Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Stephen
Christians believe Jesus to be god. The one and only god that existed from the beginning. So unless you want to admit that there were, are and is, more than one god as per scripture , then Jesus is the god that the Brother describes perfectly.
LOL! Yes, I do believe Jesus is GOD. And as such he has existed from eternity - that is what the bible teaches. No problems with that position. There is only one God, the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - 1 God - three persons. There is no other true God. The bible does talk about other gods - but not in the same league as God. There is only one creator. The other gods are essentially gods made in the image of man. Or gods that humanity are happy to live with - they don't do to much - but sit around like logs of wood - which are blind deaf and unable to talk. With no power etc. Of course Satan too is called the god of this age - he has some power - and I am pretty sure his demons have power as well - and probably would see themselves as gods at least compared to humanity. Similarly, many humans see themselves as gods - they pretty much do whatever they want to do. Within parameters of course. And then there is the passage Brother DT quoted from Jesus about calling the pharisees "gods". I have explained that above.
Yet, none of these gods can be compared to the great and awesome God of the bible.
Brother DT's description of Jesus however is flawed. This is what he has said:
"Within the scriptures, Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent. Also, our Jesus was an abortionist which leaves a lot of embarrassment if we picket Family Planning Clinics, do you get our hypocrisy if we do?"
A Blatant Serial Killer: Seriously. Let alone the clear nonsense of attributing a human failing to the divine, God can not fit the description of a blatant serial killer. In our world, the definition of a serial killer is: a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern.
In the first instance - God has not committed murder on any occasion. There is no evidence whatsoever that God murdered anyone in the entire bible. Murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Firstly, God is not a human being - and when he was in the form of Jesus, he never killed any person. Secondly, every person God ever put to death or had put to death was lawful. Please find any occasion that God put anyone to death or had someone put to death in an unlawful situation. You wont find one - because none exists. Moreover, a serial killer has no apparent motive. All people God had put to death or put to death himself - were done so for reasons. God is not a whimsical character - he acts with precision and he does so explaining why he puts people to death when he does or when he asks someone else to do it. In many cases it was because they had broken the law he told them to obey. In other cases, they were enemies of his people - who would destroy his people. His sense hence is either to protect - self defence or to prevent those people carrying out even worse crimes against their own people. If it is true that he has a pattern, it is that he first told the people to obey - and then they did not - and then they were judged - and on occasions they were put to death. This is the same as our criminal law systems in the West today and around the world. If God is a serial killer then this makes every country and state in the world guilty as well. This is a nonsense.
Is God greedy? What a weird thing to say? What is he greedy about? He owns everything anyway - and could make anything he wanted too. Greed is nonsense. If greed is to do with the fact that he wants to be recognised as the only creator and God in this world and he desires our sole worship - I would not call that greed but the right thing and expected thing.
Is God jealous? Well yes and no. He is jealous in the sense that he desires his people not to commit adultery. I do not think that is wrong. It is something I desire as well. I don't want my wife to be unfaithful. And if my jealousy for her love is righteous then that is a good thing. Yet God is not jealous in the sense of a sinful resentfulness, spying and untrusting and distorted manner. God does not go spying on his people - nor does he go stalking them as well. Yet he is desirous that they are faithful to him - and if he sees them being unfaithful then rightfully so - he will respond in justice.
Humans are self-centred and this is a problem because they are sinful. God is God and rightfully deserves all honour and glory. Yet even in his so called honour - he was prepared to die himself for the sake of humanity. This is the opposite of self-centredness and is called humility. Take a read of Philippians 2 to see how Jesus - humbled himself.
God is not petty. That is just a foolish thing to say. Petty is defined as (of behavior) characterized by an undue concern for trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way. What nonsense. If this was the case then every human being would now be in Hell. Yet this is not the case - God mercifully extends his grace that enables sinners such as yourself to be able to live despite the fact that it may well deserve death. The fact that you get to breath a new breath every day is evidence that God is not petty.
God is utterly just. He is super just. And he is super mercy. God's law is simple - He is God and you must obey. If you disobey you die. That is the essence of justice. The fact that God does not immediately put you to death when you sin - is called mercy. You deserve death - that is just. Yet in his grace - he is being super just - just letting you live. You dont even understand the meaning of justice if you think God is not just.
God is forgiving. God forgives all people who repent of their sins and turn to him. This does not mean that he does not punish them nor that they dont receive further punishment in this life. An example like Moses springs to mind. Moses repented for his grumbling to God. God forgave him - but told him that this grumbling would see that Moses does not lead the people of Israel into the promised land. Yet God did forgive Moses. God on the other does not forgive those who do not repent of their sins. This does not mean that God would not forgive them if they did repent. He tells us he will. The pre-condition of forgiveness is repentance. Luke 17:3-4.
Control Freak: Again seriously. a person whose behavior indicates a powerful need to control people or circumstances in everyday matters. As i indicated above God is not human - he is not concerned to control every situation in the world everyday. A good example of this is the garden of eden. God put Adam and Eve into the garden and then he set them loose to do whatever they wanted to do - and to eat whatever they waned to do. Sounds like a control freak to me - duh. Only one rule - don't eat from that one tree. One rule - and you think he is a control freak. You have more rules for God than he does for you. And really, at the end of the day - the entire bible is really based on the same principle - Don't eat from that one tree. It is the exact opposite in fact. God allows much freedom - all of which people can do whatever they want - they just have to realise that whenever they eat of that tree there is a consequence.
God is not vindictive. He punishes justly and properly. He could take a vindictive approach and simply wipe everyone out. The fact that he does not - is evidence he is not vindictive. Saying he is - just does not cut the mustard.
Blood thirsty ethnic cleanser. simply wrong. He did advocate wiping out several nations - because they were evil. So evil in fact that despite the fact that Israel did not wipe them out - other nations did - and the nations themselves were already wiping themselves out for their own evilness. You have never read the history of the nations around Israel - you dont get how evil they were. Yet you think God is evil because he says that their evilness - such as butchering their own children - and giving them away as sex slaves and sacrificing them to their gods which were just rock and wood is nothing. You look at the evil of the catholic church and you are outraged - yet you think nothing of the vileness and horror of these nations. And then you have the audacity to suggest that God is evil because he wants them wiped out.
Misogynist:a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women. More nonsense - The God of the bible loves females - and is not biased against them. Heroes in the bible include Ruth and and Hannah and Esther and Deborah in the OT - and in the NT there are many more - The Jewish nation was a country mile ahead of every nation around them in the rights of females. Yes, males were the head of the home - after God. Yet, it was males who were circumcised - not females. It was females who were to be honoured and looked after and cherished. In the NT it was Paul's words - which put male and female on the same level - against what the Romans and the greeks would have liked. In Rome and in Greece woman were treated less than slaves - had no rights - but because of the Biblical teaching on females - they have had their rights continue to increase through history. The fact that you cant see this - just demonstrates your prejudice against the truth.
I will continue the rest tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would like to have a Christian on this website present me proof that Lucifer became Satan rather than Lucifer becoming Jesus.Thanks in advance.
Not sure how many Christians would suggest that Lucifer became Jesus. In fact that would make the person a non-Christian. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He is the eternal Son of God. He was never anything but the eternal Son of God.
Satan or the devil or the serpent or the beast or whatever he is called - adversary, etc is a fallen Angel. Created by God and who chose to reject God. He was never an arch angel. He tempted humanity - he tried to belittle Job - He tried to outsmart God - He tried to tempt Jesus. Jesus talks of seeing him and his demons - fall from heaven.
He filled the heart of Judas with greed. He has a placed reserved for him in Hell along with his demons.
I know there are passages in Ezekiel which talk about Cyrus as the morning star - and proud - but I think this is talking about the nation not the devil.
Lucifer means light. Yet I am not sure whether this refers to Satan. I suppose it could.
Hence - Jesus is God and divine. Satan or the devil is only a created being. One is the creator - and one is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
->@RoderickSpodeMake no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.
A huge generalisation.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Brother. In reference to you post #172 and calling out the hypocrisy of many here and in particular Tradesecret"Within the scriptures, Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent. Also, our Jesus was an abortionist which leaves a lot of embarrassment if we picket Family Planning Clinics, do you get our hypocrisy if we do?"All the above is correct.And the reason for Jesus being all the above , as I have said many many times before, is that Christians have adopted a god from a time they neither knew or understood anything about and of who they knew nothing about and this is their burden. It leads them then to have to defend the indefensible and the only way they can do this is to use double standards, tell lies, rewrite the scriptures, deny biblical facts, and become hypocrites in the process and hope that no one notices.
Well that is a good reason. LOL! And again without a shred of evidence for such a blatant lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
what I had to say was helpfulTo whom?
I guess to anyone who finds it helpful. The only one who seems to have an issue so far is you. I am free to assume that everyone else agrees it is helpful - until they say otherwise. In any event, I think it is right to provide a balanced perspective rather than the pessimistic and biased opinions generally provided.
the Bible itself states that no one knows the hour or the dayIt does, yet it hasn't stopped the above mentioned Christians making predictions that they should know that no one knows. Which can only mean that they too haven't read their own scriptures, including Sextus Julius Africanus who I have mentioned was a Christian historian as was Irenaeus who was brought up in a Christian. I also mentioned St Beatus of Liébana he was a christian , theologian and geographer. Hippolytus of Rome was one of the most important second-third century Christian theologians.Not to mention people such as Pope Sylvester II predicted Jan 1000, John Wesley predicted 1836, Catholic Apostolic Church predicted 1901 and the very famous Jehovah's Witnesses who predicted 1914. ALL ARE Christians . They too must have , just like , failed to read and understand the bible too.
As I said above there have been many Christians who think they know better than what the bible says. And many who are not Christians who do the same thing. I put you in that category. My point was simple. There is no need to add non-christians to the mix because how non-christians view the bible adds nothing to the picture. No one really cares what a non-christian position of the bible is. Also I wanted to point out that the JWs are not Christians. It does not matter how many times you say otherwise or how many times they say are - they are not. The church does not recognise the JW as anything more than a cult. Even the WCC - World Council of Churches - who define christian very broadly - and much more than I would - do not consider the JWs to be a Christian organisation. Hence - if it rejects the JW as a christian church - and since every other Christian church rejects the JW as a christian church, why do you think that it is? And why would you include it in the mix?
Personally, there are no Christians I know from any denomination that care what the JWs think - save and except to use their words and doctrines against them.
If your point is to say that many Christians throughout history have got it wrong - and simply used Christian persons to confirm this - then I would have heartily agreed with you. Yet you chose to add non-Christians into the mix. This simply reveals that you have not done your research diligently or thoroughly. It does not help your case - it only makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about - which clearly you don't
Looking for what they think are signs that will reveal his near coming.Well didn't Jesus make it clear what those signs were in Mathew?
On the contrary Jesus made it very clear - and the Christians at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 used his words in order to save their lives. Josephus provides quite clear evidence of this in his book.
there are many parts of the church who do not think we are in the end of the worldI don't think Jesus ever spoke about "the end of the world" but he certainly spoke of the "end of the age. The bible is riddled with astronomy and astrology. In fact the whole bible story is wrapped in both. The Jesus story starts with a reference to the sky and it continues right up until the crucifixion.“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” Mat 2:1And isn't there some kind of solar eclipse at the end?
The end of the "ages" - in the greek sometimes used is aeons and others times kosmos. Both are used interchangeably and can refer to world and age.
I take the view that Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are all in the main predicting the end of the age - primarily referring to the end of the covenant age of Israel and when the destruction of Jerusalem confirms what Jesus did on the cross. And that is removing the external need for a temple - which Jesus did for the internal need for the temple at the cross - and the reason why the curtain was torn into two. This is also the historical position of the church.
I agree that the bible does contain much astronomy - from the beginning really where the lights in the sky are said to be for signs. I don't think astronomy is to be mixed up with astrology. Both are quite different things - even if both make use of the same objects - the stars and planets in the sky as reference points. Astrology is an entirely different set of skills or trickery or whatever. The kings who saw Jesus' star were astronomers - not astrologers and probably were relying upon Daniel - in their wisdom. After all Daniel was one of the chief magicians in Babylon when he was there and his works would have been received and studied - along with the works of Ezekiel and others.
In any event - looking for signs is a somewhat human activity. We like to look up at the star and hope they can predict our future.
Jesus referred to the sign of the son of man in heaven. I take it that this refers to Pentecost - the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It was Jesus' first sign of sitting on the throne in heaven. It therefore is the sign of the son of man ascended in heaven. I don't think it is referring to a star - but to the fact that now Jesus is reigning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Great Questions:
How a Jew responds to these questions, I will leave to them. As a Christian, we are called to obey the commandments of God, this after all is how we demonstrate love to both God and to others.
Yet, we are also called to demonstrate mercy. Hence why Jesus related the parable of the good Samaritan. It is a parable which demonstrates quite clearly that when the law gets in the way of demonstrating mercy, then God desires mercy. This is one reason why I would reject the JWs position on blood transfusions. They seem to forget about the parable of the good Samaritan in that Jesus noted the two religious persons obeying the law by not helping the injured man, but commended the Samaritan for showing love - and encouraged others to follow this example.
In the case then of working on Sundays, I would apply the principle this way: That ideally the day should be set apart for the Lord. We should as a general principle utilize this day to worshiping God together with his people - and encouraging one another. This should prevent us from doing things on that day that take us away from church. Yet, if we are in employment situations or indeed voluntary situations where we are called to work in hospitals, or as police officers, or similar such necessary services - then these things are exemptions to what we would ordinarily do on Sundays. We live in a world now where Sundays are treated pretty much the same as other days. I would suggest that as Christians - we should separate the day to the Lord as best as we can.
I note too that the book of Hebrews indicates that the OT Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ and his death on the cross. The OT sabbath was all about reminding his people of the day of rest that would come in the day of the Messiah. Hence, why they needed to take it so seriously - it was pointing to the Messiah. So when the Messiah came - in Jesus Christ, all people who put their trust in him, were able to enter into rest with him always. This fulfilled the 4th commandment - and now in the NT Christians do rest in Christ. This means we don't have to stress all the time about keeping the law - but take comfort that Jesus has died for our sins - and has brought us into the presence of God. We in that sense have a peace which others don't have. We are not always looking for God in other words. We don't feel a need to have to try and please God. We understand when we do wrong and know that it has been dealt with in Christ. Christians - unlike other religions and other worldviews are not always on a journey to find the truth in things. Yes, we continue to learn and we continue to develop in maturity - but we know the truth and the truth has set us free. And this means that the struggle that others have - of never being able to rest properly - is something that has been done for us in Christ. That is the Christian message.
It sets us free from the law as it were. So we as someone above mentioned helps us to rest in Christ - for he is the Lord of the Sabbath - which was made for man - not man for the Sabbath. It means we can still set aside a day of the week - Sunday is good because it reminds us of the Day Jesus rose from the dead. It also means that we can apply mercy and love above the law in this particular situation - so that we can do acts of mercy to help those who need it.
I hope that helps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What people believes, it later becomes the facts.
So if I believe that God exists - does that mean it will become a fact? I am talking about God, not my belief.
Or if I believe that what people believe has nothing to do with facts, then will that later become a fact?
What people believes is made of feelings.
When you mean feelings, are you talking about touch, sight, hearing, and smell? Or are you talking about something else? Like, love or sadness, or humility, or fear or something else?
In other words are you using the term feeling to refer to our experience of life or to the emotions that people experience as individuals in response to the things we experience in life?
Facts are fundamentally just feelings.
Please clarify your previous statement - by answering my questions in the previous section.
What is a belief? Is it something we think about philosophically? Is it something that we experience and articulate? Is it an emotional response to what we experience?
I would think that facts are an objective reality within a neutral framework. For example. 1 + 1 = 2. Or wood comes from trees. Or I am sitting at my computer typing.
Yet, our interpretation of those facts can be manifold. Some might argue that 1 does not always = 1. Some might argue that wood comes from the shop. Others might say that I am actually drinking a coffee.
Facts used to be that God is truth and anything said against God is lies. Facts used to be that Earth is completely flat.
Based on your premises, I don't see how this can be the case. It was a certainly a belief that God was truth and anything said against God was in fact lies. But was it a fact? If of course you are correct that beliefs and facts are identical, then perhaps that might be true. Yet, just because I believed that the sun revolved around the world 500 years ago did not make it a fact. It only made it a belief - but not a fact. And in fact if our scientists are correct, then it was never a fact, simply an error on human's part at the time. An error that has been corrected. Similarly, if my mother who lives in a mental asylum's believes she is Cleopatra, that belief does not make it a fact. It, the belief actually reveals that her belief is not a fact. If I believe I can fly, that won't suddenly become a fact, just because I believe it to be the case.
Now they aren't actual facts anymore, mainly that people don't believe that anymore.
Yeah, I disagree with you here. Facts are not determined by whether someone believes them or not. Facts are objective realities. Of course - how these objective realities are observed and understood is subject to subjective realities. I look at a cow and think to myself - hmm a creation of God, to be used by God's people for the purposes of enjoying God. An atheist looks at the same cow and thinks: food, or animal - that has evolved over years to become what it is. We are both looking a cow - seeing with our own eyes - but the cow is a cow whatever we think or believe about it. It is not a dog. It is not a cat. It is not a human. It cannot fly. It does not matter what we believe about it - that wont change its objective abilities and capabilities or characteristics - or if you like the objective facts about it. What we believe won't change whether it was created by God or a process in evolution. Those things - or objective realities stand apart from our beliefs about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Fair points.
I wont stop posting though - since I am not the only posting old and boring salads.
In any event, what I had to say was helpful - even if you found it boring.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah I know - but I am bored - and he is so easy to bait.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I also find it interesting that you continue to put human traits onto a divine person.”
Thank you in calling Jesus as God a “person” which helps me prove my point herewith. I am truly sorry to have to always confront your complete Bible ignorance! JESUS STATES THAT TRUE CHRISTIANS ARE HEBREW GODS AS WELL! Therefore, our traits as humans are equal to Jesus being God since we were created in the image of God, shown below, then my divine presence is equal to Jesus’ divine presence, therefore your position is comically moot, as usual. :( LOL
Sorry, old chap, Jesus never said that at all. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity. The bible clearly says there is one God. Not lots of Gods. But you should not confuse yourself with apples and oranges. There is the apple if you like, that there is one God. On the other hand, there is the orange of gods or other gods, such as baal or dagon or satan being the god of this world. There is one creator and true God - and then there are all others things which want to be god or things we want to be gods as such. Not that calling these latter things make them God in the sense of the One True God , but that humans put themselves into that position as the lord of their own lives. This was the problem in the garden of eden and it remains today. Adam wanted to be God - he wanted to be like God. He could not create the world obviously, but he wanted to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. That is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all about. He knew it wrong to eat from that tree. How could he know it was wrong unless he already knew the difference between right and wrong? The point is - he did not like that rule. He wanted to eat from the tree and he did not want to think that his decision was wrong. It is the same for us today. We dont like being told what is right and what is wrong by God. We want to decide for ourselves. This is why some of us study the bible to prove it wrong - to make it lose credibility in our eyes - because we in our own eyes have the ability to prove God and his words wrong. Duh!
Being made in the image of God does not mean that God has a human shape. Nor does it mean that humans have a god shape. It certainly does not mean that we are equal to God. It means simply that God made humanity and placed him as vice regents / stewards over the earth and the rest of creation. We are to represent God to the earth and likewise we to represent the earth to God. Clearly it placed him below God - but above the earth.
Jesus blatantly said that TRUE Christians like myself are Hebrew Gods as well: “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods, to whom the word of God came and Scripture cannot be set aside, what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:34-36)
I am always amused by the usage of this verse to support the notion that we are gods just like the One and True God. Yet Jesus was talking pretty much to persons as yourself - who denied that God could be person. The religious leaders in Jesus time had no concept of God being a person - and were offended that he called himself the Son of God. Mind you they were upset he called himself the Son of Man as well. Here Jesus says it is legitimate to call oneself a god - and to be god's son - so really the Jewish leaders were simply barking up the wrong tree. Yet this is not at all drawing the conclusion that Jesus is saying you are all Gods in the sense of the one True God. He is not saying that everyone can do miracles or that everyone can do what God does or that we can all assume the mantle and authority of God. That simply is a step that Jesus never talks about and is absurdly in contradiction to the rest of Scripture.
In simpler terms for you to maybe understand, when Jesus said “if Scripture outright called human beings gods, why are you upset when I merely stated that I am God’s Son in the verse in question?” Do you want to call Jesus a LIAR in this respect that we are Hebrew Gods as well? Huh?
Answered above.
Another direct passage telling the TRUE Christian like myself that we are Gods equal to Jesus: “Then God (Jesus) said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)
Answered above - again I dont deny that humans are made in the image of God. I deny that we should put human traits on God - and that is something you have not even addressed. All you continue to repeat is that humans are made in the image of God. But you don't explain what that means. You sort of suggest it means something but it is not clear exactly what.
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, HE MADE THEM IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD” (Genesis 5:1) Therefore we are created in Jesus’ “image and likeness” of being the Hebrew God, PRAISE!
Furthermore, since Jesus states that we can totally heal others if we ask this in prayer and believe, like He does as God, then we are most certainly Gods as well, praise! Jesus stated: “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matthew 21:22)
No Jesus does not say that. Read the whole verse- and in context - "in accordance with his Will". Besides it is always God who heals - even if we prayed - and especially since we do pray - we are asking GOD to heal the person - we are not healing anyone. The very notion of prayer is dependence on GOD because we cant do it ourselves.
On a sidetnote to biblical axioms, Jesus isn’t supposed to lie as God, which He does at times anyway, then if we’re created in Jesus’ likeness and image as God, then Jesus has a male penis, AND, he craps as well! 2+2=4. :(
Jesus probably did have male penis. I wonder what a female one looks like? Is there such a thing as female penis?
Yet being made in the likeness and image of God does not mean that we take on his shape. In fact the Bible says God is a spirit. And he does not have hands and arms like us- or a body like us. The Bible uses lots of metaphors referring to God - but being made in the image of God - I have explained above.
So far - you have come up with nothing new. Boring. Humanity is made in the image and likeness of God - and yet you still try and make it the other way around. You still try and look at man and say that is what God is like. That is not what the image means? If you had read your bible -you would have known this - God is a spirit. God is invisible.
Wow! your brain is warped.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I love my wife - and I detest pedophiles.”
You are to forgive pedophiles wholeheartedly and love them as well, and others that you detest, otherwise, are you stating that you know more than Jesus in the following passages? NOT! Your Bible ignorance truly amazes me. LOL
I have already explained this above. But will do quickly again because I doubt you took the time to read it above. I only have to forgive a pedophile when he repents of his sin. Loving them is not an issue because I define love as "fulfilling the commandments of the law". Love to me is not an emotional response. It is an action and obedience to God. Therefore I will not worship another God or ask the pedophile to worship another God. I will not murder a pedaphile or commit adultery or steal from a pedaphile. I will not envy him or his property. And I will forgive him if he repents of his sin. Yet, I will never him look after my children or someone else's children. And yes, i will call him to account - and place him before the laws of the court - All of these things are love as far as I am concerned. Do I detest pedaphiles? Yes. But I am talking about the generic use of the term, not necessarily individuals. What does detesting look like? It really is describing my view of people who break God's law. And in particular against children. So I am able to detest the sin of pedaphilia - and that is consistent with the Word of God.
“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” (Proverbs 10:12)
“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” (Matthew 11:25)
“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:14-15)
“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6: 14-15)
Yes, agree with all of those verses. This is exactly the reason you attend on this site and stir up strife. You hate God and you hate all of those who follow him. It is why you have thought of the worst and most vile way of characterizing Jesus. You hate him. And you hate the bible. It must be sad that the very God you don't believe in - you hate so much. How can you be so hateful about something you pretend you don't believe in? A pretense.
The second verse - tells us to go to people who have offended us and forgive them - again with the proviso - once they have repented. Similarly with the third verse - and the fourth verse. All confirm the exact same thing. That as God has reconciled his people to himself though Jesus and by trusting in Jesus, we are to be reconciled to each other by repenting and forgiving as well. In other words, Christians are all meant to have forgiving attitudes - which implies not being resentful to those who have offended to them - and yet also go to them and seek the other to repent - so that forgiveness and therefore reconciliation can properly take place. If the other person refuses to repent - then the Christian in love - can allow love to cover the sin - yet forgiveness itself has not taken place. This is the same with God - he forgives those who repent - and those who don't repent - will at the end receive their just outcomes.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13).
This cherry-picked verse is obviously what the sickening Catholic Pedophile Priests use, because there is no incentive not to bugger innocent and crying children. Get it ?
I am not convinced it is cherry picked - it is more misunderstood. What does it mean to call upon the Lord? I take it that it means to repent before the Lord. Repentance means - stop doing what you doing - and turn around - and start doing the right thing. If priests continue to bugger anyone - clearly not repentance because they don't stop and they don't turn around and they don't start doing the right thing.
“There is no law or principle that anyone - including God has to be loving towards all things all of the time.”
Yes, I referred to Jacob and Esau. You chose to cherry pick and omit those verses? Why? Oh yes, because you want to take things out of context and things which don't confirm your position you simply delete.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)
LOL! a couple of quick things here. Who is he talking to and about? What is love in the context? Firstly, he is saying to Christians, the beloved, we must love each other - like our Father in heaven who loved us so much he sent Jesus to die for us sacrificially on our behalf - we should do the same. We should love sacrificially. If we cannot do this - then we demonstrate we dont know love. This is why Christians learn how to be reconciled properly, confession, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation. It is a process - not just one thing pulled out of context. God is love - he is also holy - and just and righteous and merciful and many more. Being love does not mean he is not just or merciful. These are not things like a tap that you turn on or turn off. It is his character.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Great quote. Totally agree. It is a sign to the world around you that you belong to me - if you love one another. Christians do love each other. Sometimes not forgiving someone because they have not repented is a sign of love. For me not to forgive a pedaphile until he repents of his sin - is showing love. He might resent me for not forgiving me - but the fact is forgiveness can only occur because we want reconciliation to take place - and this means the offence must have been dealt with. So if a pedaphile chooses not to repent - then the offence still remains - reconciliation cannot take place. And I dont have to forgive. Yes, my attitude will be one of love - this means I will continue to bring his sin up to him - and continue to tell him to stop and continue to ensure that the proper authorities are watching him and holding him to account. If I dont do these things and just forvive him - I am not loving him and especially not loving any child he further abuses.
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:8)
I love this verse - - notice how it helps to define love - as one who fulfills the law. I love others by fulfilling the law - by obeying the laws of God - his commandments. See it is an action - not just an emotional response.
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
“And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39)
As I have said - love is a wholly Christian concept - as defined in the agape understanding. It is to obey the commands of God - this is how we love God - and the second is like it - loving our neighbor. We love God by obeying God's commandments - and we love our neighbor by obeying God's commandments. In fact - if we don't obey God's commandments then we are hating God and hating our neighbor.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“BDT - I have read your mischaracterization of Jesus before. That is your opinion. Good for you. Yet, I don't see a question in it.”
God damn it, Jesus came through once again in prayer that I initiated yesterday, when He woke me up at 3am to tell me that the biblically ignorant Tradesecret was going to use the old tired out ruse of mischaracterization of Him to RUN AWAY once again from His true MO within the scriptures! Way to go Jesus in you being omniscient again, praise!
No need to respond to drivel.
Tradesecret, you said you read the Bible, but when you take the position that you are doing now, in that I mischaracterized Jesus’s brutal and disgusting modus operandi, you obviously LIED and didn’t read the Bible showing Him to be exactly what I stated below:
I repeat you have mischaracterized Jesus - and despite your repeated assertions that it is true - does not make it so. Nor does adding attacks about my character make it so.
"Within the scriptures, Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent. Also, our Jesus was an abortionist which leaves a lot of embarrassment if we picket Family Planning Clinics, do you get our hypocrisy if we do?"
I will leave this in because this is your burden to prove and also exposes your shame -
“For God to continue to be loving and forgiving does not mean that he cannot also be holy and just - sentencing everyone else who does not trust Jesus into Hell. In other words, the two things are not mutually exclusive. “
It is a great quote - thanks for quoting me.
JESUS STATED: “But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:15) Therefore to you, Jesus can bypass this command even though we are to follow it? Okay, then the least of which, our Jesus then turns into a blatant SERIAL KILLER when murdering His creation in the many ways that He has done within the scriptures. There is absolutely no logical and rational way to explain away this actual MO fact, period!!! :(
Yes, Jesus did state that - but he also explained in Luke 17:3-4 that for forgiveness to take place, that the offender needs to repent. Hence, if someone does not repent, there is no obligation to forgive. Again this is what John 3:16 says which you conveniently have omitted (what are you scared about) that those who trust in Jesus are forgiven and receive eternal life - whereas those who don't repent - go to perish in their sins. Therefore dear Brother DT - since we are to forgive in the same way as Jesus - which is to bring people to repentance - then my quote above is entirely consistent and accurate. Jesus does not bypass this command - he models it perfectly. This is perfectly logical.
As just one example of many of Jesus' relentless murdering sprees within the Bible, as the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, then how do we promote Jesus to others knowing that He, within His Great Flood scenario, induced terrible abortions by killing TOTALLY INNOCENT zygotes and fetus’ within the wombs by drowning pregnant mothers? Furthermore, just think of the TOTALLY INNOCENT babies and children above the water drowning a horrible death by hopelessly treading water for hours crying out to their mothers in horror!
Wow! There is so much anger and hatred within your words. Jesus never murdered anyone. In fact as I recall he was the one stopped others from murdering one particular lady when he turned to them and said - "you who is without sin, cast the first stone". At which point they all slinked away. This is not the character of someone who murders innocents. Yet if you did know your bible - which you keep saying you have read, then you would know that Adam and Eve rejected God and his good ways and as such we thrown out of the garden. The earth then became as it were a DEATH ROW prison for Adam and Eve and all their children, each and every one of them who preferred Adam rather than God. From God's perspective - and mine too, the world cannot cry out "we are all innocents here". The fact is - we are all guilty. There are NO innocents., not even the little zygotes or fetus or baby. Every human is on death row. That is the biblical picture - if you had read your bible, you would know this - yet you always seem to omit what the bible says about the state of humanity. I wonder why?
What is more is that by the time that Noah arrived on the scene - God looked down at the earth and he saw that the evil in the world had simply increased over time. Only Noah found grace in his eyes - because only Noah sought to listen to God and his ways - Genesis 7:5-6. God decided to destroy the world and everything in it. And Brother - because God made the world and everything in it - it belonged to him. As his rightful property - he could do whatever he wanted to with it. This is right and just and perfectly fair. He could have wiped them out in the beginning - but because he was super fair - he graciously allowed them time to change. But change for the better they did not. They became worse and doubled down in their evilness. (Interestingly, even in our modern culture, if we saw a group of people just get worse and worse and more evil than ever, we would expect our governments to step in and eradicate them somehow - so to suggest God should not do this is hypocritical) But more than this - it was perfectly just to wipe out the entire world - for the world of humans knew they were thumbing their noses at God - daring him to destroy them. I suspect many of them were just like you - disbelieving and skeptical - so for God to destroy them was probably even in response to their dares. I wonder how many times you have dared God to strike you down. And when he does in judgment are you going to complain and say "that is not fair, I am innocent".
While these TOTALLY INNOCENT babies and children were drowning above the ocean, think of their muscles burning due to large amounts of lactic acid production. Once they finally gave up, they went under into the depths of the ocean, and held their little breaths as acidic carbon dioxide eroded their lungs until the unbearable pain forced them to inhale where there was no air for them to breathe. Where subsequently, they died a horrible and painful death. What is worse for me, is the biblical axiom that Jesus was watching them drown this painful and horrific death (Proverbs 15:3), and this is supposed to be "Loving" to your way of thinking?! Surely you jest!
Actually, I don't know what Jesus was thinking as people drowned in the floodwaters. What does a judge think when he sentences someone to death in our legal systems? Do you think he is sitting there thinking hateful thoughts? Or do you think he might be thinking about the victims this person had killed or robbed? Or is he thinking about this poor person's family who will miss him? Perhaps all of these things might have been in the mind of Jesus. But just because people suffer horribly - does not mean Jesus is not acting lovingly. When a judge sentences someone to die - I still think he is actingy lovingly, to the community left behind, to the state he is representing, to every other potential victim of this person. And in some ways even to the person who will be executed. After all, is it loving to just let the man go on living knowing he has done such horrible things and may well do them again. In a sense he is actually being protected. Yet, you are not talking about murderers - you are talking about the babies - those you claim are innocents.
Well let me ask you this question: is it better for them to grow up in an evil house of pedophiles or to go and spend eternity with God in heaven? And the answer is obvious - but even that is not what you are getting at. You are talking about the suffering - the struggles as they die - drowning in that water - calling out to their mothers. That seems to be your greatest struggle here - you think that is more cruel than allowing them to remain in their families where they will probably be killed by others - or sold as sex slaves or cut into pieces and eaten, or go on and do this to others - living in the same cycle of evil over and over again. And you know - this might be hard to reconcile if we were comparing apples with apples - but we are not. You are comparing apples with oranges and suggesting that they are both apples. Well it is not. And the fact that you are getting upset with God because he chose to bring evil to an end on this world - speaks volumes of you - not of God. How you can sit on your chair and say - God is evil because he brought evil to an end. Judgment is always horrible. There is no such thing as a good judgment for the guilty. The wonderful part of the story - you miss - that God chose to save some people and some animals from this destruction. Even these people did not deserve to live - for the same reasons as everyone else was sentenced to death. You miss the grace because you want to prove that God is a monster. I honestly feel sorry for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It is a great question.
Funny, I wonder how many people say they have read shakespeare? Gee I studied Hamlet at school - spent an entire year in year 12 - ended up getting a High Distinction on it. Then at Uni I studied it again - again with very high marks. But you know what? I could not tell you much about it now - save and except it has some wonderful lines in it - and seemed to be about a man trying to figure out whether he should kill himself or not. I cant tell you anything else about it. But I read it - I studied it several times and knew it at the time enough to obtain a very high score - proving to my teacher and lecturers that I knew it. And I could say this with confidence about most books I read. Have I read them? Surely I have.
Is the bible a book that most Christians have read? I would say yes. Even the ones who probably only got dunked with water as a kid and never have darkened the halls of the church building again. But the better question is - do they study it? And this is probably where things start to diverge.
Most - if not all Christians - and most others who are not Christians including Atheists and believers in other religions - probably read it as I mentioned in the first paragraph - but then there are others who do read - and constantly read and study it - I suspect persons such as Brother D and Steven fall into this category. Yet Christians don't generally study it in order to refute it. Christians study it in order to apply it to their lives. And there is a significant difference here.
What is your purpose for reading the Bible? Now Brother D and others do not actually read the Bible in the same way as I do or most Christians do. They don't have a clue about this type of reading. They are reading - to satisfy their intellectual selves - they want to be able to refute and define and demonstrate that the bible is not infallible or it contradicts itself or that the god within its pages is a monster. That is there intent and so that is what they always find. They are simply feeding their own beast. So when they find verses which prove their case - they throw them at Christians - who are reading it a completely different way and try to bamboozle them. And sometimes it works - although mostly it just pushes the Christian to understand the bible deeper in order to see how it applies to their lives.
The question of slavery and genocide are a couple of these things. I never even think about NOT reading these verses. For me - they are difficult to read and understand and apply when I live in a culture which finds these things reprehensible and evil. Yet, I am not reading the bible to prove it wrong. I am reading the bible to see how God wants me to live and to apply it to my life. I try and understand what the verses mean it its original context - and try and figure out how they were meant to apply it to their lives in that context - and try and understand the basic principles that are being enunciated - and then try and apply those principles to my life - if they are relevant to me.
Obviously it has to be relevant - for instance the 6th commandment - says do not murder. I can apply that to my life. I don't murder people. Yet, I know the bible says a lot about murder - and has explanations of what murder is - and of defenses to it. It describes murder as taking another human life without permission or authority. It describes what life is for us to understand - when it begins and when it ends. The Bible also provides pictures of people who have murdered others - and the punishments they ought to be given. Are there times when killing is necessary? For instance in war, in protecting one's own life or property, or the one's you love? Do governments have authority have authority to kill persons for particular crimes? But what is the essence of murder? Why is it wrong? The Bible seems to indicate that murder is wrong primarily because man has been made in the image of God - and that to strike down a man is essentially an attempt to strike down God. And even this gives us pause for thought - as we try and apply it our lives. It explains for instance what Jesus was on about in Matthew in his sermon on the mount message about murder and linking it to hitting people or even to calling them names. When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God. And God values his reputation and his own honor even if we don't. The substance of the law - or as I call it the principle begins to make sense.
Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.
The Christian however does not open the bible and say - this is what happened then - so this is how we live today. Christians tend to use a thing called hermenuitics - a method of understanding the bible. People who think come to the bible to refute it - don't use well known hermenuitics. They just read it however they like - and cherry pick things - often accusing others of doing the same thing. They read it from the lens of their own culture - and then try and reduce the entire history of the world and the bible to a standard that is impossible. Which is one reason why they fail so miserably when trying to convince Christians of their views. They miss the whole entire point.
When people's agendas for reading the bible are at cross -purposes - it stands to reason that one person is going to accuse the other person of not reading the bible. Yet it is mostly untrue - I make a habit of reading the NT twice every year and the OT once. I have been doing this for close on 40 years. Yet I still find things - often actually see things I had not seen before or which have become highlighted for me. what I can say is that - the bible has never disgusted me - it has never turned me off God - and only ever makes me realise how grateful I am that God has saved me.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
In the link below, the Catholic Church once again slaps Jesus in the face relative to His inspired words within the scriptures! Whats new? NOTHING!
LOL! - No he does not. He has appointed 6 women to positions within the Vatican council on the economy. There is nothing in the link about slapping Jesus. And there is nothing that is contrary to the Bible.
Within the link above, the Hell bound Pope Francis has placed even more 2nd class women into positions of the church that have leadership over man, therefore, how ungodly can the Pope get? "Pope Francis ... has affirmed that the Catholic Church needs more women in leadership positions. In the Vatican and the Roman Curia, he is gradually preparing the ground," Vatican News said in 2019.”
Is the Pope going to Hell? Big call, based on what? 2nd class women? As opposed to 1st class women? You don't really explain yourself. Why are these women 2nd class women? Who is a first class woman? I assume you actually mean 2nd class humans as opposed to women. You are a bit clumsy with your words old man. Still, the gist of your "pain" seems to be that the ungodly pope made an ungodly decision. I assume you are being ironic - because it makes sense that an ungodly - hellbound pope - would make an ungodly decision. I can only imagine your outrage if the ungodly pope made a godly decision! Yet, here your suggestion is that the pope appointing women to positions within the church is ungodly. I cannot imagine where in the bible you come up with such a farcical idea. The Bible is full of women in leadership positions. Think of the judge Deborah in the book of Judges. Think of Esther in Esther. Think of the mother of Jesus at the Wedding in Cana. Think of Phoebe in the church at Philippi. Think of Euodia and Syntyche in the same church. Many women were involved in the leadership of the church - gee just go to the epistle of Timothy - it even gives a run down of criteria for deaconesses- specific women in the church who are leaders in the church. So your view that appointing women to positions of leadership in the church being ungodly is unfounded and incorrect.
Obviously Pope Francis has literally forgotten about what our serial killing Jesus stated regarding the 2nd class woman, in that they are to be subject to man, and that if it is good enough for women not to teach man in church, then it is not biblically correct to not teach man away from church, to wit:
LOL! It would be good to hear what the pope had heard in the first place about second class women - as opposed to first class women. It would be nice if the BrotherDThomas could enlighten the less able of us what he specifically means. Does he mean that a first class woman is not subject to man. Well how does he know what kind of women the pope appointed. Perhaps he appointed the first class type? Yet I jest, obviously the class clown Brother DThomas has got his words a bit mixed up and means second class humans, namely women, should be subject to man. And I suspect the Brother is using "man" here not generically as in all humanity - but as male. I do wish he would be more clear with his language. Still, his leap of logic in the next step is nothing short of an Olympic effort - to go from woman not teaching in the church to not teaching away from church - is breathtaking. I wonder if thinks this means that there should be no female school teachers who teach any male students? Or is this ok because the students are not adults? Or what about in an atheistic university? Or female politicians? The Bible never makes this leap of logic. Hence why Deborah could be a judge -and why females play such a prominent part in the biblical narratives.
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12)“ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and that the head of the woman in man.” For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 )
Each of these verses are beautiful and ought to be taught in the church and Christian families. The first directly talks about marriage. Note it does not say woman should be subject to someone else's husband - only to your own. It also indicates in the context that husbands must love their wives - and be prepared to lay down their lives sacrificially to the death for their wife - as the church is to Christ. It always amuses me when people forget that verse. Interestingly, there is no command for the woman to love her husband.
The second verse relates specifically to a service in a synagogue. The silence is not absolute either - for woman are commanded to sing - obviously not silent - and to pray - again - obviously not silent. Woman are also told to teach the younger woman. The point is that in the Jewish synagogue - there was two floors. Down the bottom was the place men assembled and on the second floor - the woman and their children assembled. The speaker was in the midst of the men on the bottom floor. What often occurred is the speaker would speak - and the people on the second floor could not hear - so they wives would call down to their husbands and ask what what said - or to explain what had happened. This obviously disrupted the meeting. Hence the pragmatic rule was made - wives stop calling out - be silent in this situation - if you did not hear - go home and ask your husband.
The third verse was in context talking about Christ's place in the church and Paul was using the family as a model to explain this. Christ is the head of the man. Man is the head of the woman. Why is it that no one ever gets grumpy about the fact that the head of man - is Christ? The husband is to obey Christ in all things. This is what it means. That the man is ruled by Jesus and his word. So for the female or wife to be subject to the husband - means only that she is subject to him who is subject to Jesus. That is its meaning - it is not suggesting that the man is better than the woman or that Jesus is better than the man - it is really saying that if you want to be a Christian - these are the rules - and Jesus is the boss - and everyone is subject to him. Of course Paul also refers to Genesis and the order in which man and woman came into existence in the world - woman from man not man from woman. An order had to be made - there is always a hierarchy. It is never a matter of hierarchy or no hierarchy - but always - what hierarchy? in our society, we have the state over the individual. This is a hierarchy. hierarchies are inescapable.
Most importantly, Pope Francis forgot about how he is to feel towards the woman in the first place, and that is adamantly shown in the inspired words of Jesus in the following passage:
What a weird thing to say? The pope has forgotten how he is to feel towards the woman????? Whatever does that very vague statement even mean?
“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)
The quote from Ecclesiates is not talking about employing people in places of position. It is entirely different context - probably talking about whores and prostitutes seeking to seduce men away from what is best for them. It is an absurd thing to place into the context of this topic.
Jesus H. Christ, as if the Catholic Church wasn’t embarrassed enough over their child-buggering priests of innocent crying children as they were sexually abused, and the BILLIONS of money paid out for reparations towards this despicable and ungodly act, then you have Pope Francis giving 2nd class women positions over man that goes directly against Jesus’ true words! Whats next, allowing women into heaven that directly goes against the scriptures as well?
Blasphemy????? Surprise surprise. The Catholic church ought to be held accountable - indeed every church and organisation, religious or secular ought to be held accountable for the evil they have done towards children. there is no excuse for this vile behaviour and my view is that these people will all rot in Hell. Yet not everyone in the Catholic church or in secular educational facilities is evil in the same way. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Women do go to heaven. What nonsense to suggest the bible says otherwise. The bible has never made women second class citizens - it in fact was at the forefront of women's rights - as it was at the front of slave's rights. Any one who takes time to read history knows these things to be true. Brother DT you embarrass yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I wonder if you will ever get it right.
What you say here is old news. Boring news. People have asked the question before and moved on.
And you are correct - there is no particular need for me to post here - I too could just move on.
Yet, I do find it necessary to make some notes. Firstly, it is true that throughout the history of the church, there have been some who made predictions about the second coming of Jesus - and yes, they have all been wrong. As others have pointed out -the Bible itself states that no one knows the hour or the day, not even the Son - when he was on earth. So it stands to reason that everyone who makes such a prediction is going to be wrong - or if they are right - it was a fluke.
Secondly, there are many people who want to know when Jesus will return, and are looking for what they think are signs that will reveal his near coming. I have heard all sorts of things about this current pandemic being - a sign that Jesus is returning. Similar things occurred in the year 2000 - and in the year 1988. It is not a surprise that people do this - many people want to escape from the world we live in. And interestingly enough it is not just some parts of the church which focus on how bad the world is - and talk about its impending doom - it is apparent that many people in the secular and atheistic world want to escape as well. Think of the environmental movement - it is always talking about how the world is getting worse and worse - they like to put dates on the end of the world as well. Or think about those worried about world peace or world war - gee even the UN puts up a clock - which tells us we just a moment away from midnight. The communists - are always talking about setting up a situation for bringing in their economic and political society.
Thirdly, there are many parts of the church who do not think we are in the end of the world - and in fact are still in the early days of the church. They take the view that while some call today a post church society - they see it as a pre church society. That the church is still like a petulant teenager - not yet ready to be received by the bridegroom.
Fourthly, I noticed you don't mind using references from people who are not Christian as the bible describes Christian - even if society today does in some form or the other. I would suggest that even the World Council of Churches - do not include either the Mormons or the JWs as part of the Christian Church. And the World Council of Churches - has a very broad definition of Christian, much broader than the Bible. I am quite content to see each of these two groups disassociated from the church and Christianity as the Bible teaches. The reason I raise this is because there are enough people in the traditional church who have picked dates and got it wrong without bringing in cults and others persons to make a point. In fact - by quoting JWs and Mormons and those outside the church - you actually confirm to people who disagree with you - that you are speaking nonsense.
If you want to be persuasive - you need to know your audience. If your point is simply to preach to the converted - then keep doing what you are doing. When you refer to people outside of the church and then try and argue that they really belong inside the church - you lose anyone who might have thought there was something to what you were saying.
As for the topic itself - I make the same arguments on almost a daily basis - against the main groups which teach this - those from the premill and dispensational and cult groups. They are all based theologically in a particular eschatological framework where they almost feel a necessity to pick dates - thankfully, however, many people are moving away from these positions as they start to read the bible. The bible clearly has a different point of view - but such groups know that these sorts of things - are attractive to people - who want secret information - that the rest of society does not have.
Join the club I say -
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR WANTING POST: "What is left? "
Well, I can see you're having a hard time with my words towards you, where they are FACT, whereas yours are childlike and truly demeaning. Obviously you don't know the difference, and why am I not surprised?
Another entity that is left is the fact that you are STILL RUNNING AWAY from my factual MO of our Jesus the Christ? Why? Here, let me give it to you once again because of your continued oversight of this topic is now counted at 3 RUNAWAYS, okay? Ready?
Within the scriptures, Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent. Also, our Jesus was an abortionist which leaves a lot of embarrassment if we picket Family Planning Clinics, do you get our hypocrisy if we do?
BDT - I have read your mischaracterization of Jesus before. That is your opinion. Good for you. Yet, I don't see a question in it.
Since the above MO of our Jesus is biblically true, can we still call Him all loving and forgiving? Yes or no?
Well, what do you know, a question. I reject your first premise, since you have only asserted such things about Jesus, not proved it. And the burden of proof is on you to substantiate such lies. So, I am not bound to address the question you put. In fact - all I have to do is reply to your assertion with my own. Which is simple to do. Yes. Jesus is loving and he is forgiving. In fact I could even throw one verse in - John 3:16 which states God loved the world. Hence if any verse is to be accounted as correct- then this is one which directly and expressly states that God loves the world. And lo and behold - as we keep reading that verse - it also shows that God is forgiving. After all - it clearly expresses that everyone who trusts in Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life. The very fact that it says - those who trust in Jesus will not perish - is evidence of his forgiveness. Why else would it be put there? And that they now receive life - is more evidence of God's wonderful grace. So the answer to your question which stands alone and apart from any premises that you have asserted - is yes, God is still loving and forgiving.
Now to follow on with this - firstly, your question and premise is a little like the old lawyer conjob - have you stopped beating your wife yet? It assumes much in it - none of which has been established.
Secondly, For God to continue to be loving and forgiving does not mean that he cannot also be holy and just - sentencing everyone else who does not trust Jesus into Hell. In other words, the two things are not mutually exclusive. He loved Jacob and he hated Esau. He can still be loving towards Jacob while hating Esau. The fact that he hates Esau does not stop him from loving. I love my wife - and I detest pedophiles. The two things are not mutually exclusive. There is no law or principle that anyone - including God has to be loving towards all things all of the time. That is just a nonsense statement - like your premise about Jesus.
I also find it interesting that you continue to put human traits onto a divine person. Doesn't the inconsistency of this even bother you a little bit? God is not human. God is not subject to the same classifications as humanity. Nor is he subject to laws of humanity. To call God any of the things you have raised in what you label his MO - is to bring God down to the level of humanity. Another reason - why it is such a hypocritical act of yourself to pretend to be a believer. The fact is - you don't have a clue.
WAIT, this can be our next topic, where I hope you don't RUNAWAY once again in front of the membership, okay? Remember, not only is the membership watching you now in this request, Jesus is too! (Hebrews 4:13)
Let me know when you are ready, Jesus and I will be waiting.
You obviously have a little perspective of Jesus - that you think he is waiting just for me. Your God is too small. My God will eat your made in the image of BrotherDThomas pseudo Jesus for breakfast. He will do him - if he cares - what he did to Dagon in Dagon's own temple.
My prayer to Jesus: Dear Lord, as we've seen before, the totally biblically ignorant Tradesecret continues to run away from your TRUE inspired word relating to your brutal and horrific modus operandi. Therefore, I can only wonder in what lame and childish excuse he will use to runaway once again. Since you are omniscient (1 John 3:20), you know in how Tradesecret will runaway from discussing your despicable MO, therefore, can you tell me how he will perform this cowardly act? Thanking you in advance, praise!
I take the view that your pseudo Jesus, like you, because he is made in your image, is toothless - powerless, boring - and probably guilty of everything you have asserted. I also spit in his face. I dare him - as I dare you - strike me down dead - as his MO so promotes that he does. And if he can't or if you make excuses why he is away - I will assume like the Philistinian god, of Baal, that he is on a toilet break - or throwing up into the toilet because he could not hold down his curds and weigh.
Oh yes, as always, I remain - not running away.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
At the end this is all that is left: your quotes without the attacks.
Lets bring forth your ad hominen attacks upon the Brother D., shall we?Your behavior shown above is undermin[ing] my biblical axioms. Therefore, you bring forth ad hominem attacks to the Brother D to cast doubt to discredit me.TRADESECRET; PLEASE, I NEED YOU ON THIS FORUM TO SHOW OTHERS IN WHAT A TRUE CHRISTIAN LOOKS AND ACTS LIKE, OKAY? I DO NOT WANT YOU BANNED, THEREFORE REREAD THE ETIQUETTE EXPECTATIONS AND THE COC THAT MODERATOR RAGNAR AND OTHERS HAS SET FORTH RELATIVE TO YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.YOUR QUOTE: “Oh by the way - it is not your topic - you don't get to dismiss me.”YOUR QUOTE: “Sometimes it is important to crawl first before you walk.”YOUR QUOTE : “I am amused that I have even responded to you.”DUH! How many passages do I need to pile up for you in showing this fact?YOUR QUOTE: “Hence why Paul the apostle and God the Trinity rejects the words that spew out of your mouth”In a nutshell, here are the words that I have given you that are explicit facts about our Jesus. As a TRUE Christian, I have had to accept the following biblical facts about Jesus, because who am I to rewrite the Bible for these facts to be removed?!Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent.This is disregarding the FACT.“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19)“And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17).
As you can - there is nothing to address - because you have said nothing.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi BrotherD,
thanks for the laugh and the extra dose of hypocrisy. If I were to remove every one of your ad hom attacks on me - there would be little left.
LOL! some examples for you: underlined for your attention.
Lets bring forth your losing and child-like behavior in your ad hominen attacks upon the Brother D., shall we?Your “Little Boy” behavior shown above is just “trying” to undermine my biblical axioms that I have brought forth in your miserable behalf, because you cannot address them, but to only hide from them. Therefore, to take this embarrassing fact away of yours, you bring forth ad hominem attacks to the Brother D to cast doubt to discredit me in taking the limelight off of you running away from Jesus’ TRUE words. I am not surprised that you use this old ruse that is so revealing of your assumed intellect.TRADESECRET; PLEASE, I NEED YOU ON THIS FORUM TO SHOW OTHERS IN WHAT A TRUE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LOOKS AND ACTS LIKE, OKAY? I DO NOT WANT YOU BANNED, THEREFORE REREAD THE ETIQUETTE EXPECTATIONS AND THE COC THAT MODERATOR RAGNAR AND OTHERS HAS SET FORTH RELATIVE TO YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. YOU CAN THANK ME LATER.YOUR LAUGHABLE QUOTE: “Oh by the way - it is not your topic - you don't get to dismiss me.”At times I truly feel sorry for Jesus’ creation like you whose deplorable biblical ignorance is without bounds. Therefore, I try and help them to not continually step in the proverbial poo, like you have done, by giving them a hint to not continue in this vein, therefore I dismiss them so they hopefully get the hint of not returning to the discussion. But, what do you do? Yes, you come back again with another vain attempt to right yourself towards my godly claims that you are no more a TRUE Christian than the equally dumbfounded of the Bible, ethang5. I was dismissing you from our discussion, irrelative to the topic, therefore I would suggest that you take a Reading Comprehension Class posts haste to rectify your ignorance of the English language in the comprehension thereof, understood?YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: “Sometimes it is important to crawl first before you walk.”Truthfully, you’re not even out of the crib yet to be able to crawl in the first place! Your demeaning character towards Jesus proves this fact continually by not following said passages inspired by Jesus! Laughable once again at your expense, thanks again.YOUR QUOTE MAKING YOURSELF THE CONTINUED BIBLICAL FOOL: “I am amused that I have even responded to you.”DUH! I am “amused” that you continue to respond to me as well, especially since I gave you a way out by dismissing you, and this is because of the FACT that I am easily making you the continued biblical fool by you blatantly discarding Jesus’ inspired words. How many passages do I need to pile up for you in showing this fact?YOUR DOWNFALL QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: “Hence why Paul the apostle and God the Trinity rejects the words that spew out of your mouth”In a nutshell, here are the words that I have given you that are explicit facts about our Jesus that you continue to run away from and hide. As a TRUE Christian, I have had to accept the following biblical facts about Jesus, because who am I to rewrite the Bible for these facts to be removed?!Jesus is a blatant serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, He is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent.This is disregarding the FACT that you continue to slap Jesus in the face by not following His inspired word in the passages shown below in my discussion towards your biblical ignorance with an Agnostic:“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19)
“And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17).Tradesecret, you are so laughably predictable, Jesus and I can't wait for your next post where you will continue to slap Him in the face once again, and where I will easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in return! LOL!
What is left?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ok - it seems you have forgotten to take your medication. Please be a good boy and go and take it before you come back to the discussion for grownups.
Oh by the way - it is not your topic - you don't get to dismiss me. Dismissing people is a sign of fear not of authority. It speaks of someone who is afraid to address the real issues - it is cowardly behaviour.
I am not embarrassed to speak about Jesus. He is my king and my God. This topic was not about Jesus. It was about arguments for the existence of god. True Jesus is my God - but the topic was not about my God - it was about arguments for the existence of God. Sometimes it is important to crawl first before you walk. I might have started with Jesus - but I did not - since the topic did not ask for it. I could care less what your interpretation of the topic is - I responded to the topic poster - and they have a right to ask me further questions in relation to it. You don't. Or if you do have any right - it is for clarification not for nitpicking based around your own heresies.
I am amused that I have even responded to you. Again I reiterate for your benefit - this topic was not about Jesus - even though technically speaking it is about god. It certainly was an option you could have taken if you wanted to prove Jesus as God existed. Yet, it was not mandatory as part of the question for everyone - including those who do believe Jesus is God. I must say then that it is telling that you did not prove the existence of Jesus. You as always and quite predictable simply asserted the truth without proof. Hence why Paul the apostle and God the Trinity rejects the words that spew out of your mouth - Paul told the believers to give a reason for the hope that they have. To show themselves worthy of the calling that they have - to be like the Bereans studying the words of God. God and the Bible never just assert things - there is in general - a tendency to give a reason and explanation why such a thing is so.
You on the other hand - forget the reasons - forget the proofs - (quoting a text is not a proof it is lazy) and simply assert. Hence why you are arguing the case for something you do not believe in - and are doing it in such an obviously insulting and derogatory manner. I suggest you go into the kitchen - get out that little white container with your name on it - and open it up and take those little pills that you have been prescribed by your mental health practitioner. Perhaps this time - they might even let you out of that little white jacket so you can do it all by yourself. Who knows? Perhaps you could be nice and ask them to undo the white straps.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
One wonders whether you have forgotten to take your medication. You certainly do not have the sense of a sane person when you respond in the way that you do. You have no love for Jesus so stop pretending that you do.
I did not refer to Jesus - because the topic did not call for me to talk about Jesus. It asked a question, I responded and did so in the terms of the topic. On the other hand, I did not respond in the way that you wanted me to, so you get cranky and all tied up in knots. This is why you go round in circles repeating yourself. I don't have any desire to go over and over points that you DONT have the capacity to understand. I am not going to waste my time.
The question DID not call for a responder to argue for the existence of a particular god or to define who that god might be. Hence - ergo I did not attempt to do so.
If you were to respond to the question yourself - rather than JUDGING all others - who provide much better responses than you do - then perhaps you might actually contribute. But simply going through other's comments and picking faults is no better than the creationist scientist who trolls through evolutionary magazines in order to score an occasional point. You start with the premise that you have nothing worth saying and simply prove it over and over again. BORING!
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
LOL!
Wow! You have really made so much sense now - so persuasive in your commentary - how could I have been so blind? Oh master of the bible and corrector of all those who mistake you for a half sucked tictac.
Why don't you pull your pants up and give your mouth a go?
Seriously! Do you think your commentary is helpful or going to actually assist. I made a comment about the philosophy of agnosticism. I merely took their logic and applied it to itself - to demonstrate PERSUASIVELY that it was internally inconsistent. You never denied this by the way. You did not refute it. Such an internally inconsistent philosophical statement is proof - that God exists. I am not saying it is a good one or not. I am not saying it proves who God is or defines what God is. All I said was it proves the existence of God. In fact I recall I actually said it does not prove that God is not a pimple on my backside.
But the far bigger question and one I did not address because the topic of this question was not about proving which God exists or who God is - who is God? Yet, this topic is not about who is God - it is about what is your favourite argument for the existence of God. I answered that - I gave my favourite one. I never said it was my best one and I never said it would persuade anyone else. You should learn how to read - rather than blazing in with two guns about something you have no clue about.
I have no respect for you - since you lie all of the time. Whatever you say - I disregard like I do with people such as Harikrish. Neither of you are Christians. You might have read "parts" of the bible - but you have never read the bible. You don't even know how to read properly. You certainly do not have an understanding of its culture, its language, its genre nor its saving power. For you it is a game - a pathetic one at that. Since you don't believe it anyway - you mock it and anyone who does believe it. This makes you like a very cruel and dangerous person.
I pray for you - by the way- it does seem that God is telling me no at the moment. I hope against hope that God will appoint you for his kingdom - but that will take a work of God - not my words. Yet, he saved Paul, so I am confident that he can save anyone. If Paul was the chief of sinners - that puts everyone including you at a slightly less advantage. And that works for me.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Honestly,
the fact that you continue to run this parody is sad and pathetic.
The OP asked a question - I answered it.
Your commentary was unhelpful and as always "your own opinion piece".
One of the reasons I don't come back here often and respond is because of people such as yourself.
I don't take kindly to the continual abuse and insults and don't have to put up with it. So I don't. Unlike you, I don't have to win every argument. Although to be transparent I don't think you have actually won an argument. I certainly never feel the need to respond to most of your diatribe because (honestly) you don't actually put up an argument - and even on the odd occasion you might make a point, it usually lacks any meat. I notice the way you make most of your points is by way of your interpretation of other's positions and commenting on it. If they point out you misunderstood - rather than trying to understand you simply berate them for flipping. It really makes it pointless having a discussion with you - since you are never interested in discussing - just telling. I found Harikrish pointless to discuss things with - he is your soul mate.
So since things don't really look like they have picked up around here - I guess I might have to be a little more patient.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
It is a philosophical argument based upon the agnostic's basis of belief or non-belief. The agnostic affirms that he or she does not whether God exists or not - and that there is no rational or reasonable way of determining whether or not God exists.
I find this an amusing argument because it is a self contradictory statement which if true proves the opposite of what it alleges: namely that God does exist.
In other words, for the agnostic to rationally believe that there is nothing that can be known about God is true - he or she must start with a premise that they do know something about God, and that something is that nothing can be known. And if they do know this - how do they know ? And if they do know - then logically they have started with a premise that is actually a self contradictory premise within their argument.
I like this argument because it is a clear evidence for the existence of God based upon a philosophical position. What are the flaws? Well - obviously, since it is a philosophical argument - and it is - it only is going to be worth something for those who are agnostics or theists. Secondly, it does not prove what or which god or gods - only that a god exists - which might well be a pimple on my backside for God or gods can be anything.
Interestingly, agnostic I have discussed this with - typically become atheists once I have exposed their self contradictory reasoning. I think this is preferable to being an agnostic. You see agnostics - live inconsistently with their beliefs. After all if someone did not know whether God existed or not - it would impact upon their lives - but the fact is - most agnostics I have met - live like atheists. Hence - at least once their flaw is discovered they can live more consistent with their views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Now I am very confused. In my post about cherry-picking verses, you went through great effort to try to persuade me that (as a summary) there really is only one true view, that all Christians believed in. I gave a detailed response (#38), that you ignored. Why are you ignoring me?
I am not ignoring you. How am I ignoring you? I am not sure that I said there is only one true view that Christians believed in. I take the view that Christians believe a great variety of things. Yet they also believe primarily the same thing in relation to why they are Christians. Christians believe Jesus is God. They believe he is the second person of the Trinity. They believe he truly lived and truly died and truly rose from the dead. His death secured their salvation by atoning for their sins. This is demonstrated by faith.
However, Christians also hold to a variety of views on baptism, communion, church government, church worship / music, abortion, marriage, divorce, etc.
So I will summarize the most applicable point to this topic. Above you state that multiple denominations are a good thing. Yet you stated in the other post that on must understand "this hermeneutic".Here is the logic of what you said --Understand this hermeneutic. -- IF FALSE "you take OT one way."IF TRUE then "the OT is not done away but rather fulfilled in Christ."AND/OR IF TRUE then you believe "It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law."You are tying the hermeneutic to a "rule of thumb". Not a belief, or a perspective, but a rule. And so you can't support multiple denominations if you, on the one hand, believe that all must follow your one hermeneutic, and rule of thumb, yet in the other believe multiple people can have multiple interpretations.
I am not tying my principle to a rule of thumb. It is a rule easily found in the book of Acts. It is the reason Christians are not asking for the sacrifices to be reinstated. I might have used the term rule of thumb, probably should not have, because you are focusing so much on it. If you disagree with my principle - then please provide another one that explains why no Christian is asking for the reinstatement of the sacrificial system since Jesus. Rule of thumb is also just another way of saying - this is the general principle - but there are exceptions to it. It is not saying - whatever you want to make it say.
The entire Christian system is understood by the Trinity. the one and the many. There are rules - and then there is variety within the rules. An example of this is given right back in the garden of Eden. God said - eat any of the fruit except from one tree. That is the rule or principle. Yet within the trees he can eat from is great variety -and the way he can eat them or cook them is as many as he can imagine. Eating fruit or not eating fruit is neither wrong nor right - yet eating from the one tree is wrong. rule - and variety within it. similarly - rule and exceptions are displayed as well. do not kill - except for self defence, defence of another, in times of war as soldier, as a judge ordering executions. similarly sex is good - do it and fill the earth - but be married - to a person of the opposite sex, and don't commit adultery, or bestiality, or sodomy (even with your own wife).
The OT laws are good in substance but they were also culturally relevant to the people written to in the first place. A law on slavery is irrelevant to me today. A law in relation to keeping oxen is irrelevant to me today. But we need to know why the law was written - what its purpose was for - how it relates to the time it was written to - how it fits into the history of the gospel - and how it might apply to me today.
You also stated "the hermeneutic approach of Christians will lead you along one stream of thought - and not applying the same one - will lead you elsewhere. "This is a singular approach. You are saying all Christians have the same hermeneutic approach, so how can there be thousands of denominations that are all "connected by something greater than a simple belief. "
Again I reject your myth of thousands of denominations. Prove it. I am not saying that every Christian believes the same thing about everything. I am saying that every Christian believes the same things about the things that really matter. After that, different cultural things kick in.
Can you reconcile why you are saying two very different things at the same time? Either all Christians have the same approach and same rule of thumb, or they all don't and are connected by "something greater". whatever that means.Perhaps you will ignore this post as well and just start a new forum topic somewhere else about another conflicting topic.I am a guy who has enough knowledge to ask questions, yet when I try to have a conversation I am showered in conflicting, illogic, absurdities, with a side order of ad hominem attacks.
I am not ignoring you - it just seems like you are asking the same question - and I am answering it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
You sayAll the different denominations agree on the things that matter -Then you sayMost denominations exist because of the secondary things not the primary things.Which is it, All or most?Who decides "the things the matter?"
the Christian religion - as understood by Christians unite on the essence of doctrine relating to Jesus Christ. To be a member of the Christian Church, your church doctrine must teach that Jesus is God. Now it is true that many persons within the church may not believe this - but when they sign up to be a member they declare they do.
The LDS and the JWs do not believe Jesus is God. Hence why they are labelled as cults and not part of the church by those within the church. A church does not need to believe that the bible is God's word to be a church. It does not need to believe that sprinkling or full submersion is the only form of baptism to be a church. Nor does it require the belief that communion contains the host or not. Each of those are secondary matters - just like the question of salvation always or losing salvation.
Yet it is the historic church which determines which are the essential or non-essential doctrines and it has done this by meeting at church councils with the bible as their source of revelation. And throughout history - despite there being many differences at times in opinion - consensus has been reached.
It is true that the West / East divided over a question in relation to a creed. not to point of scripture. the creed was added to by the West which led to the East declaring the West heretical. Yet this division was mostly over "who is the boss"? did the Roman bishop have superiority over the other bishops or not? It really was not to do with whether the Roman bishop was right or not. It was over who was the boss? Interestingly, I agree with the East in relation to who is the boss and I agree with the West in their understanding of the doctrine. Yet the East at that time was still - all bishops were equal - whereas the Roman bishop had deviated to pontiff. The other extraordinary thing at this particular council was that Constantine the Emperor was usurping the right of the church to be free from the state by imposing his own authority over and above the clergy in the church. Interestingly, I agree with the result in relation to teaching - yet, the end did not justify the means of making it happen. Both Constantine and the West caused a division within the church by means of illegitimate authority and possibly for good reasons - keeping the empire united against the coming hordes.
While humans live in this world, they will make mistakes - including the church. Yet, the denominations enable great diversity amongst a common unity of belief. We don't see Christians leaving the church because they disagree with the doctrines in another denomination which would be the result if your conclusions were correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
it is to do with culture - the way we worship - and how our culture impacts upon us and the way we worship.Actually, I think you have it backwards.lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi - the way you pray, is the way you believe, is the way you live. Culture is downstream of the way you pray, not the other way around. All you've shown is that the there is an error in the way Americans live.
That is an opinion. The latin word Cultis - from which the word culture is derived means to worship. Multi-cultural really is polytheistic theology. Nevertheless, my point stands that denominations are a reflection of culture not the other way around. Denominations are not a reflection of theology or difference of theology. Denominations did not arise until when? Until the Reformation - which itself arose due to the renaissance. Prior to that time there was one religion - called Christianity even if it was divided into several different camps. The orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the far Eastern churches, the Anglican church (itself which was noted as existing in AD 43 and recognised at several of the early church councils.
the Reformation was never really meant to be a start of another church - nor even of denomination. It started in essence because the Roman church was being top down in authority and refusing other legitimate rights to worship God in the Christian tradition. the Anglican churches - existed well into history.
Jesus taught leadership as servant leadership - not as top down power. He who serves is the leader amongst you.Didn't he? The Apostles must have gotten in wrong right from the beginning then because the Apostles all seemed to be leaders in the early Church passing on the Gospel and correcting people. Sounds like they had a top down authority. Now they were there to serve and not be served.Jesus had authority, and he sent them as he was sent, so it seems they were given authority to speak on his behalf.
Yes, Jesus clearly taught that leaders in the church needed to be servants. This was his clear teaching with the washing of their feet - and many other comments. It is the way of the world - to lead from the top, demanding and riding rough over everyone else. Authority is not mutually exclusive from servant teaching. the Catholic church gives lip service to this teaching - it used to be much more part of what they did. In many churches around the world - it is a problem. But this is the teaching of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Actually I believe that there is great ability for diversity within complete unity of belief.
LOL! That is how the Christian church - religion works. Denominations pan this out further.
All the different denominations agree on the things that matter - those things which are primary, but when it comes to secondary matters, there is diversity. Most denominations exist because of the secondary things not the primary things.I would greatly disagree. There is no basic unity.Is the Eucharist truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - or is it only a symbol?Once saved always saved? Or can you lose your salvation?Do you normatively need water baptism?Is divorce permissible?Is abortion permissible?Is contraception permissible?and on and on and on...The denomination cannot even agree on the major elements necessary for salvation, never mind the minor ones.
None of the issues raised by you are primary issues. They are all secondary issues.
TO be continued in the next post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
I believe your basic premise is in error. Multiple denominations is the exact opposite of what Christianity is about.Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” - John 18:37If Jesus is the truth and his denominations all teach different things then there is no truth is having multiple denominations and they cannot be one in Christ.
Actually DeusVult, your assumption there is that God does not allow for diversity within his church. All the different denominations agree on the things that matter - those things which are primary, but when it comes to secondary matters, there is diversity. Most denominations exist because of the secondary things not the primary things.
Having different denominations is not about having truth or not having truth - it is about the way we worship God. This is why I started this topic - some people - it seems you included - think denominations exist due to truth - I think that misses the point. mostly, it is to do with culture - the way we worship - and how our culture impacts upon us and the way we worship. The Jews started of in a covenantal context- America is now a very individualistic culture - and the East very community minded. Each of these impact upon worship styles - America is the home of most denominations - why? every one is individual. Baptistic approach. In China - there are very few denominations - why? Because they prefer to be one family. This is also reflected in church government - Italy is the home of the pope = but also the paternalistic mafia groups. The catholic church is more reflective of the roman empire than the Eastern churches? Why because the Orthodox community is still covenantally based.
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me..." - John 15:26So the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father. How can Truth be contradictory? Another proof that multiple denominations is fundamentally un-Christian.
No - you are saying that everything about culture is truth. Yet this clearly not the case. Denominations reflect culture not truth.
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." - John 17:20-21So Jesus' prayer for the Church at the last supper was unity, not division. Seems to be the nail in the coffin for multiple denominations being a Christian strength.
Christians are unified in truth. The truthes that define the church - just look at the umbrella organisation - the world wide council of churches - it has its own creed.
Additionally Christianity is not supposed to be decentralized. The early church had Apostles who raised others to be leaders. When they were unsure as to what to teach, they would ask back to the apostles. The apostles met to discuss the need for circumcision so that there would be unity in the Church. It was a Centralized organization right from the beginning.
Jesus taught leadership as servant leadership - not as top down power. He who serves is the leader amongst you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Using the word " think" is not me being uncertain. In fact for many people using the word think actually means they are sure. I suppose for some, perhaps like yourself, you would prefer to use know without having to resort to thinking. Well good for you.
I am sure that Jesus did not abolish the law. Yet, I understand law in the sense of the underlying reason for the law in the first place. I don't get caught up in the letter of the law - but rather am addressing the spirit of the law.
How the spirit of the law is applied looks different in different scenarios. How one addresses the fool looks different depending on the fool - yet it is the spirit of the law that needs to understood rather than the letter.
For me, The spirit of the law remains constant because the character of God remains constant. Yet, the letter of the law will change depending upon the circumstances, for instance whether you are living in a desert, your own sovereign land, or are held captive by the Romans. Similarly, Christians will continue to uphold the spirit of the law of God constantly, yet, differently depending upon whether they live in a Christian country or a secular atheistic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how do you view the story of noah? is it real or a myth? it looks like jesus and peter and folks in the new testament took it literally. but shouldn't there be evidence of all the things that dont add up scientifically? i believe in miracles, but i think when they occur there's scientific evidence to back them up.aren't you troubled by verses like noah or the verse where God kills the first born if its parents didn't smear blood on their door? all the homicide that God does?i can't say God doesn't kill people in mass, but the science stuff is hard to get past.
Hi n8nrgmi,
thanks for your question. Jesus is the Son of God. Peter was one of the first disciples, and writers of the NT. He was a Jew. It does appear that they took the story of Noah literally. Should I believe them or some scientists? I don't have an issue with miracles per se - but I disagree that scientific evidence will ever back it up. How for instance does science back up the resurrection of Jesus?
Why should I be troubled with any verse in the bible - unless it was put there to trouble us? And there are many verses meant to trouble us and cause us to repent of our sins. Examples abound in the words of Jesus who spoke about Hell more than anyone else. Hell is a troubling word.
Personally, I think science when it is done correctly is good. Science which is based on truth is always good. And always good for the bible. God on the other hand is God and not subject to the rules of man. I am only troubled by the facts of Noah when I realise how many people rejected God despite his constant warning towards of them to stop being so evil. I am troubled by any nation that gets wiped out - yet I am troubled because nations would prefer to do things their own way according to their own evil ways rather than listen to a good God that wants the best for them.
Your comments don't seem to born out of a love for science so much as a love for our world's concept of ethics. That is fine - that is your right - but I do think that it is also dangerously close to bigotry against other cultures and time and views of ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Such a laughable dynamic. Of course you have to see it as vague. Otherwise you could not peddle your mis- information.
People such as you require the bible to be vague. But the fact is most of it is pretty easy to understand and interpret. There are a few vagaries - there you go - I have admitted there are some. But overall- when a write writes - it is to make a point to his audience. The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate. This is not the issue. The issue comes to down to people such as yourself - who clearly have an agenda. And when someone disagrees with your agenda - you howl them down. Or you make some pathetic excuse as to their character.
I don't move goalposts. I don't have an agenda - I really don't. I don't have this view - to make money. I don't have this view to gain power. I don't have this to get a reputation. I don't have it to make myself appear smart. I actually prefer to seek the truth. Now you can take that however you like - and you probably will. You at least historically dismiss people who take a view different to yourself.. Now I know I am sounding petty. But I happen to be one of those people who think that genre is important,. And so is culture. And so is the intent that the writers had.
You tend to dismiss anything but the English version you read. you tend to dismiss other people who disagree with you. I on the other hand don't have an issue with someone who has a different view - so long as they don't resort to being rude or disingenuous.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The whole point about mercy is it is not deserved. Grace is unmerited gift. Mercy is undeserved leniency.
Once we start trying to understand who deserves or does not deserve mercy - we have already misunderstood the concept.
Did Lot's wife deserve mercy? Answer - irrelevant. If she did deserve leniency, then what she needed was not mercy, but justice. If she did not deserve mercy, then whether God demonstrated mercy towards her or not - is a matter for God's wisdom, not us trying to ascertain it.
Created:
Posted in:
Sometimes the issue of denominations arises within the context of this forum. Queries are generally along the lines of why do they exist - how many are there- and people often provide all kinds of fanciful reasons for why they subjectively believe it is the way it is.
My particular view is that for the most part denominations are a good thing and should be encouraged. For me, the greater variety of denominations is a strength for the Christian religion because it demonstrates that members and individuals are united by something greater than a simple belief. A greater variety of denominations also puts to death the notion that "they are all brainwashed". Brainwashed people would not have the capacity to leave and start something new.
Christianity at its heart is a decentralised religion - with a head, that is Christ. It is not intended to be centralised around one figure or leader except for Christ. Unfortunately, throughout history, the church and its leaders have, like the world around it, fallen prey to the notion they are somehow privy to information or leadership skills that others do not possess - or that they have been called to a higher calling than the rest of the church. In other words, people in the church, just like people in the world, crave power and authority. And sometimes these people also have the means of attempting to make that happen.
Hence, it is true to say that throughout history that most new churches are started by people or groups that are attracted to power. Another aspect of this is the personality. People with personality - charismatic personality in the main - tend to attract people around them and who motivate that person to go further - to achieve power. Is it a wonder that people with personality - tend to go into politics? Is it a wonder that people who start new political parties are people with personality? It is a rare thing to see a person with no personality start a new church or start a new political party?
In my limited experience, when I see a new church start, it is for a couple of reasons. One, it is church plant from our congregation. One which sees a need and provides a service. So in our area, over the past 25 years, we have seen the growth of several new church congregations - all of our church's particular flavour and yet all distinctly different from each other. Some are quite conservative and others quite contemporary. Others a mixture of the ranges. Yet, all love each other and are able to worship together when it suits or is convenient. They contain young families, professionals, including scientists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and many tradies - electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and a wide variety of the demographics of our communities. Another reason I see people start new churches is because of differences in music. Our church has variety of music - but sometimes people prefer the old hymns, or the more contemporary sort. Some like to have just an organ - others to have an entire band. Another reason I have seen people start their own church is because of personality. They were in leadership - but clashed with the current leadership - sometimes such people leave and go to another congregation - clash with that leadership and then move on - to another church and the same pattern continues on and on. Sometimes these people get sick of moving on - so they end up staying at home, then after a while starting a home church, normally watching something on tv - and then after a while thinking they can do better themselves. Sometimes people start a new church because the type of church they are looking for does not exist in an area, and after a while of visiting other churches in the area, they get in contact with their own denomination and see if they can start a new one. I can honestly say I have never seen a new one start up because of so called ambiguities of the bible.
But this is my limited experience. For the record I have worked in 4 different church congregations - and been involved within at least 6 different denominations. The churches I have worked in are Baptist and Presbyterian. I grew up in a church of Christ, my wife comes from a Pentecostal church, and I have engaged with Brethren, Anglican and Uniting Churches as well as a very small Presbyterian denomination and very small Methodist church.
Why I posted this topic - is I am interested in other people's experiences of new churches starting - why people think new ones start - and again from their experience - not just their opinion. And whether you can see benefits in it as well as negatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I do. And this is why we have the many different Christian denominations; because they interpret the scriptures differently. They cannot all be right. Or are you going to offer your own hermetical definition as to what the word "ambiguous" means to god and Christians.?
Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all. It is clear. Crystal clear in fact. I disagree with your ASSERTION that ambiguousness is the reason we have the many different Christian denominations on several counts. Firstly, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church split over an issue of doctrine based on their doctrine of the Holy Spirit, not over the teaching of Scripture nor of any particular verse. Hence, it was not the bible being clear, it was the way the teachers at that time understood the Trinity, and in particular the role of the Spirit. Remember also that at that time indeed even as it is today in those two "denominations" that the final decision of what the Bible says is not the bible itself - but the church's theologians that decide.
When Luther came forth in his generation, his focus on the righteousness of Christ from the book of Romans was not in dispute nor an ambiguous reading or understanding. He had like the people of his time read it from a cultural point of view. When Luther read it in the context with the cultural understanding of the original language - what was unclear because of culture became crystal clear. And indeed even the Romans afterwards came to agree that this was correct. In another episode in his life, Luther debated over the words of "This is my body" which some claim are ambiguous as well. But I ask you, how is it ambiguous? Luther like the Romans, argued that Jesus was stating that the bread becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus. The other reformers argued it was a symbol pointing to the death of Jesus. Others argued it was in faith - the spiritual body of Christ. Ambiguous hardly! No one was saying - Jesus was saying that the bread became a unicorn or the bread was really a symbol of life. Or it was by faith anything you like. Every group totally agreed that Jesus was stating that this bread represented Jesus' death in some manner. Exactly what that manner is has become subject to many debates in history - and it is one of the big debates - but read my next words - NO new denomination has ever started from any so called difference in relation to these words. In fact at the time - Luther was still within the Catholic church even if he was being pursued or on the virge of excommunication. But the Lutheran Church did not start on any so called vagaries of Scripture - but rather on another entire rationale. On authority - on whether the Scriptures interpreted the Scriptures or whether the church decided.
After the reformation began - new churches and I suppose we could call them denominations sprang up. The Lutherans, the Reformed movement - the dissidents and anabaptists - brethren independent Congregationalists, etc. Now the question is - did any of these so called parts of the church spring up because the bible is somehow ambiguous or were there other primary reasons why? Things such as geography, culture, different views on church government, or authority?
Yes, there have been many discussions and debates over the Scriptures - but I cannot think of one denomination that has ever started because of a so called ambiguity in the bible. Baptists differ from protestants in relation infant baptism. But their major reason for different denomination is theological - not ambiguity in the bible. They take the view that the so called visible church on earth ought to be wholly full of born again adult Christians. Protestants follow the OT Jewish religion that the people of God included children. Catholics and the Orthodox church don't actually believe in a visible or invisible church.
The Baptist church and other like minded churches arose out of a cultural spirit - of democracy and separation of church and state- not on the ambiguity of the bible. This is one reason they are a dominant church in USA - one of their own helped write the Constitution - and is why they have such bizarre statements in it. Presbyterians - reformed churches arose prior to that time - and if you read their doctrinal statements such as the WCF - you will see statements about the civil government which would be seen as outrageous today.
The Episcopalian church - sometimes called the Anglican or the C of E denomination has a couple of origin stories - perhaps the most famous one is because the king wanted a divorce - he rejected the pope - this is not a story of the bible verses being ambiguous - but rather AGAIN - an issue of authority. Of power. Who is going to tell me what to do?
Most of the modern so called denominations are really under the same umbrella - just in different locations. For instance- the Episcopalian denomination on each continent and in some states in different nations - despite the fact that they are all the same denomination are considered different denominations - not on doctrine nor on ambiguous bible passages but on geography and politics. In Australia the Presbyterian church has a different denomination in each state - but one denomination nationally. Is it seven or 1? And there are also various reformed churches in Victoria and even so called different Presbyterian denominations - but these are a product of history and tradition not ambiguity of scripture. An example in Australia recently was the commencement of the Uniting church - combining several denominations - some went in and others remained because traditionally they had been raised a Methodist and wanted to die a Methodist - but it had nothing to do with vague scriptural references.
Hence - I think that the overall rationale that we have so many denominations because the bible is somehow vague is nonsense and not able to be demonstrated. In fact I would like to see how many actual denominations exist that are not really part of another group. I suspect that in the end it would probably be approximately 10. Andmany of those would hold to much of the other's teachings - up to 95%.
The question of the bible being vague is another question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
There you go again.it ought to be clear that his non-reading is not that he has no ability to read but that he is reading according to his own hermeneutic and not as Christians tend to read.I stated there are 10's of thousands of denominations, ad the driving factor is different interpretations. So who are you to say your analysis applies to all Christians.Your narcissism and self-righteousness are nearly biblical in volume.Side question: As a Christian why would you mock someone for asking a question?
I disagree with you that are 10s of thousands of denominations. Stating such a thing does not make it true. Yes, some of the major denominations interpret using different hermeneutics. mind you, the Catholic church and the Orthodox church do not consider themselves denominational. The Catholic church tends to interpret the bible - according to whatever their clergy tells them it means. The orthodox tend towards mysticism. That of course are their particular bents - and not in the spirit of the Reformation which commenced with the didactic that Scriptures interprets Scripture. Of the various denominations - today - Episcopalian, Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Brethren, etc, they tend to follow in spirit the Reformed position. Charismatic and Pentecostal denominations or churches tend to allow what they call the Spirit to understand the bible, although many simply follow the protestant line most of the time.
When I talk about Christians generally following the hermeneutic I briefly outlined above - I was referring primarily to the Reformation churches. Yes, others are Christians and they follow their own traditions - but even most of these come back to understanding the difference between the OT and the NT as understood by the teaching of Peter in Acts and Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. You don't have to agree with me - I can hardly care - but it is the fact. I do not know of any Christian who says we need to bring back the OT sacrifices started by Moses and Aaron because all of them believe that Jesus has fulfilled the law in his death. This is not cherry picking - it is because Christians teach that the OT pointed to Christ - and he as the messiah was the point of it all. It makes perfect logical sense that once Jesus arrived - that things would change. If it did not change when he arrived, then there seems hardly any point of him arriving.
Are all Christians consistent in their interpretation of the OT? I would say no. And this would explain why for some it seems that Christians cherry pick. Hence I reject your accusations of narcissism and self-righteousness.
I mocked you because I am a sinner. Or it might be because I think the ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Or it might be because I don't think turning the other cheek means getting walked all over. I personally do get frustrated with comments that are repeated ad nauseum over and over again - despite ample and good answers to them.
Having said that - I also welcome the opportunity to discuss things with people who are genuine. And if that is you and i have misread and taken offence at your opening words - then I apologise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
Says who?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As for fulfilling the law, I don't think it ceased. Obviously, you did not comprehend what I wrote. Let me try and explain it to you.
The OT law is still ongoing in the NT. The difference is the letter not the spirit. Jesus did not stop the law. Yet he fulfilled it. The OT law of sacrifice was at its heart about what?
It was about atoning for the sins of people in a temporary way because the blood of goats and cows are not eternal. Jesus however as the Eternal Son of God has blood that atones eternally - for the sins of his people. Hence, the OT Mosaic system is known as a shadow of things to come - namely Jesus who is the real deal. therefore, the atoning sacrifices has not ended or been ceased in spirit - but in Christ is eternal for all his people.
Hence, not ceased, but fulfilled in Christ. I notice you OMITTED to explain what fulfilled was according to your own thinking. Perhaps it is you who is running away from the obvious. Yes, you said what you think it was not. but OMITTED to say what you think it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As usual, I expect you to RUN AWAY from my post herein, like you have done ad infinitum with my other posts directed to you when you slap Jesus in the face with your blatant Bible Ignorance, so once again, go into hiding to save yourself from further embarrassment from the Brother D Thomas. Hurry, RUN AWAY! LOL!
Of course you think I am running away. Yet I don't respond to bullies nor to ignoramuses who display hardly an ounce of decorum nor intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
There are many religions out there that use scripture. The NT is not necessary for the purposes of my question. I just used the OT demonstrably, I am asking a question based on observation.
True and yet for all the religions and all the scriptures you used the ones that Christians would claim as their own. It seems pointed even if you use generic terms. In any event, I am not speaking on behalf of all other religions who may well cherry pick, I was responding as a Christian in accordance with my experience.
I never said Christian once. In addition, you state that no Christian has cherry-picked verses in my presence is incorrect, and something you can't know, as you have not been in my presence during those times. You could have said I may be misinterpreting, or ask for a specific example. However, you do not. You immediately jump to the conclusion that I am talking about Christians, and no matter what I experience I am wrong because.....
I never said Christians did not cherry pick in your presence. Please read what I did write. I said in my experience it is non-believers who cherry pick. As for the rest of your retort I have answered above already.
you don't have the ability to read is more accurate.,...,, which is you assuming that I am talking about written narrative, rather than spoken.You state:
Try reading my words from beginning to end - not cherry picking things out of context. Perhaps then you might see that finger pointing generally correlated with one finger at the accused and three back at the accuser.
If you don't understand this hermeneutic,
So in your words... there is no proper interpretation unless you "understand". and agree with your stated NT hermeneutic about Peter's dream. Clearly hermeneutics is a core reason why there are 10's of thousands of Christian denominations around the world. So your view is not the only one.
Again, you have read my words incorrectly. Perhaps you really don't know how to read - you sure are giving ample evidence of the same. Yet, if you go back and read my words, I say using the hermeneutic approach of Christians will lead you along one stream of thought - and not applying the same one - will lead you elsewhere.
Your entire response is assumptive and defensively focused on your individual Christian belief structure.
Well on the other hand - I have answered calmly and non-judgmentally - well at least until my last sentence where clearly I attempted to mock you.
Back to my point, and to address your Christian angle, I was told a reason to remember, and quote verses word for word, and not try to over-interpret them.John 15:7 says that having God’s Word in your heart also leads to answered prayers. It says, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”So if you decide to respond, may I ask you please to not be defensive and attacking. I am asking a genuine question.
Since I am not sure what your point is here, I will try and respond back what I think you are trying to communicate. If I am wrong, please correct me.
I think what you are saying is that someone once told you that people should just read the bible without reading to much into the words. and if that is what you are saying, I don't have an issue with that thought per se. But I would say - that this does not mean you leave the context out, or the culture out, or the type of genre out. In fact to leave those things out - is not just silly, it is to reinterpret the meaning of the original thought with your own thoughts and your own culture and whatever type of genre you think you should use. For me that would be to read into the text what was never there in the first place. I agree that we should never try and over interpret words or put meanings into things that should not be there.
You then go onto say that John 15:7 says that having God's Word in your heart always leads to answered prayers. Again I am not too sure what point you are making. Are you asking whether having God's word in your heart always means you get whatever you want or ask? I don't think that is what the passage says. It seems to be in the context of being united with Christ. That particular verse might be talking about prayer. We often associate asking God for things with prayer. What does it mean to have God's words in your heart? My initial thought is this is a person who is thinking God's thoughts after God or in the same way as God. And if this is correct, then whatever we ask - will only be the same as what God wants anyway. If however the Words in our heart are the same as v.4 are referring to then the words - are such that you will be cleaned. Now in the context I don't think this is talking about having a bath, although a metaphorical bath might be possible. Hence if God's words are such that they clean us - in a way that God recognises as clean, then whatever we ask will naturally also be in accord with what God wants as well. The rest of the passage talks about loving God and loving others as a revealer of one who has the Word of God in their heart. One who obeys God or keeps his commandments. Again, if we obey his commandments, and love God and others in accordance with the way God wants us too - then whatever we ask will only be in accord with glorifying the Father.
But then the question of answering prayers is part of what you asked in the first place. In my understanding, when God answers a prayer, he does it always in one of three ways. Yes, no or wait. Now this might be my culture telling me this - and not the bible. Perhaps there is a different way God answers prayer. I guess it depends on the questions or the prayers that we request. If we pray for world peace, God answered by sending Jesus to bring peace between man and God which leads logically to peace between men and men as they turn to Christ. If we ask for food, then God provides the sun and the trees and the physical bodies to us to use to work and buy food. He also provides parents and employers and people with altruistic hearts to offer assistance. If we pray for healing, then God responds with doctors, and nurses and hospitals etc, but he may also depending upon the ailment, say no. What we think our best interests are - do not always accord with God thinks our best interests are.
But perhaps I have misread your words. If so, then please correct me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
For Christian apologists to explain something hermetically , means - to make it up as you go when caught on the back foot in an awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. It also mean to redirect ones attention away with biblical verses that go actually nowhere in explaining away said awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. But I have found the most favored tactic of apologetic Christians is to simply present one's own theories or even opinions as fact without supporting evidence. When all the above fails to convince then its down to the age old veiled insults of one "not being able to read" and "understand".
Just make up stuff as you go along. I have consistently applied the same hermeneutics for quite some time. I have yet to be caught out with an embarrassing biblical dilemma. Nor am I attempting to redirect attention away from any biblical verse. I am not ashamed of any verse in the bible per se. As for presenting my position - I did present evidence. I used the story of Peter's from the book of Acts. I also used Jesus' sermon on the mount with particular reference to murder and adultery. I also never said people could not read. GO back and look at what I wrote. I indicated clearly, that those who do use the hermeneutic I suggested would read the bible one way and those who did not would read it another way. My last statement directed at the Captain was my attempt (weak as it was) at mocking him / her for her initial comments in juxtaposition to his own mocking of Christians. In context with the rest of my paragraph however, it ought to be clear that his non-reading is not that he has no ability to read but that he is reading according to his own hermeneutic and not as Christians tend to read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Interestingly, it is my experience that it is those people who do not believe the scriptures that cherry pick to suit themselves.
Most Christians use a hermeneutic to understand how to interpret the bible. Christians generally take the view that the OT is understood through the lens of the NT and Jesus in particular. For instance, if you were to look at the book of Acts and the story found about Peter having a dream, you would see that it is a useful tool to understand what is meant by this. In that dream, Peter saw a sheet coming down from heaven containing food - much of which Peter would have understood to be unclean. God uses this dream as a tool to understand that in Christ, God had extended his people to include Gentiles.
If you don't understand this hermeneutic, then you will take every verse in the OT in one way. If you understand the hermeneutic then things are distilled quite differently. Many people also understand that everything is the same from the OT to the New except where the NT has changed it based on Christ coming. But in saying this - the OT is not done away, but rather fulfilled in Christ. An example of this is the OT Mosaic law in regard to sacrifices. The laws were to continue in every generation. And so Christians believe this today - yet - since they are fulfilled in the Christ eternally, the specific sacrifices are no longer necessary.
It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law. Jesus in his sermon on the mount demonstrated this in his views on murder and adultery. For him murder was demonstrated in assault or calling someone names. Adultery included how you thought in your heart, not just in the physical doing.
The 10 commandments are good laws. The latter six are observed in most countries in the world today. The first four are practised in most countries as well - just that most countries typically practice these and apply them in their own culture.
You cherry pick cultures and time frames. After all it is only in the very modern world - that slavery has been condemned by any culture. And the facts are well established that Israel was unique in its treatment of slaves - kind and merciful to them as opposed and contrasted with every other culture for 90% of history. I also take the view that slavery being abolished and seen as immoral flows directly out of the Christian worldview based on Christ's teaching. Furthermore there is no evidence that God ever commanded any person to rape another - and in fact condemns it - and BTW he also condemned kidnapping and human stealing. I don't hold to the view that poetry is to be interpreted literally - it is used then as it is used today primarily in hyperbole in order to produce emotions and feelings - not to feed the reason of humanity.
Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect and my allegation that you don't have the ability to read is more accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No matter how many times I have pointed to god, creating, causing and doing bad/evil things, the apologist try their apologetic best to counter with " this is not gods doing" OR god didn't create anything evil" etc etc .But never will they put forward an opinion or even a theory of where all of the bad and evil in the world originated.
LOL @ Stephen.
I have said on numerous occasions that God is the creator. Yet I have also distinguished between things which are nouns and things which are actions. Evil or bad is not a noun in the sense of a thing. Even in the Hebrew language evil or bad is never described with a noun.
I have also indicated that evil originated when humans and snake chose to rebel against God. This is its origin. For humans it was with Adam and Eve. With the snake, it was with his temptation. Yet, before this in the world, everything was described as good or very good.
Evil in its true objective sense is anything that is against God or falls beneath his standards. Evil in its subjective sense is anything that falls beneath the standards of the person beholding it. Hence, God can be seen to do evil subjectively from the human point of view when what God does falls beneath the subjective standards of the human - which are clearly in rebellion against God's standards.
This is why we can say that God does only good objectively, although from a human's subjective point it might be evil. And this is to a degree reflected in our own worlds, for example a court room. When a judge sentences a murderer to prison or to death, it is objectively good because he or she is following the law. Yet, to the murderer, the sentence is always going to be subjectively evil. Hence the sentence is both good and evil. It is however not good and evil objectively for that would be an absurdity. Yet it is good objectively and evil subjectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I assume you are talking about the symbol of baptism and not the baptism itself. After all, water baptism only represents real baptism.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Every day millions of preachers around the world are calling people to repentanceSo, it's the preachers who are sending God's message, not actually God Himself? If that's the case, then I can indeed say that God is not warning me. Here are what devout religious people say about other devout religious people, or in some cases, admit about themselves."I’m a pastor and, I hate to say, I sometimes tell lies.""4 Deadly LIES Pastors Tell""Evangelical preachers, regardless of their theological flavor, are liars."
Do you seriously think that I am going to agree with you just because you post links to some random sites?
God uses pastors to preach his message. This is what he has always done in history - of course sometimes they are called prophets etc.
Each one of them is fallible and makes mistakes - but so what? God chooses to use fallible humans. I happen to think that makes sense. You can reject them as many others do. Totally your prerogative. It does not change the facts though. God chooses to warn everyone. That includes people who are doing the right thing.
The only time I would suggest you could seriously deny a warning to you - is when you live in a bubble without any pain suffering.
Created:
-->
@T_Recks
I am not confusing the two- you are. What you call common sense is not necessarily real sense.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
But that is your problem - not mine. Every day millions of preachers around the world are calling people to repentance. If you choose to ignore them - your problem. But one thing you can't say is that God did not warn you.
Created:
-->
@Monte_Carlo
I think you will find that the correct perspective is that the "state" is telling everybody and all organisations what to do and not exclusively singling out Churches, unless you are implying that Churches should be somehow exempt from being told.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. The State is telling everybody and all organisations. This of course is not their prerogative except in a time when big government is the rule. I do think the churches are an exemption. I, unlike you, believe in the separation of powers - of church and state. You obviously don't. I think that the entire doctrine of separation of church and state underlies our democracies - and that this is why the church is and should be exempt from state power over them including this pandemic.
right now, it is arguable the church is probably more essential than any other organisation including the state and yet the state wants to shut it down. If there are underlying spiritual issues then the church should remain open.
And, in light of the current situation, to even imply that Churches remain open for people to gather is completely absurd.
History says otherwise. Throughout every other pandemic or plague in history the church has remained open. Many people within the church died - which is to be expected because church people, like the rest of the nation, have sinned before God. Yet, to shut the church down and to negate meeting together is the worse call.
When people ignore God as the world seems to be doing now - not recognising the clear message, and simply to try and seek refuge in your own homes, while hoping the virus dies out, wont change the underlying problems. Yes, people will die. Many people. Now - but even more in the future.
Of course the church also could decide to close its doors and go online like we have. But it should be the church's decision - not the state telling them what to do. When the state arrogantly overreaches - there are always bad consequences that flow.
And especially in a time of big government - if we do get through this health crisis - we will be in so much debt - and so deep a recession that many of us will have wished we had died in the pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As an aside - while I finish up my response to you. Would you apply this principle to the death and resurrection of Jesus? Or is the message the important thing - not whether Jesus literally rose from the dead or not. So long as its message is conveyed - Jesus rose spiritually, or Jesus rose friguratively, or Jesus rose in my heart?And this is where I agree with Etrnl. His point is that the important thing is the message God is trying to convey, not whether the story is literal or figurative.
I will stand with Paul. The literal and physical rising of Jesus from the dead is the important thing. As is the message it conveys. My view in relation to the Genesis story is also in line with this. Many people suggest there was no first humans - and therefore there was no estate of sin which is inherited. Remove the first Adam and this in my view and I believe in accordance with the Bible removes the need for Jesus.
I have indicated before that I don't think we should spiritualise the Genesis story. I take the view that average Creationist misunderstands Genesis - for instance in relation to so called immortality prior to the fall of humanity. I don't have a particular view about a talking snake if that is what occurred. It is not like it is the only talking animal in the bible. I seem to recall a donkey talking to Baalam. The idea of course is unusal. Yet probably this is the point. When something is unusual we are supposed to sit up and take notice. Not just dismiss it as metaphorical or figurative. The bible has many figurative patterns in it. Even in the very first chapter of Genesis we see the patterns in the formation of the heavens and the earth. There are also clearly symbols as well such as the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I also think that the usage of the Hebrew alphabet is also quite powerful in the first chapter - it gives the notion of poetry. But poetry and metaphor and symbolism all don't automatically remove the reality of the picture in the first place. I remember studying a very powerful piece of poetry at school about war and in particular an episode of a battle in Vietnam. It was a very moving picture with the intent to express the horror of war. That was its message - yet it used a literal battlefield episode to convey this message. Poetry, message, yet literal. The concepts do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps God wanted to let the world know he is angry and wants them to repent of their sins and turn back to him. the world however will ignore this message just like every other one. Climate change ought to have been enough. Yet the world blamed it on capitalism. god send the bushfires - but the world said - it is climate change. And because everything seems to be connected with climate change - God now has sent the plague - it cant be blamed on climate change - perhaps it is the Chinese or the Americans or the North Koreans or the Russians?Why has your God allowed Coronavirus to emerge and spread?
I dont think this is a matter of God allowing Corona virus - it is another warning to us. Each week preachers around the world warn us that god will do this if the world turns its back on God. Each week the world is put on notice. This is a global pandemic. It is going to last for at least 6 months - and it will have impacts for generations to come.
but we will ignore the real reason behind the pandemic - because we don't think that there are so called spiritual reasons for such things. We are blind and we are fools.
churches around the world are locked down - a classic case of the STATE telling the churches what to do. A breach of any semblance of separation of church and state. Yet, historically, during all the plagues and pandemics, the churches have always remained open. Christians generally speaking see the way to love God is to gather together as people - and the bigger picture is not the community which is rejecting God - but the people who together love and worship God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I disagree with Ethan a bit here Willard (although I'm open to consideration), because one, I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks".The physical body of Jesus was developed within the womb of Mary, Jesus needed a physical body to be in the physical world and therefore a physical mother. However, the soul of Jesus was placed within that womb, but no seminal fluid was needed for this conception. The Holy Spirit was able to manipulate the womb to conceive...without sexual relations. While this was a miracle apart from the norm, it's not really the same as creating a physical body from dirt, a birth without a male partner is not always an impossibility...although unheard of.
Interesting perspective. I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt. Yet, I do think on balance that Jesus was genetically related to Mary. I don't think sin is transmitted genetically but that is a different matter. And I don't think the teaching on original sin (which I noticed you do not agree with) teaches transmission by genetics. I think your second paragraph here is more in line with what I accord with - although I am open to change if persuaded. Ethan's view is an interesting one as well and I need more time to consider it fully. Yet, it seems to me that it requires sin to be transmitted genetically, which he also noted was not the case. After all, if sin is not transmitted genetically, then why the issue with Jesus being genetically related to Adam or Mary. He seems to suggest we needed something new. Yet, there is a disjunct between what he says about sin not being transmitted genetically and Jesus not being genetically related to Mary. I am still working that one through.
Created: