Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'm not aware of any verses that forbids slavery. but i can find some that allows it.Leviticus 25"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."if you look earlier in the chapter, the above is basically words from the Lord through Moses.so why can i or can't i own slaves, according to the bible?on a side note. ive heard people say the bible only allows servants from people who owe you money. but the above sounds like slaves for the sake of slaves.on another note, some people say the above verse is only God permitting or allowing slavery, not condoning it. the most straightforward way of reading it though is it sounds like it's condoning it. if you want a slave, go ahead and get one.but i'm more interested in this thread of knowing if i can own a slave, according to the bible.
hi there,
I think it is an interesting question but one that misses the larger context of history.
At the time the OT was written and also the NT, every nation in the world without even one exception practiced slavery. In other words, it was well before the modern moral / ethical norm of anti-slavery as a moral norm. What is significant about the laws in the OT and the NT is that Israel and then Christianity embraced regulations and principles that were far less cruel than the states and nations around them. They were a sanctuary and people from other lands would come to Israel and know they would be treated with a dignity far above what they might expect elsewhere.
Kidnapping was prohibited in Israel. Hence, the common practice everyone else practised was forbidden in Israel. The Israelites did take captives from kingdoms that fought with them. I suggest a captive in war is to be distinguished from kidnapping.
In Israel, the Jubilee Laws were at least in principle a short term fix in relation to debts. Hence an Israelite, if necessary could sell himself by way of debuncture for 7 years at which time he was to be released from all debt. It is kind of like our mortgages in our times from the bank, although we often have 25 years or more - and can never be released until we pay the debt. In OT it was called slavery. Today we would probably call it somethinge else.
The context of history also reveals that slavery only really started to be seen as something immoral after the advent of Jesus. Hence why Christianity is often seen as the primary driver against slavery. Now of course many others make the same claim - though none with the same force. It is notable that the modern anti-slavery movement was championed by an English Christian gentlemen, Wilberforce who based his arguments on the Bible and his faith.
Of course, the Civil War in America provided fodder for and against slavery by Christians. There were many good men and women and indeed slaves on both sides of the argument. The reason because not all slave-owners were evil people. Some slaves loved their masters.
I think the real question of importance is ownership. Can a person own themselves? We all talk about it sometimes when we discuss abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment. For some reason when it comes to slavery, however we look the other way and avoid the topic.
If we own ourselves, then we ought to be able to kill ourselves, or part of our body. After all if we are property, then we have property rights. Interestingly, in many places in the world, we don't have these rights, because we don't actually own our selves. The question of course is who does own us? States would say no one, yet this is clearly untrue because these rights exist or are exercised by something. Hence it is probably correct to say we are owned by the State. It alone has the right to put us to death - or to imprison us - or to tax us - or to tell us how to live.
It is ironic to say we can kill ourselves - we can abort parts of our bodies - but we CANT sell ourselves. Why is this property right excluded? It is in my view the essence of ownership - indeed of freedom that we own our selves. Yet if we don't have the freedom or the right to sell ourselves then do we really have true freedom? And I would say NO.
Now don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating slavery. But I do advocate freedom. If I can't sell myself, why not? Is it because I am not property and therefore don't have such existential rights or is it because someone else owns me and determines what rights I will be able to exercise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
LOL!,
this topic reminds me of another poster who has been banned from this site.
Nevertheless, the premises are just as flawed. The Fact is Christians don't hate homosexuals. I am not even sure they dislike them.
I am a Christian and I like, I might even add, love homosexuals. I find the constant rhetoric from those who are anti-Christians staggering. There is, at least from my perception, a stronger anti-Christian flavour than anti-homosexual flavour. In fact, it seems most of the arguments and discussions arise from people wanting to have a go at Christians for their beliefs rather than Christians having a go at homosexuals. Why is it that some people just want everyone else to agree with them?
Arguments against Christian's beliefs in this particular topic are also often flawed because people don't understand theology, or hermeneutics, or interpretational methodology. For instance, it is absurd to attempt to mock someone's belief when they don't seem to understand the difference between literal language and hyperbole or between statute law and poetry or between narrative and commentary. 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.
Another important aspect of understanding the Christian's position is theology. This requires a proper understanding not only of God, but also of God's character. Anti-Christian sentiment tends to begin with a critical spirit in relation to God which implies bias. It is an absurdity to try and put God under a microscope or to attempt to judge him by human standards. To attempt to do so - assumes that God really is not God in the first place. Once you start there - you can only ever confirm your presumption.
Knowing theology also helps in the notion of contextuality. Who was the OT written to? Why was it written to them at that time? What has changed since that time? Does that change anything, and if so, what and why? The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel, in the context initially of the wilderness as they were leaving Egypt and moreover as they were entering into a new land which they would conquer and then settle. It was not written to Christians in that same sense. It is true that Christians spiritually leave Egypt, (slavery to sin) and enter into a new way of living (redemption) and attempt to live in the way that God wants them to. Yet, the express statutes to Israel in the OT have now had an intervening event between that time and Pentecost, namely the advent of Christ. The question is how has Christ's advent changed anything and if so, what, and why? We know for instance, that Peter had a vision revealing that in Christ and because of his death, that the OT laws in relation to food had changed. We know from the book of Hebrews that the OT law in relation to the Sabbath had now been fulfilled in Christ.
These are just two and there are many others. Christians live on this side of Pentecost. It is incorrect to say that they must live according to the matters prior to that time just because some people who do not understand how to read a book or theology must do so in "one way only".
Christians don't hate people. Or perhaps they should not hate people. Christians do hate sin. Whatever that sin might be. The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is? Obviously the world would love to define what sin is and what sin is not. The Christian however does not hold to that view. For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards". And if you have not figured it out yet, Christians all know and acknowledge that they sin. So if we applied the standard "hate the sin, but love the sinner" to Christians, it is helpful.
After all what does it mean to love? I take the view that to love God and to love others is to simply to "keep God's commandments". Hence when I don't do this - or I sin, then I do not show love to them. I would endeavour to tell the truth to them and to warn them of dangers. I would want the very best for them - in accordance with the way that I understand things.
If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Did we hear any protestations from the life giving Jesus concerning the ridiculousness and pitiful waste of life that Thomas was proposing!?
Why would he protest? He knew their concerns and he also knew their doubts about Lazarus and the death they would find. In any event, he did not reveal all of his mission to them.
Did they die?
not then - but later on they were martyred for him and his resurrection from the dead.
Did Jesus "raise Thomas and the pother disciples from the dead"?
No, but why should he do that? This was a specific resurrection - and for a specific purpose.
What was they worried about? If the chief priests who sought to kill Lazarus had succeeded in putting Lazarus to a real and physical and mortaldeath wouldn't Jesus have simply "raised him from the dead" again? He was after all, the only disciple that it is mentioned that "Jesus loved".John 11:3.
Tis true Jesus could have raised him from the dead again if he wanted to. So perhaps this was more than just about raising one man from the dead. v. 4 tells us why. but why would Jesus need to do it again? Yes he could have - and he could have raised everyone else but he did not and he does not. but that does not mean that he could not or it did not happen on this occasion. Or it really means is that you and I don't have an answer to that question. the thing is - if we did have an answer to that question would it change our minds? and the answer is no. I would still believe and you would still not believe.
Why is it that Lazarus at first was said to be only "sick" and then "sleeping" and then finally pronounced "dead" by Jesus?
He had his reasons - v. 4. He is the resurrection and the life.
Jesus himself said that Lazarus was only sleeping and that the "This sickness is not unto death"!!!? But according to the scripture and your own belief Lazarus did "die" didn't he? How can Lord god almighty, god in three persons get it so wrong?
He did not get it wrong. This did not end in death - it ended in resurrection. How can you with all of your learning get it so wrong?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is the question. and you would have known that had you not ignored it or even bothered reading from P1.But as soon as you have someone like me come along who seriously challenges these gospels, and " your spin on them". you fold.
It is your question based on a false narrative that you invent because you resist the notion of miracles. Not my problem. I am not using spin - I have no need to use spin. I am merely reading the story in its context acknowledging the story actually demonstrates Jesus will perform a miracle. I don't have to hide in spin. And as for folding, LOL! what planet do you seriously come from? You are not challenging anything I believe - you really are not. When you change the intent of the passage to make it say something it clearly does not - and then lo and behold a verse becomes problematic for you - it cannot shake or challenge my views. You have not actually proved your case.
They did not wish to die alongside Lazarus.
The scriptures clearly tell us it was Lazarus.
So you say. But you have not proved it. You take vv. 11-15 which do talk about Lazarus and then add v.16 without considering the entire context.
You fail to address 8 and 9 and the disciples concerns for Jesus' safety. By omitting discussion about this - you leave interpretation to open-ended and open to speculation such as your priestly nonsense.
Now I am still persuaded that v. 16 the "him" is Jesus. The only manner in which the him in v. 16 could be Lazarus is if the disciples took the view that Lazarus is dead and that by going with Jesus they were themselves prepared to die with Jesus and be buried with Lazarus. I don't find that a convincing interpretation. Yet, it is more convincing that your interpretation which makes no sense.
There is not a scrap of evidence suggesting that is what they were wanting to do.
The scriptures clearly has Thomas saying:
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.You can deny those verses until the second coming and they won't change.The fact that the " him", is Lazarus.
Yes, everyone of those verses 11- 15 talk of Lazarus sleeping or being dead. The Lord knows he is dead - and he is going to raise him. v. 4 Jesus tells us it is not going to end in death - and it did not end in death - it ended in resurrection. Death, like sleep is naturally to us, was temporary in this particular case: why? v. 4 tells us "so that the Son might be glorified through it.".
And even if you were correct in believing the verses were about Jesus, you still haven't explained why Thomas would even suggest such a thing as suicide when Jesus message and Christianity is all about life,Jesus himself speaks only of life and living. Yet there is not a single protestation from Jesus when Thomas suggest they go and "die". This in and of itself is a complete contradiction to what we are led to believe was Jesus' soul mission here was on earth.
I did explain it. Thomas suggested it because he was loyal to Jesus. Jesus was his master. Thomas his servant and friend. Friends are at times loyal even to death. Jesus' message was that life comes through his death. It was not just about life. Remember after Peter expressed his understanding that Jesus is the messiah, the Christ, that Jesus then started predicting his own death - as the means to life. Peter rejected this. To say Jesus' message is only about life and not death is a misreading of the bible and of Jesus' gospel. As for protestation v. 8 is clear in this message. What was the point of protesting after Jesus had made up his mind - they were his servants, they had protested and he still was clear. Thomas at this point was expressing both his loyalty to Jesus but also his belief as to what he thought would occur.
Opinion and "spin". And is your only way around these questions.
That is your conclusion based on your own assumptions. It does not have to be a way around anything - it is the plain sense of the passage.
Now you are doing what is expected of all Christians when posed a real serious question . You are allowing yourself to explain "what lies within" while dismissing what an atheist reveals "what lies within". You just won't allow yourself to relalise the fact that there are honest, reasonable and very earthly answers to these verses. You cannot do without your miracles.
An atheist has not revealed anything about what lies within. The context speaks for itself. I don't have to come up with ways to explain away miracles. That is your mission not mine. I just let the passage speak for itself and I read the entire context not just the verses that support me.
That would be full blown theist no doubt. And yet other scholars have it different.
Yes, it includes atheists and liberals and Muslims and non-Christians.
Acts 5. Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, just appear to drop down dead for no reason.
No, Luke explains why they died. God killed them for lying to him.
Matthew 8:22. A grieving disciple wants time off from his duties to bury his dead father
Yes, Jesus was in the context talking about loyalty. He is not talking about priesthood. He may be discussing the dead and the spiritual. And even is he was - (which incidentally I don't have an opinion about and might concede he is doing this) it is totally irrelevant to the book of John and the story of Lazarus. For it to be relevant - you need to make a connection and not just use words that may or may not be similar.
John 11:16 And Thomas suggestion that they "die"
Explained above -
Only do these enigmatic tales make any sense is if "the dead" means something other than a literal physical death. And in these cases, it clearly has to mean something else. which it does as I have show. My questions alone prove my point and you being unable to answer those questions proves it even further,
Well actually it makes perfect sense in John 11:16 for dead to mean physical death. In the case of dead burying death it may mean other than physical dead or at least the first usage of dead might be. The second sense clearly refers to dead literally. In the case of Acts - the two - husband and wife - dropped dead and so the Acts tells us - this caused a significant fear to come upon many people and they turned to the Lord. In v. 16 here, there is no other possible sense in which the word can be used other than physical death.
Hold onto them if that is your desire.
I do. And I will keep asking my questions, the same questions that are obviously far too awkward and difficult for you to take on .
I have answered the questions. I disagree with you on your interpretation. As does it seems everyone else.
But when you ask a question - expect that others do not see the things that you see......
I don't . I expect them and YOU to answer my questions without falling back and relying on miracles and superstition.
but you do. And when people disagree with you - you attack them. Say they are running away or avoiding the questions. And you attempt to belittle them - "like all the other Christians". I don't have to answer in the way you want me to. I take the views that miracles did occur - and I do not take the view that they are superstitions. That is your supposition - and one you have not come close to proving, demonstrating.
because you have to read them into the text.
But haven't you just told me what " "what lies within" while dismissing what I believes "lies within".
Absolutely. you are incorrect about your assumptions. You start with your assumptions - and then you logically move to try and prove them. It is not an area of neutrality. What I say is true and what you say is true are not compatible. The difference is I don't have an agenda. I just read the story as it is and don't try to read into it - or read out of it what I don't like.
In other words, this verse is problematic for you,
The problem lies with the devout Christian. It is not problematic to me. I know what they mean.
nope - it really does not. I have no issues - I don't have to spin the story. It reads quite easily to me. And the conclusions I have come to are almost identical to whatever everyone else independently of me have come to. How many people have come to the same conclusions you have - independantly - and without reading the same source materials as you? I would hazard to guess - not many.
Now...would you like to take on my questions,Tradesecret ?
What did Lazarus die of?
We are not told what he died from. We are only told he is ill.
What was he doing in the tomb when it was, apparently, common knowledge that Jesus could "raise the dead"?
He was dead. Dead people usually end up in tombs. caves, ground. cremated. etc etc. Who said it was common knowledge that Jesus could raise the dead? And I mean prior to the time that Lazarus died.
How stupid were these Chief Priests not to realise that If Jesus had "raised a dead man" to life once before that he would simply do it again if they succeeded in their mission of murdering Lazarus "whom he lovest" ?
Yes, that is an interesting question. Were they stupid or were they seeking a political end? Would Jesus raise Lazarus a second time? Why did he not raise every person who died? Perhaps they were thinking with their atheist eyes. Perhaps they did not believe in miracles. Remember - their problem was not their disbelief or own belief - it was what the people thought. so they could easily dismiss the miracle as fake, just like you. but it is much harder to make other people dismiss the miracle especially if people really believed. killing him would get rid of the problem in their political minds.
Why do YOU think the chief priests wanted Lazarus Dead?
I explained this previously and above.
Why would these priests want Lazarus dead?
Same question really. Yes I can see the two questions are nuanced differently - but the same answer applies.
Tell me how can the dead bury the dead?
Totally irrelevant to the story unless you can provide a better link.
How did Jesus know that Lazarus was dead?
Because he is God. Because 21 tells us he was told.
Why would Jesus allow these apparently young sane healthy men to die?
Why would God let Jesus his son die on the cross? Why would Jesus let Judas betray him? Those questions don't add to what you are arguing. Why does a good God allow bad things to happen? Totally irrelevant. In any event v. 4 tells us doesn't? "it is for God's glory so that God's son may be glorified through it." That provides a beautiful explanation for me and satisfying - it wont for you of course if you don't believe in God. That of course is your problem. If the question is about these young men like Thomas dying? I think the same applies. Yet in the context I think Jesus always remains in control and is never out of control even if people around him seem that way. They might have been afraid for their lives and even for Jesus' but he was never afraid for his own life. He has his own mission and he was always in control. Even as he was dying on a cross at the hands of the Romans, he was still in control. And after his death and resurrection - all of these men following Jesus would give up their lives for him.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Well if that is the question, then you will forever be lost wondering about a question that does not have an answer because the intent of the passage is not what you are asking."SO, The question of course has to be why would two fit and healthy people wish to "die" along with the supposedly very dead Lazarus!? Who it is said, had been dead, for "four days"!!!! (yes I know)" .https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3347/one-of-the-most-enigmatic-verse-in-all-christianity?
They did not wish to die alongside Lazarus. There is not a scrap of evidence suggesting that is what they were wanting to do. The context clearly reveals that the disciples were concerned about the anger against Jesus if he were to return to a particular area. After Jesus decided he was going to this area, his disciples, loyal as they were, begrudgingly, decided they would go with him - and to their death - if that is what happened.
That is the answer that lies within the context of this story. Most commentators agree with this reasoning. Your assumptions about the text are yours. Hold onto them if that is your desire. But when you ask a question - expect that others do not see the things that you see because you have to read them into the text. In other words, this verse is problematic for you, and possibly only for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That is an intriguing perspective. For me, and I am of the view that God is real, heaven is irrelevent to the question. Similarly with the notion of eternal or everlasting life. Those things don't posit any real significance save as to incidentals.It's how I would go to heaven. Heaven seems much more important than a life on Earth if heaven exists. The thing is, does it exist? I honestly am not sure, but am open to change my mind.
For me, the question of God's reality has to do with substance. And reason.
But primarily it has to do with relationship and covenant.
The bible does not present the idea that heaven is more important than earth. In fact heaven and earth always seem to go hand in hand - God made the heavens and the earth.
I also don't see how whether God can be proved or not or believed in or not is relevant to the question of God's reality.
The fact is - either God is real or not. Whether we believe in him or not then becomes irrelevant.
The bible tells us that even the demons believe in God - so believing in that particular sense obviously does no good when it comes to the question of heaven or not.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I was born on the same day as the landing on the moon. Now it is my birthday. I guess this means I hijacked it. Or perhaps it was coincidence?
Or perhaps two things can be celebrated on the same day without there being a conspiracy?
LOL! @ all of the conspiracists.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
@Mopac
Hi guys, and a happy Christmas to you all with a new year quickly following.
Interesting question Stephen.
I must say I have read the verse many times and never found it to be enigmatic or anything problematic at all. Like Ethang and others on this topic, I read it in the context of vv. 7 and 8 and honestly, that makes sense because if the disciples understood that there were people attempting to kill Jesus, that going back into the same area would raise the same fears. Thomas the person equated with these words (typically referred to as the doubter) would gain better fame if people commenced with these bold and brave words rather than his so called doubting later on.
Still, that was my position and currently it remains that way as well. I have nevertheless attempted to understand your position and tried to appreciate what you are attempting to get across. Your assertion of ritual raising is intriguing as is your assertion that Jesus demarcated those outside his inner circle as dead. (using the Matthew passage here "let the dead bury their own dead" was an interesting interpretational method). As also bringing in Ananias and Sapphira from the book of Acts.
However what interested me most was your quote "It is impossible for you to accept that underneath these scriptures that there is a massive power struggle going on with no miracles happening ." That was quite revealing of your position.
The story reads at odds with your underlying desire for rationalisation. It is difficult for you to take at face value "miracles". Although why that is the case when you clearly believe in some kind of deity is intriguing.
That the religious leaders wanted Lazarus dead is hardly a difficult proposition. He was "living" proof of Jesus' authority over death. The people of Israel could hardly refute his miracle raising from the dead. After all - he was dead for four days and every one knew it. IMPOSSIBLE. And every time someone met him or saw him - they would know Jesus had brought him back from the dead. So the Jewish leaders - like most politicians - took the view that the only good Lazarus was a dead Lazarus.
Sometimes you ask good questions but at times it is like you just ignore the plain and simple.
Still let us get back to your ritualistic raising of the dead - the raising of Lazarus to a higher rank of priest or whatever. Where in the NT is your evidence for such thinking? I might have been indoctrinated - but at least provide the NT evidence for such an assertion.
It is true that Christians take the view that non-believers are dead. this is a spiritual or covenantal death only. It is not like they treat them as though they are literal or physically dead. I am not sure that Jesus only saw those in his inner circles as alive. In fact there are many people who are not in his inner circle who would be alive - I can think of some of the healed people for instance. Jesus would of course have seen those who believe in him as alive to him. Yet, Lazarus' sisters were concerned for his health. He was ill. When Jesus arrived at the graveside people were concerned not to open the tomb because he had been dead 4 days and would smell. This makes no sense if it is only a ritual ceremony putting him to another level of priesthood. Unless of course you think he was literally dead and Jesus was making a symbolic ceremony.
I think the connection to Acts is unjustified. These two were put to death by God because they had lied to God. There is no evidence of priesthood graduation. Let the dead bury the dead is I agree an interesting and difficult passage, yet it is in the context of discipleship and priorities. Again this is a different context to Lazarus. Jesus wanted serious people who were committed to him above all, including family, friends, and money. He was attempting to dissuade some from following him - "the son of man has no place to rest his head".
I guess that when you begin with the premise that miracles are lies or myths then the raising of a dead man has to be explained in some other way. It is easier to believe that the underlying story is about power struggles rather than God dealing with issue of sin. Certainly in this story, I agree there are power struggles going on - the Jewish leaders detest Jesus and his disciples and want him gone. Raising a man from the dead was too powerful and to alluring for the ordinary person to ignore and so the raised man needed to disappear. This was the power struggle. The religious leaders did not WANT a messiah. Not this messiah who could not be controlled by the powers that be. He was dangerous.
Ignoring the natural reading of the story however in order to find a spin on the miracles is not only pointless from my point of view - it derails the intent of the author. His intent is to demonstrate that Jesus has power over death. Not just spiritual death, but literal physical death. Indeed, it was a foreshadow of his own death and resurrection.
Still thanks for giving me something new to think about. It certainly occupied my attention for a few hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Hello secularmerlin,
it looks like you have been reading the bible and are coming close to understanding it. In other words, perhaps you are not far from the kingdom.
Your scenario is perfectly understandable to Christians. It is not perplexing at all. Have you ever wondered why the Bible says - "no one has seen God at any time"... And yet on the other hand describes numerous examples of where people have seen God? Contradiction? For those who want to choose God, yes. For those who are chosen by God, no.
But for the Christian it is not a puzzle?
A while ago, someone else asked a similar question to the one you posited. How do you know if you are choosing the right God or right religion? Someone else asked something similar. Why did you choose that God?
My answer is: I did not choose God. He chose me. I know that sounds mystical or arrogant. But it certainly takes the randomness of choosing the wrong god out of the equation.
How can anyone see God unless God chooses to reveal himself to them? This is how the Bible describes revelation.
If I had to choose a God to follow - it would be a deity who would agree with me and my morality. In fact he would be a lot like me - made in my own image. Isn't that how people like to describe other people's gods? God - made in the image of man. And yet, sometimes people turn around and look at the God of the Bible - and try to describe him the same way - and then notice that God in the Bible is very much unlike how we want to be. If God is all loving - he would save all people. He would not send anyone to Hell. What kind of loving God would do that? Certainly not one made in my image. I love the irony.
The God of the Bible is clearly not made in the image of the 21st century progressive leftie. Nor is he made in the image of the conservative right winger. He did not go to politically correct school and laughs at the UN and its so called human rights. He is who he is. Or what he likes to be known as "I am who I am". And honestly I think this is what grates most people. He does things his own way - and not how we expect or even desire.
This is why I did not choose the God of the bible to be my God. There is no way in the world I would have chosen the God of the bible to be my God. Yet the God of the Bible chose me to be his and in the end - that is the difference. And that is why I don't have to worry about choosing the cup with the coin under it - nor do I have to worry about not playing the game in the first place.
But I think that the fact that you are asking this question - means God is not yet finished with you. And this I think is a good thing.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?Corinthians 2:5 ESVThat your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
In the first place God is not known by faith. In the Bible, faith is never used as a means or a tool to know God. In the NT faith is used for the way that people respond to what God has done. This is quite different from belief in God. In the bible God is ASSUMED or PRESUMED to be true. There is never any question as to his existence or not. The Bible never asks people to have faith that God exists. That is simply a nonsense from the Biblical position. It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out.
Similarly today Christians never ask non-believers to just have faith to believe that God exists. That would be a nonsense position. We don't know God by belief.
Secondly, the fact or the reality of God is and must be understood as an axiom. Axiom is not faith based. It is presumption based. It is unprovable although not unquestionable. For instance - reason is also an axiom. As is experience. How do we prove reason as an axiom? We cannot. Can we question it? Of course. Similarly for experience. How does one possible prove logic or reason as a basis for anything? In other words, can we use logic to prove logic? Nonsense!. Logic and reason are good things. As is experience. But both can ultimately lead us into despair.
Think of the dilemma by Zeno. For an arrow to move it must move either where it is , or where it is not. If it moves where it is, it will remain standing still. If it moves to where it is not - it cannot be there. Therefore an object or the arrow cannot move. This of course demonstrates that logic or reason has difficulties - significant difficulties. Yet we still use it as an axiom. Similarly with experience. One's experience can be quite different to someone else's experience.
The issue therefore of the existence of God being an unprovable axiom is not untoward or false or wrong. It just means it is an axiom. But it is a genuine axiom that many people build their lives upon for all sorts of reasons. And it works for many people.
On a debate site - I take the view that God's existence is similarly understood. Different people will have their opinions which are valid to a point - but at the end of the day - people will need to determine what will be the measure they use to accept or reject other 's people's positions. and for that they will need an axiom - for everyone has an axiom - that can be refuted by another axiom. This is the dilemma.
Can God's existence be reconciled on a debate site? I think the answer is no. Why? Because people have different axioms and refuse to move from that position. Ironically, a person who takes logic as an axiom cannot change. Nor can a person with experience as an axiom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am sure you would like to pass off my thread as meaningless and yes I am saying that these "lords" were only human. It is your reply then that is meaningless as you are only repeating what I have written.
There is no need to be so defensive. You raise some interesting perspectives. I don't think your overall position is meaningless, although sometimes specific sentences and points are redundant.
My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".
And I have stated that to these early patriarchs - Abraham and Jacob - these MEN were recognised as being of some status above themselves. I have also explained that anyone with a title is in some way deemed to be above an "ordinary human being". I am failing to see your point. Is all you are causing me to do in response to you is to repeat what I have already stated. There are many more examples I could give you where one man can be above another and recognised as being so by his / her title. You are beginning to make this discussion circular.
My point was yes and so what? Just because Abraham and Jacob may have done so on some occasions, does not mean that every occasion was the same. I know as well as the next person that these things occurred in many cultures - but Jacob is clearly this was more than just a titled man. He calls him God.
Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority.
They were wrestling. The MAN of lower status was winning or getting the better of the other MAN of status. What more would you like to read into that? Are you going to start rewriting scripture to suit your own narrative. It is simply a case of one MAN being in a position to bestow authority on another. As does a Queen to a subordinate commoner.
I don't agree with your narrative. and since your narrative is not the usual one it puts the onus on you to demonstrate otherwise. There seems to be no point to the story being added to this one if it is just talking about a noble man. It would add nothing to the story unless it worked in with the rest of the story which is about God dealing with his people. But for the sake of your argument, assume you are correct, how does it add to the story?
You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human.
That's correct. You could have started you response to my post right there instead of having me repeat myself.
ok.
I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.
Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28) and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.
Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.
Yes he does doesn't he. He also says that this particular god /lord was a MAN doesn't he. I have already stated this why are you causing me to repeat myself yet again.
Well I suppose because it reminds me of a certain Jewish man in the NT who was fully man and fully God.
Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out.
I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN, it is not offered freely by the MAN.
In other words, no matter what I say, you have already formed your conclusion and my input is irrelevant. Thanks again for your arrogance.
26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket.
I love it when you interpret words to mean what you want them to mean contrary to what the scripture actually states. But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand? You have missed the point that there is no mention of this lord relocating Jacobs hip either, nor any mention of the pain he must have been suffering with such a severe injury. Any medical journal will tell you the pain from a dislocated hip is excruciating . But are we going to discuss what is NOT written in the scripture now?
Scuse me. i am just reading the text. sorry it is not your translation.
Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human.
Opinion counts for nothing ,I'm afraid.
that goes both ways. but this is a page for opinions. you have given yours. I did not agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you don't have the ability to understand a very simple hypothesis, then there's not a lot that I can do to help.
So I take it what you said above was nonsense because you cannot translate it into ordinary everyday English.
I will take it moreover as a concession; although I might add that I did not think we were particularly at odds prior to that occasion.
And I do from time to time promote the idea of an oscillating universal and evolutionary sequence in which G.O.D is both the ultimate knowledge and the ultimate purpose.
If this is just you way of saying - you swing between two positions - absolute v relativism, ok?
The evolutionary development of organic intelligence and subsequently inorganic intelligence and ultimately G.O.D. are all equally essential parts of the universal sequence.
I think what you are suggesting here is that evolution - relativism, non absolutes exist entirely within the universal or absolute. If it is - then perhaps we are talking the language of covenant, which essentially says the same thing. Freedom exists only within boundaries - or such thing.
I also toy with the notion that remnants of G.O.D. data might survive the reinitiation of the sequence.
This is another level. It almost suggests inorganic / computerised determinism.
These remnants might attach themselves to the physiology of newly emergent lifeforms and eventually manifest primarily as a mythical appreciation/interpretation of the data such as the biblical tales, but ultimately as a stimulus for the development of inorganic data devices, the ultimate of which is G.O.D.
Ok, so now you are again flirting with evolution and a non- deterministic position.
As such, it would be G.O.D. that ensured our development and we would ensure the recreation of G.O.D.
yep, far and above my paygrade. G.O.D seems to be a computer.
But not in any image.So G.O.D. is the acronym?
Ok.
Covenant theology - the theology of the bible presents the idea of relativism within boundaries - hence taking both choice / freedom and placing both squarely within absolutes and controls. Example - God made Adam and Eve and placed them in a garden. they were told to eat any fruit they cared for, freedom - but then warned about the boundaries - don't eat from one tree. so far as they complied totally with this - they had freedom - once they broke it - they destroyed it. Incidentally this correlated wonderfully with the notion of the Trinity. One God, three persons. One absolute God - but within the understanding of ONE absolute God exists three persons. The three persons apply the relativity / flexibility of God. If God existed as ONE GOD and ONE person - then determinism would rule everything. On the other hand if God was not one - then relativism would rule all - for there would be no authority of binding power. Yet, ONE GOD three persons - wow, gives the ultimate covenantal representation of evolution within universalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well to be perfectly honest - I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you so condescend and put it into language that the rest of us might be able to understand?
Thanks in anticipation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? what sort of ordinary man?
You also use the the word man a lot too. Neither Abraham nor Jacob state that these men were ordinary. Indeed, on the contrary, they indicate that they are "lord" , which indicates that they were of some statutes above themselves like master and servant in those ancient days. "Lord" is simply a title and nothing more. It does not indicate a supernatural being although I would imagine anyone living at the time who was more intelligent than your average sand trotting tent dweller would be seen and accepted as a "lord".Today, here in the UK there are nearly one thousand of these jumped up, pompous, self serving "lords" who expect every average joe to acknowledge their status. They too live in a very large house called the Lord's house, it does not indicate that they are somehow supernatural beings. It means that they are definitely far more educated and knowledgeable than your average state school educated Asda shelf stacker. Other examples are pupil and teacher, forman and labourer, tutor and student.I personally believe that these men aka lords are simply a highly educated (advanced) species of man that some backward tent dwellers respected, admired and also feared.
Yes, I used the word man as well. You did suggest or imply that this "lord" was only human, otherwise your post has no meaning whatsoever. My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human". Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority. You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human. I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there. But you are free to believe whatever you like.
I would beg to differ about the supernatural aspect here. Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place. Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out, such as gold or treasure, which I submit implies spiritual blessing probably in the continued granting of the covenant to Abraham rather than a human blessing. Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket. Now admittedly there are some techniques from some cultures that with a touch can knock a person out - but I have not heard of one where a touch wrenches a hip from its socket. I submit this was very unusual and certainly the text implies it was highly unusual given what Jacob called this place. Further significance must also be attached to what happened given the religious overtones as well - demonstrated by Israel's refusal to eat tendon attached to the socket of the hip. Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wrestling and setting fire to bushes.This sort of behaviour doesn't do much for an omniscient god's credibility does it?
Nor does sending his son to die on a cross for other people's sins - and yet that is what the NT tells us.
As a matter of curiosity, what sort of behaviour do you think an omniscient god ought to be doing? And as you explain that - can you do it such a way that it does not coincide with a god after your image?
In other words, when people say that humans make God in their own image - and then picture God wrestling or setting fire to bushes, is that reflecting their own image of what god does or is it simply that their own humanness cannot conceive of God doing more than that? What I mean is - you seem to suggest that god wrestling and burning bushes is hardly what an omniscient god would do, therefore it seems you are disproving the theory that humans make god in their own image. an omniscient god would not wrestle with ordinary men according to your understanding, an omniscient god would not burn a bush according to your understanding of god. Yet here in this passage and in other passages god does what you do not expect him to do. Is a god made in someone else's image or could it be more than that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak. But Jacob replied, I will not let you go unless you bless me.The man asked him, what is your name? Jacob, he answered. Then the man said, your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30. NIV.6 times!!! Jacob called this being a man. So unless we are going to contradict Jacob, call him a liar, say he was delusional, or accuse him of dreaming or simply making false claim or not understanding what he had been wrestling with, then we have to take his word that he wrestled with a human that he simply called a "god"It is all very human behaviour for anyone reading these verses. It appears very clear that these "gods" or at least this particular god was human in every way. He even used a dirty tactic to overcome his human opponent Jacob/ Is Ra El in this wrestling match. But what is one to expect when it clearly explains to us in Genesis that we were created in the image of these very human "gods"- plural.
What sort of ordinary man gets to rename another just because he has a wrestle with him? What sort of ordinary man can touch a person and it puts his joint out of whack? What sort of ordinary man is able to give blessings - just because you wrestle with him? What sort of ordinary man is described as God by a man? Indeed the alleged very ordinary man seems to call himself God, what sort of ordinary man calls himself god? What sort of ordinary man gets a placed named after him, just because he spared his life?
It seems to me that despite the usage of the word man in this story, the man was very much not just ordinary or human in every way like us. I also think that your suggestion that a dirty tactic was used is - reading into the text based upon your own standards.
Not really sure what your point is here - except perhaps to discredit some people's view and understanding of god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you mean the nonsense about the age of Aquarius or the nonsense about the end of Christianity?If we continue teaching our kids nonsense, then they will continue to believe in nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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. The church is still in infancy, perhaps puberty. Certainly exploring its sexuality and rebelliousness. Most people find teenagers in this stage repulsive and obnoxious.
The church is still the largest religion in the world. It's influence and power has waned in the West. Yet around the globe in the more populated areas it is having exponential growth. Examples like China, Africa, and South America and South East Asia have seen significant rises in the attraction of Christianity.
Sometimes in the West, we have a West centred view of the world. We think we are progressive - and we think other nations are not. This is clearly a matter of contention and dispute.
Christianity is not a Western Religion. It is not an Eastern Religion. It is a global religion. And therein lies one of its major strengths. It is also a very inclusive religion - when it comes to races, sexes, and ideologies. It is very broad and also has treasures which it offers that other religions do and cannot. Of course, there are things that other religions offer that Christianity does not and cannot as well.
Yet, its longevity and flexibility are evidence of its ability to survive. It is not close to being at its end. In fact my theology (acknowledging other people hold other views) states that the church is the only institution on our earth which survives to glory. Neither the family nor the state survive.
As for the age of Aquarius, it will bring what ever it will bring. But it won't bring the end of the church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So let me understand this. You have a bible (the New International Version) that you use to prepare and preach sermons to your flock Which uses the word "secret" and not "private" but on the other hand you refer to another bible (the English Standard Version) for you own personal devotions?Why would you do that?Do you see my problem with your explanation? One the one hand you are teaching , in your sermons, the original wording and using the word "secret" yet you suggest above that you do not recognise this word as the correct text and prefer and accept the word " private" that isn't in any of the other accepted scriptures bar one other modern version?
Not so difficult.
I prefer the ESV. Prior to my studies, I used the NKJV.
Yet the church I work at - has pew bibles which are NIV (1984) - this means that there are somewhere near 400 pew bibles in the church that parishioners use each week and I actually like each of them to be reading the same translation at the same time in church. It is helpful when pointing out verses for them to follow along with. It would be silly of me to prepare from my ESV when I will be using the NIV translation in church. I actually have most translations at home on my desk. I like to read all of them to get a broad picture. I also use a Greek Text and a Hebrew Text - and sometimes when necessary the Aramaic one as well.
It is common practice for many pastors to preach from the NIV and use other translations in their private devotions. Nothing unusual at all in that.
As you would undoubtedly be aware, translations vary depending upon the purpose of the translators. The NIV is a translation devoted towards a more contemporary understanding of the text. The NKJV and the ESV are more literal translations. But then there are also the very broad translations too, the Amplified text comes to mind.
I answered the question - I gave my response. You don't have to agree with me. Totally up to yourself. But at the end of the day, I was telling the truth and for me that is what matters. For the record, private or secret amount to the same thing in the context. (admittedly outside of the context they can be very different things) You however want to extend the meaning of the word to include "disguised". That of course is up to yourself completely. It wont win any awards of course. but it is up to you. the other thing is I don't have an axe to grind whereas you do. You have an interpretation of the entire bible which is your own - and any little detail which can lead you in that direction - you jump at with both hands. Again entirely up to yourself - not necessarily to do with finding the truth of course, but one which I am sure will satisfy you somehow.
At the end of the day - if you just want to push your views - go for it. If you want to dialogue - I am happy to assist. I just think that conversation and discussion is a two way street.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
in John 7. The passage indicates Jesus says to the disciples - you go up to the feast. I am not going up to the feast. However, after his brothers had gone up, he went up also, privately.I am just reading the NIV. I am not changing words - quoting them infact.No you are not. But you will keep trying until you find a version that suits your narrative.... as all Christians do when on the backfoot.New International Version John 7:10However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.Nope, no "private" mentioned in the New International Version there my friend.
hi Stephen,
you are right, I was not quoting from the NIV (84 ) version. I thought I was and I made an error. It is the bible I use in preparing sermons. When I looked it up because I knew I had not made it up - I was surprised at my mistake. for that I sincerely apologise. Yet, the bible I use for my own personal devotions is the ESV. and private is the word used in that translation.
since I knew I had read it - I used it that way. There was no sense in trying to hide or to be deceptive. I have no reason to do so. I have no axe to grind here anyway. I told you that I don't consider that this was a lie. I accept that others will disagree with me. I also said that some manuscripts actually add the word yet. I did not want to rely on that myself, even though it legitimately answers the question.
for the record I am not trying to backstep. Just because that is your experience does not mean it applies to all people. Or to all Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Your refutations are waning, they are getting weaker with every subsequent post of yours, deep down you know that you are only bringing a Boy Scout pocket knife to my Abrams M-1 fully loaded tank in our discussions!
Not waning. It is just that you have not produced even a half decent argument. You have resorted to attacking my character. Any half way decent debater knows using ad hominin attacks are evidence you have lost the discussion.
Now, what part of this statement of mine relative to your true MO here on DebateArt didn't you understand? In closing the godly humiliation of Tradesecret, he is shown to be biblically challenged, very predictable in being biblically inept, a blatant LIAR, a minion of Satan, a Burger King Christian where he wants his bible "his way" instead of "Jesus' way," a truly FAKE Christian, a Christian that talks out of both sides of his mouth in contradicting "double speak," a Christian who shows contradicting biblical passages, and who TRUE Christians should stay far away from as the Bible so states in the following passages, Titus 3:10, Romans 16:17, and 2 Timothy 3:5!
You have not shown any such thing. All you have revealed is that you do not know how to read the bible or apply it adequately in pretty much any situation. You have also revealed that you are iconoclastic - atheist - and your intentions are wholly unholy.
You're a joke in calling yourself an assumed Christian, and I will continue to show you to be one of the most FAKE hypocritical Christians upon this forum, understood?
Actually I don't care whether you consider me a Christian or not, since it is you who is the fake. You have not been able to even pretend to be a Christian. What is sad however, that as an atheist, you think that you have the ability to mock Christianity and its God. This is another reason why the religion of Atheism is pathetic. When holders of it think it is ok to misrepresent other religions in the name of fun, it really reveals the depth of their depravity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE: "I deny I made any comments in relation to being a sexual deviant."YOUR QUOTES THAT SAY DIFFERENT YOU DID SAY YOU WERE A SEXUAL DEVIANT:“Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.”“They are quite nice. We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.”Tradesecret, you are excused once again for being an outright LIAR!
Again I deny I made any comments in relation to being a sexual deviant. If you don't have the capacity to understand what was being expressed in those passages, then that is your problem. I have clearly explained the context, the hyperbole, the particular type of language - and indeed even the point of all of those passages. Harikrish was trolling Ethang. His logic was "since Ethang at one time lived in Africa, he is an African". My rhetoric which as in a conversation with Ethang was a total mocking of Harikrish's logic. This is why I laughed when he read what I wrote and then repeated it on the previous board. Everytime he repeated it, he put another nail in his coffin. Everyone could see exactly how bad his logic was and the funny thing is Harriet could not see he was simply piling poo on his head everytime he spammed and spammed. I know your logic is bad and that you don't have much of a brain, but when I see you repeating it here - I laughed so hard. Harikrish is using his second language - you on the other hand pretend to know this one. Whereas I thought Harriet had problems, now it occurs to me that compared to you - Harriet has lots of excuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
# 95: Oh, oh, wait a minute, there is no post #95 from him! Why isn’t Tradesecret addressing what I had shown at the end of my post #87, in that he is Hell Bound upon his earthly demise because of being an ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and he wants to be called a Christian? HELL NO!
I don't have to address lies and fabrications. I don't have to respond to statements you make that have no basis. I don't have to respond to your rhetoric. I deny I made any comments in relation to being a sexual deviant. Harriet had been proven and banned for making false statements on numerous occasions. Hence I don't feel a need to reply any more than this. And I wont.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
It is truly sad to watch the FAKE Christian Tradesecret unravel before our very eyes, and in front of Jesus as well (Hebrews 4:13), and succumb to his division of Christianity being a Presbyterian, because as embarrassingly shown, he runs away from his division of the faith instead of defending it as Jesus proposed ( Titus 1:9, 2 Corinthians 10:5, 1 Peter 3:15)
You don't realise it do you? Oh well, I suppose it may dawn on you one day, but probably not. I have not run away once, unlike you in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2301/jesus-condemns-entire-cities-to-dreadful-deaths-in-hell. I have nothing to hide. I don't need to fall into line just because you abuse me. I have not said I am a Presbyterian, no matter what spin you put on it. Whatever I am is actually none of your business and I aim to keep it that way. I do not shy away from my faith. You on the other do not demonstrate any good fruits which leads to only one conclusion Matthew 7:15-21; Matthew 12: 37.
Yes, we TRUE Christians have encountered many FAKE runaway Christians like TRADESECRET over the years in forums like this, where they were shown to be Burger King Christians, where they Satanically want their bible “their way” through Satanic apologetics and hermeneutics, instead of "Jesus’ way," through what Jesus said literally to the multitudes without any spin doctoring whatsoever!
I do not use spin in relation to the Bible. That I don't agree with you is not evidence of the same. Jesus was not a literalist. Jesus said "I am the door". He said I am the way and the truth. He said I am the bread of life. He said I am the everlasting water. He said I am the good shepherd. He said I am the resurrection. None of those things are to be taken literally, but all metaphorically.
POST #90: Within this post it explicitly shows Tradesecret running away once again from biblical questions with child like sophmoric responses.
Only to someone who cannot read English. What is says is that you wrote nothing that needed a response to.
#91: Within this post, poor ol’ Tradesecret scrapes for what scraps are left for him in asserting that I interpret scripture wrong, where in fact, I read it LITERALLY where you cannot “interpret” it! HELLO? Whereas Tradesecret uses Satanic apologetics and hermeneutics, decoder rings, and crystal balls to make the scriptures anything that he needs them to be at any given time. Therefore, he is guilty of this verse: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (1 Timothy 4:3)
Now here we really do see garbage out of your mouth. The fact is - you don't even interpret it literally. You interpret it according to your own distorted mindset.
#92: As shown once again, Another example of Tradesecret making a mockery of the bible is his vain refutation to his Satanic “double speak” that I have shown at his expense. As if his initial double speak wasn’t enough regarding “works,” READ HIS 4 PARAGRAPHS of mish mash jabberwocky to why speaking out of both sides of his mouth is somehow acceptable!
LOL!
#93: Again, Tradesecret trashes the scriptures when he stated that no one can please god even though I had shown that the scriptures say that you are to please our serial killer Yahweh/Jesus God in my post #54!!!
You have not actually shown anything except you are unable to argue or form an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRETS .. “DOUBLE SPEAK” QUOTE THAT STATES ONE CANNOT PLEASE GOD, TO WIT:
“We cannot please God” (POST #58)
Again let me repeat - TRADESECRET wrote this.
TRADESECRETS … “DOUBLE SPEAK” QUOTE THAT STATES THAT YOU NOW CAN PLEASE GOD, TO WIT:
Yes, we please God because we are ALREADY saved. Not to get into heaven. (Post #58)
We please God by obeying his commandments - not to earn salvation to get into heaven. (POST #58)
“We please God by obeying his commandments - not to earn salvation to get into heaven” (POST #46)
AGAIN LET ME REPEAT - TS wrote this. And is very proud of what he wrote.
The problem for Brother DTs is that his DTs are kicking in. He just missed the obvious.
No one can please God. This is a biblical given. Yet, once a person is born again with the Spirit of God, they are obligated to please God. The difference between the two situations are - one is without the Spirit of God - and the second has the Spirit of God. Unless, one is born again, it is impossible to please God. Yet once a person is born from above, born with the Spirit, then what is impossible becomes possible. open your eyes, stop and think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRETS … “DOUBLE SPEAK” QUOTES THAT STATE “WORKS ARE NOT NEEDED” FOR SALVATION, TO WIT:
“Works are not needed for salvation. God's grace is needed for our salvation.” (POST #58)
“We are saved by grace not by works lest anyone boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.” (POST #46)
“We are saved by grace, through faith.” (POST #46)
“We don't need to do things to get to heaven” (POST #35, admitting “NO WORKS”)
“I said we don't need works to earn salvation” (POST #58)
“So, you do think that salvation is by works. OK. I hold to the view that God saves us.” (POST #35)
“Yet, our good works wont get us to heaven just like our bad works wont” (POST #46)
LET ME REPEAT. I absolutely agree I said these words - and will repeat them again and again and again.
TRADESECRETS “DOUBLE SPEAK” QUOTES THAT NOW STATE “WORKS ARE NEEDED” FOR SALVATION, TO WIT:
“But we are saved unto good works” (POST #46)
“Christians are commanded to do good works” (POST #58)
“but that true faith is always accompanied by works” (POST #46)
AGAIN LET ME REPEAT. I absolutely said these words and will repeat them again and again. But let me add one thing. I never said they were needed for salvation. That is your lie and misrepresentation.
I have said - as I did above - that we are saved by God's grace. I quoted Paul's words from Ephesians 2 that works don't save. I have also said which ninny here has repeated in the second list that true Christian will demonstrate good works. Grace saves us - UNTO good works. Grace first - good works second. Is this a contradiction? NO.
Christians cannot save themselves. It is a free gift of God. It is done by Christ on the cross. Salvation belongs to the Lord. We are incapable of saving our selves. We were dead in sin. Dead people cannot do anything including good works. God saves us. We are saved by grace through faith.
Yet, when people become Christians, as James rightly says, good works will accompany the Christian life. We cannot continue in a Christian life and not do good works. but good works is not a CONDITION of obtaining salvation - - it is the fruit of salvation. Good works is the fruit of being saved. It is not the root that saves. Grace is the root that saves. Good works is the evidence that the tree / person is now alive and is capable of bearing fruit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“As for my interpretation of Scripture, almost all Christians come to the same conclusion.”
Key word in your bible ignorant response, “interpretation” whereas you are NOT to interpret the bible to your perceived understanding: “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20). Do you want to call Paul a LIAR?! Please, save us any further Devil Speak by spin doctoring the verse above with your Satanic mind numbing apologetics where what it literally says, is not what it really means, okay?!
LOL! I was making a my v yours interpretation. My interpretation is in accord with traditional methods of interpretation. YOURS is from your own mind. I notice you TOTALLY avoided any reference to your own interpretation. So take your foot out of your own mouth.
Furthermore, and again, there are 33000 DIFFERENT divisions of Christianity, therefore, why aren’t you one of the 32999 that are left instead of the Presbyterian Church that you have Satanically chosen?
Again I repeat, I have never said I was Presbyterian. You have simply allowed Harriet to lead you on in this belief. LOL! But believe whatever you will.
“You on the other hand, make it up as you go along and no one has the same view as you.”
Your biblical ignorace is without bounds, because I can’t “make it up” since I am a LITERALIST and accept what Jesus said, is in fact, what He said! 2+2=4. Whereas, as shown, you Satanically spin doctor away what Jesus’ inspired word LITERALLY states by using your PRESBIE crystal ball and decoder ring! This is blatantly obvious since your church is only one division of over 32999 left of your faith! Hello, anybody home today?
LOL!. At least I can spell. You do make it up. You are not a literalist. You are an imbecile.
“After all, how does knowing what denomination I am change your answers?”
We already know what division of Christianity that you swallowed, and that is the ungodly Presbyterian Church that we will definitely be talking about in the near future at your continued humiliation. It is NOT the answers, but the questions that are to be asked, understand?
Do you? And who told you? It was not me. LOL! Surely you are not going to rely upon the words of Harikrish. Has he not been banished for another month because of his delightful and well thought out lies? But of course, if you are going to trust the words of a known liar, why would that surprise me?
Oh well, we can explicitly see that your time off did not help you in any way whatsoever because you still operate with your Satanic apologetic and hermeneutic spin doctoring modus operandi! Do you need more time off before you try in vain to engage me again? Yes? Maybe? Seriously, I do not like to engage the already severly wounded like you in any discussions, but like Jesus’ inspired word states, i am to show you sympathy. (1 Peter 3:8)
I am still waiting for you to actually say something that NEEDS a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Before you get easily bible slapped again, I was worried about your absence! I am so glad you returned because I am always worried subsequent to me having to biblically correct my weak FAKE Christian opponents. Whereas, they either have to heal from their biblical ignorance and embarrassment after engaging me, or they just run away to try and save face and regroup, then sneak back into DebateArt like nothing has happened to them! Hmmmm, I wonder which scenario you represent? (Hint, both)
If that was a slap, Let me turn the other cheek. Yet, your comments are not a slap. They are hardly worth replying to.
1. In my post #55, you did not address the last paragraph in question in your subsequent postings numbered 57, 58, 59, and 60.
No runaway. Why would I run? Duh! there was nothing to reply to.
2. Therefore, in my post #61 I called you out upon you running away from this paragraph in my post #55!
Similarly! What in your post deserves or needs a reply?
“Your form of ungodly Christianity, where you interpret the scriptures in what you need them to say, is the embarrassing reason why there are over 33,000 DIFFERENT DIVISIONS of Christianity, where they all contradict each other, but at the same time, EACH ONE is allegedly correct in their subjective specific doctrines! Where comically, your Satanic church of being a Hell bound Presbyterian is one of 33,000, but to you, your church is the correct word of Jesus the Christ over the other 32,999 divisions! Laughable at best at your expense once again! LOL!!!”
Yes, I read that piece of drivel. There is no question. It is your statement - again it is an assertion. No proof. No evidence. No argument. Simply an unfounded assertion. No question. Nothing to respond to. It is your opinion. You can believe it if you like. It is no skin of my nose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. KJVClearly he doesn't just saunter into town here, it clearly makes the point of saying " not openly" and inferes that he went up in secret and in disguise. So you trying imply that this wasn't any type of deceit and that it was jesus just wanting a little ' me time' by changing the wording from "secret" to private is simply you attempting to play down the fact that there certainly was something deceitful going on. And something his hand picked and trusted disciples were not privy to.This is yet another enigmatic, ambiguous half story offered to us by these scriptures that I continuously point and that believers struggle to explain without altering the text of what is there to be seen and read.
I am just reading the NIV. I am not changing words - quoting them infact.
going up in secret does not mean he went up in disguise. Privately - and not publicly makes sense. Was he being deceitful? I cant see that in the text. In secret does not imply deceitful.
But do not accuse me of changing the words - I quoted from the text I was using. If you don't like it - take it up with the publishers - not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Tradesecret, the FAKE runaway Christian,Whoops again! Oh, oh, a pattern is forming with you, in that you forgot once again to give one of your comical apologetic spins, where this time it is to the end of my post #55! AGAIN, You don't want to become what you are accusing me of, do you hypocrite? YOUR QUOTE #47: "You are the one who ran away in the other topic - because your arguments were shown to be false and shallow."To make it easy for you, I have reprinted it below, you can thank me later, okay?Here, let me try to help you in jettisoning your Devil Speak with this simple proposition, what Jesus said ONCE, He did not mean for His creation to take in many different and contradicting ways. Understood, minion of Satan?Your form of ungodly Christianity, where you interpret the scriptures in what you need them to say, is the embarrassing reason why there are over 33,000 DIFFERENT DIVISIONS of Christianity, where they all contradict each other, but at the same time, EACH ONE is allegedly correct in their subjective specific doctrines! Where comically, your Satanic church of being a Hell bound Presbyterian is one of 33,000, but to you
Having read your response to my questions - I am puzzled as to the need of responding to anything in it. I did not run away from your posts. You are the one who refuses to answer my questions. I have nothing to hide. I just think there is no reason to tell you anything about me except what I choose to reveal. I am a Christian. That is all you need to know. I believe the Bible and I believe the Trinity is correct. I also believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. My denomination is irrelevant. My colour of my skin is irrelevant. My sex or gender is irrelevant. My age is irrelevant. If at times it is becomes necessary in the telling of some story or event of my life - or is necessary to provide some background to a view I will disclose all and any of these things. But until then, it is irrelevant.
After all, how does knowing what denomination I am change your answers? How does it add to your responses? How does it strengthen or weaken my responses? It does not. It cannot so it is irrelevant.
As for my interpretation of Scripture, almost all Christians come to the same conclusion. You on the other hand, make it up as you go along and no one has the same view as you. This makes it more likely that you are the one in error, not me. I at least am able to logically arrive at a conclusion that others do. You don't have any one who arrives at the same one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
The passage that Stephen is referring to is in John 7. The passage indicates Jesus says to the disciples - you go up to the feast. I am not going up to the feast. However, after his brothers had gone up, he went up also, privately.Oh, for the record, tell us what chapter and verse in the Bible you used to disparage our Jesus the Christ when He allegedly lied, and disguised Himself going into town, okay? When answering this question, it will prevent you from continuing to be a biblical fool again, get it?
The lie is supposedly suggested in the fact that Jesus said he was not going up and then did.
What are we to make of this? Did Jesus lie? Did Jesus change his mind? Did Jesus deliberately deceive his disciples?
Interestingly, when people lie generally, it is to protect their own self- interests. Sometimes, it is to protect others. V. 1 clearly states Jesus' life was in danger. V. 3 his disciples are encouraging him to go to Judea. The threat seems genuine. Jesus tells us his time was not yet come. v. 9 interestingly says he remained in Galilee.
Now with respect, there are some manuscripts which actually have "yet" - after I am not YET going up to the feast. If those manuscripts are correct, then there is an easy fix to this dilemma. Yet, many people will not find that a satisfactory answer. It is clear that Jesus intended to go to the feast. It is also clear that he was not going to put himself into danger by doing it publicly. It is also reasonable to assume he did not want his disciples discouraging him from going up to the feast and putting them in danger as well. It is further clear that he was going to remain in control of his own mission and preaching. so is this some kind of cloak and dagger situation? Was he in disguise? Probably not.
The question remains - is this a lie? I say no. It is no more a lie than Rahab telling the soldiers of Jericho that the spies from Israel had gone one way when in fact they were hiding with her. Was that a lie? Many would say "absolutely". Yet the question remains - what is a lie? Is a lie - all deception? For instance, telling a joke, which is intentionally trying to deceive one to get the right punch line, is that a lie? Or does the intention - of deceiving the hearers to make them laugh, make it not a lie, but something else? If my wife asks me "how do I look darling"? Should I tell the truth always or is it ok to deceive her because my intention is not for me - but for her?
In other words, is it a lie whenever we deceive someone else whatever the intention and whatever the interests happen to be? Or is there something else going on?
Here Jesus whatever it is he is doing, is not to grandiose himself. It is not to make a million dollars. It is not to rob someone else of someone else's joy. It is not being at someone's expense. His motives are pure. Hence I could not in good conscious deem it a lie.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is certainly not authoritarian or legalistic. It is all about Jesus. Everything points to Jesus. Every practice that is done. The Kingdom of God is preached, and The Way is shown.
If that is the case, then good.
Your viewpoint is in fact typical, but it is ahistorical. It is a very protestant viewpoint on the church, and it is necessary to justify these churches lacking communion with the Apostolic Church.
Again, I will ask, what is my view and why do you think it is ahistorical? What do you mean it is a protestant viewpoint? What do you mean it is necessary to justify? Who is justifying who and what?
Believe it or not, we do love those belonging to hetetodox churches and pray for them. So I said, we even work with them. We pray the good ones will be united to the church at the resurrection. God knows those who are His.
Honestly, words are words. To say you love us - but then exclude us from the church and the table of the Lord is not love, it is pharisaical. The JWs, believe that love is shown by not letting their children have blood transfusions. But it is not love - it is legalism. Jesus always put love ahead of the law. I still don't know how you understand Jesus' teaching rebuking the disciples who wanted to exclude. perhaps you might care to discuss that?
But know this. The Church has always since the very beginning distinguished itself from groups claiming a different Jesus by Apostolic Succession. All of our bishops have been ordained by other bishops who trace their ordinations back to the Apostles. The Church has its Holy Orders.
Yes, I understand your church's position. The historical position - church history is not in agreement with your position. The apostolic succession not biblical but based in some church traditions.
Protestants are largely uneducated about the church. They don't really know the church. But if we have maintained for the last 2000 years that we are the very church founded by Jesus, the apostles, the ground and the pillar of the Truth, it should at least make you wonder what it is about, yeah?
I think you are incorrect. It seems to me that the Orthodox community is largely ignorant of the protestant position. And also of church history.
And what I would say is that the best way to learn is to observe the liturgy(in a language you understand is ideal), ask questions, read recommended literature.
Yes, I have read quite widely in relation to theological and church historical matters. I however will read - widely and not just a particular point of view.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The fact is you have an ahistorical idea of the church that none of the church fathers accepted. Schism means cut off. Get is it? Scissors schism. They come from the same word. The Roman Bishop cut Himself and his church off from Orthodoxy after falling into heresy and violating that which was determined inalterable in the ecumenical councils. The protestants broke away from Rome and never came back to Orthodoxy(likely because the Church was isolated from the west and under Turkish rule).
Pray tell Mopac, this is the second time you have said that I have an atypical idea of the church that none of the church fathers accepted, would you care to elaborate on what view it is that you think I have and then provide your view.
The Roman bishop did not cut himself of from Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faction failed to show up to the meeting because it knew it did not have the numbers to supports its own errant position.
The Protestants also never broke away from Rome. This is typical misrepresentation of the facts of history.
There is. only one Church, The Orthodox Cstholic Church. If you are not in the church, then you are not with the church. Thus, the church is not divided, because the heterodox are not recognized as being in the church.
See you are doing it again. You are not preaching love and the unity of the church. you are falling into the error that Jesus warned his disciples not to do. He said - "he is who not against me, is with me". You would prefer to call down lightning from heaven because we are not in your little group. Jesus thankfully, did not have the same strain of thinking.
Protestantism isn't a denomination, it is a mentality of disobedience. That is what defines it. Protest ism. Sure enough, there are 30,000 something protestant denominations because the protestants have a problem with real unity. If they hsve unity, it is superfucial or compromising to the faith. . The Orthodox Church is very diverse, but we are all in communion. We all have the same faith. Heresies eventually get weeded out. If they don't, the heretics make their choice to seperate from the body. It isn't that they divide the body of Christ. No, there is one church.
LOL! @ Mopac. Protestantism is not about disobedience. It is about freedom and liberty. Protestants were never about protesting AGAINST something. They did not protest against the Catholic church despite the lies and misinformation that some love to spread about. Protestantism has always about protesting for the authority of the Scriptures. If you knew your church history - indeed any history - you would realise that protesting in a positive sense for things was how things used to be done - prior to our modern centuries. Protestants protested FOR the Bible - this is why they formulate positive doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Grata. Don't fall into the same error as the Roman Catholics did by misrepresenting what Protestants stand for. Protestants were also - always about reforming the Church. Reforming the church - or returning the Church to how it was prior to heresies creeping in - such as the papacy, salvation by works or indulgences, praying to the saints or Mary.
While there are many varieties of protestants, unlike you, I see this one of its strengths. Iron sharpens iron. The Orthodox church does not have the capacity to weed out heresies. It is too authoritarian, like the Roman Catholic church except a 1000 times worse. This is why it was never able to unite with the church. It chose to remain in error - rather than come back to the truth. And it has remained arrogantly and stubbornly so ever since. JWs and LDS are similar in the same way. Very authoritarian and very narrow in their scope of congregation. They retain the same doctrines they commenced with. They of course are cults.
But we certainly don't, and I should speak for myself here, I certainly believe we are supposed to love each other. I have many evangelical/protestant friends, and we can come together to do good works. However, good works is not the faith. I can not lie and say that they have found the true church.
Well that is nice of you. Yet I would rather note that you are not against Jesus, but rather with him and therefore with us. How can we say that Jesus is LORD unless we are united with him?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I am not saying it is.Open communion is not loving, because it is written that those who do not discern the body bring condemnation on to themselves.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. Denominationalism is a protestant thing. Even nondenominationalism is a denomination. There is one church, the Orthodox Catholic Church.Predenominational.
there were factions - even before the church split. There were the European and the Eastern churches. Factions existed - and whether you want to call it pre-denominationalism, it amounts to the same thing. Different factions.
the Orthodox church is a faction and it is a denomination - Protestantism is not a denomination. There is no denomination called Protestantism. Yet, there are factions. factions are by the way - not a bad thing. factions demonstrate God's unity over variety. A reflection if you like of the Trinity. A oneness and a many - covenantal aspect which reflects the Trinity in the church
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The body of Christ is not divided. This is how things were done since the beginning. I know it isn't an easy thing to accept, especially since protestant churches can only justify themselves by promoting an ahistorical idea of what the church is, but there is only one church, and we are all in communion.
There is only one church and we are all in communion and yet you would not let people outside of the Orthodox church take communion. Sorry that is a divided church. put whatever spin you want on it - but you don't change the effect of it.
the protestant church along with the catholic and the orthodox are all part of the One True Church. You can deny this or even dispute this - but it does not alter the facts. the protestant church has always been part of the catholic church. the orthodox church and the catholic church were always part of the church and both churches along with churches in Africa, Europe, and Asia made up the True Church.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church only allows Orthodox Christians to take communion. Everyone can partake of the body, but the blood of the New Covenant is only for those who belong to the church. We also do not take communion at non Orthodox Churches.Indeed, open communion is a very recent development in protestant churches, because if you go back a hundred or even maybe 50 years ago, nobody practiced open communion. It is a very recent development.But the Orthodox takes communion very seriously, as it is a mystery of the church.
hi Mopac,
The Orthodox Church may do so - and I understand that reasoning, but I think it is an incorrect application of biblical teaching. To do - is to divide the body of Christ and to say "I don't need an eye".
Yet, there is a profound reason to take communion very seriously as I think all churches do, even if they express that seriousness in different ways. In our church for instance, any prospective person who wishes to take communion, is required to be examined by the elders, to see if they are a believer, and secondly to see if they are under discipline or in good standing with another congregation. We always provide a warning to all within the service of the dangers associated with taking the body of our Lord in bad faith or without good conscience.
Yet, I think that if Jesus would not forbid his children from sharing in communion then we should not either, just because they are in a different Christian denomination. And while I accept that the Orthodox Church is a Christian denomination, I do not accept that it is the only Christian denomination.
I do find the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Episcopalian and the Orthodox Church on communion too strict, to the point of pharisaical dogmatism and not expressed in the message of love of Christ Jesus. I am sure they would find the modern trend towards open communion distasteful as well. I find myself, somewhere in the middle, between closed communion and open communion. I think it is the elders who guard the table and are accountable to God for their rationale.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
@Deb-8-a-bull
hi guys and girls,
Christians don't hate other Christians. In fact the bible says that if someone calling themselves a Christian hates a Christian then he really is not a Christian. After all, Christians are people who have been enlivened by the Holy Spirit, hence it would be saying God hates God - and that is really an absurdity.
Now it is true that there are many people who consider themselves Christians who are not. That is however quite a different issue. The problem when we start to talk like that is it gets misunderstood. Christians as a general rule get on with each other and are able to worship and practise love towards each other. However, sometimes they have arguments and this causes friction in the ranks. But does it mean they hate each other? I don't agree with my Baptist brethren in respect of their position on baptism, but I don't hate them nor do I have a problem worshiping with them. Nor do I agree with the Roman Catholic position in respect of the papacy. Yet, I don't hate them nor do I find it difficult to worship with them, although I will tend to pick and choose the occasions I might want to worship with them and how that takes place.
On the other hand, I take the view that the Mormons and the JWs are not Christian and I could not worship with them. But then again I don't hate them even though we do disagree with them. Come to think of it, I don't actually hate anyone, perhaps the devil. I hate evil per se. But I don't hate Muslims, nor atheists. I don't hate murderers, and pedophiles even though I would never trust them. But loving someone does not mean trusting them or even agreeing with them or condoning what they do. In my view loving someone is "treating them in accordance with the 10 commandments" as best as I can do. It means treating them as human and with dignity (even though they don't show the same towards others or even towards me). It means thinking the best of them - albeit cautiously, acknowledging that all people are genuinely self- interested for themselves. It means giving people mostly the benefit of the doubt - until shown otherwise - but even then not devaluing them of the fact that they are human - made in the image of God - and therefore rightfully owed some dignity.
But showing love towards someone does not mean I have to worship with them, nor does it mean I have to condone what they do or say - and it does not mean I must accept them merely for the words they say. But if a Muslim or a Mormon or a JW walked into my church, I would sit down next to them and I would continue to praise God and worship God, even if they started singing or praying. Yet, I would not attend their churches or temples or mosques unless I was invited and I would not join in with them in their cultural worship - because that would be to be unfaithful to my God. Just like I might be invited to a party down the street - and invited to join in with the cultural norms of getting drunk and having sex in an orgy. I would not join in - because I would not unfaithful to my wife. It would never be done as an insult - but rather out of faithfulness to my God or my wife.
Christians ought to love all people. How this love looks however is going to be different in every sort of circumstance. Would I let the Muslim or JW participate in our communion? Great question - it would be a matter for the local congregation. I actually think that either the Muslim nor the JW would want to take communion - out of respect for their own religion - but if they did then the local congregation would need to make that decision - hopefully based upon biblical basis.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I agree with Mopac to an extent. There are orthodox Christians and everyone else.
Orthodox however is not referring to the name of a denomination - one which Mopac belongs to.
Orthodox is those Christians who hold to the early creeds of the church, primarily to the doctrine of the Trinity and the atonement.
They hold to the belief that Jesus is not only the second person of the Trinity, but is the Son of God who is God. And that he died and rose again from the dead and has now ascended.
There are numerous other doctrines which are orthodox - but these are the primary ones which distinguish orthodox from the rest.
Mormons - JWs, and many Charismatic churches do not hold to these primary doctrines - therefore they would not be considered orthodox.
Many people within orthodox denominations on the other hand do not themselves hold to these doctrines - but infact are in the church for all sorts of reasons, family, tradition, community, relationships, boredom with life in general, evil intentions, superstitions, habit, etc. Attending a church does not make one an orthodox Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Not once have I rewritten the bible. You need to demonstrate otherwise. It is your assertion and I deny it.”
I notice you did not provide an example or any evidence - just assert without argument.
“I am not ashamed of my church. Nor is the Presbyterian Church hell bound.”
Then why did I have to pull teeth to get an answer of what church affiliation that you belonged to? Why did you continually hide from it in our previous discussions, where you even admitted that if you told me, I would use it for “canon fodder” against you! This alone gives credence to your church having aspects worthy of embarrassment! Priceless admittance on your part!
For the record, I never answered you. Go back and have a look. I said Harikrish said I was and I confirmed that I did not think the Presbyterian church is an embarrassing church nor Hellbound. I also said I neither confirm nor deny my affiliation with that particular denomination. My point entirely has been that - it is entirely irrelevant what my background is. And I continue that line. so you can call me Presby if you like, but that is your characterisation, not mine.
Therefore, you not only were embarrassed about your PRESBIE church, in which you should be, but you could not defend it as well that goes directly against Jesus' words! "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) How utterly embarrassing for you once again in front of the membership and the eyes of Jesus! (Hebrews 4:13)
You take the bible out of context in so many ways. I don't have to defend myself to you - unless you are a non-believer. Are you admitting you are a non-believer?
“I have not committed the unpardonable sin. You are ignorant of the doctrine and that was demonstrated in our last discussion that you ran away with your tail between your legs.
No, I am not ignorant of this doctrine, and I did not run away,
Yes you are and yes you did. You are a buffoon. You took off like a dog with a tail between its legs. woof.
I gave you direct BIBLICAL axioms in why you have committed the Unpardonable Sin
Well no you did not. You make an accusation based on bad interpretation and you completely contradicted Jesus. You called Jesus a liar. Go back and look. Everyone who can read - can see what happened. You ran away. Jesus said - blasphemy against Jesus, the son of man can be forgiven - but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot. Your argument consisted completely of me - in your twisted understanding - blaspheming Jesus by using the word "if". Yet, when confronted by the fact that Jesus himself used the word "IF", you ran away. Pathetic little man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I used the word metaphorical because animals are referred to metaphorical. Yet I accept that others do not necessarily see the horses as metaphorical, you for instance are a literalist.“
Yes, I am a LITERALIST. This prevents me from acting like an ungodly fool like you do where you subjectively spew forth your comical “It could have been, or it could have meant” wishful thinking Devil Speak!
That is what I said. You are a literalist. This means you don't interpret the Scriptures properly. The bible is not written to be read literally. It is written in numerous genres and ought to be read in such genres, not just the literal. Even Jesus told the Pharisees to read the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Literalism is reading the "letter of the law", not the spirit of the law.
Where in the bible does it say to “interpret its content away from its literal written word?” Please provide me with a few verses or narratives in this respect.
Gee that last verse will suffice. Stop reading the letter of the law - and get to its heart, to its spirit. Jesus took the literalist letter of the law from Moses in his Sermon on the Mount and interpreted it according to its spirit, to its substance, to its heart. Do not commit adultery was not just a literalist reading - it became looking at someone with lust in your hearts. Will you accuse Jesus of being wrong?
As a literalist, I do not interpret literal written words spoken by none other Jesus the Christ, whereas this would be elevating myself above Jesus as Yahweh/God incarnate which would be BLASPHEME! I therefore follow the inspired by Jesus verses below where I do not make myself the final arbiter of which parts of the Bible are to be conveniently interpreted away from their literal written word.
What does that even mean? You blaspheme without stopping.
“Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
Again I have no issue whatsoever with those verses. I totally agree. the Scriptures interpret the scriptures. SOLA SCRIPTURA.
DO YOU WANT TO DISAGREE WITH THE INSPIRED BY JESUS PASSAGES ABOVE THAT WE ARE NOT TO INTERPRET HIS LITERAL WORDS BY USING SUBJECTIVE CRYSTAL BALLS, OR DECODER RINGS, AND THAT THEY ARE FLAWLESS IN THEIR LITERAL MEANING TO BEGIN WITH? RESPOND!
Those verses DO NOT say we are to interpret the words of the Bible literally. They tell us not make our interpretations for ourselves. They tell us that the Bible is the only interpreter of the Scriptures and I totally hold to that position. Jesus uses metaphors. John uses Metaphors. Daniel used apocalyptic language. David used poetry. We don't interpret such language according to our own literal interpretation - we allow the word of God to interpret for ourselves. Tell me Brother, when David says God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills, what does that mean? Does it mean that God only owns the hills on a 1000 hills and the rest are up for grabs or is it poetical nonliteral language that says God owns all of the cattle on all of the hills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2: 14-17)
Yes, James makes that comment. His point is not that we need works to earn salvation - but that true faith is always accompanied by works. As Paul puts it elsewhere, we are saved unto good works. We cannot please God. This is the point of the entire gospel. You should try reading the bible rather than posting other people's works. "His point is not that we need works to earn salvation - but that true faith is always accompanied by works"
You don't need works, but then if you want true faith, then you do need works?
I never said we don't need works per se. Don't tell lies. I said we don't need works to earn salvation. and that is true. otherwise Jesus' death on the cross was a waste of time. Yet, we are saved to do good works. In other words, our good works flow out of a heart of gratitude towards a God who saved us in spite of the fact that we DID NOT DESERVE it.
When you state; “we are saved unto good works” then you agree that "works" are needed for salvation.
Don't twist what I said. Works are not needed for salvation. God's grace is needed for our salvation.
“But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.” (1 Thessalonians 2:4)
Yes, we please God because we are ALREADY saved. Not to get into heaven. Paul is talking to Christians who might take the view that grace is cheap.
“When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7)
This has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the way people relate with each other on earth, unless you expect to have enemies in heaven.
“And whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” (1 John 3:22)
John is talking to Christians - to people who are already saved. We please God by obeying his commandments - not to earn salvation to get into heaven.
Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” (Hebrews 13:16)
Christians are commanded to do good works. What part of this do you not understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I disagree. The Bible teaches that heaven and earth go hand in hand. This is the biblical and Jewish view. The Greek view separates the two. The Greek view which has become the predominant view in the West, has the earth as a place we need to escape from and heaven as a place we escape to. Heaven is separated from earth and we need to appease God to get him to let us in. The biblical view is quite different from this.But it's not a picture of heaven: it was purportedly here on earth, and god didn't live here, and man was given 'dominion' over all of earthly existence. That's not at all like heaven.
Eden is heaven - the garden on earth. It was the garden of Eden, heaven that humanity was banished from. This is why the New Jerusalem is a picture of heaven coming down to earth. The bible teaches heaven on earth - it is not earth and it is separate from it. But they are both connected very closely.
Earth is very much like heaven.
Also Genesis does tell us that God lived in Eden, on his holy mountain. God walked in the cool of the evening around Eden.
The end of the day - you can go on thinking about heaven from a Greek worldview point of view - that is entirely up to you. But that is not the picture presented in the bible. The Jewish worldview is starkly in contrast to the Greek point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Do you think angels have souls? If so, what biblical reference do you use?”
Let me use your quote in return, we are talking about animals, NOT angels, get it?
We were talking about heaven and what qualifies something to enter heaven. Yes, the post initially is about animals, but when someone (like you) suggests that animals do not go to heaven because they do not have souls, then it broadens the topic to the discussion about what qualifies something to be in heaven. You want to ignore this - fine with me.
Yes, I agree with those words, but they refer only to humans. My point was that I am not sure that a soul is required to get into heaven, when you are not a human. This topic is about animals.
It matters not whether an animal (Pet) has a soul or not, therefore, what part of the following passages WITHIN THIS THREAD didn't you understand regarding animals, aka, pets, will be Heaven bound upon their demise? Huh?
“Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O LORD.” (Psalm 36:6)
“And ALL FLESH shall see the salvation of God.'" (Luke 3:6 )
“Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust and to dust all return. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 )
“And ALL FLESH shall see the salvation of God.'" (Luke 3:6 )
“Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust and to dust all return. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 )
Thanks for the verses. I am not sure that the first one is talking about heaven. It is more general than that, The second verse - "all flesh" might include animals, I don't know. The third verse - is not talking about heaven - it is talking about death and that everything dies - it is not talking about heaven or hell for that matter.
“Yes, and this certainly applies to humans, the question is what about animals or angels, gee or even God. Does God have a soul? And if he does not, then you by your logic have said that God cannot go to heaven. Duh!
I notice you chose to ignore the question - but use evasive and ad hominin language.
“That may well be easy to show. But not by you and not by the dumb things you continue to say.“
You only perceive them to be dumb things, but in turn, these statements directed towards you are biblical AXIOMS that you either cannot address, or where you run away from them with your continuous barrage of child like inept statements! I understand that you cannot stand your ground in these scenarios, because your perceived knowledge goes wanting and does not allow you too! Priceless admittance on your part! Thank you!
Brother DT, your words are your words. They are for the most part shallow and nonsensical. I have answered and addressed every one of your comments to me that I think are worth replying too. You are the one who ran away in the other topic - because your arguments were shown to be false and shallow.
YOUR LIE ABOUT YOU REWRITING THE BIBLE: “Not once have I rewritten the bible. You need to demonstrate otherwise. It is your assertion and I deny it.”
Quick to the point to save you further embarrassment again, when you proffer CONTINUOUS subjective and wishful thinking statements like: “I take it means that a place we go …” “but this also probably means that the earth we live ……” yada, yada, yada, and then expound upon your subjective opinions as actual scripture, of which they are not, THEN YOU ARE IN FACT TRYING TO REWRITE THE BIBLE, GET IT, MINION OF SATAN?! H-E-L-L-O?
YOUR OUTRIGHT LYING QUOTE ABOUT YOUR SATANIC CHURCH: “I am not ashamed of my church. Nor is the Presbyterian Church hell bound.”
Then why did I have to pull teeth to get an answer of what church affiliation that you belonged to? Why did you continually hide from it in our previous discussions, where you even admitted that if you told me, I would use it for “canon fodder” against you! This alone gives credence to your church having aspects worthy of embarrassment! Priceless admittance on your part!
Therefore, you not only were embarrassed about your PRESBIE church, in which you should be, but you could not defend it as well that goes directly against Jesus' words! "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) How utterly embarrassing for you once again in front of the membership and the eyes of Jesus! (Hebrews 4:13)
YOUR LYING QUOTE IN YOU BELIEVING THAT YOU DID NOT COMMIT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN: “I have not committed the unpardonable sin. You are ignorant of the doctrine and that was demonstrated in our last discussion that you ran away with your tail between your legs.
No, I am not ignorant of this doctrine, and I did not run away, where you perceived that you were not guilty of this act IN YOUR COPY AND PASTE vain refutation. I gave you direct BIBLICAL axioms in why you have committed the Unpardonable Sin that easily buried your copy and paste laughable refutation. Therefore, your existence upon this forum is all for naught because you blasphemed Jesus the Christ within His Triune Doctrine, of which YOU RUN AWAY FROM THIS FACT as continuously shown by you!
Seriously, it truly pains me to show you to be the most bible ignorant FAKE Christians on DebateArt Religion Forum, and at the same time, you actually THINK you’re a Christian, NOT! What did I expect from a PRESBIE mind set? LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"So, you do think that salvation is by works. OK. I hold to the view that God saves us. Pleasing God is not the same appeasing him. We don't need to do things to get to heaven. God comes to us."
"WORKS" are needed to enter Heaven, whereas you say they are not!
No you are wrong. We are saved by grace not by works lest anyone boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2: 14-17)
Yes, James makes that comment. His point is not that we need works to earn salvation - but that true faith is always accompanied by works. As Paul puts it elsewhere, we are saved unto good works. We cannot please God. This is the point of the entire gospel. You should try reading the bible rather than posting other people's works.
In the final analysis, James 2: 14-17 is about as plain and simple as can be in the fact that faith alone is insufficient for justification of Salvation, but the act of works must accompany faith to be truly justified to enter Heaven! 2+2=4.
Explain the thief on the cross next to Jesus, then whom Jesus forgave and who then entered paradise. Salvation belongs to the Lord. It does not belong to man. God does not need us. We need him. the theif had no time for good works. Would you contradict Jesus? Of course you would.
“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Revelation 22:12)
“Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”(2 Corinthians 11:15)
The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work. (1 Peter 1:17)
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” (James 2:14, 17, 20, 24, 26)
“I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:23)
“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.” (Matthew 16.27)
Every one of those verses agrees with me. We are saved by grace, through faith. But we are saved unto good works. Yet, our good works wont get us to heaven just like our bad works wont. Why? Because it is GOD who saves, and not we ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I never said pets. I mentioned animals. I am surprised you understand the word metaphorical given it is more than two syllables.”
I mentioned PETS because this is the gist of the thread by ludofl3x. Therefore I left out animals to differentiate us from pets because humans are animals.
Ok. You understand pets to be animals but you do not consider humans as pets; although you are ok with humans being slaves which is worse than pets.
I used the word metaphorical because animals are referred to metaphorical. Yet I accept that others do not necessarily see the horses as metaphorical, you for instance are a literalist.
“Irrelevant to respond to the next two paragraphs and they don't add to the topic.”
Are you to SCARED and EMBARRASSED to respond to Jesus’ 2nd coming.
No not at all. It really is irrelevant to this discussion on animals in heaven. I have no reason to be embarrassed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The bigger question for you however is - would you want your pet to go to heaven if you are not going to be there? Surely the state of your eternal affairs are more important than that of an animal?
THis and the thing about angels were the only things you mentioned that had anything to do with the question, and neither one of them really answered it at all. I don't believe in any heaven at all. What part of the bible leaves you enough room to doubt that souls are required to be in it? As far as I can tell, it's EXCLUSIvELY souls. If no souls, then the tomato plants that died in my garden due to over-wet soil are in heaven?
Fair call. I suppose I was speaking into the air about such matters. I am sorry about your pet though but it would have been a bonding experience with your daughter as you discussed it with her.
As far as souls go - I think souls apply to humans only. There is no talk of souls for animals nor of angels. Angels are in heaven. Animals - is difficult to know. tomato plants - why not? I am not convinced that heaven is only exclusively for things with souls. I see no reason why plants and animals are excluded from heaven. How exactly that would look I have no idea.
Biblically speaking - if the Garden of Eden is a picture of heaven. it contained both trees and animals and insects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"I am not sure that you require a soul to be in heaven."
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28).
Great post Brother. It totally agrees with my position. It of course is talking about humans, neither animals nor angels. I notice you omitted to discuss angels. Do you think angels have souls? If so, what biblical reference do you use?
As the inspired words of Jesus state above, if one needs a soul to be completely destroyed in Hell, then one most certainly needs a soul to enter heaven.
Yes, I agree with those words, but they refer only to humans. My point was that I am not sure that a soul is required to get into heaven, when you are not a human. This topic is about animals.
“Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
As shown explicitly in the above passage, one needs a blameless soul along with a spirit and body to enter Heaven at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christs eventful return.
Yes, and this certainly applies to humans, the question is what about animals or angels, gee or even God. Does God have a soul? And if he does not, then you by your logic have said that God cannot go to heaven. Duh!
The bigger question for you however is - would you want your pet to go to heaven if you are not going to be there?
Are you alluding to the fact that ludofl3x will not be going to our 1400 square mile Heaven with its 65 foot high walls? Huh? What do you know that ludofl3x doesn’t? Yes, Jesus’ salvation is faulty to the core because Jesus admits that only a few will make it past the Pearly Gates. (Matthew 7:13-14, Matthew 22:14)
ludofl3x indicated in his opening post that he was not a believer. And that he was an atheist. I was not judging or prejudging - merely using his own reference as a means of considering the future.
it is easily shown by you that you are a fish out of water within this Religion Forum.
That may well be easy to show. But not by you and not by the dumb things you continue to say.
You Satanically rewrite the bible ad infinitum, your wishful thinking is synonymous with “ I want the bible my way, instead of Jesus’ way.”
Not once have I rewritten the bible. You need to demonstrate otherwise. It is your assertion and I deny it.
You are still ashamed of your church affiliation, where I do not blame you in being a Hell bound PRESBIE!
I am not ashamed of my church. Nor is the Presbyterian Church hell bound.
You have committed the Unpardonable Sin in its TRUE meaning.
LOL! I have not committed the unpardonable sin. You are ignorant of the doctrine and that was demonstrated in our last discussion that you ran away with your tail between your legs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Yet, I think there are many examples of animals in heaven, even if they are metaphorical only”
By the definition of being metaphorical, then they wouldn’t be the known "pets"
I never said pets. I mentioned animals. I am surprised you understand the word metaphorical given it is more than two syllables.
"The Angels in Revelation come from heaven riding on horses for instance."
Irrelevant to respond to the next two paragraphs and they don't add to the topic.
"I take it means that the place we go to when we die today will not be the same heaven that God is making new. but this also probably means that the earth we live on today will be not be the same - but that there will be a new earth."
Your quotes of “I take it means that a place we go …” but this also probably means that the earth we live ……” are laughable wishful thinking child like notions and are NOT biblical absolutes which Christianity must be built upon!
I am not sure how your response is helpful. I think you say you don't agree, yet you don't explain why nor what is an alternative. You really are short on arguments aren't you?
"Other religions seem to spend their time finding ways to make God happy - or to appease him or some miracle way of getting to heaven."
Whereas the following passages shows that you were wrong once again, in that you are to make the serial killer Yahweh/Jesus happy and to appease Him.“But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.” (1 Thessalonians 2:4)
“When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7)
“And whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” (1 John 3:22)
Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” (Hebrews 13:16)
So, you do think that salvation is by works. OK. I hold to the view that God saves us. Pleasing God is not the same appeasing him. We don't need to do things to get to heaven. God comes to us.
Created: