Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
I think it is true that Jesus had to be fathered by the Holy Spirit.In order for such to happen, surely Mary would have had to be either raped by God or; Mary had consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery before she even consummated her marriage.
Rape requires penetration of a sex organ or a finger and must be done without consent. The Scriptures indicate several things. Firstly, the Holy Spirit is a spirit. This means ipso facto - no physical body parts including fingers, or sexual parts. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that consent was required or denied. God DID not have sex with Mary.
And since there was no sex- either physically or in the mind, there was no adultery. The Bible simply does not suggest otherwise.
Now, I concede that for most people in the world and in history, that they are conceived by an act of sexual intimacy. Yet, even in our modern age, 1 in 20 persons in Australia are now conceived without sex. We used to call them test tube babies - now IVF. Yet, Jesus was not a test tube baby even of a divine type.
This was not a Sperm fertilising an Egg. This was God bringing the Son of God into this world - joining him to humanity through a woman.
Jesus is the Son of God who also became the Son of Man through his birth. This is the only thing ever added to God - humanity.
Yet, I still disagree with Ethang. Yes, this was a new line. Indeed God had now entered himself into the line of humanity - in order to bring humanity into his own line. I don't agree that Jesus was not genetically descended from Adam or from Mary. There is no question anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary was not his biological mother. It seems to me that unless Jesus was in the same line as Adam, then for the Scriptures to claim that he endured all temptation in the same manner as the rest of humanity, is a redundant and meaningless statement. If he was simply a surrogate baby and used Mary as means of birth then it brings all sorts of complications into his humanity.
I also consider that if God was simply going to do a new thing, he should simply have created a new human, Jesus and not gone to the bother of having him born as a baby in a virgin's womb. Why do something so different? He created Adam from the dirt apparently as a fully mature adult. Why make Jesus in the womb?
It seems to me that this means something. Adam was never GOD and Man. Jesus is. This is important. But I will discuss this further in my response to Ethan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
HI Ethang5,
I am looking forward to your response. Thanks for your thoughts as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
--> @janesix Will this be the end of the Christian era? And what will the New Age of Aquarius bring?I don't think we are close to the end of the Christian era.Christianity may never disappear from the earth but the end of its ERA is definitely nigh for it's time to rule. The age of the Fish / Pisces and "fishermen" is almost over, some believe it has gone already, such as myself. Jesus told his disciples " I will be with you until the end of the Age". This was either the age of the outgoing house of the Ram / Aries or the house of the Fish depending on which version of the gospels one chooses to believe.
This is another place where you are mistaken. Christianity has evolved for want of a better word. It has modified and thankfully decentralised. Christians are everywhere and on every continent and in every nation. It spreads the bible and the gospel in ways that are remarkable and life changing. It no longer holds the seat on parliament or indeed in any seats of human power. This is its strength. It has no need of such authority and power because it moves in accordance with the Spirit of God and His whims.
Humanity saw the power of the Cross in the first to the 4th century. It tried to grasp it and in some ways managed to control the church for millennia. However the church was in its infancy and knew no better. While it was centralised or while the State thought it had control - the church grew but did not entirely flourish. Yet when it was persecuted or decentralised it grew so quickly and spread so rapidly, it scared the authorities in the human sector.
Today, thanks to the Reformation and thanks to the decentralisation of the church, it continues to spread and give life to those it embraces. Does it lack influence? In some circles. In so called progressive circles - in the West. but in other circles it is very much a threat. Just go and visit China. China detests freedom and the spread of Christianity. As indeed any government which is totalitarian. There is too much competition. In America or the West in general, the alleged agents of freedom, they are afraid of Christianity. It tells them that their abandonment of truth and morality is not true freedom - but slavery. It tells them that the rejection of Christianity will lead to slavery.
Nevertheless, God is not mocked and his laws and principles are not mocked either. When people live according to his ways they find that their ways succeed. Yes, they face persecution and resentment - but that is too be expected because where there is success there is jealousy and resentment.
The Christian faith will survive and keep on surviving - because its principles are based in truth and are as practical as all get go. It is not wrong to love one another. It is not wrong to treat others how you want to be treated. It is a good thing to rely upon God and not the government. It is the Lord who is my shepherd, not Trump, not Morrison, not Johnson or Putin etc.
Stephen, when Jesus said I will be with until the end of the age. It was not a reference to the things you mentioned. The word aeon in Greek is translated various ways - world, age etc. Most Christians would suggest it is talking about the world - when he returns. I have to say that sounds strange - I will be with you "until I return". It really sounds redundant.
I have the view that it refers to the end of the world - or the end of the age- being the end of the age of the covenant - culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. Or indeed the period of time between his death and the age of the Holy Spirit which is the period from his birth until the end of Jerusalem which also (in my view) is the period when the canon of Scripture (sealing of vision) ceased in accordance with Daniel 9:24.
Hence Jesus was with his people - in his death, his resurrection, and his ascension. The Holy Spirit who according to John 14 is his representative on this earth was revealed at Pentecost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
ahh yes, things like evolution, atheism, socialism, fascism and the like.The nonsense, that is unfounded belief.
It is founded belief that underlies Christianity. The foundation that God alone rules this universe and everyone else are a very long way back second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But describing God's attributes is not a metaphor per se.Why not?
Is that a serious question? What is an attribute? It is something which is part and parcel of who a person is. It is not like saying he is a strong as an ox. It is saying he is all powerful. When God is described as doing anything he wants to do it is not a metaphor. A metaphor paints a picture - but it is never the same thing. God knows all things - is not a metaphor because it is connected to the entire idea of planning all things and making sure everything works. If God did not know all things, then nothing would work ever. The very fact that someone does know all things means that things do work. Take away this aspect of God and everything stops.
God know all that he needs to know. Or there is nothing that God does not know. I disagree with you that there are contradictions in the Bible.The bible did a whole 180 on policy. First, it advocated for the death penalty for various actions in the Old testament, such as for breaking any of the 10 points in God's law. Then, it advocated for a rehabilitation stance as what Jesus basically stood for. From the death penalty to rehabilitation, the bible has various contradictions between the OT and the NT, as well as in the testaments themselves. It's okay for God to change his mind, but it means that he isn't all knowing then, and how can we trust that he is now?
LOL! Not even close. The bible is consistent entirely from the beginning to the end. The death penalty is still applicable in the NT - read Romans 13 for a start. Gee even the fact that Jesus DIED on the cross - is an example of the death penalty in the NT. The entire doctrine of Hell is an eternal death penalty. Jesus was not opposed to rehabilitation - but nor was he opposed intrinsically to the Death Penalty. In fact in the OT the death penalty was still only the last resort - and is where the Common Law nations today obtained their doctrine of maximum penalties. Go and read Blackstone's commentaries. Not one contradiction. Very weak effort at best.
Everything he wills to do, he does. There is nothing that he cannot do that he wants to doHe wills that we are free from sin. How'd that work out?
LOL! Again I think you are intentionally misleading the discussion. In biblical theology we talk about God's hidden will. We talk about his revealed will. And we talk about human will. God's revealed will is what the Bible tells us is God's will for us. His hidden will is what goes on behind everything. We are not privy to the whys except to know that God will do what he thinks is right. This hidden will enables everything to happen - including Adam and Eve sinning in the first place - and Jesus dying on the cross. It includes all of us sinning. Hence in God's hidden will we are all sinners. Hence it is not a contradiction. In his revealed will God reveals that sinners receive death for their rewards of sinning. Yet his will also reveals that it is wrong to sin. Hence we know God is opposed to sin and does not desire that men sin. He also gives to us the knowledge of human will. We choose to sin. All of us do. And we are also responsible for this sin that we choose to do. Now the Western mind cannot correlate these things together consistently, anymore than they can put together the notion that Jesus is Fully God and fully Man. The Western mind also finds it impossible to consistently understand the Trinity - ONE GOD and THREE persons. Or that the Bible is written by God and by Man. Or that God makes all things happen and yet man is responsible for his own sin. The eastern mind does not have the same difficulties as the Western mind because they are not caught in the same immovable rock logic. Hence it is a Western worldview problem - not a biblical nor necessarily impossible logical problem for all people.
Hence your statement that God wills that people don't sin is a shallow and simplistic response. No offence but the Christian God is not a two dimensional simplistic thing that can be dismissed in such a way.
All people who go to Hell is not a demonstration of God hating - it only demonstrates his justice.Theocratic justice is cruel and unusual punishment; it violates the 4th amendment. Sending someone to hell for wearing different fabrics violates the 4th amendment. It shouldn't even be a crime.
Theocratic Justice is not cruel and unusual. God was around before the 4th amendment and will be around a long time after it has ended. In my view most western democracies are too immature to have the death penalty. the death penalty is actually a symbol of true progression and maturity. But having said that - theocratic justice is mostly about supporting the victims and restorative justice in the first place. Anyone who reads the OT and its system of theocratic justice cannot help buy be impressed by the way it is thousands of years ahead of its nearest nations of the time. Take the Jubilee system for a start. What an amazing concept. Forgiving debts every seven years. no long term mortgages - This takes the sting out of corrupt officials and banks who take advantage of the weak and oppressed. Freeing slaves - amazing idea for the time but substantially even relevant for us today. So many things - victim's rights. A fused system where the criminal and civil systems are not split. Where the true victim is the real victim and not the State. where justice is done and seen to be done. Where the victim has a real say in what happens to the persons who caused them grievance. It encouraged families, it encouraged people to look after the poor. It encouraged strong and loyal ties to religion and to the True God. It promoted freedom within limitations. Covenant theology.
I would add that he also sustains all things.He made us dependent on those things. If a drug dealer hooks you up with cocaine and gives it to you subsequently for free, would it be fair to say that he is the source for your happiness obtained through the drugs? No. He is the reason why you are addicted to drugs. God made humans addicted to food, and in some places in the world; particularly the most christian places in the world; like Africa, he has made them starve to death in many instances; and they obey the bible more frequently than rich westerners.
Of course we are dependant on those things. LOL! No one just lives all by himself without being dependant on anything else. We need food - we don't need drugs. We need food because we are not God - we are mortal. We live and we die. God is God and humanity is humanity. You prove my point by reminding us of the difference between the two things. you see it as negative - I see it for it is - true and wonderful grace.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
and yet history says otherwise.
I have dispute about trade being important - in fact I take the view that businessmen make the best ambassadors between nations.
But historically it was not until people received the command to convert all the nations that exploration became the deal that it did. remember there were many thousands of years prior to this command - that the world remained small to the extent that we are aware of.
Admittedly, other nations did explore - the globe. but never with the intent to settle.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Many lands would probably remain unexplored. After all most of the exploration that took place was done as a way to evangelise others.I disagree. While missionary work inevitably followed wherever Europeans went, it was not the primary motivation. Columbus sailed west, not to provide a quicker route for missionaries, but to prove that the Earth was round and establish a faster trade route to the West Indies. He wanted spices, not converts.
Have you read his diaries?
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Suppose that when the Romans started persecuting the Christians, they actually managed to eliminate every single Christian and their ideology. How would history evolve from there?A few things off the top of my head.The schism between East and West Roman Empire would not have occurred, or at least, not for the same reason.Europe would be primarily a polytheistic culture adopting new gods to its panteon as it encountered other religions.
Slavery would still be normal practice. Woman would have no rights - like their children. People would still be looking for answers. It is probable that we would all have died out from disease. After all, most of our science was developed by Christians seeking to explore God's world. We would not have had the industrial revolution - nor probably the time of the renaissance. Imagine the world of Rome. Yes, produced some good things - see the Life of Bryan for a wonderful list of "what did the Romans ever do for us?" done by Monty Python. But still produced some pretty horrific and evil things in society. Murder for sport - in the arenas. Entire genocide of some cultures.
But who would have taken over from the Romans? Probably the Goths. Scary thought. Perhaps today the Chinese would rule? Or the Indians.
Islam would be a different kind of religion. Probably more harsh, given the input of it by Christian thought.
We would not have Shakespeare. The Commonwealth would never have occurred. Many lands would probably remain unexplored. After all most of the exploration that took place was done as a way to evangelise others. Languages would be muted. The world would remain in a dark place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Hi Alex, thanks for telling us what you think. I am pleased when people think.I think if God exists, he can't meet all the 4 As(All present, all powerful, all knowing, all loving). I don't know if it even states in the bible that these characteristics are true, and if it does state them in the bible, then it could just be God being metaphorical. If he's metaphorical on some other things, then why wouldn't he be metaphorical on claiming to meet the 4 As?
The Bible does use metaphor quite a lot actually. But describing God's attributes is not a metaphor per se.
God know all that he needs to know. Or there is nothing that God does not know. I disagree with you that there are contradictions in the Bible. Yes, I am sure you will find things which you "think" are contradictions but that logically does not meet the criteria of a contradiction.
God is all powerful. Everything he wants to do - he does. Everything he wills to do, he does. There is nothing that he cannot do that he wants to do. It is not helpful to mix up power with knowledge. Yes they are related but they are also distinguished. Yet, since you cannot describe one thing God does not know then it is a direction that is merely speculative rather than objective.
I am not sure that God is all loving. He is certainly compassionate and merciful and also just and good. God hates sin. He also hates Esau. All true Christians will go to Heaven. Yet this is not a sign of love. It is demonstration of grace and mercy. All people who go to Hell is not a demonstration of God hating - it only demonstrates his justice.
I would consider that God is all present. Given he knows all things, this seems to go without outsaying. Yet I would add he is not everything as in the pantheist position - but being present.
I would add that he also sustains all things. He did not just set things up to go like the clockmaker - deist god - but he ensures and brings to pass all things including the Covid19 virus. the biblical example is Jesus dying on the cross. A good thing or a bad thing. Why is it that Christians call it good Friday if it was a bad thing.
Another thing I would add is that God is Holy. This I think is the essence of whom God is. Until we can understand his holiness - none of the As make any difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ever wonder why Jesus had to come by a virgin birth? There is a concrete reason.
Yes, and agreed.
The virgin birth is unique in that it is the only miracle concerning Jesus' earthly ministry that was without witnesses.
It certainly was unique. Yet, I suspect the Holy Spirit was a witness at the time - as indeed Mary probably was as well. In history we also have the witness of both Matthew and Luke who recorded it - and Isaiah who prophesied about it.
In fact, neither Jesus or anyone else during His life time is recorded as mentioning or knowing He was virgin born.
Although there is no recorded evidence of this in the NT I would not concede the point. I think Mary knew, So did Joseph and I also expect that Jesus knew as well. Matthew and Luke both record it - and Jesus himself calls himself the Son of God and the Son of Man. He was also born in Bethlehem, but I don't recall Jesus talking about that either. Nor do I recall any of the disciples or other letters mentioning it too.
Do be able to do what He was sent to do, Jesus HAD to be virgin born.
This is probably correct.
The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)
I agree the Bible tells us Adam sinned and died. Was it physical, spiritual or covenantal? I favour the latter. I am not persuaded that "everything after its kind" is referring to spiritual death or even covenantal death. I do agree that all of Adam's children inherited the estate of death - which he received in his own death of being cut off from the tree of life. I don't agree that so called original sin is unbiblical. It may well not be the best term for what happened to Adam, but the concept is clear.
To save mankind, Jesus not only had to redeem us from our past and future sins, but from our spiritually dead state.
Jesus the saviour redeems his people from sin and sins. This is the distinction that some on this site have found it difficult to distinguish. Jesus' death covers not only sins - all sins past present and future, but also the estate of sin - that which I would term original sin.
The bible calls Jesus the "new man" and contrasts Him with Adam whom it calls the old man. Our line of ancestry went back to Adam, who was spiritually dead.
Where does the bible call Jesus the "new man". He is called the final Adam. All humanity traces its lineage back to Adam. And the natural corollary to that is all humanity has inherited Adam's estate of death in sin.
Jesus had to break that line, and start a new line, spiritually alive, and then somehow hook us into that lineage.
Agreed, Jesus did need to break that line. He was something new and different. I am not sure I like the word "hooked", I think I prefer the notion of adoption rather than hooked.
So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)
I am not sure of that line. It sounds rather "out there". I agree that Jesus was the first born of this new line. And it is also true that those who trust in him become part of his family - being reconciled to the Father through Jesus in his death and resurrection. His children need to be born from above - and be resurrected in him.
Had Jesus had an earthly mother and father, he would Himself have been in Adam's line. For a new line, Jesus could not be a genetic descendant of Adam.
Jesus did have an earthly mother, her name is Mary. His father was the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father. Jesus was adopted into Joseph's line - in order to be the Son of David. Jesus was descended from Adam. Luke 3:38. Jesus was fully man and he was fully God. He had a human mother and he had divine father. He was genetically descended from Adam, through Mary. He was titularly descended from David through Joseph. If you are correct, then Jesus was only Fully God. He was not fully human. (If that is not what you are saying, then please explain more fully how he can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans.)
That is why Jesus birth had to be of the Holy Spirit. It was not just a miracle for the sake of a miracle.
I am not persuaded of your argument. I think it has flaws in it. I think it is true that Jesus had to be fathered by the Holy Spirit. I also agree that it was not just a miracle for the sake of it - and for it to have something to do with Jesus being a new line - I can work with that. but I reject (at least until I can be shown otherwise) that it was to demonstrate he was not genetically descended from humans.
It had to be in order for the salvation plan God designed to work. So for born again Christians today, our line of ancestry terminates in Jesus, not Adam.
No, again I disagree. It is not the case to be so - in order for God's salvation plan to work. What your argument does not deal with and I am sure you will in due course, is the humanity of Christ. How he struggled with the concept of sin without sinning. Why he needed to rely on the Holy Spirit. It also does not deal with Paul's problem, sinning when we don't want to - sanctification. If our ancestry terminates in Christ and not Adam, then Christians ought not to sin any more. This is not the case. In Christ, we are reconciled to God - through covenant life. Yet it is because we remain descended from Adam genetically that we continue to sin.
That is why the bible says we already have eternal life, because anyone born in Jesus' line is like Jesus. Eternal. And the bible calls us Saints, because saints are what the line of Jesus produces.
Yes, the Bible does say we have eternal life. Amen. We are however being transformed more and more to be conformed to his image. And it is true that we are Saints. Yet, I don't agree that there is a logical step or connection between your argument above and this truth. Not in relation to Jesus being born of a virgin anyway. Nor being descended from genetic humans.
It is a great, wonderful and selfless thing Jesus did for us. So we adore Him, and we thank Him, and we praise Him. Because while we were yet sinners, dead in sin, He loved us and died for us.
Yes this is true.
He made the first move, when we didn't deserve it, and came down into a world we had polluted into a hellhole, to save us
Again this is absolutely true.
Thanks Ethang, for this topic. I think much of what you have contributed is good. I just cannot come at parts of it. In particular, Jesus not being descended genetically from Adam. Nor that Mary was not his genetic mother. It is true that only in Jesus can we be reconciled back to the Father - and that only by trusting him can we be truly redeemed and have our sins and sin forgiven. We must be born again - because we cannot save ourselves. Yet Jesus is FULLY MAN and he is FULLY GOD. This cannot be the case if Jesus is not descended genetically from Adam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
My particular view is that atheism - is a religion. True it is not an organised religion - it is the quintessential paradigm of a non-organised religion - much like wicca or the older pagan religions.And your view is completely wrong.religion: "A state of life bound by religious vows" (Oxford dictionary)You are deliberately stirring up hatred in others and you should refrain from doing so.
Perhaps I am wrong. Yet, given that I take the view that religion as defined by most of the world, the non-secular world, is simply a synonym for worldview, then most of the world is wrong. Unfortunately for you, I reject the secular definition of religion as self-serving and nothing more. It actually does not even allow for Buddhism to be considered religious - because Buddhists as a general rule don't believe in God and are effectively atheists. Hence, the definition by secularists of religion does not even fit one of the most common and accepted religions in the world. It is therefore a defective definition. The non-secular definition is therefore a much better fit. Atheists reject this of course, because they like to think that they are above religion yet, for whatever reason, most of the persons I see on a religious forum are the so called non-religious. I think that like moths they are drawn naturally to discussing worldviews - religion. Atheists think they are right - and that the way they see the world is correct- and they want to enter the discussion. Hence, why you are here on a religious forum posting religious comments.
In my view - you are actually far more religious than me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
atheists, there are no two alike.Finally someone worked that out.
LOL @ Seth.
You do realise that every person on this world thinks that there are no two people alike?
I accept that there are no two atheists who believe the same thing just like I accept that there are no two Christians who believe (or don't believe) the same thing. Yet there are enough similarities about atheists to put them into a box and to declare they are a religion with particular doctrines.
All Atheists don't believe in God.
All Atheists believe in evolution. (Whether it occurred here on earth or on another planet and was transported here by aliens is another issue)
All Atheists believe that humans must make their own destiny.
All Atheists don't believe in a judgment day, that occurs after death.
All Atheists don't believe in an afterlife.
All Atheists believe that once you die - you die. Full Stop.
All Atheists believe that their position is superior. Primarily because they believe it is not rooted in superstition.
And this is just a small sample.
Christians believe some same things and some non-similar things. some Christians believe in Hell and some don't. some believe in miracles and some don't. Some believe the bible to be absolutely true and some don't. Some believe that you can pray to Mary and the Saints and some don't.
The point is - Christians are still Christians whether they believe the same or not. In my church, there are as many differences as there are similarities. The primary things we unite on is Jesus. He is our Lord and Saviour. Everything else can be different. I prefer capitalism. My closest friends believe socialism. We have Labor supporters and Liberal supporters. My Christian cousin is a Greens supporter. Some of us disagree with abortion and some of us agree with abortion. Some of us agree with capital punishment and some of us don't. some of us believe in theistic evolution and some of us believe in full evolution and some of us believe in creation. Some of us go to public school. Others to private and others homeschool. some like guns - others hate guns. But we are united in Christ.
Atheists are just as dissimilar - but they are share certain things - evolution is one - that death is the end is another. See above for others.
My particular view is that atheism - is a religion. True it is not an organised religion - it is the quintessential paradigm of a non-organised religion - much like wicca or the older pagan religions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
What is a theistic evolutionist? Yes, I could provide a definition myself, but I find that theistic evolutionists are like atheists, there are no two alike.Change my mind.
So please tell me what your understanding of this term means? Thanks in anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Let's evaluate that little nugget.And let's face it if you don't pray you won't get to heaven.
The story of the gospel is that only those who trust in Jesus go to heaven. Everyone else trusts in themselves which inevitably results in them going to a place which they consider is better than a place where Jesus is king. That place might well be just death, or it might be another place but in the end it does not really matter.
After all, if heaven is a place where people trust Jesus, then if you don't trust Jesus, then why would you want to go there? We could talk about Hell being a place of judgment, but why would we do that? After all, if you don't trust Jesus, then the entire notion of Hell is obviously going to be a sore point.
Now if trust is the key ingredient of going to heaven, then prayer is really ancillary and not a determiner of whether you to heaven or not. After all, many people try to pray but their prayers don't get them into heaven. So heaven itself is not a key to getting to heaven. Prayer is communication - talking with God. Hence if you trust Jesus, then it makes sense you will communicate with him. Nevertheless, many people don't trust Jesus but still try and talk to God. Yet they fail to realise that doing so -without trusting in Jesus is a bit like attending a wedding feast in your work clothes - or like a lawyer attending court without his robes, or like a person like me walking in to the PM's office without an invite. It will actually prevent communication - because I had forgotten who I was talking too - and thought too highly of myself.
Hence, prayer is not a key to entering heaven. In fact it could actually produce far worse results if tried in the wrong way and with arrogance. Hence - someone asking their favourite football team to win reveals you know nothing about God and nothing about prayer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I made that comment in the context of the opening post which was clearly designed to encourage hatred and derision towards those who do pray or believe that prayer is necessary.
willows - salenco or whatever his name is - has one intention on this forum which is why mostly I ignore him. Sometimes I fail to do so - this was one of those occasions.
For the record however, prayer is simply another word for talk. Humans talk to God. He answers prayers in accordance with his own will - which may be to say "yes, I will assist you with your request", or it might be "no I wont assist you with that request" or it might be "ok, that is a good request, but your timing might be better, so we will wait". God answers prayers from his people.
Now that last statement - "from his own people" is intentional. God has no obligation to answer anyone's prayers. He answers or responds as he chooses. But not everyone has a right to just ask God and expect he will answer them. And this is something we know just from living here on earth with anyone who has authority and power to respond to ordinary requests by humans. Governments, kings, gee even billionaries and other wealthy people don't simply respond to every request by any person. As a lawyer, in our courts - not every person has a right to talk or expect a judge to answer them. In fact even as a lawyer, I still have to dress appropriately to be "heard" or "seen" by the judge.
For any human to expect that God would drop everything for them to answer their request without any proper consideration of what they are actually doing is absurd - and yet we do it. And sometimes God answers these prayers.
My prayers - generally follow the prayer Jesus prayed - the Lord's Prayer. It generally starts with praise and worship and thankfulness to God for all that he has done, not just for me, but for everyone - and for this world. This generally places my communication into a place of humility before God - it is a little like a person entering the courtroom, bowing their heads, in order to make submissions to the judge. It really is ensuring my attitude is not demanding, or has false expectations, or is selfish, or greedy or all about me. It is an acknowledgment that I am totally dependant upon God for everything.
My prayers are not shopping lists or wish lists. They are generally about asking God to help me to love him better and to love others better. They are about asking God to change my attitudes to be more like Jesus. Yes, I ask God to comfort people in their grief and I ask God to make me a better parent and husband by helping me not to be so selfish or arrogant. I ask God to bring world peace - or to stop the Corona Virus. I pray that God will stop wars - even though I know that people wont change without first knowing God and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
But when people mock prayers because two people are asking for football teams to win or whatever, this really only shows me that they don't have a clue about prayer or more importantly about the person they allege they are praying too. Christians don't ask for their football teams to win. We pray that God's will will be done - and we pray that whatever this is - it will bring glory to God's name. We pray for sick people - yes, that they might get well, but we also pray that whether God answers this prayer or not - so long as they are drawn closer to God, their illness is secondary.
Prayer is not a shopping or a wish list. It is not asking God to do absurd things. It is not something that we have an automatic right to do. Yet Christians are commanded to pray - because Jesus is their high priest. We pray because of what Jesus has done for us. Without the forgiveness of sins and without his righteousness being accredited to us - giving us the proper clothing, we could not enter God's presence.
Yet, people like the opening poster want to mock prayer - but he has no clue about what is - and why we pray. We pray because we acknowledge that without God we can do nothing. and while many people in this world do lots of things and they think they do so without God, they are the ignorant ones. This is why Christians generally give thanks before eating food. Everything comes from God - we don't even have the capacity to breath without God giving us the breathe and the desire to keep on breathing. For Christians it is natural to pray and give thanks to God. Naturally, then we see answers to our prayers all of the time. For those who don't know God, how would they expect to have a prayer answered? Ironically it is the very brain God gave them, that they are using to fight against God that will inevitably be their witness against them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
In Australia secular thinking or atheism is not considered a religion - yet in America it is.Mainly would like to talk about America, do they identify as it or are you projecting that onto them?
In America, as might be expected, organisations declaring themselves receive a tax free status so far as it is not profit making. This includes secular and atheistic groups. In Australia this is not the case.
secularistDo you dislike secularism?
It depends what it is supposed to mean. Originally secular simply meant non-church type things. It did not relate to all so called non-religious thing. Its meaning has changed. Like Humanism for instance, how it was presented within the enlightenment clearly included the religious - just ask Erasmus, the pre-eminent humanist in his time - or Michelangelo or Da Vinci. None of these persons considered humanism something which was anti-religious which secular humanism has come to be about.
In respect to secularism itself, it as I understand is a creature of Protestantism. Its evolution was due to the fact that it believed States should be separate from church and vica versa. This was to enable the freedom of religions to co-exist without fear of being ostracised from the community. Ironically, in our 21st century, secularism now seeks to intentionally ostracise particular political and religious views from the community. Funny how the world works.
But someone might say - TS you are not telling us how you picked your particular religion. And the answer is: I didn't. In fact I ran from Christianity as fast as I could when I was younger. The point is God picked it for me. And that is the nuts and bolts of it. I would not have chosen it - especially since like most people who reject things - we don't go back to something we have rejected. In my secular - atheistic days, Christianity sickened me on almost every level. It was bigoted, racist, intolerant and foolish. It rejected science, good thinking and having fun or living life. There were rules and rules for this and for that. And most of the Christians I knew were white and middle class snobs. Its doctrines on prayer were weak, they always wanted money. They held to doctrines that included effectively cannibalism - drowning people in the water including babies. They were inconsistent hypocrites - and many in some churches were paedophiles. Liars and drunks. Following a book - a dead book written 2000 years at least by people on the other side of the world in a culture I could care two hoots about.
Why did you type this?And yet here I am. I did not pick it. God chose it for me.Do you believe in determinism?
I believe in predestination or God's providence. This although clearly in the same realm as determinism is not the same thing. If Determinism was to be defined as God determines all things - then yes I could agree with it. If it means as the fatalists believe that all things are determined and cannot be changed, then no I do not agree with it.
Christianity holds to a personal God who personal cares for his creation. He does good and not in a whimsical fashion. He does things that bring himself glory, not out of arrogance, but righteousness. However what is good for his purposes may well be seem evil for those who feel his wrath. Like a judge who sentences a criminal to prison does good for the community by sentencing the criminal, the criminal does not perceive the good, only the wrath and hence the evil. Would it be right to call the judge's sentence good or evil? Right or Wrong? The community would suggest that it is good, no matter what the criminal said. The criminal would not even call it just, despite it being just. Who determines what is good then? Is it the lawmakers, the community, or the criminal? I take the view that God determines what is good as he is the creator and the law maker and the judge. It matters little really whether the sinner or the criminal disagrees with the judge and thinks it is evil.
The discussion over freedom and determinism is rife throughout all of the philosophy. Christianity holds to a third view - covenantalism. Hence, the God of the covenant, has a people of the covenant, who are saved by covenant. It is both freedom and determinism. Freedom for instance has no real meaning without boundaries. Why have boundaries if there is no freedom? covenant thinking requires both the individual and the corporate. The one and the many. Or if you can engage with this thinking, the Trinity - ONE GOD three persons. Not just ONE GOD and not just many gods. Not just black and white in absolutes - and not just a tapestry of many colours as in relativism. Freedom within boundaries - for example - "eat from any tree in the garden except". Freedom and yet boundary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I think picking a religion would be something that is quite natural. After all, everyone is religious. It is never a matter of religion or no religion - but which religion. In Australia secular thinking or atheism is not considered a religion - yet in America it is. Ironic really.
But funnily enough - religion as defined by the secularist is quite different when it is defined by the religious or the greater majority in the world.
Religion is effectively worldview. Yes, some religions have deity figures - and some don't. Some have really tight and nitpicking rules - and some have no rules. Some have doctrines and teachings which distinguish them - and others pretend they don't have doctrines or teachings. Yet, as soon as anyone starts to criticise these doctrines or teachings - then all hell breaks loose (pardon the pun).
Examples please. Which worldview religion gets all up fired up when creation is mentioned? Which religion or worldview gets all fired up when homosexuality is mentioned? Gee which worldview or religion gets all fired up when religion gets mentioned on a religious debate site?
It is a joke and a deserved point of ridicule when someone says they are not religious.
But someone might say - TS you are not telling us how you picked your particular religion. And the answer is: I didn't. In fact I ran from Christianity as fast as I could when I was younger. The point is God picked it for me. And that is the nuts and bolts of it. I would not have chosen it - especially since like most people who reject things - we don't go back to something we have rejected. In my secular - atheistic days, Christianity sickened me on almost every level. It was bigoted, racist, intolerant and foolish. It rejected science, good thinking and having fun or living life. There were rules and rules for this and for that. And most of the Christians I knew were white and middle class snobs. Its doctrines on prayer were weak, they always wanted money. They held to doctrines that included effectively cannibalism - drowning people in the water including babies. They were inconsistent hypocrites - and many in some churches were paedophiles. Liars and drunks. Following a book - a dead book written 2000 years at least by people on the other side of the world in a culture I could care two hoots about.
And they wanted people to believe that some dude died on a cross and that was supposed to save the world from something I did not even believe in. God the devil and sin. Hell??? A three headed god - laughable. Jesus - half man half god. died and rose from the dead. lives in heaven and is coming back again. Far out - the whole notion is a joke.
And yet here I am. I did not pick it. God chose it for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodox priests are more often than not married.
So can you explain the difference in role between those who marry and those who don't?
Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. Infants are baptized with the understanding that they will be raised in the faith.
I don't have a problem with infant baptism per se. I agree with its biblical consistency. Nevertheless, submerging an infant three times in the name of the Trinity seems to be overthetop and not authorised by Scripture.
The western church rebelled against Orthodoxy, which is why it is in schism. The ecumenical councils are very clear that altering the creed of the church is an act of schism. The Latin speaking church demonstrably did this in the addition of the filoque. In addition to this, the church has never accepted the authority of Rome to interfere in the affairs of other self governing churches, and even before the schism there are examples of the bishop of Rome being rebuked for attempying this. Even examples of the Alexandrian Patriarch being rebuked for this!
This is your opinion. The Western Church states it was the Eastern Church which rebelled against Orthodoxy, and therefore went into schism. The Western Church did not alter the creed despite your repetition of the same. Each creed from the beginning changed - so must be altered according to your understanding. I would suggest that each development was a clarification. I tend to agree that Rome nor Alexandria ought interfere in the affairs of other self-governing churches. The Council at Nicaea was an ecumenical council and acted in accordance with the rules of the Church at the time. Again the East chose not to attend. That was a waiving of the East's opportunity to contribute.
There is a difference between rejecting a church as being a legitimate, and rejecting sincere Christians who are in these heterodox churches. We do the former, not the later. In fact, writings of our church have plenty examples of us acknowledging the good we see in western saints. We even recognize as saints some who were technically in heretical churches. For example, Saint Isaac of Nineva was a monastic who for a brief time was even a bishop in the nestorian church.
I can see how you make a difference between a legitimate church and also sincere Christians. Yet, given it was the East who went into schism it is difficult to sustain your argument fully. I am pleased the East has not rejected all of the sincere Christians in the West, although I find it amusing that you seem to elevate persons to Saints whereas Paul describes all sincere Christians as Saints. Also, I don't have a particular problem recognising the Eastern Orthodox, at least in theory, is a legitimate, despite its own heresies such as the rejection of the filioque.
I also accept the biblical teaching on covenant and its teaching of appeal. When a proper authority loses its way, then an appeal is made to another legitimate authority to provide the security of renewing or continuing the former ways. Hence, when the Roman Catholic Church lost its way, an appeal was made to properly instituted God ordained authority to renew or continue the former ways. If the Protestants had not appealed to such properly ordained institutions, then its authority would be illegitimate. Hence, why I would dismiss those who did not follow similar paths and went it alone on their own authority. If you knew church history as you suggest, then you would know the ways of the covenant and how people who are being oppressed by their authorities are able to appeal in such a manner as to not be subversive in their manner towards proper authorities.
It is important also to note that we understand the difference between Holy Tradition and custom. We have customs, and these we recognize as being cultural things that are not integral to the faith. However, that does not make customs bad. It is only harmful when these customs are taken for something other than what they are.
I am glad to read that. Although I suspect that like most people - what makes something a custom and what makes something more than that such as holy tradition is not so easy to define. What makes wearing a robe tradition or custom? What makes a priest celibate tradition or custom? What makes incense and images in the church building a tradition or a custom? These are the questions you ought to address - at least for me. I certainly said above- we should not get rid of traditions for the sake of getting rid of traditions. I do think we ought to understand why we have traditions - and even customs. Many people unfortunately in EVERY church do not know why they stand or sit or kneel at different times in the service. For many it is what they have always done - why do Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Why do people genuflect when they enter a building or pray? Why do the priests finish of completely all of the wine - but not the bread after communion? Why do the Catholics not let their parishioners drink the wine anymore? Why do Charismatics raise their hands?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Advancing Kingdom, as if God already doesn't reign over all, even death! You don't know what you are saying!As st Paul wrote, "the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven"
With respect, it was you who suggested that Satan was attacking the church. I love Paul's words there. It is the fulfilment of Mark 13.
And surely it is written on the hearts of all that The Truth is God, and The Truth is what sets free. What do we do but confirm what is written on the hearts of all?
Yes, I agree - but what is written on our hearts? This by the Spirit of God.
We train the heart in righteousness. Because we understand that faith without works is no faith at all, and the first and foremost act of faith is to align the heart to God in order to be cleansed and perfected by The Holy Spirit. This is built into everyrhing we do. Something you can't discern, because in your zealous and misguided iconoclasm, you would crucify Christ here on Earth, the church itself!
Christ was crucified here on earth. Do you deny he was crucified? We take the view that until we are born from above, that our hearts and minds cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Do you think otherwise? Our hearts must be reconciled to God or all else is nought. Do you reject this thinking?
You protestants take for granted the napkin of peter you hold, the scraps off the table that fell into your laps. You try in vain to recreate the church which never went away.
Whatever do you mean? It is not our church to recreate. It is the church where the Lord Jesus is the head of it. Do you understand grace? DO you think that you deserve grace? Do you think that your church deserves Grace? Do you think that the protestants don't deserve Grace? Do you think that we think we deserve grace? The Lord Jesus is transforming his people into the people he wants them to be - more and more like himself. He is our head, we are his body. It is he who transforms us - not we ourselves. It is by his Spirit that we have life and it is by Jesus that we upheld by his word. Don't you believe this? We abide in him and love him because he first loved us. He holds us in the palm of his hands. We know his voice because we belong to him. He has made us part of his family by faith in Christ Jesus through the atoning work of his blood. He commands us to come boldly into his presence because Jesus is our great high priest. We could not do so unless his Spirit draws us to him.
There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The heterodox are united in their rejection of The Orthodox Catholic Church, the very Apostolic Church. The historical church.
Yes totally agree. So why do you seek to divide the church? It is you who call us divided. It is you who think you are right and we are wrong. I have said on numerous occasions that I see us as one church. I see the denominations as a good thing. You choose to see it as wrong and in error and subsequently, you then say it is divided. I say that the church is one body - made up of many parts. Do you recall the disciples saying to Jesus - "do you want us to call down fire on those others?" Jesus said, "they who are not against us are with us." Why do you reject Jesus' words? Why do you act in accordance with the disciples in this picture?
What do we say about the heterodox? That they have a piece of the pie, they are denominations. The grace of God extends through all of creation, but the faith of the apostles is preserved in the church that Christ himself left to the apostles.
I say you are making a mess of things by acting against the Lord Jesus. Despite his commands to not be divisive - and despite Peter's words that provide a test of those who belong to God, you and it appears your church, are spreading misconceptions and trying to divide the body of Christ. I am pleased however that the Lord Jesus is bigger than your church and that his kingdom is extending to cover all the world embracing all cultures, tongues, and peoples. Praise Jesus.
And our apostolic succession is not valid simply because we can trace our ordinations back to Jesus and the apostles, but because we have the pearl of great price, and we do not trample over it like swine.
I am not persuaded by apostolic succession because firstly, it is not in the Scriptures, and secondly, the papacy and indeed the OC have both used it to prove their authority. Both churches have sought authority in tradition and superstition and not the Word of God which explicitly tells us that authority is found in Christ and in faithful men - full of the Spirit. You and the Roman Catholic Church make your apostolic succession the basis of authority - not faith, not Christ but a tradition. This is probably one of the primary reasons both the OC and the Catholic church have fallen into liberalism and become irrelevant to the world. They rely on their tradition; not the Holy Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
By all means, abandon your traditions first and I will still hold to the Holy Tradition of the church, as saint Paul wrote to saint Timothy, bishop of Ephesus..."we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Hi Mopac, I am not in a habit of abandoning traditions for the sake of abandoning traditions. Nor do I expect anyone else to do the same. I do take the view that all traditions however are not the Scriptures per se nor necessarily good per se. Hence, I am prepared to give up any tradition that is not in line with the Word of God even if it is a tradition of the church. For instance, when persuaded by the Scriptures that the tradition of rejecting of infant baptism was incorrect, I gave up that tradition which remains an essential doctrine of the church I grew up in. Similarly, their tradition that holy communion was only to serve as a reminder of Christ's death has now been abandoned by me as I grow in faith and the Word of God. Furthermore, the tradition that Scripture is to be interpreted literally was another tradition I abandoned upon becoming aware firstly, that it was a tradition only and secondly, that it was not in accord with the whole teaching of the bible.
My position is to test all of the traditions of the church I am in against the sound teaching of the Scripture and in accordance with the creeds. Paul in his teaching did not want anyone to abandon sound teaching or the traditions of the Apostles for the sake of abandoning them. With him, I am in agreement. Nevertheless, Paul is not suggesting that every tradition in the church should be kept. He clearly limits it to the Word and Epistle. I do not agree that every tradition in the OC accords with sound teaching of the Scriptures, but that many remain which are nor from the Word or the Epistle. For example, the retention of priests to be celibate. The retention of the tradition to baptise by full immersion 3 x of infants. The rejection of the Western Church as not being a member of the true church. And there are many more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The only thing you continually demonstrate is that you are more guilty of what you accuse others of than the people you accuse.
Excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Do you even read what our Lord says? Just stop and think for a moment? Where are the gates of Hell? What are gates used for? This is a picture of Our Lord proclaiming the ever reaching and ever extending kingdom of God, even to the very realm of Hell which itself will be taken over by the Kingdom of God. It is not about Satan attacking the church - it is about the destruction of the devil.It should be obvious that the devil wants to destroy the true church, but it won't happen because Christ Himself said that the gates of hell will not overcome the church!
Ours is an advancing kingdom. It is an extending kingdom - because it is empowered by the Spirit of God, it has the glorious Word of God, and the beautiful church of Christ, not to mention the amazing gospel. You seem to be stuck in an age where you still the church being beaten up by Satan.
I say it is time for you to embrace the truth of the Gospel and the outpouring of the Spirit of God, letting go of the false traditions and philosophies that keep you locked in the dark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The self governing Orthodox Churches are not denominations, we are all in communion with eachother and recognize eachother as Orthodox and Catholic.
But this is not true is it? Consider the current lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox churches. Consider the current lack of Communion between the Orthodox church in Ukraine and in Russia. Consider the lack of communion with other Orthodox churches. Why is it that you consider the Episcopalian church in England a different denomination than the Episcopalian church in Scotland? It is the same church, run by the same rules and the same God. You need to do some more research in relation to how the Orthodox denominations relate to each other. Oh by the way, when 30,000 different denominations are mentioned in lump sums, there appears to be many orthodox churches which are given as separate denominations.
I don't need to dispute the eucharist with you, it is unnecessary. All I will say concerning that is we see things very differently, and it is irreconcilable with what we accept as reality.
Really? Do you deny that it is one of the sacraments of our Lord.
Remember, Christ Himself said this was a hard teaching.
With respect, saying it is a hard teaching does not mean that you are correct and that I am wrong. In fact every non-believer I talk to about holy communion says that what I say about it is "hard" as well.
The church teaches Christianity, not eastern paganism.
I agree that the Church should teach Christianity, but very often as in the case of your church's mysticism, it teaches things that are not Christian.
The Anglican or Episcopalian church invented the branch theory of the church to justify the existence of a church that broke communion with Rome for the pettiest reason. Martin Luther at least had some good reasons. The Anglican Church exists because some king didn't like being told how to conduct his married life!
You speak so much nonsense. What history books do you read? It sounds very much like the papal history books. The Anglican Church existed prior to Henry the 8th. It races it lineage back to St John. Repeating lies does not do your church any service. The Anglican Church existed well before the Roman Catholic Church ever came to England. Go on go and read your church histories. Read who attended at the earlier councils. Well back in the first few centuries - well before the papacy ever got hold of the truth, there were English Bishops attending. It is strange that someone who purports to be so anti-pope continues to use the lies of the papacy to support his assertions. Henry the 8th in his time rejected the Papacy. Do you think this a good thing or not?
There is no "protestant church", so making broad ststements about it is difficult. What can I say? They are all denominations, not catholic.
Of course there is a protestant church. Just because you deny it, does not make it so. Protestants protest for the truth of the Word of God above the false traditions and customs of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
So you believe in papal supremacy? You think it was right of Rome to alter the creed of the church that it had no right to alter?
LOL! You are getting yourself tied into knots. It is you who continue to rely on Roman Catholicism to support your views. The Protestant Church rejected papal authority. The creed was not altered, so far as to clarify what was causing division within the church at the time. The East rejected not just Rome's position but also the majority of elders and bishops at the council. It's failure to attend was its deliberate attempt to sabotage the council and to try and attach notoriety to it. And obviously the East achieved its purpose. This I submit is a very Un Christian characteristic - and as such its position ought to be ex-communication until it repents. I would think that truth - no matter where it comes from - ought to be considered and debated properly. For the East to refuse to debate the matter in a proper forum, because it did not like the numbers is an indictment on it, not on those who bothered to attend.
If Rome was on the right side of the issue, I might not be Orthodox. I accidently found the Orthodox Church. I had never given it.much thought before. Studying Church history and the writings of the saints is what lead me to Orthodoxy. When it comes to the great schism, it is irrefutable to me that Rome is on the wrong side of history.
Whether Rome is on the right of history altogether is one matter. But in relation to this particular issue - it was in the right. Your concession that you accidently found the Orthodox church does not mean a lot in the scheme of things. Given your conclusion that you believe it is irrefutable, again displays prejudice not reason.
The history of the Latin church only gets more blood thirsty and political after the schism. How can you, a self declared protestant even defend the church you claim to be the true church when you yourself are not even a part of it? Of you believe in Rome so much, why don't you join their church?
The history of the Latin church demonstrates only that when the leaders in the church accepted as "ordained by God" because they follow some kind of apostolic succession rather than by faith that there will be corruption. It also demonstrates that all people this side of glory will continue to sin even when they are Christians or in places of importance in the church. The Orthodox church is not clean of blood on its hands either as a cursory look of its involvement over the era of the soviet union will demonstrate.
As a believer by faith in the almighty God who never leaves himself without a witness - it is a given that when the authority of the church supercedes its brief that individuals within that organisation may well appeal to those outside of the church but whose authority has been invested by God. You seem to think that there is no corruption in the Orthodox church, that no orthodox person ever commits sin and can never make an error. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that worse than papal authority.
As for supporting the Roman Catholic church, I have no reason not to support it when it acts in faith according to the will of God - yet when it is in error and against the sound teachings of the bible, then I will trust God not the church. And the same remains so with the Orthodox church.
The Latin Church is heterodox for no arbitrary reason. They demonstrably corrupted the faith.
As does the Orthodox denominations.
The Nicean-Constantinople creed is the creed of the church. What does it say? The Holy Spirit proceeds, that is, originates from The Father. The Father is the fountainhead of divinity. To say that the spirit originates in The Father and The Son is an alteration of the creed, and it totally confuses The Trinity. Double procession is a corruption of the faith.
Well I say it clarifies the position. You are only following what you have been told. No independent thinking for yourself. After all you cannot remain an orthodox and hold to the correct position as articulated by the Creed. You MUST consider it heresy. You Must consider it a corruption.
Yes, and this includes many protestants.(died for the creed of the church)
If this is true at all, it was no doubt the corrupted Latin creed, because protestants did not inherit the creed that to this day is used by every Orthodox Church.
Why would you doubt it? I have no reason to lie about it. At least you recognise those who were martyred for translating it into the common vernacular. Which I would submit is a strange thing for so called non-Christians to do as you suggest. You are so inconsistent.
May God bless the martyrs who were killed to translate the bible into common vernacular! Something The Orthodox Church has ALWAYS done. Rome on the other hand insisted that everything be done in Latin up until the 1950s.
It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.
As you know, I do not acknowledge the reasonings of the west to be the reasonings of the church because the west broke away from the church precisely because they perverted the faith. In no small part due to their reasonings!
Yes, I know you do. I accept that these are your prejudices.
They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning.
Most of the church fathers spoke Greek. Very few spoke Latin. That is why the west has disproportionate influence from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, while undoubtedly a church father, was not right about everything. In the west, he was taken as the authoritative church father.
Speaking Greek or Latin is an irrelevancy. It is only relevant to show the lack of scholarship in the East. Augustine is a doctor in the church. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church does not make as much of it as you might think. I am reasonably sure that the Eastern church despite its assertion that he is ok, only takes the part it likes. Ironically, Calvin who you seem to dislike, is in almost total agreement with Augustine in his doctrines, hence to reject Calvin is to reject Augustine. I wonder if you have taken the time to read either Augustine or Calvin.
The fact of the matter is, Church history before the great schism shows very clearly that everything important happened in the east. All the councils were held in the east. Rome was one of many patriarchates, never ruler over all the others.
Well that settles it then doesn't? But wait there is more. Everything in the OT that was important happened in Israel, therefore everything else is unimportant. similarly, anything that was important in the NT happened in Jerusalem. It is not an argument of any substance to say that everything important happened in the East therefore the West is wrong. Far out Mopac, surely your brain does not work that way. Remember the gospel was first in Jerusalem, then in Samaria and then to the ends of the earth. As the gospel grows its kingdom extends to all the nations of the world and to all cultures. Only a Jew would say - everything important happened in Israel. You need to get a grasp of the grace of God.
Evangelical, protestant, whatever label they go by, they are not catholic.
All churches I know claim to be catholic. We all claim to be part of the Church universal, visible and invisible.
Actually, the Anglican(Episcopalian) church likes to say it is catholic. I don't think they like the protestant label that much. The Lutheran Church here in America is so liberalized and wishy washy it hardly stands for anything any more. If Martin Luther were alive to see the church that goes by his name today, he would be hopping mad, I guarantee it. John Calvin was a straight up heretic, and his influence in protestantism is toxic at best. His teachings are definitely not in.line with what the church has always taught, and the presbytarian and reformed churches are his legacy.
So much nonsense. It is difficult to know where to start. Protestantism arose from the notion of protesting for the Scriptures not as a protest against the Roman Church. The Episcopalian church is a broad church. Much like the Orthodox it has its true believers and it has its traditional believers and it has its academic believers. And it has its atheists. And for the record I have met atheistic Orthodox believers.
What about the methodists? I actually like the Wesleys. They seemed like they were really trying for orthodoxy.
Yes, some of them are very nice. My wife's grandfather was a very famous Methodist preacher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity. One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults.
This is a false narrative that serves only to unequally yoke heretics with the church. The various autocephalus and local churches are not denominations.Protestant churches can't even agree on whether or not the eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. To deny that it is to deny the very incarnation itself.The Orthodox Catholic Church knows the difference between Holy Tradition and cultural custom.
It is not a false narrative just because you say so. We use denominationalism because that it what it is. The Eastern Orthodox church has various national churches - each which considers themselves the supreme church of God. They are denominations in the same way that there are 160 different denominations of the Episcopalian church. The Episcopalian church however does not have its head in the sand like those in the Eastern Orthodox Churches when it comes to denominations. The Episcopalian church still acknowledges where its authority is derived - indeed as all members / congregations of the true church.
I reject your assertion that this narrative serves to unequally yoke heretics with the church. We reject any who are heretics, hence why the LDS and the JW do not worship with the Churches of Christ.
Protestant Churches hold various views on holy communion. None would deny its represents truly the body and blood of Christ. It clearly is not THE blood and body of Christ as when it was instituted by Jesus was very much still alive and all of his own body and blood was present in his own physical body. You can dispute this if you like, as you would probably will, but that is irrational and not faith. In fact it is one of the superstitions that the Orthodox is unable to differentiate from the reality of God. It is a custom and one that follows the mysticism traits of the pagan eastern religions.
Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith.
The Orthodox Church is the very church that abides by the ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils define our faith. Ecumenical councils which Rome demonstrably violated, and protestant churches inherited, as evident in the fact that where you find the creed recited, it is always the altered creed of Rome.
That is if the church even recites the creed at all.
Many churches recite the creeds. We frequently recite the creeds in our church.
I reject your lies and misconceptions about protestant churches. Church history has always debated about the one council your church rejects. history as I said above is full of bias. This is one of these parts. The West rejects the East as heretics and the East were excommunicated from the True Church. And on the other hand, the East did the same to the West. I hold to the position of the West and reject the East's position as weak and ill conceived.
Many martyrs and confessors came out of defending the creed of the church.
Yes, and this includes many protestants.
Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs. Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form.
Your understanding is simply not in line with what the church has always believed.
It is not in line with your understanding - and possibly because your church refuses to provide the reasoning which is found in the West.
If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world.
You are not speaking to anything the church teaches.
Your lack of knowledge is astounding.
When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination.
The visible church on Earth is as the human nature in Christ. The church in heaven is as the divine nature of Christ. They are One Church.The view you are expressing is an ahistorical understanding of the church.
They are historical. They might not agree with your position but that is because your church is prejudiced against what the West taught from the beginning.
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church.
If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility
There is no "eastern" church, there is simply the church. There is nothing arrogant about submitting to the apostolic church. If I was truly arrogant, I would start my own church and add to the list of 30,000+ denominations that constitute the churches of rebellion that go under the umbrella of protestantism.
you are right - there is only the Eastern denominations. There are not 30,000 protestant denominations in any event. And many of the so called denominations today are not under the umbrella of Protestantism. The Baptists, the churches of Christ, the Salvation Army, the brethrens are not protestant churches. The only churches which actually fall under the protestant banner are Episcopalian, Luthran, Presbyterian, and the Reformed churches. the others you refer to along with the Charismatic movement and Pentecostal churches are what is known as dissidents. Your ignorance misses the point that Protestant Churches are Confessional churches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Barring your mispelled word of “humour,”it most certainly is a runaway quote because you did not, and I repeat, did not address the main topic other than to be allegedly humorous about it in the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13). What this blatantly reveals about you is the fact at this time, you have the same modus operandi of your cohort in crime ethang5, where he runs away with non topic inane responses as well.
America is not the only place where English is utilised. Humour is spelt correctly. As for not addressing the main topic, I directly refuted his topic with my response. The fact that this eludes your tiny little brain is unsurprising, but it is what it is.
With you slapping the face of Jesus in your Satanic quote above by not calling our God by name, then let it be known that you know more than Jesus’ inspired true words within the scriptures, to wit:“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due TO HIS NAME; Worship the LORD in holy array” (Psalm 29:2)."Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His NAME bring an offering and come before Him. Worship the LORD in the splendor of His holiness” ( 1 Chronicles 16:28-29)
Imbecile! I count at least 6 times that you use God as God and don't refer to him by name. I underlined them for your assistance. If you knew the OT as you purport, then you would realise that there are many names of God and not just the couple you refer to. The verses above do not tell us to use his name, but rather to ascribe glory to his name. The two are quite different things. In any event, anyone has studied the OT would know that a person's name describes the person's character. When we pray to God and ascribe glory to his name, we are reiterating his character, for instance we pray to God as the God of all comfort to bring comfort to those who are suffering. We pray to God as the God of all wisdom to provide wisdom to those who seek it. We pray to the God of Holiness to bring righteousness and mercy to those who need it. Simply calling God, Jesus or Yahweh or Ghost does none of those things and reveals a particular shallowness in the way you consider God and how to glorify Him.
The passages above state with specificity that you are to glorify the NAME of God, and NOT His title, do you understand this simple biblical fact? Then doing the simple 2nd grade math that hopefully you will understand, using the term “God” is a title, and NOT God’s true name, understood? Yes? Maybe? Our God’s name is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, of the Triune Doctrine, and not His ‘title” of God, GET IT?
I have addressed this above.
If you want to know more than Jesus’ inspired words, as Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost God incarnate, where it is your decision to call Him whatever you want, then subsequent to your enlightenment of Psalm 29:2 and 1 Chronicles 16:28-29, where biblically do you get this authority? Please tell us without making yourself the further biblical fool!
I have answered this above already. The authority we have is in part in the verses you have referred to and which you have misunderstood. Ascribing to God his glory is to reflect upon his character in the way we pray to Him. We give Him praise and Honour for Who He is and for all that He has done in Christ Jesus. We confess our sins to Him and repent of them, which means turning away from our sins and turning towards the LORD God Almighty. We follow Jesus in other words.
Barring the biblical axiom that Jesus is God, and made in man’s image while on earth, where you should wipe the proverbial egg from your face at this time, then with your additional bible ignorant quote above, and since our God Jesus, of whom you disrespect, then I will have to perform the following to your future Devil Speak. This will be, when Jesus has the same historical Abrahamic foundation as the Islam God of Allah, in being the SAME GOD, I will refer to Allah when dealing with your over the top Christian ignorance to prove a point, at your laughable expense, of why you have to name our specific God from the others of this era! Your bible ignorance precludes that there is not other Gods that are worshipped at this time. Priceless ignorance. LOL!
Firstly, humanity is made in God's image. God is not made in man's image. Hence when God appeared as a man, He was in fact reflecting his own original image. Get the logic right and the timing. Islam is not descended from Abraham. Islam is one of the world's newest religions and commenced well after Christianity and the Jewish religion. There is no direct link between Mohammed and Abraham. At least Jesus can trace his history back to Abraham. Mohammed arose in a country where there were many different cultures and nations. Abraham lived in a country where there were many nations and cultures. Abraham had two children, Ismael and Isaac. One was the seed of promise and one the seed of the flesh. There is every indication that Ismael followed the same religion of his father. But there is no evidence that every other person who lives in the area of Palestine or the Middle East is directly descended from Ismael or from Abraham. To suggest that it is the case that EVERY Arab is descended only from Abraham is a nonsense. Abraham was one man in the middle east at the time he lived. There were many thousands of others. It is more probable that most Middle Eastern persons are descended from every other person than Abraham.
Allah is the Aramaic term for god. This does not mean that Mohammed's god is connected with the Jewish or Christian God. It only means that Mohammed appreciated the truth and freedom that comes from recognising ONE GOD. Yet the god he chose to represent is nothing like the Jewish God or the Christian God.
Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you attended ethang5’s school of “How to be totally Bible Ignorant,” and when needed, lay down “smoke screens” that will take one’s thinking away from the fact that you are not addressing the topic at hand, but rather running away from it. Jesus and I will not let you perform this ungodly act, understood? Yeah, you understand alright!
I consider Ethang's messages in the main on point. He has his own way of doing things. Yet the fact that he mocks you is because you are worthy of being mocked. And the fact that he embarrasses you is because you are embarrassing.
“If you had only have learnt ….” Huh? WTF? Irrelative to Christianity, I can also see that you had the same inept English teacher as the totally bible inept ethang5, where your syntactical sentence structuring is abhorred! In turn, “this reveals much about you!”
Yes, I noticed my bad English skills in that sentence after I had posted it. Sadly, I did not think it would matter too much. After all, this is a debate site, not learn how to do English class. It reveals only that at times I am lazy.
Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. Either get someone coherent that can write for you, or remain silent to save face. Thanking you in advance.
I would prefer to have bad English skills than bad logic like you. So you are most welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Denominationalism is strictly a protestant/"evangelical" Christianity phenomena.
No that is incorrect. Denominationalism is just acknowledging that there are differences within the church that reflect culture, geography, and history. These sometimes intensify into factions. Originally, the Church was in Jerusalem. But soon because of the movement of the Spirit of God it began to stretch into different places. The epistle to the Romans written by Paul revealed there were different factions in that church, both Jewish and Gentile. In each of Paul's various letters these factions arise - but so do different things in different locations and cultures. He took aim at those different factions which were trying to change the gospel, but he embraced the liberty of others that took a strictly legalistic approach to the law. Denominationalism in its current form is really the development of this idea. As the Church moved West, and East, it encountered different cultures and it needed to learn whether to embrace or not embrace particular ideas. The rise of denominations in one sense started with Paul and the Jewish Church - it developed further with the division of East and West. It developed even further around the time of the Reformation and the protestant movement. Yet its roots are from the beginning. It is no small thing that God gave Jacob 12 sons who all had different agendas yet formed the one nation. And it is no small thing that Israel divided later on into two separate divisions of the same nation.
Denominationalism allows for differences in culture, geography, history, and non-essential doctrines while at the same time remaining true to those things which are true and essential to be Christian. There are certain non-negotiables in Christianity. One of the great strengths of denominationalism is its safeguards against heresy and cults.
What does it really mean?That the entirety of the church is not present here, it is not truly catholic.
That is a nonsense to me. The church is present on earth and in heaven. It is one Catholic church. On earth we have the visible local churches - and we have the invisible church as a whole - making up of past and present and even future Christians. That is the true Catholic Church. As Hebrews puts it - the testimony of the Saints and as John puts it in Revelation - "a number which cannot be counted.
The church is a family. Families do not always live in the same house - but they do share the same values. And they do share the same ancestry.
Some say they are "nondenominational", but do any so called "nondenominational " churches have the entire faith? No, they like all the other denominations only contain a piece of the pie.
I agree that the term non-denominational is a furphy. It is like saying "we have no liturgy". It is a nonsense. As for whether they have the entire faith that is a different question. I would take the view that all churches have the entire faith. Yes, even the Eastern Orthodox church. Even the Catholic Church. But what is the entire faith? That is the bigger question. For a church to be a church it must have the entire faith. This is why I would say that the LDS and the JW are not part of the church because they do not have the entire faith. Yet entire in this context is not saying everything about every doctrine in relation to God and everything because then no church would have the entire faith - for we are all sinful, and we are not God. Only God has the entire faith - if that entire means absolutely everything.
Entire therefore must relate to the faith as handed down by the Apostles from Jesus and which is recorded in the Scriptures according to Hebrews 1:1-3. This is why the Church universal accepts there are certain non-negotiables in relation to doctrine relating to the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the teaching on the atonement. The Creeds are the benchmark. Fall away from this and you fall away from the entire faith.
Yet "entire" does not relate to the negotiables that very often arise from culture, geography, and other means including how to interpret. Issues relating to baptism mode, wearing of robes, married priests, holy communion, music, forms of church government, the role of woman in the church, etc al tend to be tied to culture, geography and local customs. Yes, some are more important than others, but none are of a non-negotiable form. If people are not baptised or not do take communion even though they are sacraments, they do not risk salvation, otherwise the thief on the cross was fooled by Jesus. And for the record, I think that the bible does provide much insight into mode and use of each of the above. Yet, although each is obviously communicated in faith and understood by faith, there usage or misusage are not the unforgiveable sin. Whereas each of the doctrines of essentiality about God - relate directly to the unforgiveable sin of denying Christ in his person, his deity, and his work on this world.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is truly nondenominational, not nondenominational in pretense. That is, the fullness of the faith is there. It is complete. It is universal. It is catholic.
When we talk of the invisible church in history and eternity - this is absolutely correct. Yet there is the now and the hereafter. On earth sin still exists. And while sin exists, humanity will continue to err, including the church. It is only in the Next Life that the church will truly be universal and without denomination.
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the complete church.
If you are referring to the Eastern Church you only reveal your arrogance. You seem to lack one of the essentials - humility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The west embraced a scholastic approach to theology, which is why arguments such as these gained prevalence after the schism. Compare that to the Eastern approach of hesychism.
Mopac, you are picking at straws. It is well known that the Eastern approach resorted to mysticism following the gods of the Far East. It also known that the written Word was too difficult for them to interpret so they invented an entirely unreasonable form of interpretation. In the West, the Church followed the Word as it was written and attempted to understand it from that point of view. This is not scholasticism, it is practical.
In the west, a theologian is someone who is educated. In the east, a theologian is someone who prays. The west has more of an outward focus, and an undue emphasis on reason. The east understands that the pure in heart see God, and that a good education alone is not sufficient.
Again you resort to articulate things you don't actually understand. In the West, a theologian is only a theologian if they have faith. Education is not even essential. Education is not however frowned upon but it is valued. But its value is still subservient to faith. Theologians by their nature are introspective and prayerful. They understand that without prayer and total reliance upon the Spirit of God, none of their knowledge is worth anything. While there may be an element of truth in the notion that reason is elevated higher than it ought, in the East superstitions, traditions, and experientialism is elevated higher than it ought. Both of these elevations from the West and the East are dangerous because they devalue the Word of God and faith in it. Hence it is incorrect for you to say that the East understands that the pure in heart see God because by implication you suggest that the West is neither pure in heart nor see God.
The Eastern church is clearly corrupt, just like the Roman Catholic Church. This is evidenced in one sense by the billions of dollars they have salted away despite the obvious poverty of many of their members and the communities they live in. The Eastern Church also has the ring of arrogance about it, never conceding any wrong doing, always expecting others to concede to it, and always failing to bring itself under the Lordship of Christ and his written Word. One example of this is its clear hatred of the bible, calling those who take it seriously as idolaters. It would rather rely upon its superstitions, mysticism, and own wisdom than hear the clear word of God. The Catholic church is no different, taking its source of wisdom not from the Bible, but from its clerics, traditions, and reason. Even the current pope is influenced by the voices in the world attempting to change its doctrines.
The Protestant Church is not immune to corruption either. It has over the years since God birthed it fallen back into listening to the voices of the world and not to the Word of God. Yes, like each of the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic church, there are pockets, and sometimes large pockets which remain faithful to God and His Word.
Mopac, while I do not dislike the Orthodox Church, and indeed have much time for its history and teachings, when it maintains like you do that it is the ONLY true church then it reeks of being a cult. Not only that, it is an inaccurate assessment of history and teachings. History is never neutral. I accept that the Western history books will be biased - but so will the Eastern history books. It is therefore incumbent on those who do read the history that we do not allow our biased and prejudices to overwhelm the truth.
It is important to note that we also take education very seriously, but we understand that the faith is moreso revealed than come to as a logical conclusion.
And again I reiterate, the Western Church understands that faith is of greater value than pure reason or education or tradition. And we do not equate tradition with faith. All traditions must be firmly based in the Scriptures, or else they nothing more than superstition. Hence, the creeds are based Scripturally in the Word of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR REVEALING RUNAWAY QUOTE TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, TAKING ETHANG5'S APPROACH: "Yes prayer works. I prayed that you would start another topic demonstrating your foolishness, and God answered my prayer. Thank you God. "
My quote was revealing. It however was not a runaway quote. It demonstrated in humour the ridiculousness of the OP. That you missed the obvious humour, I suspect, reveals much about you. LOL!
First thing, show respect to our God and actually use His given historical name, understood? It is "Yahweh," the God of the Hebrews only, and if you follow the Trinity Doctrine, His name recognition is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, get it? This action helps in differentiating our God from the many others in the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages where they all existed.
You don't get to command me to use a particular name for God. You are not my boss, elder, or as far as I can tell even a Christian. In any event I will from time to time use various names for God. However, that is my choice and it my decision. I also think that the character of God and indeed anything about Him distinguishes Him from all the so called gods made in man's image.
I'll use a favorite term that your equally bible ignorant cohort ethang5 uses when he can't discuss the topic at hand, but only to run away from it. This quote is; "If you have nothing to say, remain silent!" This quote fits you perfectly.
If you had only have learnt to apply that to yourself, then this response would not have been necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Yes prayer works. I prayed that you would start another topic demonstrating your foolishness, and God answered my prayer. Thank you God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Catholic Church is not a denomination. I recently created a topic on this. We can discuss that there.
Yes it is. just because the Orthodox church denies it, does not change the fact. In fact according to the True Church, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church was excommunicated from the table of Christ. The orthodox church still needs to repent of its schismatic ways and return to the Church for forgiveness.
The doctrinal formulations of the church were all originally written in Greek. All the ecumenical councils before the schism of Rome took place in the east.
So what? It was the Eastern Church who was judged by God with the Islamic hordes. They were decimated. The orthodox church turned its back on the truth.
Is it really so hard to believe that western Christianity is corrupt?
LOL! All humanity is corrupt. All people are corrupt. And all churches are corrupt. Are you really saying that you think there is no corruptness in the Orthodox church? Why then are there numerous denominations within its fold - and why do their views differ across the various countries - including even some denying others the table of the Lord.
God bless you all for trying, but the historical church never ceased to be, and we certainly pray for reunion. The ecclesiastical anarchy of western Christianity is a legitimite threat to keeping the integrity of the faith.
Although it is true that often forces come from both outside and inside, it is those who abandon the Word of God in favour of their non-biblical traditions who are the primary threat to the Church.
Certainly, Jesus Christ is a person that we relate to. If you don't recognize who God is though, your faith can't be anything other than blind. We know the God we worship.
I know the God I worship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Not sure I understand your reasoning there. Hallucinations have no bearing on this topic at all. It is absurd to say that you can have a personal relationship with reality if by way of hallucinations. In fact it is nonsense. Hallucinations and reality are not cut from the same ilk. Although it is part of our reality that hallucinations are had by some persons.
Come on. You know very well that what I said was:
In practical terms, a relationship with God would involve having hallucinations.
And it has everything to do with the topic since that in fact is what a relationship with God actually is; hallucinating.
Knowing the reality of God and having a personal relationship with Him is a fact of life. It is neither a delusion nor a hallucination. To suggest otherwise is to speak of things you clearly are clueless about. Fact is - it the existence of God that most reasonably explains the existence of all other life. Most scientists accept that prior to everything existing there was nothing that existed. In other words, there are very few scientists who would suggest that our universe and everything in has always existed. Even Hawking accepts this as fact. He says there was at one point in time - nothing. Well EXCEPT the magical laws of science which must always exist. Problem is nothing existed and then for no reason nothing exploded and turned nothing into laws which provide stability and concreteness and order. The existence of God clearly is more probable that this happening. Only a delusional and bigoted fool would think otherwise.
And you would be very aware of the number of times that I have posted "that" damning video which makes every theist go conspicuously quiet.Care to comment this time, or do you need a bit more time to concoct a way out of it?
I have commented on it many times before. It is a typical balls up by Dawkins. Attacking strawman who rely upon their own experience and then interestingly not actually providing an answer. Did you even listen to Dawkins? Not an argument in his diatribe. He simply asserts that if the poor man was born in one country he would follow their god. Incidentally, that is a nonsense argument. It is like saying if I was born in Australia I would be an atheist for no rational reason but only because I was born here. Stupid assertion. But not only that Dawkins missed the intent of this poor man. He was saying - that he not every other person born in the same country has personally experienced a personal relationship with God. If you has studied, which clearly you have not, you would realise that Hindus don't claim a personal relationship with God. Neither do Muslims. Neither did the ancient Romans or Greeks. It is an unique Christian and Jewish thing. But your ignorance is evident to all.
As for Dawkins comment on hallucination in that humans are susceptible to them, is he ruling out that his own position based on the place he was born is actually causing him a hallucination? Not at all. Yet, I would suggest that anyone who cannot see all the evidence for God is delusional. It is the only rational explanation for why they miss the obvious. (This argument is based on the assertion of Dawkins only)
Yet, anyone who has studied psychology understands is that what religious folk discuss in relation of their religion is not within the bounds of what hallucinations are understood. It is neither delusion nor hallucination - and just by you referring to a has been (celebrity type) person does not make what he says correct anymore than Mark Taylor selling air-conditioners make him correct. Dawkins is not even celebrated amongst Atheistic scientists as anything more than a quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not going to get caught up in the debate between the two denominations that both believe they are the one true church to the exclusion of all others. That was the reason the church split. I hold to the Western Position not to the Eastern one. Yet I don't subscribe to the view that there is one denomination that is the true church. I hold to the view that all denominations which hold to the apostles creeds as part of the True Church. Hence, outliers like the Baptist and the Brethrens, the Presbyterian, Church of Christ are still part of the true church where they hold to the historic creeds. Yet those such as the JW or the LDS are not even outliers - but actually outside the Creedal basis of the church.
I use the word denomination advisedly, because despite the views of some, it is what it is. Denial of this fact only demeans the church as a whole.
In relation to the "ultimate reality", I assume you are referring to God. I don't have a position in relation to that idea. For me, at least presently, reality is the way things are in our universe. Ultimate reality is possibly distinguished because it seems to purport to be what things ought to be. In either situation they are still both concepts. It is only as you take the next step to suggest that ultimate reality is God that it ceases to be a concept.
It is certainly possible to relate to reality in the sense that there is a connection - possibly a function of the same. Yet, to have a personal relationship requires that reality is a person. I think that is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Well, if someone can have a relationship with God (which is a concept) one could therefore have a relationship with reality.
Actually God is a person, three persons in fact. So having a personal relationship with God is obviously possible. Yet, like a king or a queen or a president or prime minister, having the authority or indeed the right to just waltz into their presence requires something more that just being a person.
Reality on the other hand is a concept and not a person. Hence it is impossible to have a personal relationship with reality.
In practical terms, a relationship with God would involve having hallucinations.
Not sure I understand your reasoning there. Hallucinations have no bearing on this topic at all. It is absurd to say that you can have a personal relationship with reality if by way of hallucinations. In fact it is nonsense. Hallucinations and reality are not cut from the same ilk. Although it is part of our reality that hallucinations are had by some persons.
In practical terms, a relationship with reality would involve being walloped over the head with a piece of 4 x 2 when you least expect it.
We are not talking about relationships per se, but of personal relationships. A 4 x 2 bit of wood is not a person - a person cannot have a personal relationship with a bit of wood. Hence why believers in an Almighty God find it incredible that other religions attempt to form relationships with objects of material rather than persons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
How does one have a personal relationship with reality?Does your personal relationship with God interfere with your personal relationship with reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I was in complete agreement with you.And I perfectly illustrated the point with how Christians share food and drink wine.
Nonsense. Every cultures EATS or it dies. The Indigenous culture in Australia never saw eating as something sacramentally isolated in the way that Christians do. Christians eat food primarily as a means to sustain themselves. Yet in Communion, the eating of bread and drinking of the fruit of the vine is a covenantal feast with God. The indigenous community in Australia is a "spiritual" society and everything it does from walking in the land, to eating food, to copulating, to going to fight against any of the other indigenous communities falls under the "spiritual" banner. Hence the similarity with religion is not in the eating but in the non-divorcing of religious from secular. Yet the indigenous community does not bring eating into two separate realms as the Christians do.
OK, so BWS's and Four X were not around 40,000 years ago.But I bet the Abos were making some kind of beverage made from mashed witchery grubs fermented in goanna urine."Hey fullas. Dis is da body (rips off a piece of blue tongue flesh) and dis is da blood (gulps a copious quantity of "wine")" and before you can say lickety-split the whole tribe is chanting songs and looking up at the sky.
I really don't follow your logic here. I don't have a particular issue if the indigenous community did have some kind of intoxicating method and chanted songs into the sky. All cultures are religious. Even our secular culture and our atheists are religious. (Yes I know, they all have so called non-beliefs, yet they all practice their own rituals whatever that might be)
Sure, the didgeridoo has been replaced by a pipe organ but there is no denying the similarities and how the Christian Church did in fact rip off the original religion; The Dreamtime.
Christianity did not rip of the Dreamtime. Only a person without history would consider that. After all, it is well established that Christianity is originally a Jewish Sect which went international because of its inclusive nature. It is also well established that Christians did not come to Australia until the 1700s, and therefore was well established before contact with the indigenous folk of Australia.
As for the pipe organ, it is a recent invention. Most of the reformers only used human voices with no musical accompaniment.
I'm going for a walkabout now in search of a few Boags.
I am pleased to note that James Boags esquire was a member of St Andrews Presbyterian Congregation in Launceston. Tassie Pressies love their Boags, at least the ones in the North. The South tend to sit around BBQs sipping on their Cascade Light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Never mind about the why's, whats, and wherefores.
Thanks Willows, I accept your concession of not actually pursuing the topic.
You said: "I have said and maintained that homosexuality is a sin and a departure from God's plan"
Ok.
You are homophobic and bigoted against homosexuals.
No I am not. I don't fear homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals. I am not violent towards homosexuals. I am not bigoted towards homosexuals. I know you have difficulty reading but I think that is quite clear. Even for you to understand.
It's quite alright to come out and admit it you know. We all have our weaknesses.
Yes, I too have weaknesses. But being intimidated by you is not one. Or admitting to lies and fabrications for that matter.
For example, I have a weakness in buying expensive guitars and hitting the Tequilla.But at least I don't skirt around the issue by saying "Oh well, it depends what you define as expensive, and you should look up the true meaning of "guitar", oh, and for all you know, I only have one shot of Jose Cuervo every week (even though it is more like one bottle every weekend).......etc.
Not sure how this paragraph is relevant. I don't think and have never argued that defining homosexuality or orientation is definitive for my thinking.
Nor do I skirt around the issue. I, like everyone else in this world, understand right and wrong in a particular way. How I come to the conclusion of what is right and wrong is different to yours. I happen to be one who says God determines it. You happen to be one who says "no, let me eat the fruit and determine it for myself". This is where you just don't get it. It is not science which determines the why of homosexuality, it has never reached a consensus or a true conclusion. Society might think it determines right and wrong, but it will change its loyalties just like it has many times in the past. I take the Bible's understanding as God's position. I am content with that. Unlike you I am not obsessed with sex and understand that right and wrong is far greater in extent than merely a sexual orientation, it covers everything.
Yes, we can all have fun by taunting with syntaxes but in the end, who are you fooling?
I just picked up on the fact that you cannot read properly and that you jump to conclusions falsely. You make it fun by grabbing the hook with both hands.
Yup, you guessed it. God.
A non-sequitur.
Most folk nowadays get peed off with the daunting reality that everywhere one goes one is being watched (and recorded) by surveillance cameras. You can't even pick your nose anymore.
God is not a security camera. The comparison is absurd.
But I could only imagine what it would be like to feel that not only every single little thing one does is being watched (and recorded) but also every thought and intention that goes through one's head.It must be one heck of a mindfu*k.
I imagine for you it must be a mind @#$. Not for me. You see once you understand it is about grace and not law, it changes everything. I don't have anything to hide from God because God is not going to judge me for my rights and wrongs. He is going to judge me according to the merits of Christ. On the other hand, you pray everyday to a God asking God to make sure God is not real. That is just weird. And then you hope against hope that if you got it wrong and God is real that he is a God of love and won't send you anywhere nasty. But in the back of your mind, you know that a God of love as you want to purport is a nonsense and that God actually might care about right and wrong and dealing with it in a just manner. Then you hope like crazy that you are not as bad as that paedophile or that God sees your wrongs in a different light than that murdering scumbag Adolph Hitler. At the end of the day, you are no different to the Jews in the OT or the Pharisees - you believe in salvation by works or salvation by the law. And this is why the thought of a God who sees all and knows all and is all powerful as such a barbaric and evil bars $$#%.
You do because, you know He is going to look at you and judge you - and you wont have an answer.
I , on the other hand see that same God as loving and caring and full of hope and grace. I see him as a holy God who will always do what is just and right. And I can do that because of this thing called grace. When you start to understand grace, it changes everything. This is why your foolishness in respect of attempting to paint Christians as homophobic is an absurdity. You do it from the position of law - not from grace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And, as we all now, the likely answer to that question is the Aboriginal Dreamtime.
LOL @ you. It is difficult sometimes to understand how small your brain is. Religion is bigger than Christianity - and it is bigger than right and wrong. This I submit is a no brainer - yet it seems likely to explode your tiny brain.
My point above was simply that many religions point to the fact of an original. You turn this on its head. Yet I never said that all religions copy the original. Some do and some don't.
But please let us have the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Only to the ignorant. Or the scornful. Or the righteous. Or the arrogant. It reminds me of the story of the pharisee. Hmmm.....it would have to have been a totally absurd question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
No.Doesn't it stand to reason that if God invented religion, there would be only one religious text and one denomination of worship?
After all, every human since Adam and Eve and indeed including Adam and Eve wanted to be their own god. So given that premise, does it not stand that there would be an infinite number of ideas and notions about whether God exists or what god looks like and would it also not stand that there would be an indefinite number of religions and texts all trying to say that there one kind of god exists and deserves to be worshiped?
In other words, every fake or copy or counterfeit that exists - can only do so BECAUSE there is an ORIGINAL.
People generally only fake things which are valuable or originals. But the ipso facto point is a fake or a counterfeit MUST point to an original. Of course finding the original is an altogether different question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
He is in your blind spot.
Trying turning your head a bit to the Left or a bit to the Right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I have never said there was nothing sinful about homosexuals. I have said and maintained that homosexuality is a sin and a departure from God's plan"I never said that the sky was red. I have said and maintained that the sky is red".
Did you never learn to read? The word "nothing" in my first sentence is curiously missing from your parody which I have underlined for your convenience. Missing that one word changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Please remind all of us what a double negative does for a sentence. Come back when you learn to read. A good book to read is "How to read a book". It may well provide you with a better grasp of language, logic, rhetoric, and genre.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That's right you haven't. It makes it appear that I am saying what you in fact have said. So unless you learn to quote in context and as the conversation has unfolded, your wasting your own fkn time trying to exchange with me.
LOL @ your little dummy spit.
Meantime, You have to get over the fact that if you are going to persist that "god" created everything in the whole universe then he created homosexuals and then called it an "abomination" then he ordered capital punishment for those who participate in homosexual acts.
Answered - so obviously you don't have a response. I accept your concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
So, let's get this straight. God had nothing to do with homos becoming homos. They just got that way from their own free will after humanity fell into sin. Of course you are not saying that in as much words that homosexuality is a sin....it was just a coincidence that homosexuals came to be....ooooh let's say, a day after the fall of humanity.
Homosexuals as they exist, exist in two kinds. One kind in that they choose homosexuality. The second kind are probably born that way. (Kinsey's Report, the paramount study on homosexual behaviour and often quoted by homosexuals including the former High Court Justice Kirby in Australia seems to indicate that EVERY person in the world is somewhere on a line between pure homosexual and pure heterosexual.) Both however, from the biblical position have arisen from the fall of humanity into its sinful estate. As humanity becomes and more in kind with sin, then it becomes more and more depraved. What was originally pure and good has become distorted. This touches every aspect of human life (some would add animal and plant life) so that no one is pure and without sin. This means everyone is distorted and depraved. This includes the so called religious person in the religious life, even the one striving to do all he or she can to do right.
Is homosexuality a sin? Yes. But so is heterosexuality when it debases family and the image of God. So is going to church when it debases the image of God and turns it into a joke and a mockery like some of the Catholic priests.
Sheer coincidence right? Because after all you just love homos and there is nothing sinful about them at all.It's just that everyone fell into sin and perhaps God was being just a little homophobic when he just so happened to discriminate against homosexuals when what he really meant to say was, "for anyone to fall into sin is an abomination".
I have never said there was nothing sinful about homosexuals. I have said and maintained that homosexuality is a sin and a departure from God's plan and purpose for this world. This does not mean I hate them. Nor does it mean that homosexuals are pure evil. I do not go around shooting them or telling them that they deserve to die. I don't hit them or mock them. In fact I act for them - often pro bono and represent them to the best of my ability. I invite them home to my table and eat with them. I share a beer with them. I have said that I am confident that there will be homosexuals in heaven. I certainly would never discriminate purely on the basis of someone's so called orientation. How can you call any of that hatred?
After all, when God started churning out the first homo-erectus (and I'm not talking about Gays with hard-ons) from his pottery wheel about 1.6 million years ago (4000 Christian years) morals and ethics hadn't been invented and it was fairly commonplace to consider some people as queer.
Such childish responses do not deserve answers.
Have I encapsulated the thrust of your argument right there?
You only demonstrate you don't have a clue about what I think, let alone my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Perhaps I have not quoted as you wanted me to. I simply cut and pasted your post and then tried and distinguish between what I wrote in the quote box and you in the underlined ones. I then added my new response normally. I suppose that might not be the correct way to quote and obviously confused you. Sorry. I had no intention of derailing any conversation - yet I also did not realise you were so delicate or sensitive.
As for your quote:
You have to get over the fact that if you are going to persist that "god" created everything in the whole universe then he created homosexuals and then called it an "abomination" then he ordered capital punishment for those who participate in homosexual act.
Even here you completely, perhaps intentionally misconstrue and change the narrative to suit yourself, conveniently forgetting events that occur in the Biblical narrative.
I have no issue with God creating all things in the universe. Did God create homosexuals? Well I would say no. And this answer accords with the biblical narrative. God created all things and made them good. The intervening event that occurs is the fall of humanity and sin. Sin is where evil for want of a better word came into the world.
The bible clearly teaches that humanity was made as male and female and that one of its primary purposes was to populate the earth. It is impossible to populate the earth with homosexuality. I doubt very much that God would have only given this responsibility to some and intentionally excluded others. It seems more likely that some people wanted to rebel against God's commands and do something else.
Now sin reigns in many respects and we have all sorts of people who have all sorts of agendas and wants and desires. This is not restricted to homosexuals but clearly includes them.
So I do not hold to your fallacious reasoning that God created homosexuals. God called it an abomination, as he does with several other things. In respect in capital punishment, although this may indeed include the physical death of a person, it also included the isolation of people covenantally from the nation and also from worship with God. The casting of Adam and Eve out of the garden is the Biblical example of the death penalty. Now you can deny this all you want, it hardly matters to me, but it is the biblical picture and one that is quite common in many parts of the world.
God called homosexuality an abomination because it distorts the image of God and because it denies one of the primary purposes and responsibilities that God had given humanity. Homosexuality arose after the fall of humanity into sin; not before hand. TO say otherwise is to distort the biblical narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Fact is Christians don't hate homosexuals. I am not even sure they dislike them.
You appear to be speaking for all Christians simply by stating it as "fact".
LOL! @ Stephen. Since you are not a Christian, it hardly matters what you think Christians think. I am speaking on behalf of all REAL Christians that I know. If a real Christian wants to dispute my position, then I am quite prepared to discuss this with them. Until then however it remains a fact and is a fact according to the Bible.
The Bible is full of many kinds of genre so it is ridiculous to use it in exactly the same manner throughout. Interestingly, it tends to be the Christian who attempts to use it properly while the anti-Christian often (not always) chooses to interpret it and use it literally.
That is nothing more than opinion. And for you to keep prefixing the word "Christian" with the word "anti" won't make your own interpretation of the scriptures any more credible than my own or anyone else's who have looked at and studied these scriptures, for over 40 years in my case.
Which part of my paragraph are you referring to as "opinion"? The first part that the Bible is full of genre or the second part that it tends to be non-Christians who interpret it literally? Putting both parts as a paragraph and making the assertion you did requires further clarification.
Who ....? Why....? What ? if so, what and why?Posing questions of your own on someone else' thread go nowhere near answering the question posed by the OP
LOL @ Stephen, I am putting the point that people need to ask questions of any text, are you opposed to this notion?
The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel,[....................] It was not written to Christians in that same sense.
It was not written for Christians at all. I have stated many times here, that, the early Christians lumbered themselves with the OT god and the OT scriptures when they adopted a religion that they had absolutely no understanding of. And now, the modern Christian has to try and explain away all these vile OT scriptures and explain away all the violence meted out by this OT god.
I have no problem that the OT was written to the Jews primarily when they were God's people. Yet this position is clearly also addressed to the Christian in the event that God broadened the definition of God's people. Christians clearly fall within this position in accordance with both the OT and the NT. Christians don't have a need to explain away any of the Bible. We just interpret it according to its own standards.
They have to invent excuses, change words, and whole meanings of verses and downright lie, to protect, shield and defend the actions of this self confessed violent, jealous god of war and murder.
Says you. I have no issue with God being a jealous God. I have no issue with God committing genocide. I have no issue with a God who sends people to eternal Hell. As for violence, who makes violence per se a crime or an offence? Modern man????
But as someone has already pointed out ; The Christian faith states that Jesus is god and god wrote "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13). This is not to mention that Jesus states that has not come to change the "law" Matthew 5:17.
And Jesus did not change the law, did he? You can't read Hebrew, so I will not bother with trying once again to explain to you about covenantal meanings and Hebrew idioms. ( you don't have the intelligence to understand- and have proved this previously) Jesus has never said that homosexuals do not deserve the death penalty.
The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is?
Ask a Christian, ask a Jew and ask a Muslim, they will all have their own different interpretations and versions of what are deemed to be crimes against god and gods will.
Of course they will. That is totally obvious. What does it add to say this? Ask a non-religious person and they will say their own thing. We would expect each of these three religions and every other religion to say something different - although interestingly, most Jews and Most Christians would probably be close in their definition of what sin is and what is a sin if they were to use the Bible as a reference point.
For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards".
I am not sure if you are just trying to play down what the consequences are for a homosexual " falling short of his standards". Or if you are trying to simplify what crimes/sins against god and his will actually are. But god / also known to Christians as Jesus the Christ, makes the punishment for homosexuality a capital crime, does he not?
Yes, Jesus does. (My qualification of a capital crime and its consequences are different to yours though) Falling short of God's standards is the definition of sin according to the bible. I am not sure what your reasoning is here - there is no logical flow to your thought. It sounds like "I don't understand what you are saying - it is either a or b but in any event Jesus says homosexuals should be put to death. " With the greatest respect what does that have to do with my understanding of how the bible defines sin? It is nonsense. You are nonsensical.
If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd.
Is rape and murder just "falling short" of Gods standards? Do you not see how ridiculous and "absurd" your statement is?
Yes rape and murder fall short of God's standards. Christians hate such things. Christian hate sin. Sin is an action or behaviour. But Christians do not hate things. Pornography, prostitution and paedophilia are actions that Christians hate. Christians do not hate paedophiles and they do not hate prostitutes, and they do not hate people who look at pornography, even though they completely disagree with each of these actions and behaviours that people do.
I don't hate homosexuals. I don't hate the pope. I don't hate muslims. I don't hate my clients. But this does not mean that I condone what they do. I don't. I reject their views - but like my clients who I represent - I don't hate them.
Saying Christians hate homosexuals because we disagree with their actions and beliefs is not the same as hating them. To say otherwise is not only absurd it denies the reality of life that contains many different sorts of people in this world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
.....or at least 99.99% of them will go to hell.You see, there are 10,000 Gods known to be worshiped around the world, each claiming to be the one and only pathway to eternal life and most have some sort of punishment for choosing the wrong religion, or dare I say, for being an atheist.Such punishment usually takes the form of spending an eternity in a massive furnace where not a drop of water will touch your tongue. You will be constantly prodded and whipped. And you have to endure consuming hot beer, chili dogs and deviled wings. You will also be subjected to watching endless repeats of the Brady Bunch and Celine Dion will be constantly blurted through the PA.So, really your chances of spending an eternity in a great luxury resort somewhere up there are pretty slim to say the least.But wait, there's more......If you happen to be unfortunate enough to be a Christian, your chances of going to the promised land are practically diddly squat. There are about 30,000 Christian denominations and, yes you guessed it, each one claims to be the one and only pathway to heaven.So, here's my advice to all you God fearin Christians out there with one of them plastic Jesus dolls sittin on the dashboard of your car. You'd better be a totin yourselves down to your nearest lottery store and gettin a ticket in the next 100 million dollar draw.Because your chances of winning all them lovely green backs is almost dead certain compared with where you think you're goin when you fall offa your pearch. You can sure as Hell bet on it.
Hello is there a particular reason you are well so full of error? Or so prone to just making statistics up out of the air?
10,000 gods. There are far more than that just in the Hindu religion, let alone the pantheistic religions, such as atheism. (oooh)
And incidentally, contrary to your assertion, most religions and most pantheistic or inclusivist religions either don't believe in Hell or punishment for believing an alternative religion or don't care about it. For most religions - 99.9% of them everyone goes to Heaven whatever that might be. Hell is reserved in those religions only for the very, very evil.
And as for your lies about 30,000 Christian religions, where do you get you get your stats from? and pray tell (do you like that usage of phrase) - where do you get the misleading information that EACH denomination believes they are the only one way to Heaven? Of course we wont really expect an answer to these questions because your assertions are nothing short of lies that you yourself believe.
Most Christian denominations - 99.9% of them consider themselves part of the Christian religion and that everyone within the Christian religion - 2 or 3 Billion of whom are alive today with all the Christians in history along with many other people will go to heaven. This includes many Jews, many others from other religions, who trust in Jesus, and others whom the Lord chooses to save.
please go back to the study of this subject properly, quote some good and credible sources, and then perhaps we might all enjoy a discussion even if it challenging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's the law of self-contradiction. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Which logically brings us to the conclusion that - absolutes do exist.
Intolerance towards the intolerant is similar. An absurdity. Really it comes down to who is stronger and who is going to determine what the boundaries are going to be. Tolerance as an idea stems intrinsically from the Christian worldview - which started secularism.
In modern secular society - tolerance is defined in according to the view that the only tolerant position is secular. All other positions and religious and political views are welcome so far as they subscribe to the secular definition. As the secular society moves more and more away from its Christian basis - the tensions of intolerance become more and more visible.
Of course I would suggest that the modern form of secularism is more like an ancient position of polytheism much like the Romans and the Greeks had.
Today people talk about inclusive sports or societies - yet they are intolerant to anyone who disagrees with inclusiveness. They never offer a solution - save and except - shame them, ridicule them etc. They just want them all to die. Or change and become like them. Its nothing less than a form of cultural genocide. I know that is a big call; but what else is it? Yet, any so called tolerant person would laugh at the suggestion. Why? Because they are actually not tolerant.
The irony of the tolerance movement is that it is far more intolerant than those who concede they are intolerant. I have been abused far more times by those practising tolerance than those who are so called intolerant. I have seen more people ridiculed, shamed, threats made to them, kicked out of groups, made to feel small, bullied all because they held to a different view - one that society has held to be correct for much longer than the current modern philosophy.
Now for the record, I don't have a particular problem with tolerance - and even being intolerant to some intolerants. We need boundaries. But I will be intolerant towards those who are intolerant of the intolerant as a matter of principle. We can subscribe to different positions. Yet, because I hold to a view is not a reason for me to presumed to be less than a human. And this is what the modern position of tolerance has become. Anyone who does not subscribe is deemed non-human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
If given the choice to:
- reduce the gap and make various groups in society have a more even amount of influence and wealth, or
- increase the absolute level of wealth in society,
It is better in my opinion to even out the gap rather than increasing the absolute level.Even if someone's absolute level of comfort is quite high, their life will feel meaningless if they have no influence socially.What do you think?
I agree with the second choice. I don't hold to the view that the disparity between rich and poor is such a bad thing. I agree that more wealth may well provide more influence and therefore power. Again I don't think that a disparity between influence and less influence is a bad thing. Also, I disagree with the notion that ALL people find meaning in influence. People find meaning in all sorts of things: family, religion, politics, altruism, education, recreation, nature, their own work. I think to suggest that people who find meaning in influence, especially if it arises by how much wealth you have, is the same thing as suggesting that money is the root of all happiness. I can't in good conscience subscribe to that position.
Increasing wealth altogether increases the wealth of all. The alternative to this leads only to the increase of wealth for the State and therefore even more influence by the State. I am a believer in small government. I think we should reduce the wealth of the State to reduce its influence. Currently the State is the wealthiest person in this country. And the disparity between the State and the next richest person or company is so large and so wide it makes the wealth of someone like Bill Gates pale into insignificance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Fact is Christians don't hate homosexuals. I am not even sure they dislike them.
You appear to be speaking for all Christians simply by stating it as "fact".
Yes, appearances can be deceiving. Yet, the general application is true if one believes the Bible. Hence, I am confident I am able to make such a statement. Christians - as defined by the Bible do not hate homosexuals. One, because Jesus said "love your enemies" and secondly, Peter explains that Christians who hate their brothers are not really Christians. I am comfortable with my position.
The Bible is full of many kinds of genre so it is ridiculous to use it in exactly the same manner throughout. Interestingly, it tends to be the Christian who attempts to use it properly while the anti-Christian often (not always) chooses to interpret it and use it literally.
That is nothing more than opinion. And for you to keep prefixing the word "Christian" with the word "anti" won't make your own interpretation of the scriptures any more credible than my own or anyone else's who have looked at and studied these scriptures, for over 40 years in my case.
It is not an opinion that the bible is full of different genres. It is a fact. I agree that it is my opinion that anti-Christians tend to be literalistic. You are an example of this. So is Brother ??? So is Willows. So are many other atheists who utilise the early five books of the OT. Your understanding of the Bible is not consistent with any credible scholar so I take not much from your comments. Unlike you, I do have professional credibility in the OT and the NT scriptures. You have NOT read widely and appear to read very narrowly.
Who ....? Why....? What ? if so, what and why?
Posing questions of your own on someone else' thread go nowhere near answering the question posed by the OP
I am not posing questions at large, my point was people who want to understand the Bible need to ask questions.
The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel,[....................] It was not written to Christians in that same sense.
It was not written for Christians at all. I have stated many times here, that, the early Christians lumbered themselves with the OT god and the OT scriptures when they adopted a religion that they had absolutely no understanding of. And now, the modern Christian has to try and explain away all these vile OT scriptures and explain away all the violence meted out by this OT god.
That is your opinion. The OT was written to Israel in the first instance. Nevertheless, the rest of your argument relies on a premise that God the Holy Spirit did not write the Christians or people who belong to God. It is your opinion. nothing more. I don't have to explain anything away. I have said that the OT is relevant - yet I also accept that intervening events such as the ADVENT of Christ is significant. That is not explaining anything away - simply acknowledging that the Messiah has arrived and that this means something. Every Jew in our world today would acknowledge the same thing. When the messiah does appear - it means something. What that might mean is always going to be up to discussion - but his appearance DEFINETLY means something and therefore must do something.
They have to invent excuses, change words, and whole meanings of verses and downright lie, to protect, shield and defend the actions of this self confessed violent, jealous god of war and murder.
Nonsense. I have no issue with the FACT that the God of the OT did things and said things which go against everything known in the 20th and 21st Century. I don't happen to hold to the fallacy, like you do, that our modern world knows everything. For instance I don't have a particular care for whether God committed genocide or not or whether he supports or condones slavery. These are modern issues - not historical issues. I liken them to what some call "first world problems". I like the fact that God is jealous. I like the fact that he destroys the wicked. I don't have an issue with the notion of HELL. Of course people in our soft 21st century would probably soil their pants at the thought. PLEASE STOP assuming you know me or CHRISTIANS. You clearly have no idea what we think or you would stop making such stupid comments.
But as someone has already pointed out ; The Christian faith states that Jesus is god and god wrote "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13). This is not to mention that Jesus states that has not come to change the "law" Matthew 5:17.
Obviously someone who has no theological training is going to read the English and thinks they understand everything. I have explained to you on other occasions that the Hebrew reads differently but you in your arrogance always thinks I am just avoiding the truth. SURELY in the above sentence in the Hebrews actually refers to the idiom of "dying you shall die". But rather than accept the idiom or look at the original you ASSUME like many this means other than what it does. This is a covenantal expression. It is talking about covenantal death, just like in Genesis.
Jesus did not come to change the law. And I say unequivocally he did not change the law. He might have clarified it in some ways but his point was mostly to state that it was the substance of the law that counts. I say he filled out the law. He said what was left out. What was omitted - because of people's natural tendency to minimise things. Take the example of adultery. He said it was more than about physical stuff - but that it related to how people think about it. And in relation to murder - it was more that the actual killing of someone - Hence - to call someone stupid - reflected more fully that it is the image of God that was the issue.
The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is?
Ask a Christian, ask a Jew and ask a Muslim, they will all have their own different interpretations and versions of what are deemed to be crimes against god and gods will.
HOW is this relevant? I said above that the Christians point of view is that God defines it. Obviously others define it differently. homosexuality - on point. Our modern world says - homosexuality is not a sin. Why? Because people are born that way. And therefore God would not condemn someone on the basis that they were born because God made them that way. Incidentally, this is despite the fact that there is NOT ONE study which says people are born homosexuals. NOT ONE. In fact studies insist there is not even a gene that demonstrates that people have a tendency towards homosexuality. FACT is - we don't have evidence to support people are born homosexual. But don't question it.
For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards".
I am not sure if you are just trying to play down what the consequences are for a homosexual " falling short of his standards". Or if you are trying to simplify what crimes/sins against god and his will actually are. But god / also known to Christians as Jesus the Christ, makes the punishment for homosexuality a capital crime, does he not?
According to the Bible, homosexuality is not normal. It is a sin. It ought to be punished. The maximum penalty is death. Homosexuality falls short of God's standard because it is not how he describes and puts marriage. Two men or two women getting married and not having children falls short of the mandate to populate and fill the earth. I don't think this is too difficult to understand or even to appreciate. In fact such relationships do not have the capacity or the ability to do so - unless they ADOPT a child that has ARISEN because of another kind of relationship.
If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd.
Is rape and murder just "falling short" of Gods standards? Do you not see how ridiculous and "absurd" your statement is?
RAPE and MURDER are falling short of God's standards. Who would utter otherwise? My statement is not absurd. Christians hate murder and they hate rape. But these things are adjectives nor not people. Christians will not hate people. They hate the sin, the adjectives - sin is not a noun - it is not a thing. It is an action. It is a behaviour. These things are not created - they are not things. Actions are not CREATED.
Created: