus saving gentiles,NO, you are a person that contracts himself often , uses double standards when it suites and never can seem to remember what you write not to mention the status of central characters in a biblical story . Would you like examples?
I did provide general examples. Jesus feeding the 4000 Gentiles. Jesus healing the little girl. Jesus raising the Gentile child. Jesus entering into Gentile land. All of these are general examples of Jesus while he was on earth - although sent only to the Jews, saving the Gentiles. You deny it. Yet the truth of these events is mud in your face.
you continue to live in a la la fantasy world where you think your interpretation is the ONLY one possible.No, that will be YOU CHRISTIANS that has done exactly that for over 2,000 years. I can always change my ideas and opinions on the scriptures. I am the atheist not you.
LOL! You refuse to consider other opinions apart from your own. I provided one above and you just say "no". Christians do change their views on the Scriptures when they are demonstrated to be incorrect. I changed from dispensational to reformed. I changed from Fundamentalist to Confessionalist. My baptistic views changed from immersion to aspersion. Christians like change. Each day, hopefully we are changing to become more like Jesus.
Jesus was sent to the Jews. I have not denied that even once.Yes only because you cannot deny it. No matter how much you try to heap yourselves into the fold of the JEWS, gods only chosen and treasured people.
I have no reason to deny it. The Book of Romans tells us that the gifts and the callings are irrevocable. Just because you don't understand what Christians think does not mean that you should pretend to know. The Gentiles however according to the NT have been grafted in and this is in accordance with OT prophecy that all nations would be blessed through the Messiah.
Yet, this does not mean that his salvation was not for a much broader congregation.Let me see your evidence that it included Christians. . So far Jesus and the bible itself say your wrong . Jesus din't ever once mention the word Christians , did he. the idea of a salvation for ones sins is a Christian Idea. Jews hold that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of "original sin" either!
Why would Jesus mention the term Christians? The label Christian appeared a long time after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Before that they were called the "way". Before that, the Followers of Jesus were his disciples. The bible and Jesus agree with me and are not against me. The idea of salvation for sins is an ancient once, it did not originate with the Christians. The entire Mosaic sacrificial system testifies to salvation from sins. Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden because of their sin. Your denials of such an integral part of biblical history is truly breathtaking. Modern Jews probably don't. They are themselves a cult that arose during the early first century. Once their temple was destroyed and their heart was cut out, they had to identify a different hermeneutic to the one they had been using prior to that time. Many Christians don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin either. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make. Looks like another strawman argument.
And in fact the evidence shows that, despite your constant protestations.Show it to me then. Or is this yet another one of your "the bible clearly says so" throw away comments that you have no intention of supporting. Show me Jesus telling Christians that they are saved if they bend the knee and believe in him.
I have above. I have on other occasions. I cannot help it if you choose to deny each and every situation that Jesus "saved" Gentiles in his earthly ministry. The fact that he saved one is enough evidence to show your "sent" and "saved" is incorrect. Yet, the evidence that he "saved" thousands simply buries you alive. Anyone who sincerely has faith that Jesus would save them, is bowing the knee to him. Take the Centurion who tells Jesus to simply make the command for instance. He clearly understood authority of Jesus and Jesus marveled at his faith.
I have not forgotten about Jesus blood sacrifice. The timing in many ways is immaterial. The book of Hebrews clearly tells us that the Jews in the OT were saved by faith in Jesus. Just as the those after Jesus are saved by faith in Jesus. The OT looked forward and the NT look back. All eyes however are focused on Jesus.It is the saving of Christians that I am interested in. I know that gods chosen and treasured people where Jews. It is I that has to keep reminding you. Redemption as far as Jews were concerned was from exile, as I am sure any Jew here will attest.
It is you who keeps reminding yourself, for some reason. I am unlikely to forget these things, though it is possible. Yet for me, unlike you, it is something that in many respects goes without saying. What you seem to always find difficulty understanding is that God tells the truth. If his people, chosen and treasured or not, did not keep his covenant, then they were punished. The entire history of Israel demonstrates this over and over again. The Jews simply kept breaking covenant, despite their judgment, then their repentance. Like Dogs they kept returning to their vomit time after time again. Hence, why Jesus was necessary. Humans need God despite the fact that humans think they don't need God. Adam and Eve figured they did not need God. History shows humanity thinks it does not need God. Yet, humanity over and over again returns to the vomit. Humanity needs God. They need Jesus. They need the Messiah to save them from their constant returning to the vomit. Yet God's plan was not just for the Jews, he had a much broader plan than just saving one nation.
I take the view that Jesus died for the elect.That would be Jews ,his elected chosen and treasured people, if the story is to be believed at all.
The elect are the people that God has chosen for himself from every age. Prior to Israel, including Noah and his family. During the Israelite period. And after that period. EVen during the Israelite period - Gentiles were chosen for God's purpose - and included within the elect. Think of Ruth. A Moabitess - who became one of the ancestors of Jesus. In fact in the genealogies, several Gentiles are included within the elect. Also think of Job. Job was not a Jew. Yet he was one of God's chosen.
Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer.So if you do not know, then your time on this thread at least, is over, isn't it.
Because you posed the question and all answers - including IDK are plausible and possible. It does not have to be a yes or a no for it to be worthwhile. Sometimes you really act like a petulant child.
If you were to place your trust in Jesus, the Messiah and bow the knee to him, then perhaps it may well be the case.Where does the scripture command or even ask this prerequisite? Keeping in mind that YOU say he doesn't need to ask anything .
I am not sure what you mean. Please provide my comments if I did say that? Seriously, I would like to know where it is that you say I made such a comment.
I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion.Well you would. Even you have the fanciful notion that somehow that you are above me. Well I can tell you, nothing that you have ever said to me thus far on the whole of this forum would convince me to look up to you, of all people, as some kind of authority.
I am not above you. That is your constant mistake. I don't think that I am above anyone. It is you who constantly come on here and try to question Christian's and their beliefs. It is you who seem to think that you have some kind of divine right to try and destroy every other person. Oh yes, you put a nice spin on it sometimes or at least in your own head, that you are just seeking answers, or that you are saving people from themselves, blah blah blah, but that is the intent of your verbiage. I have never asked you to look up to me. I don't see myself as any kind of authority. I give my story. At times, you and others simply disregard Christians, and yet I give my story. You still berate it. That is on you. It is not on me. The point above is your perverted view about God.
The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God.Well from what have read, and you agree god doesn't ask anyone anything . He just allows rape and murder commits murder allows his sons to rape and then kills those that complain about it. If the bible is to be believed at all.
I disagree with you that this is an accurate way of portraying of characterising the divine plan v divine will. God in the bible clearly condemns rape and murder. He forbids kidnapping. He forbids adultery. And he will judge the world either in this world or the next. You intentionally muddy the water between divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility. It constantly looks to me like you are just trying to find an excuse to blame God and deny your own responsibility.
You like the vomit you swim.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Can Christians prove that god had a plan for every single one of us from day one of ours creation? Is that plan on course?Those that could prove God had a plan would not ask such a dumb question.Well I am one of those that CANNOT prove it, that is why I asked. what a dumb response.I am not purporting to be one or the other.Which? Dumb if you could or or not dumb if you cannot?
Hi Stephen, thanks once again for your condescending response. I never suggested you were dumb. Only that asking if whether or not God's plan is on course or not is a dumb question. If you don't believe in God, then you would not ask that sort of question. And if you did believe in God, you would not ask that question. It is the sort of question that someone asks when they don't believe in God and wrongly assume that believers might actually ask such a question. It smacks of condescension. It is also what is called strawman. and it is strawman in the sense that it is attempting to structure an argument that you assume they believe and then you will demonstrate why it is nonsense. Of course that is the essence of strawman arguments. The reason behind it is less sinister. It is just that you don't actually know what believer's believer and as such you assume the worst and then walk on from there.
And wherever did the New Testament authors even of the get the idea that everything that happens, every action taken and word spoken are all by gods design and according to his plan?I suppose the NT writers got it from the OT and while they were under the inspiration of the Spirit.That's a fair response if by "the spirit" you mean the spirit of god? Are you saying then the NT authors then believed what they had read in the OT? And do you believe as they may have done that _ every action taken and word spoken are all by gods design and according to his plan?
What else would I mean? Of course NT authors believed what they read in the OT. I see another strawman argument formulating in your brain. You again are not taking into account first and second causes. God is the author of every first cause. Yet humanity is totally responsible for every second cause. Hence, every evil action completed by humanity is humanity's responsibility and not God's. I see the disconnect. You are straining to join the dots.
There are some NT verses that claim god has a plan for us all and even fewer that talk of a "plan" in the Old Testament such as; "I have planned it, surely I will do it” . Isaiah 46:3-11.Goody - well there you have your answer.Well no, I don't. Isaiah 46:3-11. don't really cover it. It doesn't suggest a plan for all of us as individuals and that all our words and actions are all gods doing and by his design.
LOL! you do understand sarcasm, don't you? I never said it was the answer - but rather "your answer" if you want to believe it. LOL!
Was me being born for instance, a part of " gods plan " , if so why do I not know about it by now? Will I even know about it?This is a strange question. Why is that you need to know being born was part of God's plan? And given you are alive, then how could you NOT know it?So are you saying then ethang5, that just by me being alive answers, why it is that I don't know why I was born and where I fit into "gods plan". No. It doesn't and it appears that you don't know either.
Firstly, I am not Ethang5. Secondly, if you believe God exists, then the question of why is known. If you don't believe in God, then you don't need to know. If you are looking to know God's plan - in its specifics, then again you are missing the difference between God's hidden will and his known revealed will.
Was Jesus being sent to earth to suffer and die also part of gods plan?I think that one is pretty obvious. Is 53 clearly talks about it, if one assumes that Is 53 is talking about the Messiah suffering as opposed to the nation of Israel.So according to you then, Isiah 53 is explaining that gods sending of Jesus to suffer and die on a cross was all part of gods plan? And do you agree with Isaiah 53 that it was all gods plan?
I think Is 53 provides evidence that the Messiah was meant to suffer. Yes.
Is every act we witness in nature good and bad all part of gods divine plan?What do you say dear Stephen? Oops sorry I forgot this is your topic and you are the one asking questions.Your learning, good boy! So what do you say?
I reckon you know what I say.
Was the "plan" centered on individuals and not everyone, as Jeremiah 29:11 seems to suggest?Personally I think Jeremiah 29:11 was directed only to the people Jeremiah was addressing ................But it wasn't it god that did the "declaring". : For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."You really should bone up on these scriptures Reverend. You do make yourself look entirely stupid at time.
I never said it was not God talking through Jeremiah. Don't be an ass. The prophet of Jeremiah declaring God's word of promise to the people of Israel at that time - was not a general application for all people for all time. It was a specific promise to a specific people. just as later in the same book - God makes specific promises and curses to people. They too are not general applications to all people.
There are plenty of Christians that are forever talking about gods divine plan for us all and our purpose on this earth. But I fail to detect a plan at all in the erratic and unbalanced and at times, confusing world that I live in?I think there is a difference between God's divine plan as such for his creation as opposed to his divine will which is recorded for his people to obey.What is it and why do you even suggest a difference if everything is god plan? Surely gods divine will is part of gods plan.
There is the hidden plan of God - which at times he gives us glimpses of - for his own purposes. Without this plan - nothing would happen. Yet there is also his revealed will we observe in the Bible . The hidden plan of God for the universe is not ours for the understanding. Why God does what he does is a matter for him.
Yet there is also God's revealed will for humanity. He provides the principles for us of life. He does not command us all to live like robots. He has given humanity the freedom to do what they want so far as it conforms within the boundaries of this covenant. God's revealed will for humanity is not a set out system of a plan for their life. The only way to miss God' revealed will is to disobey his principles. But even to call this "missing God's will" is not really helpful.
I don't think people can miss God's plan - ever -I don't mind admitting that I have missed it. What is it and how do you know that IT is part of his plan?
No one can miss God's plan. Yet people can walk outside of his will. For example David when he committed adultery walked outside of God's will. And when he murdered Uriah he walked outside of God's will. Yet, in doing so, this was part of God's divine plan. God's plan included this as a first cause. Yet, David was alone responsible for his actions. He made a choice to go outside of God's will and as such he alone was culpable. An analogy is the author of a book and the characters within. True it is not perfect analogy - but there is a similarity. In a novel, the character is responsible and the author is not. It would be absurd to say the author was responsible for all the actions in a book - when the evidence is clear that it was the character in the book. Yet unless the author wrote the book, then the crimes could not be committed. First cause and second cause. I suggest that this analogy as weak as it is - certainly provides a sensible approach to considering first and second causes. God's hidden plan verses God's revealed will.
Mostly, however looking to find God's will is a misnomer.I am not asking about gods will. I am simply asking about gods plan.
Yes. I know. But I am not interested in assisting your strawman arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry old chap lol! LOL! LOL! LOL!
You have a different opinion and that is your prerogative. Despite the fact that I provided details - generally at least of Jesus saving gentiles, you continue to live in a la la fantasy world where you think your interpretation is the ONLY one possible. Jesus was sent to the Jews. I have not denied that even once. Yet, this does not mean that his salvation was not for a much broader congregation. And in fact the evidence shows that, despite your constant protestations.
I have not forgotten about Jesus blood sacrifice. The timing in many ways is immaterial. The book of Hebrews clearly tells us that the Jews in the OT were saved by faith in Jesus. Just as the those after Jesus are saved by faith in Jesus. The OT looked forward and the NT look back. All eyes however are focused on Jesus.
I take the view that Jesus died for the elect. His death was sufficient for all people - but it did not atone for all people. The elect are those that God calls. There were elect before Israel was formed. There was elect after Israel was rejected. There have always been the children of God. And there always will be. Romans clearly discusses how the Jewish nation rejected the Messiah and therefore it was necessary for God to ingraft the church into the elect.
Yet, even before this- right back in the Garden of Eden, God promised Eve that all families on this earth would be blessed by the Christ. Abraham was the father of many nations - not just the Jews. The Gospel was always going to provided to more than one nation. It was one nation - the Jews that the Messiah was born into. The nation which was the smallest and least of all the nations. This was where the Messiah was to be born - and this nation was separated out of the rest to ensure that the Messiah was born into it. Yet once the purpose of Israel had been completed - the nation where the Messiah was born - and to whom he was sent, - then the doors opened to every nation. The True Religion of God went from being national to multi-national. Pentecost confirmed this in more than just symbolic terms.
Did Jesus die for you? Again I don't know the answer. If you were to place your trust in Jesus, the Messiah and bow the knee to him, then perhaps it may well be the case. If you don't and never do, then well - he did not die for you.
I think the notion that God has to ask you little man permission to do anything is a patronizing notion. The day that God seeks your permission to do anything - is the day he stops being God. Yet, it does not surprise me that you tend to ask your questions like you have, you have such a little picture of god, he deserves to be ridiculed. I however am not stressed because everything you say about God - does not fit the picture of God as he reveals himself in the Bible.
And yes I probably have not addressed everything you say. I am not running. I just can't be bothered.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Can Christians prove that god had a plan for every single one of us from day one of ours creation? Is that plan on course?
Some probably could. Some probably could not. Those that could prove God had a plan would not ask such a dumb question. I am not purporting to be one or the other.
And wherever did the New Testament authors even of the get the idea that everything that happens, every action taken and word spoken are all by gods design and according to his plan?
I suppose the NT writers got it from the OT and while they were under the inspiration of the Spirit.
There are some NT verses that claim god has a plan for us all and even fewer that talk of a "plan" in the Old Testament such as; "I have planned it, surely I will do it” . Isaiah 46:3-11.
Goody - well there you have your answer. And it would be lovely know if you would enlighten the rest of us. Thanks in anticipation.
Was me being born for instance, a part of " gods plan " , if so why do I not know about it by now? Will I even know about it?
This is a strange question. Why is that you need to know being born was part of God's plan? And given you are alive, then how could you NOT know it?
Was Jesus being sent to earth to suffer and die also part of gods plan?
I think that one is pretty obvious. Is 53 clearly talks about it, if one assumes that Is 53 is talking about the Messiah suffering as opposed to the nation of Israel.
Is every act we witness in nature good and bad all part of gods divine plan?
Many Christians might say yes. And many Christians might say no. What do you say dear Stephen? Oops sorry I forgot this is your topic and you are the one asking questions. My bad. Gee I wonder if me asking this question was part of God's divine plan? Nevertheless, it does seem like you are mixing up plan with will.
Was the "plan" centered on individuals and not everyone, as Jeremiah 29:11 seems to suggest?
Personally I think Jeremiah 29:11 was directed only to the people Jeremiah was addressing - and not a specific application to everyone else. A typical example of where some Christians take a verse out of context and try to apply it to themselves. Bad hermeneutics I would say - despite the fact that it sounds so nice.
There are plenty of Christians that are forever talking about gods divine plan for us all and our purpose on this earth. But I fail to detect a plan at all in the erratic and unbalanced and at times, confusing world that I live in?
I think there is a difference between God's divine plan as such for his creation as opposed to his divine will which is recorded for his people to obey. I don't think people can miss God's plan - ever - but I think people can miss God's will, as they disobey his words.
Mostly, however looking to find God's will is a misnomer. It is clear that God in the Bible works by covenant. This means he gives general principles we work within - or boundaries and that within those boundaries we have freedom and choice. Excellent example - in the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam and Eve all the trees in the garden but one to eat from. That was the boundary - the limits. Yet within that boundary - which tree they ate from, how they cooked it and and ate it was up themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not going to start a thread for you dear old Stephen. LOL!
I don't recall ever saying that Jesus died for you.
In fact if Jesus did die for everyone - then everyone must be going to heaven. Yet, since we are also told some are going to Hell, it seems logical he could not have died for all.
But then again, it is not a matter that I am able to answer as to whether he died for you or not. That is a totally separate question.
Again - saying Jesus died for sinners is not at suggesting that Jesus died for every sinner.
Jesus being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - does not mean ipso facto that he was not sent to save Gentiles. It only means per se that he was sent to the nation of Israel to deal with Israel as the primary purpose. "Only" relates to "sent", not to "save".
And backing up my point is that Jesus not only at times ministered in Gentile lands, but that he "saved Gentile persons" from illness and even death, not to mention hunger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
uh ok. I certainly am going to reserve my objections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Perhaps Jesus did not die for you.
Who said he did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If the lack of peace was only between man and man, then you might be onto something dear Stephen. Yet the lack of peace is not primarily humanity verses humanity. It is between God and Man.
Hence, to attempt to find a response to Jesus' words without taking into account the lack of peace between God and Man is well - going to leave you as befuddled as you seem to be.
Christ is the prince of peace because he came to reconcile Man with God. Until this reconciliation occurs, then every other notion of peace comes in second best.
Peace is not just defined as absence of conflict - but biblical peace is absence of conflict with God.
Understand this - and everything else becomes much more clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I don't understand something, I study, I ask people, sometimes I never receive an answer or resolution. This is a common feature of everyone I know.So you're not a "follower" of your specific Church (denomination)?You're more of a "co-seeker" who is just trying to "do your best" to "piece things together for yourself"?You sound like you might be a GNOSTIC.
Funny person. I never said that I was not a follower of my particular denomination. I do follow according to my conscience, though.
I am not a seeker. LOL!. I have been found. Once I was lost and now I am found. Was blind but now I see.
Created: