Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Money is representative of an asset that belongs to someone. It is not something that arises from imagination or on a computer screen. It is a tool that enables people to exchange goods and services.
Inflation is not perception.
you realise that there are two different definitions for inflation. the Keynesian definition - of a pervasive increase in a basket of goods over a set period of time. and if you are talking about that definition - I agree it is a myth. But I am talking about inflation under the classical definition which is simply an increase in the money supply. and inflation under that definition is not a myth because the money supply does increase and decrease all of the time.
When the money supply increases, every piece of unitary measure in the system by definition loses value in accordance with the market. This is inflation. This is not perception but explains why the price of assets and services do increase in price over time and why the value of real wages decrease. It is not the CPI that I am talking about - it is real inflation - i.e. the increase in the money supply.
Your concept of injecting units into the system by electronic means will mean in the short term that real money in people's hands will lose value. The units being backed - not pegged - but backed by the confidence we have in the government - similar to the backing or the confidence we have in our money now. Remember that neither in USA or Australia that our dollar is backed by gold or silver anymore - but simply confidence in the government - although we have reserve bank - and it holds some gold - the fractional banking system means only a very small fraction is backed.
I think it is fraught with problems - personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
money or units, however you describe it, is not determined or valued by the wealth of a country. All money is at the of the day a tool that represents the lowest common denominator. whether it is in cash or electronic or is a rock or a piece of sand or gold, it is still only useful if people want it. In other words, the value of money is going to be determined by the market.
It may well start of as equal to one unit of $ on the first day, but it will either increase or decrease by the end of the day. Especially if people are using or not using it.
It is an artificial increase of the money supply into the market. It has to be artificial unless it is simply replacing money already in the system. And who is going to give away 350 Trillions dollars? and it is an injection into money supply - because it was not there previously and now it is going to be used for the same purposes - buying and selling goods and services. It may not be cash but it is the same thing. Hence it will lead to inflation across all forms of currency in the market. to say it is imaginary does not make sense. It has to happen because suddenly every other form of currency is less valuable.
Reducing poverty requires a different approach. first poverty has to be defined - as a constant in every community. not just a relative concept. Secondly, we need to evaluate where the wealth in the world exists now. And it is not just in the hands of the private sector but mostly tied up in hands of the public sector which actually accounts for over 90% of all wealth. Then we need to decide what the public sector needs the wealth it has for. and whether a reduction or a re - examination of the way it uses it wealth is appropriate and or would cause it not to be effective in its role. That of course also requires a discussion of what is a government's role. I take a small government approach - so I have no particular issue if the government lost most of its wealth and instead transferred it either into the hands of the less wealthy or re-invested it into schemes which would pay for and provide for most of the larger government programs such as health, education, welfare on an ad finitum basis. poverty could be come a thing of the past but it requires thinking outside of the box - not just handing people money - but figuring out what poverty is and what the government's real role ought to be.
unfortunately most socialists and capitalists have yet to figure out where most of the wealth in the world is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
someone has to pay for everyone else to have money.
Economically, money has to be scarce for it to be valuable. If everyone has money, then technically it is not scarce and then it become less valuable. It certainly would lose purchasing power.
In the end it will have a short term sense of everyone feeling wealthy. but within weeks, perhaps days, it will become depressing. It actually would lead to inflation which is the same things as money losing its value.
There is also a historical precedent - at the end of world war 2 everyone in Germany was given the equivalent of $50. within one week, 90% of the money was in the hands of 10%. one week. This is pretty interesting in that money always goes to the ones who know how to use it properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Forum posts: 55Topic's authorAdded: 09.23.18 01:49AM--> @TradesecretFair enough. And to ( me ) this is the ultimate fair way anyone can explain what believing in god has to do with joining a group.I've not a single argument against it. And it's damaging to my case.But trade? What I am expecting to be the case is, now get this, stay with me.What I think might be happening is people a person may in fact join a religion and like be in a religious group without ever actually meeting a god and having it/him/her ever tell them that it/he/her wants them to join the A's or like join the C's.Trade, its not like you would join a group if god didn't actually tell you hey.?Good gameGood game
Hello Deb, can I call you that? I apologise if it is presuming too much (But you did call me Trade)
Thanks in the first instance for conceding that my position does go against yours and does not help you. I must say that you made me smile when you said "I've not a single argument against it" and then proceeded to lay out and argument. It was kind of cute in a backwards sort of way.
Secondly, I think you are correct in that many people do join religious groups without ever meeting a god face to face or even hearing a god audibly telling them to join a group. Of course it does depend upon what you mean by god. Some cults have self-professing leaders who are gods who call people to join them. In those cases gods are not necessarily non-human or supernatural or divine, just humans with a charismatic personality like Pharaoh who takes on the title of god. In fact I think most people are born into their religion although you would have to concede that actually also goes against the idea of choosing religion. It was chosen for them by their parents or perhaps by God through their parents. Still it was not necessarily their personal choice. and I would think this accounts for most people in religions today.
On the other hand there are many people who choose to join or convert to a new religion. These people probably in the large part have chosen to join a group for all sorts of reasons. They might prefer the company, or the doctrine, or are attracted to the stability, or wish to own their parent's religion for themselves or perhaps they read up, investigated a particular religion and found a kinship with it and decided to join.
For me, I grew up in a home with a dad who was an atheist and a mum who was a committed Christian. They fought all of the time, and by the time I had reached 17 I decided for myself that religion and God was nothing more than a story - perhaps invented to enslave the masses. I passed through various stages of political theories such as socialism, anarchy, and communism. I used various substances and I experimented sexually in a variety of ways. I attended uni, studied law, economics, psychology, and chemistry. In other words, I did what lots of other people have done throughout history. I played about with mysticism, and spirituality - got into dungeons and dragons, Ouija boards, and seances. traveled the world, met lots of so called spiritual people in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tibet, Mexico and Lesotho.
And then the Spirit of God worked in my heart. I went from being antagonistic against God and Jesus to believing Jesus was God. I went from thinking Christianity was fraudulent to seeing that it was truth. I went from thinking that I had it all and needed no one to knowing I needed a saviour. Can I explain how this happened? No, I cannot. I did not believe and suddenly I did. It was like I was dead and then I was alive.
C. S Lewis describes a similar experience in relation to his conversion. He left his home to go to the movies and did not believe but by the time he got to the movies he believed. Like me, he does not recall thinking necessarily about these things - or having some kind of amazing emotional experience - simply that he was dead and then he was alive.
Did I hear the voice of God speaking to me? Not audibly. but my eyes had opened and suddenly everything had changed. Can I explain it? no. it is inexplicable. But Jesus spoke of this in John 3 about the spirit. He is like the wind and where he goes - you cannot see him. but you know he has been there. I have not seen him, but my life has definitely had all the hallmarks of him being in my life.
I would never have chosen God. In fact I had already so I thought rejected him. and then God moved in me and I was compelled to believe and now I am totally sold on him. It was not an experience - it was simply that he moved and I responded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are getting sick of me disagreeing with you. But you are clearly wrong. You selectively read Zechariah's account and interpret it to mean no unfaithfulness and then suggest that the angel who was there at the time was wrong when he said that Zechariah disbelieved him.
Cant you see the difficulty of your point? No I don't suppose you can. This is not a matter of you making a point - go ahead and do it. It is a matter of proving your point -which you clearly have not done so. Otherwise everyone would agree with you.
My other views on the touching and clinging too are solid and based in good grounded rhetoric - your view has been soundly refuted as ignorant and self serving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
the word in the greek is the word hapto. It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or light. In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you are using, it is translated as touch. In my version it is cling to. There are also two other words for touch that might be more appropriate. Katago and prosphano.
These are both not simply translations but interpretations. In that sense, I would suggest the context and the circumstances might assist in the more accurate interpretation.
In the specific context, for it to mean simply "touch" as opposed to "cling to" which is what you are insisting upon has some problems as you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas. I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction. Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.
There also does not seem to be any particular reason why Jesus would say don't touch and then touch to either Mary or Thomas. The notion that he somehow discriminated between the two seems inconsistent with the rest of the gospels and really has no merit to it.
What we do know from the context is that Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus after he rose from the dead. Was this because she did not believe as the two men on the road to Emmaus or indeed like Thomas in the next few verses. This is possible of course and I don't immediately discount it. It seems that all of the disciples found it difficult to believe Jesus' words that he would rise from the dead even though he had told them countless times and had also demonstrated numerous miracles before their eyes. The fact is people are hard hearted even when confronted with the truth directly in front of their eyes.
Of course with Mary, it may well be that she really was grief stricken which also would not be unreasonable given the recent events and the stories that someone had stolen his body. When she saw Jesus, and recognised who he was, it is also not unreasonable that she would immediately hug him, and cling to him and not wish to let him go. You seem to think this is extrapolation, but the word in the greek can be translated that way so it is not extrapolation. It makes better sense than simply Jesus saying "don't touch me". Why would Jesus say "don't touch me"? It does not make sense. Christian theology has never been about the body being evil or even sinful. Christian theology has only ever taught that the heart is sinful. And Jesus heart in particular was not sinful and nor was his body. Sometimes some crazy Pentecostals suggest that Jesus had to go heaven to see his father and then come back again before seeing Thomas and the other disciples. I think that is nonsense. There is no evidence and no data to support this idea either.
Although I concede that the word might be interpreted touch, I think it does not fit the context and it is certainly not the best fit. You can insist upon it if you like, but you are using a version that other versions and many scholars disagree with and clearly you require to insist upon it so that there is a contradiction. That makes it a subjective decision you are drawing your conclusion upon. I on the other hand am drawing upon scholarly work, the greek language, the context of the passage and don't have any particular subjective need to bear. I say this last one, because apparent contradictions have no bearing upon whether the bible is true or not. That may well be the atheist's or agnostic's position but it is not the Christian position. We after all believe in the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, where God is one and God is three persons. And we don't see this as a contradiction because it is not a contradiction. We also acknowledge that these things are spiritually discerned.
but in relation to the above passage, you have not demonstrated even on a basic level that there is a contradiction. you have not shown conclusively or even at all that the word means touch in this context. Yes, you have provided one version which says touch. But I have provided other translations which show otherwise and furthermore I have provided the underlying Greek which provides alternative translations. Your theory makes no sense either in the context, or in the circumstances and by your own admission - tends towards contradicting the passage. Why make such an insistence unless you have an axe to grind? It certainly is not very scholarly or becoming.
You also made an observation that it does not matter whether it means cling because that still means touch. If that is your position, then whatever. If Jesus says "don't touch", I suggest to you that it is quite different to "don't cling". the first may have been before she touched him and might be a command not to touch her. It might be after she had already touched her and he is commanding her not to do it. This seems to be what you are saying. The "don't cling" has more implications. It suggests she was touching him already and that she does not want to let go. For him to say don't cling, does not mean that he did not want her to touch him, it means that he does not want her to cling to him. In this sense he is actually caring for her in her grieving state. Your interpretation makes him out to be mean spirited which again is inconsistent with his character from the rest of the gospels. Where else has he ever rejected people wanting to come to him?
At the end of the day, your position is soundly refuted. There is no contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, this is not circular. It is quite clear. Jesus did not forbid Mary from touching him. He forbid Mary from clinging to him and not letting him go. These are quite different things. Your literalistic sticking to your own version is what is circular, nothing else. There is no contradiction here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
the words in greek is the word for cling not merely touch. Not that it matters. She was touching him and she did not wish to let go. Jesus told her to stop clinging to her. I reject your notion that he did not want her to touch him especially since that is only an interpretation in one translation. she could not prevent him from leaving again. This is the point of what he is saying. He is not saying - don't touch me fullstop.
With Thomas he did invite him to touch him - but this was in response to Thomas saying earlier that he would not believe unless he touched his wounds with his own hands. Yes, it was rhetorical - because Jesus knew Thomas' heart. And if Thomas had touched him - it would not have changed anything anyway. Jesus did not have an issue with people touching him. He did have a problem with people trying to keep him and trying to prevent him from leaving. He had yet to go to his father and this was going to happen whether they liked it or not.
It is not a biblical contradiction. It is quite plain what has happened here. hence why he reiterates this to Mary, go and tell them I am going to my father. you want it to be a contradiction - yet you have not made your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, I am not assuming you are a dunce.
I was making statements as a response to what I read in your original post.
I hardly think that referring to what babies jumping for joy within wombs when they were not even born might give light upon whether Jesus and john knew each other later. John jumped at that stage. I am not convinced that is sufficient by itself to prove they knew each other.
I have many cousins I have never met throughout life. And they live in the same town as I do. It is not anything more than probable. Not that I actually think it is an issue anyway.
As I said I think he probably knew Jesus - but not as the messiah until his baptism. I reject your view about it being a power play. But what is your evidence for such a statement. He certainly was fulfilling the prophecies of the OT. He certainly wanted to see God's kingdom come in. He did not think that he himself was the messiah. He was waiting for the one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit and who was greater than him - so much he was not worthy to untie his shoe laces.
That John's confidence was shaken when he was put in prison is not unreasonable. You seem to think he must have been superman or something. That once he was filled with the Spirit that he was suddenly unable to lose confidence. John was human. He sent his disciples. I don't know why you think he must divest himself of his disciples. We don't know how long they had been with him. We don't know what their relationship was with him. Just because the messiah had arrived was not a signal that he to stop doing his ministry of preparing people for the coming messiah.
I assume you understand OT theology relating to the Passover lamb and also to the sacrificial system of the Jewish system. Hebrews reminds us that it was a shadow of things to come and that it pointed to the coming of the messiah. In the OT, when people thought of lambs, they did not think like we did today of cute cuddly little lambs who bleat for their milk and who sit in the arms of children. They immediately thought of the sacrificial lamb who was used as part of the atoning sacrifice at the temple for the sins of the priest and then of the people of God. When John labeled Jesus as the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, it was obvious that he was linking Jesus with the sacrificial lamb in the OT system. So no I reject your assertion that I have added to the scriptures by extrapolation or otherwise. This has been the teaching of the church since day dot and I am following in their traditions of which I find logical procession of thought from the OT to the NT.
I don't think I know better than others. but what I do know is that I have the NT and the interpretation as provided by the Spirit of God that those people did not have at that time. John was in the old covenant - hence with an understanding prior to the coming of the messiah. We live in the time since then with the benefit of the Messiah's wisdom and Spirit.
I never said John was a high priest. I said he was a levite and the son of Zechariah who was at one time high priest. Actually I am not sure he was high priest although he certainly was appointed to enter the holy of holies in that particular year. Jewish children were not illiterate. Of all the cultures in the world at that time, they had a high level of literacy. they were people of the book and having the ability to read the book or the scrolls meant that the nation had a high motivation for ensuring that children were taught from a young age. John was literate. And he was intelligent and he was called by God. But how much did he know of what the messiah was meant to be - I don't know. Obviously, he knew Jesus was the lamb of God. Significantly, he also was meant to understand Jesus' reference about healing the sick and making the blind see. But he was human and he was prone to all of the same cultural issues of the time and of the Jewish nation. Gee, even Christians today get mixed up about the kingdom - and they are in the new covenant.
but my point is and remains the same. John was not perfect. He did not have perfect knowledge. He had doubts like the rest of us - even when he was confronted by the truth. Experiences one day can quickly turn into doubts in the future. Think of the Jewish people. released from Egypt - walked through water - and then less than a month later were turning to another god - in the shape of a golden calf. All this proves is that humans are fickle. john was human. John had a job and he fulfilled it. But he also had doubts which were laid to rest after his disciples visited and spoke with Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you seem to think that people in the bible such as Zechariah had perfect knowledge and also perfect responses to such knowledge. That is unreasonable and ignorant.
the people of Israel throughout their history often had significant information imparted to them - they did not respond righteously but in accordance with their own sinfulness.
Zechariah was no different. I am not convinced he had perfect knowledge, but even if he did, there is no reason for him to react to this information in a faithful manner. It is certainly to be expected that he would be cynical and without belief that this was happening to him. Certainly, this happened many times in the bible that people heard directly from God but acted without faith. This is human. In any event, what happened to Zechariah does not have to be a punishment. It may well have been a sign for him and others about him - that something significant was about to happen. which incidentally is the case - John the Baptist was born - and he was the forecomer to Christ.
As I look at the passage - it does not have to be seen as a punishment - but even if it was - the angel clearly says that Zechariah did not believe his words. so whatever spin you put on Zechariah's words, the angels are quite clear. It seems to be that Zechariah was not so sure that God would do this thing - Zechariah is human just like you and me. His skepticism was evident and it was counted as unbelief. Was it a punishment or a sign? That is another question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I assume you realise that Luke and John were written by different people. And to different audiences.
Hence they had different purposes. Yet they are in agreement.
you seem to have difficulty with John's rendition of the events surrounding Mary and then Thomas. Firstly Jesus says don't touch - actually he says "don't hold onto me" for "I have not returned to my father" . and then in v 27 he says to Thomas "put your finger here". I think you are suggesting that Jesus is inconsistent about whether he can be touched or not and that he is being inconsistent and John in fact is contradicting himself.
note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me. This was not a simple touching - it was a full on significant hug of some description. In the second place - despite Jesus' suggestion to Thomas, there is no evidence that Thomas ever actually touched Jesus. Jesus' words were more of a rhetorical sense once Thomas had actually seen him in the flesh. Remember that Jews did not have the same idea about ghosts that we do today.
Hence, the bible only says that Mary was told not to hold onto him and that Jesus suggested to Thomas that he touch him. So there is no data that goes the extra step and says that Jesus did not let Mary touch him but did let Thomas touch him. I am not even sure that the essence of the story goes that far. In fact Mary did touch him. But we don't know about Thomas.
But why did Jesus say what he did to Mary? What was that about? I think it is fairly easy to explain. She was clinging to him in the hope that he would not simply disappear before his eyes. the words do not describe a simple touch but a clinging a holding a not wanting to let him go sense. He tells her to stop- in other words there will be other opportunities for her to see him before he goes to his father. perhaps she was clinging to him in a sense that her clinging might prevent him from going. she was being obstinate in her grief. she had lost him once - it was not going to happen again if she could help it. Jesus simply tells her to get serious. she cannot stop what is happening.
so when Jesus sees Thomas later it does not contradict his words at all to Mary, but makes perfect sense. no issues with the resurrection - simply revealing normal human flaws for all to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Calling John the least in the kingdom was not an insult. It can be interpreted in a couple of ways.
Firstly, the kingdom is never about being first - it is always about being the servant. John was the servant - and therefore being least is the highest compliment.
secondly, Jesus was distinguishing between the new and the old covenants. anyone in the old covenant is going to be less than those in the new covenant. not in status or importance but in the sense of knowing Jesus as he was. People born and dying before Jesus would not understand the significance of his death and resurrection. they would only understand the shadow not the reality.
It is not an insult, merely a recognition that those who knew Jesus in the new covenant will have a deeper understanding than anyone under the old covenant. I prefer this second understanding over the first one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I have never had a personal communication from God without the Scriptures being involved. Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A god or gods does not need any special attributes. History shows that people worshiped anything and everyone. sometimes it was bird or the sun or the moon or the earth or our parents or the king or a stone or a tree or the lightening or thunder or even ourselves.
In most cases, humans like their gods to be useful for them - so like to have them on a string. If a god wants to do something different from us - then we reject that thing as a god. if it does not listen to then we reject it. but we like others to think our god is big and strong and can do whatever he wants - mostly we want others to think that our god will do whatever we want -
in modern times, this historical idea of god gets rejected for all sorts of reasons - today we worship our minds our reason our abilities to be famous or skillful - we worship these things because they are an authority. Celebrity, sports heroes, authors, scientists, even politicians, pop stars, and movie stars.
I think most people worship themselves - as their own biggest authority.
the secular world has changed the definition of religion and of god. they want to make it a thing of the past and superstitious nonsense - primarily because they want to determine for themselves how they want to live - hence they want religion to be about the supernatural and therefore god must be of the same ilk. but this is a modern idea and definition with a very small timeline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not sure that John is having as many problems as you might think.
John was a levite priest. We know this because his father is one and levites followed the family business. John may or may not have known Jesus. Sure their parents knew each other - but they were a significant distance from each other. It is not like they could simply jump into a car and go visit whenever they felt like it. Also both boys would have commenced work pretty early in their lives - and it is not like they had it easy like us - to have weekends and a 38 hour week. Remember they were in a land captured by Romans and probably needed consent to go from one place to another.
John was at the river for more than one day. the gospels clearly give the idea that all of the Jerusalem and Judea went out to him to be baptised. This would have taken more than one day to do - especially given that many people would have had jobs and the Pharisees and the soldiers are not going to appear after one day.
I think John probably did know Jesus - but that does not mean he knew Jesus was the messiah. This may never have occurred to him until this moment when he came to be baptised. you are correct that John was full of the spirit - as was Jesus. And at Jesus's baptism this was evident in the way he spoke to Jesus and by the confirmation of God the Father and the Spirit of God at that time. I think there is no doubt that John believed Jesus was the messiah.
Later on when John was in prison - John sent his disciples to ask the question about whether Jesus really was the messiah or not. I am not sure that at this time John was so confident about Jesus. I am not sure that at that time he was so confident of much. He knew he was a prophet but had been thrown into prison. He had been watching Jesus but Jesus did not seem to the messiah he was imagining. The Pharisees, and Israel and by extension John probably believed the messiah was going to come and rescue Israel from the Romans and restore all things back to Israel and set up his kingdom. Gee, even Jesus disciples thought this as well. Perhaps John was getting nervous sitting in prison.
Yet Jesus response to John's disciples was not what they were expecting - he reminded them of the promises of what the messiah would be like from the Isaiah passages. Look at what I have been doing - this is my kingdom - it is not of this world. It is not a political kingdom. It is one as you proclaimed when you baptised me - as the lamb of God, dying for the sins of his people to bring reconciliation between God and man and his kingdom was going to be a spiritual one.
I am of the view that John had along with everyone else of his generation completely missed how God's messiah was going to set up his kingdom. Instead of reading passages such as Is 53, they read passages like Psalm 2. They started with his kingdom and not with their heart.
So I do not think that John had any more problems than most people did at the time including Jesus' own disciples. Even after he died, they still did not get it. It was only after he had risen from the grave and had seen him that things began to dawn upon them. and then it changed everything - and the world was turned upside down. today - people still don't get it. We want a god who will turn up like superman and save us - rather than a saviour who wants to deal with our hearts. We want a god after our hearts - not one who is going to fix our heart and transform it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I did not choose my religion. God chose me. I did not have the capacity or the ability to reject him. He outsmarted me. And now I am sold on him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What is the other main religion? I think Christianity is the ONLY true and correct religion. I would not go on to say that everything Christianity teaches is true and correct and some of the things it practices are surely incorrect.
Nevertheless, it is correct in so far as believing that Jesus is LORD and that he died and rose again from the dead and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.
So far as denominations go, any Christian denomination which believes in the Trinity and the Atoning work of Christ through his death on the cross is correct. Hence, cults like the LDS or the JWs or the wacky independent unitarian churches are not Christian in accordance with the traditions of the church.
but from my point of view, the more denominations, the better. It shows that the church contains thinking people within the framework of its tenants and that is a good thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Do you talk to God? What's this experience like? Is it one-way, where you're sending God prayers, or does God ever touch your mind in response? If there is a response, what is it like? Does God respond in words? Is it just a feeling or emotion, like a wordless sense of wellbeing or reassurance?
Yes. It is the same as when I talk to other persons. It is not one way. Yet it is not like talking to someone face to face. Yes, I talk to God orally, but he talks to me typically through the Scriptures. Of course, he also talks to me by other means, but mostly that is more of a means of comfort or encouragement. It is also quite vague. When someone preaches to me, so far as they are actually preaching God's words then I understand God is talking to me. Sometimes people preach moralism and their own thoughts. This is not God, but man or woman. I don't know what you mean by God touching my mind. I understand that the Spirit of God impresses me through the words of Christ as flowing through the scriptures. The words that God responds with are the Scriptures. It is always quite clear and objective.
Is there ever a doubting part of you that whispers that you're just talking to yourself? If so, how do you overcome it? Is there a quality to "God's voice" that is immediately and fundamentally distinct from your own inner voice, so that you can always tell when it's supposedly God and when it's just your own mind?
Because I hear God's word primarily through the Scriptures whether it is being read or preached, the only questions which arise are meaning and application. Sometimes a preacher will say something which is really an application of the idea being preached. This can cause questions in my mind and I think this is a good thing. People need to question all things they hear. Even when I read something directly from the Bible, I need to stop and ask what does it mean? What did it mean in the time it was written, how was it meant to be applied then? What differences exist between then and now - has anything changed for me to see how it might apply to me now. For example, some of the OT laws in Exodus were written directly to Jewish people after they left Egypt but before they arrived in the promised land and prior to Jesus coming. since Jesus has come and gone and left us his Spirit, with the birth of the church, many of these OT laws are now changed in form, but not substance. the Sacrifices are now sufficiently fulfilled in Jesus' death on the cross - and this flows eternally. Hence the OT law is now in substance fulfilled all of the time, but the form has changed. Now we don't need to look forward to a better time, but look back to his death in the communion.
Do I ever think I am just talking to myself? I think we all think that from time to time. But typically I don't go about talking to myself and knowing that I can talk to God anytime - is not just about prayer, but reminds me that God is always watching over me. I think when you hear God's voice, you know it. But I don't think that God chooses to talk audibly to people now. Hebrews 1:1 tells us that God used to talk in various ways in the past - but now he talks to us through his son - Jesus who ensured that his words were written down by the Apostles and we now have his words in the form of the NT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
He was struck dumb for not believing the angel. He was an old man and his wife was barren. He like Abraham and Sarah many years prior did not have faith at the time that God would keep his promise.
The NT readers would have known the previous stories in respect of God promising barren women babies. Of course Zechariah like most of us would have been skeptical if someone promised us the same even if we did believe in God.
Hence it is not about whether all of it was written down for the readers or indeed hearers of the gospel. It also included relying upon the history of the nation of Israel.
John the Baptist is an interesting story - but quite profound once you look into it further. Not only was he a prophet, he was a Levite priest.
How do we know this? Because his father was a high priest. What was the ceremony he was performing at the River Jordan? Why was it significant that Jesus came when he was 30 years of age? Was it immersion or was it sprinkling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nathaniel_B
Jesus was a Jew. Hence he was more than likely a man of middle eastern descent.
Created: