The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: jinxmchue on October 06, 2009, 01:52:46 PM
-
Lessons in liberal hypocrisy and double-standards:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/10/05/time-conservative-bible-project-insane-green-bible-evangelical-friendl
A year ago Time magazine's David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed "green references" in "a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus." But wait, there's more, The Green Bible also includes "supplementary writings" several of which "cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity 'dominion' over the earth" and "Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus' call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains."
Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom "agreed that 'stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'" might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.
Yet the same reverent treatment was spared the online "Conservative Bible Project" spearheaded by some folks at Conservapedia. Time's Amy Sullivan slammed the project as "insane" in her October 5 Swampland blog post:
There are also "gender-neutral/-inclusive" Bibles and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not), but since liberals agree with these versions, they receive no criticism or scorn.
And unsurprisingly, trolling and vandalism of this Conservapedia project increased dramatically recently.
-
While it is completely true that gender-neutral "translations" are therefore inaccurate, I'd have to say that "translations" written to explain the free market would also be inaccurate. I, personally, wouldn't be any more interested in this slant than the slant of the NIV (Non Ispired Version.) This is one reason why we all use the NASB, it is the most carefully accurate translation available today, and is written at a college reading level to allow for the most accurate word-to-word matches.
-
"Hey, lets change the word of God to fit our own views! WE know what he REALLY meant!"
Both sides doing this are idiots.
-
I prefer the Jefferson Bible.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
-
This is one reason why we all use the NASB,..
The KJV, ASV, NJKV, and the NASV are the most accurate, I would agree. All these others that paraphrase, or leave out parts they don't like, or add things they would prefer be said, are absolutely useless when it comes to accurate study.
.
-
The subject of "which version of the Bible do you like?" is extremely controversial. Everybody's got their favorite and everybody else's just isn't up to snuff. Kinda like humankind to resort to that kind of one-upsmanship.
As for me, I bought an NIV Study Bible about 6 years ago. I get a ton of useful information that provides some perspective on geography, culture, and similar attributes that help me understand Scripture better than I would without it.
I really couldn't care less if it's NIV or ABC or NASA or any other kind of acronym. All I know is that it works for me. I'll leave the rest of it to scholars and to those who are really up on that kind of stuff.
KJV has beautiful prose, especially Psalms. I like it for that reason.
-
Isn't there a warning in the bible against worshipping the creature as the creator?
Romans, I think.
-
KJV has beautiful prose, especially Psalms. I like it for that reason.
So true.
-
I prefer the Jefferson Bible.
Yeah right. This coming from the boards resident asshat Atheist.
:whatever:
-
Isn't there a warning in the bible against worshipping the creature as the creator?
Romans, I think.
Romans 1:25 (King James Version)
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
-
Yeah right. This coming from the boards resident asshat Atheist.
I've never argued that the Bible is utterly without merit.
-
An atheist is a person that lives upon the earth God provides, eats the food God provides, breathes the air God provides, and uses the intellect God provides to deny God and to judge His works...and eventually will stand in front of God screaming, "How DARE You give me the Free Will to refuse You!"
-
An atheist is a person that lives upon the earth God provides, eats the food God provides, breathes the air God provides, and uses the intellect God provides to deny God and to judge His works...and eventually will stand in front of God screaming, "How DARE You give me the Free Will to refuse You!"
What do you suppose God did with Mr. Jefferson for taking a razor to the Bible?
-
What do you suppose God did with Mr. Jefferson for taking a razor to the Bible?
The last time I looked (which was just a couple days ago), the only requirement for salvation was still to believe in Christ. As Mr. Jefferson also purchased Bibles for his local public schools, the fact that he read only the red words is meaningless.
-
The last time I looked (which was just a couple days ago), the only requirement for salvation was still to believe in Christ. As Mr. Jefferson also purchased Bibles for his local public schools, the fact that he read only the red words is meaningless.
Uh, no. Belief in Christ is not the only requirement for salvation. It's one requirement but it's by far not the only one.
-
Uh, no. Belief in Christ is not the only requirement for salvation. It's one requirement but it's by far not the only one.
Oh please continue.
Please read Ephesians 2:8,9.
-
Oh please continue.
Can an unrepentant murderer get into Heaven?
Please read Ephesians 2:8,9.
What Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches is that salvation cannot be purchased with works. It does not indicate that believing in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
-
Uh, no. Belief in Christ is not the only requirement for salvation. It's one requirement but it's by far not the only one.
Really... want to run with that idea?
-
Can an unrepentant murderer get into Heaven?
What Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches is that salvation cannot be purchased with works. It does not indicate that believing in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
Repentance is a part of the belief.
-
Can an unrepentant murderer get into Heaven?
What Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches is that salvation cannot be purchased with works. It does not indicate that believing in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
By repenting,yes.
He/she would still have to serve out the civil consequence of their action here though.
It cannot be purchased or earned by works,outside of belief that is all that is left.
Jesus also clearly stated in John 14:6.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
What other way of salvation are you saying that Jesus taught?
-
Repentance is a part of the belief.
Are you making this up as you go along? The word belief has nothing to do with the word repentnce. Moreover, one can believe that a god exists and still not feel sorry for a sin or sins.
-
By repenting,yes.
You've missed the point. Mrs. Smith suggested that belief in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
-
Are you making this up as you go along? The word belief has nothing to do with the word repentnce. Moreover, one can believe that a god exists and still not feel sorry for a sin or sins.
No way. Someone who believes that Christ is Christ cannot possibly avoid feeling repentance.
-
You've missed the point. Mrs. Smith suggested that belief in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
Because it is. Christ made it quite clear.
-
No way. Someone who believes that Christ is Christ cannot possibly avoid feeling repentance.
You're redefining the word belief to include repentance. If words don't have set meanings then communication is impossible.
-
You've missed the point. Mrs. Smith suggested that belief in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.
Ah yes..you are doing just what I figured when I pondered your nonsensical questions.
A word game that libs are so fond of,somehow thinking they are proving their intellectual prowess.
No TNO...a simple belief that historically Jesus did live is not the path to Salvation.
As I suspect you well know when it is spoken of in that way it is referring to a belief and acceptance that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins by willingly dying on the cross.
It is the belief that He took our place before God the Father that reunites us to Him.
That entails an admission of our sinful nature and repentance of it.
Juvenile gotcha games do not do anything but prove the one trying to play them is a juvenile.
Once again you have done that very well.
-
You're redefining the word belief to include repentance. If words don't have set meanings then communication is impossible.
No, I'm not. :-)
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
-
The fact that you've misunderstood a word with a 2000 year history is not my problem. :lmao:
-
The fact that you've misunderstood a word with a 2000 year history is not my problem. :lmao:
My understanding of the word belief is complete. You're trying to change the meaning to suit your purposes.
Imagine that a person who has never attended a Christian religious service or read the Bible meets a priest who tells him that he can attain salvation by believing in Christ. Would the person have any reason to think that he must repent his sins? Of course not... because the word belief does not connote repentance.
-
My understanding of the word belief is complete.
Imagine that a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ or the Bible meets a priest who tells him that he can attain salvation by believing in Christ. Would the person have any reason to think that he must repent his sins? Of course not... because the word belief does not connote repentance.
Perhaps you should take that up with Christ? :-) After all, He is the One that knows whether or not you BELIEVE. As you obviously don't understand what He said, then your understanding is NOT complete. :lmao:
-
My understanding of the word belief is complete.
Imagine that a person who has never attended a Christian religious service or read the Bible meets a priest who tells him that he can attain salvation by believing in Christ. Would the person have any reason to think that he must repent his sins? Of course not... because the word belief does not connote repentance.
You spend a lot of time ignoring those things that prove you simple.
I pointed out you are playing a childish game with a word well established in meaning for the context.
It is you trying to redefine it to suit a purpose.
Just the same as we found a while ago here where "scientists" have redefined theory to mean something other then what has always been in context.
Greenhouse effect to global warming to climate change.
Liberal to progressive.
The twisting of definitions to suit their purpose is the sole property of the left...accept and be honest about it
-
The twisting of definitions to suit their purpose is the sole property of the left...accept and be honest about it
If you think I've twisted the definition of the word belief then show me any dictionary which defines belief as repentance.
-
If you think I've twisted the definition of the word belief then show me any dictionary which defines belief as repentance.
We are talking the bible here, the words of Christ, remember? He defined it that way. Go read the red words, it's quite plain. :-)
-
If you think I've twisted the definition of the word belief then show me any dictionary which defines belief as repentance.
Nope,not going to play your feigned obtuse game.
You know full well what the accepted and recognized verbiage in "belief in Jesus" means.
Time to take your foolishness on to the next topic you will embarrass yourself with.
-
Just smack him with the hardcover edition.
-
Nope,not going to play your feigned obtuse game.
You know full well what the accepted and recognized verbiage in "belief in Jesus" means.
You can say that salvation requires belief. And, you can say that salvation requires repentance. What you may not say, however, is that repentance is implicit in the act of believing.
-
You can say that salvation requires belief. And, you can say that salvation requires repentance. What you may not say, however, is that repentance is implicit in the act of believing.
Garbage...belief that Jesus died for our sins on the cross requires an acknowledgement that we have sinned and deserve eternal separation.
You can not believe that and not repent nor can you repent but not believe and have Salvation.
Mark 1:1-15...
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
-
Mark 1:1-15...
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
So, there you have it-- repent and believe. Two words for two actions. If repentance were implicit in the act of believing then Mark 1:15 would have been written as follows...
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: believe the gospel.
-
So, there you have it-- repent and believe. Two words for two actions. If repentance were implicit in the act of believing then Mark 1:15 would have been written as follows...
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: believe the gospel.
Whatever you wish to play around with in this stupid little game you are trying to play.
Don`t ever again then proclaim that evolution is a proven and irrefutable fact given that there are no answers for most of the mechanisms that are needed for it to be true.
Two can play the same games.
-
One other thing TNO...I care not really whether you try to mock the Bible.
It still gives a chance to post Scripture which the Holy Spirit can use to convict you of your sinful nature so as that you repent (first step) and then believe (second step) in the saving grace of Christ.
In the end that is what matters and like it or not it weighs on your mind no matter how much you arrogantly try to throw it off.
-
You can say that salvation requires belief. And, you can say that salvation requires repentance. What you may not say, however, is that repentance is implicit in the act of believing.
I'm sorry that your understanding of belief in Christ is so lacking. He said what He said. Arguing your limited understanding of His statements is a waste of time. Either go learn something, or continue without knowledge. It really doesn't make any difference to anyone except you. You're more than welcome to continue to :beathorse:...but you can't change something that was made quite clear 2000 years ago. :-)
Christ Himself said that belief in Him was all that was required. You can whine around it all you want, but you can't change it. :lmao:
-
Whatever you wish to play around with in this stupid little game you are trying to play.
Don`t ever again then proclaim that evolution is a proven and irrefutable fact given that there are no answers for most of the mechanisms that are needed for it to be true.
Two can play the same games.
It's not a game. It's just English.
-
It's not a game. It's just English.
No, it's your OPINION.
-
Whatever you wish to play around with in this stupid little game you are trying to play.
Don`t ever again then proclaim that evolution is a proven and irrefutable fact given that there are no answers for most of the mechanisms that are needed for it to be true.
Two can play the same games.
His inbred hypocritical nature won't ever allow that to happen. He's a Lib he doesn't believe he has to follow the same rules that the rest of us do.
-
I'm sorry that your understanding of belief in Christ is so lacking. He said what He said. Arguing your limited understanding of His statements is a waste of time. Either go learn something, or continue without knowledge. It really doesn't make any difference to anyone except you. You're more than welcome to continue to :beathorse:...but you can't change something that was made quite clear 2000 years ago. :-)
What is made clear in the Bible is that salvation requires both belief and repentance. What you claimed is that salvation requires only belief. There is nothing in the Bible which indicates that belief and repentance are the same thing or that repentance is an aspect of belief.
-
It's not a game. It's just English.
Keep painting yourself as a fool,your choice,but deep down your heart knows there is a God or else you wouldn`t be so determined to prove to yourself there isn`t.
You also know that Jesus died for your sins but you try to arrogantly pretend otherwise through childish ploys.
You reject Him and the Word at your peril,nothing in my life changes for it but really do hope you actually do pick up the Bible and let the Holy Spirit work in your life.
Beyond that I have no more to say.
-
Keep painting yourself as a fool,your choice,but deep down your heart knows there is a God or else you wouldn`t be so determined to prove to yourself there isn`t.
You also know that Jesus died for your sins but you try to arrogantly pretend otherwise through childish ploys.
You reject Him and the Word at your peril,nothing in my life changes for it but really do hope you actually do pick up the Bible and let the Holy Spirit work in your life.
Beyond that I have no more to say.
Get a grip. This argument is not about whether a god exists or not. This argument is about a certain word and what it means.
-
Get a grip. This argument is not about whether a god exists or not. This argument is about a certain word and what it means.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Check the title of this thread retard. You're in the wrong one.
The "Love" thread is one floor down.
:loser:
-
Pop quiz:
Can anyone name what else besides God's grace, faith, and repentance is required to attain salvation?
-
A Winchester.
-
It's tough enough to understand and follow what the Bible says. Picking and choosing and spinning and twisting it to suit one's views is somewhere between silly and presumptuous. A creature deciding what the Creator really meant? Puh-leeeez! For those who "like" the verse, "You must not turn away justice for your poor people in their lawsuits," three verses earlier God said, "(Y)ou must not show partiality to a poor man in his lawsuit," (Exodus 23:6 and Exodus 23:3, New English Translation). Similar balances of passages teaching charity and mercy and passages teaching ceasing various sins (actions and of the heart) could be cited. The Bible is not "liberal" or "conservative" of itself; it's bigger, challenging our ideologies.
Are "faith" ("belief") and "works" a dichotomy? Separate? Or symbiotic and mutually reinforcing?
-
It's tough enough to understand and follow what the Bible says. Picking and choosing and spinning and twisting it to suit one's views is somewhere between silly and presumptuous. A creature deciding what the Creator really meant? Puh-leeeez! For those who "like" the verse, "You must not turn away justice for your poor people in their lawsuits," three verses earlier God said, "(Y)ou must not show partiality to a poor man in his lawsuit," (Exodus 23:6 and Exodus 23:3, New English Translation). Similar balances of passages teaching charity and mercy and passages teaching ceasing various sins (actions and of the heart) could be cited. The Bible is not "liberal" or "conservative" of itself; it's bigger, challenging our ideologies.
Are "faith" ("belief") and "works" a dichotomy? Separate? Or symbiotic and mutually reinforcing?
Agree 100%. God is greater than any one particular human view, and to emphasize any particular view point is the height of arrogance.
BTW, I believe that "faith" and "works" are symbiotic and mutually reinforcing.
-
What is made clear in the Bible is that salvation requires both belief and repentance. What you claimed is that salvation requires only belief. There is nothing in the Bible which indicates that belief and repentance are the same thing or that repentance is an aspect of belief.
Again, Christ Himself said it. Your opinion of the meaning of the word has far less weight than His. Though I will agree that His disciples had to spell it out, over and over, for others that also lacked knowledge and understanding. As the thief on the cross was instantly saved, so are any who believe...in the full and true meaning of that word.
-
Again, Christ Himself said it. Your opinion of the meaning of the word has far less weight than His. Though I will agree that His disciples had to spell it out, over and over, for others that also lacked knowledge and understanding. As the thief on the cross was instantly saved, so are any who believe...in the full and true meaning of that word.
For clarity's sake, I might say that repentance would be the result of true belief in Christ.
-
For clarity's sake, I might say that repentance would be the result of true belief in Christ.
I think we already covered it, but you probably said it more "clearly." :-) TNO can read, if he really wanted to understand the concept of "belief," he'd be reading the New Testament instead of trying to act smart. I suppose we can't expect anything different from a creature self-admitted to belonging to the dark.
-
Pop quiz:
Can anyone name what else besides God's grace, faith, and repentance is required to attain salvation?
Answer: Only belief in Christ is required for salvation.
Pop quiz: can you name the person of whom was said,"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
-
Again, Christ Himself said it. Your opinion of the meaning of the word has far less weight than His. Though I will agree that His disciples had to spell it out, over and over, for others that also lacked knowledge and understanding. As the thief on the cross was instantly saved, so are any who believe...in the full and true meaning of that word.
There are significant differences of opinion within Christianity as to just what it takes to be saved - this is because the Bible at times makes different and seemingly contradictory claims on the matter. So you can't blame a non-believer for being confused - most Christians are too.
Why should we believe that you accurately represent what Christ meant, as opposed to opinion of a Roman Catholic?
-
There are significant differences of opinion within Christianity as to just what it takes to be saved - this is because the Bible at times makes different and seemingly contradictory claims on the matter. So you can't blame a non-believer for being confused - most Christians are too.
Why should we believe that you accurately represent what Christ meant, as opposed to opinion of a Roman Catholic?
Me? I don't accurately represent anything. However, I'm not quoting myself.
Quote
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
If you and TNO don't like what Christ said, you'll have your chance to tell Him about it.
-
Answer: Only belief in Christ is required for salvation.
Wrong.
Hint: The answer is alluded to in the Our Father.
-
Me? I don't accurately represent anything. However, I'm not quoting myself.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
What John 3 teaches is that faith in Jesus is a requirement for salvation but that doesn't mean it's the only requirement.
-
What John 3 teaches is that faith in Jesus is a requirement for salvation but that doesn't mean it's the only requirement.
You are welcome to tell that to The Master when your time comes. Personally, I'm going to believe Him. :-)
-
What John 3 teaches is that faith in Jesus is a requirement for salvation but that doesn't mean it's the only requirement.
Please enlighten us then and with the Scripture to back it up.
-
You are welcome to tell that to The Master when your time comes. Personally, I'm going to believe Him. :-)
Aren't you always saying that Bible verses should not be taken out of context? To believe that John 3 lists all the requirements for salvation is to believe only part of the word of God.
-
Aren't you always saying that Bible verses should not be taken out of context? To believe that John 3 lists all the requirements for salvation is to believe only part of the word of God.
I didn't cherry pick one verse out of a book, I quoted several of them, clearly in context. But here is another example, just for you...
One of the criminals who were hanged {there} was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"
But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
"And we indeed {are suffering} justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
-
I didn't cherry pick one verse out of a book, I quoted several of them, clearly in context. But here is another example, just for you...
You're making my point for me. In Luke 23, Jesus grants salvation to the criminal who repents.
Luke 23 (King James Version)
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
-
You're making my point for me. In Luke 23, Jesus grants salvation to the criminal who repents.
Luke 23 (King James Version)
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Exactly. The criminal on the cross did absolutely nothing except believe that Christ was Christ...yet he went straight to Paradise.
-
You're making my point for me. In Luke 23, Jesus grants salvation to the criminal who repents.
Luke 23 (King James Version)
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
I honestly can`t imagine what point you are trying to make..or why.
My only guess is that you are trying to make a hard distinction between the words believe and repent but that would only be for an unknown purpose of yours.
Perhaps you want to believe that Jesus was a real person but don`t want because of your atheist mindset to admit that He was indeed a part of the Trinity...that is God.
-
I honestly can`t imagine what point you are trying to make..or why.
My only guess is that you are trying to make a hard distinction between the words believe and repent but that would only be for an unknown purpose of yours.
Perhaps you want to believe that Jesus was a real person but don`t want because of your atheist mindset to admit that He was indeed a part of the Trinity...that is God.
He is trying to "prove" that repentance is not an integral part of believing in Christ. Unfortunately, he is arguing against Christ's own words. I guess he just hasn't quite figured out that God is always right. :lmao:
-
Exactly. The criminal on the cross did absolutely nothing except believe that Christ was Christ...yet he went straight to Paradise.
The criminal admitted that he deserved his punishment. In other words, he repented his sins.
-
He is trying to "prove" that repentance is not an integral part of believing in Christ. Unfortunately, he is arguing against Christ's own words. I guess he just hasn't quite figured out that God is always right. :lmao:
Uh, no. I'm trying to show that repentance is a requirement for salvation.
-
My only guess is that you are trying to make a hard distinction between the words believe and repent but that would only be for an unknown purpose of yours.
Every dictionary I know of draws a distinction between the word believe and the word repent so why shouldn't I?
-
But can you repent without faith? And is faith without repentance real? IOW, in real life can they really be separable?
-
Every dictionary I know of draws a distinction between the word believe and the word repent so why shouldn't I?
You can if you want but it is simply foolishness in the context of Scripture.
So continue to look foolish,it is your choice.
-
You can if you want but it is simply foolishness in the context of Scripture.
So continue to look foolish,it is your choice.
He does. In every thread he posts in.
-
Me? I don't accurately represent anything. However, I'm not quoting myself.
Quote
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
If you and TNO don't like what Christ said, you'll have your chance to tell Him about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James
Your interpretations of the words of Jesus are heresy, depending on the Christian you talk too.
-
But can you repent without faith? And is faith without repentance real? IOW, in real life can they really be separable?
One may repent transgressions without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting transgressions but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:
1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.
-
One may repent sins without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting sins but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:
1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.
If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from? Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?
Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?
doc
-
If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from? Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?
Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?
doc
A good point. I changed the word sins to the word transgressions.
-
A good point. I changed the word sins to the word transgressions.
Transgress against whom? In order to 'cross the line' the 'line' has to be there. What is the 'line' based on?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James
Your interpretations of the words of Jesus are heresy, depending on the Christian you talk too.
I didn't interpret, I quoted. You are the one trying to interpret...and not doing so well. Christ said what He said. If you don't believe Him, that's fine...but it doesn't change what He said.
-
One may repent transgressions without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting transgressions but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:
1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.
One cannot believe that Christ is the Christ without repentance. You may believe God exists, and you may even believe that there was a christ, but you cannot believe IN Christ without repenting. Christ made this quite clear in His words and teachings. You can argue the point all you want, but, just as with wilbur, His words have not changed in the last 2000 years, your opinion isn't going to change them, either.
-
Transgress against whom? In order to 'cross the line' the 'line' has to be there. What is the 'line' based on?
Well, to an unbeliever, a transgression may be violation of human laws and codes. To a believer, a transgression may be a violation of human and/or godly laws and codes.
-
Well, to an unbeliever, a transgression may be violation of human laws and codes. To a believer, a transgression may be a violation of human and/or godly laws and codes.
Which leads us back to the basic question: "Where did the laws come from?"
-
One cannot believe that Christ is the Christ without repentance. You may believe God exists, and you may even believe that there was a christ, but you cannot believe IN Christ without repenting. Christ made this quite clear in His words and teachings. You can argue the point all you want, but, just as with wilbur, His words have not changed in the last 2000 years, your opinion isn't going to change them, either.
Well, if you're using this phrase "believe in" as shorthand for acceptance of Christian doctrine then we have no argument but my argument is that the requirements for salvation are not implied by the phrase itself.
-
I didn't interpret, I quoted. You are the one trying to interpret...and not doing so well. Christ said what He said. If you don't believe Him, that's fine...but it doesn't change what He said.
I personally don't believe any of the stuff - your beef is with orthodoxy. To me, the protestant versus the orthodox salvation debate might as well be a debate over what color eyes aliens have. I'm just pointing out that this particular bit of salvation theory is hardly a settled or uncontroversial area in Christian theology. You should consider that before talking down to people for not recognzing your preferred theology on the topic.
-
Which leads us back to the basic question: "Where did the laws come from?"
In the case of human laws, they came from humans - obviously.
-
In the case of human laws, they came from humans - obviously.
So, in your world, Moses sat up on the mountian thinking of laws and then came down when he had enough to fill a tablet?
-
If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from? Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?
Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?
doc
I don't think there is anything wrong with an atheist using the term "sin". Aside from is theological definition, it sometimes used in non-theological ways to mean something more general. In those contexts, "to sin" often means little more than "to commit a moral wrong or misdeed". So if thats all they mean by it, they can use it.
-
So, in your world, Moses sat up on the mountian thinking of laws and then came down when he had enough to fill a tablet?
I hadnt had Moses in mind, but I assume if there's any truth in the narrative of him coming down from the mountain bearing tablets, then yes. What is so implausible about that? Humans think of, and craft laws ceaselessly, even before Moses.
-
I hadnt had Moses in mind, but I assume if there's any truth in the narrative of him coming down from the mountain bearing tablets, then yes. What is so implausible about that? Humans think of, and craft laws ceaselessly, even before Moses.
based on what?- my original question, by the way.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with an atheist using the term "sin". Aside from is theological definition, it sometimes used in non-theological ways to mean something more general. In those contexts, "to sin" often means little more than "to commit a moral wrong or misdeed". So if thats all they mean by it, they can use it.
what then does the Moral code take it's basis as? (ties into my other question)
You can not say on one hand there is no religious basis for good vs evil, and then reference a moral wrong or misdeed to support your word choice. If there is no God then there is no sin. If there is no moral code then there is no good, nor evil.
-
based on what?- my original question, by the way.
Hopefully, based on our best reasonable, rational and well-informed ideas for promoting the well-being of humans and the societies they live in.
-
what then does the Moral code take it's basis as? (ties into my other question)
You can not say on one hand there is no religious basis for good vs evil, and then reference a moral wrong or misdeed to support your word choice. If there is no God then there is no sin. If there is no moral code then there is no good, nor evil.
There's no good and evil as Christians define them, of course. That doesnt mean good and evil can't refer to real things in a naturalist world, however. I tend to think of good, as what helps or promotes the well-being of people, and what is evil is that which unnecessarily harms people.
-
There's no good and evil as Christians define them, of course. That doesnt mean good and evil can't refer to real things in a naturalist world, however. I tend to think of good, as what helps or promotes the well-being of people, and what is evil is that which unnecessarily harms people.
You are hung up on Christan hating. What about the other religions? Did the Summerians just come up with good ideas and put them on clay tablets?
Your personal feelings as to what is good or bad don't count, as you say- what helps or promotes the well-being of people is what counts.
Among the inventions of the Sumerians, the most persistent and far-reaching was their invention of law. While all cultures have some system of social regulation and conflict resolution, law is a distinct phenomenon. Law is written and administered retribution and conflict resolution. It is distinct from other forms of retribution and conflict resolution by the following characteristics:
Administration
Law is retribution that is administered by a centralized authority. This way retribution for wrongs does not threaten to escalate into a cycle of mutual revenge. Sumerian law sits half way between individual revenge and state-administered revenge: it is up to the individual to drag (quite literally) the accused party into the court, but the court actually determines the nature of the retribution to be exacted.
Writing
Law is written; in this way, law assumes an independent character beyond the centralized authority that administers it. This produces a sociological fiction that the law controls those who administer the law and that the "law" exacts retribution, not humans.
Retribution
Law is at its heart revenge; the basic cultural mechanism for dealing with unacceptable behavior is to exact revenge. Unacceptable behavior outside the sphere of revenge initially did not come under the institution of law: it was only much later that disputes that didn't involve retribution would be included in law.
The Code of Hammurabi
Although we don't know much about Sumerian law, scholars agree that the Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian monarch, reproduces Sumerian law fairly exactly. Sumerian law, as represented in Hammurabi's code, was a law of exact revenge, which we call lex talionis. This is revenge in kind: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," and reveals to us that human law has as its fundamental basis revenge. Sumerian law was also only partly administered by the state; the victim had to bring the criminal to court. Once there, the court mediated the dispute, rendered a decision, and most of the time a court official would execute the sentence, but often it fell on the victim or the victim's family to enforce the sentence. Finally, Sumerian law recognized class distinctions; under Sumerian law, everyone was not equal under the law. Harming a priest or noble person was a far more serious crime than harming a slave or poor person; yet, the penalties assessed for a noble person who commits a crime were often far harsher than the penalties assessed for someone from the lower classes that committed the same crime
Now, Sumerian religion (we think) had at it's core a group of Gods that lived on earth. There biggest regret was making mankind, who they dtried to whipe out in a great flood. One man survived by bulding a boat.
While the destruction of the earth in a great flood is nearly universal in all human mythology and religion, we can't be sure if the Semites had a similar story or took it over from the Sumerians. This is, of course, a question of contemporary significance: according to Genesis, the originator of the Hebrew race, the patriarch Abraham, originally came from the city of Ur.
http://history-world.org/genesis_narrative_in_the_light_o.htm
-
You are hung up on Christan hating. What about the other religions? Did the Summerians just come up with good ideas and put them on clay tablets?
I guess at this point, I'm just not sure what the significance of your accounts of ancient law is supposed to be. Is Sumerian and Babylonian law somehow supposed to render the idea that laws are man-made as non-sensical?
-
Well, if you're using this phrase "believe in" as shorthand for acceptance of Christian doctrine then we have no argument but my argument is that the requirements for salvation are not implied by the phrase itself.
I am using the word "believe" in the same sense Christ used it. Duh.
-
I personally don't believe any of the stuff - your beef is with orthodoxy. To me, the protestant versus the orthodox salvation debate might as well be a debate over what color eyes aliens have. I'm just pointing out that this particular bit of salvation theory is hardly a settled or uncontroversial area in Christian theology. You should consider that before talking down to people for not recognzing your preferred theology on the topic.
What is there about the word "quote" that you don't understand? Want a definition? If it helps any, I am not the originator of the salvation theory or the use of the word "believe." :lmao:
-
I guess at this point, I'm just not sure what the significance of your accounts of ancient law is supposed to be. Is Sumerian and Babylonian law somehow supposed to render the idea that laws are man-made as non-sensical?
back to my question- where did the concept of laws come from? You are hung up on tearing down Christianity yet have no concept of where the laws of the bible come from. We do know where the words of Jesus come from. His words lay down the foundation of modern law. But there is a long trail togo before getting there.
The first recorded laws are from Sumeria. The Seminites adopted a majority of the laws and religion from them. The Seminites came upfrom the Arabian coasts and settled in the land between the rivirs, modern day Iraq. Ur, the city that Abraham was from, is in Iraq- then Babalyon. Hammerabi codified the law. Abraham moved to the land of Isreal bringing with him the laws and customs of his homeland, spiced up with the word of God, who spoke to him.
(The entire old testiment is mostly laws and history of the tribes or Isreal.)
Moses, after leaving Egypt, writes the next set of codes for the people. They weren't just ten commandments, therewere a whole set of laws for the people.
The law didn't happen overnight, or in the back room of some govenor's palace.
Now, you could say all this just happened, the same way man just happened. In fact, that is what you are saying. Yet, withoutfaith, there is nothing. Have fun with that.
-
I am using the word "believe" in the same sense Christ used it. Duh. :loser:
Had Jesus of Nazareth said that believing in him was the only requirement for salvation and left it at that, the same way you left it at that, then no one would have learned about grace, repentance, or forgiveness. Of course, Jesus had the sense to elaborate.
-
Hey, Dutch. I don't want to butt in on your convo with Wilbur but before you two go at it further I would like to know something. If prohibitions against things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. make sense to you then why do you have trouble believing that such prohibitions are the product of human reason? Do you honestly believe that humans couldn't have figured out on their own that allowing things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. causes insuperable problems for society? I mean, it's not like we're talking about ancient people figuring out how to go to the Moon. We're talking about people figuring out basic rules for getting along. It's not rocket science... even by ancient standards.
-
Had Jesus of Nazareth said that believing in him was the only requirement for salvation and left it at that, the same way you left it at that, then no one would have learned about grace, repentance, or forgiveness. Of course, Jesus had the sense to elaborate.
And yet, He said exactly that. In fact, I've quoted Him. Over...and over...and over. It's not my terminology, it's not my theology, it's not my idea. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding. :-)
-
And yet, He said exactly that. In fact, I've quoted Him. Over...and over...and over. It's not my terminology, it's not my theology, it's not my idea. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding. :-)
Yes, Jesus talked about believing in him but he also talked about grace, forgiveness, and repentance, did he not?
-
Hey, Dutch. I don't want to butt in on your convo with Wilbur but before you two go at it further I would like to know something. If prohibitions against things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. make sense to you then why do you have trouble believing that such prohibitions are the product of human reason? Do you honestly believe that humans couldn't have figured out on their own that allowing things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. causes insuperable problems for society? I mean, it's not like we're talking about ancient people figuring out how to go to the Moon. We're talking about people figuring out basic rules for getting along. It's not rocket science... even by ancient standards.
Ah, now we are getting to it.
What seperates us from the lower animals? What is the difference between us us and apes? Societies of greatapes exist in Africa with many of the same aspects that human society has. Yet they haven't advanced in millions of years. Whales have a language as great as, if not greater than man's. Yet, whales haven't built anything.
So what is it that seperates us from them? Somehow we figured out all of this. How did that happen?
-
Yes, Jesus talked about the importance of believing in him but he also talked about grace, forgiveness, and repentance, did he not?
Are you still refusing to read it for yourself? :lmao:
Here, a little more context:
The New Birth
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
-
Are you still refusing to read it for yourself? :lmao:
Okay. You want to go that way?
Matthew 6:14-15 (King James Version)
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Get it? If you don't forgive others for their trespasses then God won't forgive you for your trespasses. If God doesn't forgive you for your trespasses then your salvation is toast.
-
What is there about the word "quote" that you don't understand? Want a definition? If it helps any, I am not the originator of the salvation theory or the use of the word "believe." :lmao:
Martin Luther was the originator of your salvation theory - and its a heresy in the eyes of orthodoxy, in large part because of the Epistle of St James. Again - your beef is with orthodoxy on this point, not me. I'm not making the argument here, I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that, well... when it comes right down to it, your opinion of Jesus' words is the minority view and certainly doesnt share any special privelidge over the orthodoxy or other theologies on the matter - so maybe you should keep that in mind while you criticize others for not conceding that your theology is an obvious fact.
-
Ah, now we are getting to it.
What seperates us from the lower animals? What is the difference between us us and apes? Societies of greatapes exist in Africa with many of the same aspects that human society has. Yet they haven't advanced in millions of years. Whales have a language as great as, if not greater than man's. Yet, whales haven't built anything.
So what is it that seperates us from them? Somehow we figured out all of this. How did that happen?
What separates humans from animals? The ability to reason.
-
WOW, it took me a long time to read over all of these posts...Thanks to you all, I won't have to study my Bible so diligently this evening....And I am just going to pray for those that do not want to believe there is a Jesus Christ, and yet, seem to know all about him...Why is this?? Me as a firm believer do not know nearly as much as you non-believers...
He was condemned all of his short life, and yet, he still loved all of us children that he died for....Meaning you and me...I know that someday in your worst possible moment, you will reach out to him, whether you want to believe it or not, you will, and he will extend his hand to you in kind....Until that time all of you poor lost souls who don't want to believe, or pretend not to believe, and just like to mimic those of us who do, thanks for strengthening my undying faith in the one and only Savior sleep well....
-
What separates humans from animals? The ability to reason.
and how did that happen? a singularity in evolution?
-
Okay. You want to go that way?
Matthew 6:14-15 (King James Version)
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Get it? If you don't forgive others for their trespasses then God won't forgive you for your trespasses. If God doesn't forgive you for your trespasses then your salvation is toast.
And if you believe in Christ, then you will forgive others.
-
Martin Luther was the originator of your salvation theory - and its a heresy in the eyes of orthodoxy, in large part because of the Epistle of St James. Again - your beef is with orthodoxy on this point, not me. I'm not making the argument here, I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that, well... when it comes right down to it, your opinion of Jesus' words is the minority view and certainly doesnt share any special privelidge over the orthodoxy or other theologies on the matter - so maybe you should keep that in mind while you criticize others for not conceding that your theology is an obvious fact.
Perhaps Martin Luther simply rediscovered the simple truth to His words.
-
back to my question- where did the concept of laws come from?
Human brains, struggling (and often through trial and error - even today) to discover better ways to build societies.
You are hung up on tearing down Christianity
Not particularly - I'm defending the idea that there's nothing unbelievable about the idea that man invented law. We also invented a lot of other things, like calculus, and philosphy.
yet have no concept of where the laws of the bible come from.
I'm no scholar on ancient history, but I am familiar with the basic outline of the beginnings of law.
We do know where the words of Jesus come from. His words lay down the foundation of modern law. But there is a long trail togo before getting there.
Debatable - sure, there are Biblical influences in modern law, but the case is vastly overstated by propogandizing Christians. Our law is undeniably pagan as well. Then of course, its also heavily influenced by philosophy of all stripes.
Now, you could say all this just happened, the same way man just happened.
Law probably happened in the same way that every upgrade to human life has - we suffered, and sought out practical solutions to remedy that suffering.
In fact, that is what you are saying. Yet, withoutfaith, there is nothing. Have fun with that.
Not really sure what to say to that. Things certainly still exist whether a person with faith does or not.
-
Human brains, struggling (and often through trial and error - even today) to discover better ways to build societies.
Not particularly - I'm defending the idea that there's nothing unbelievable about the idea that man invented law. We also invented a lot of other things, like calculus, and philosphy.
I'm no scholar on ancient history, but I am familiar with the basic outline of the beginnings of law.
Debatable - sure, there are Biblical influences in modern law, but the case is vastly overstated by propogandizing Christians. Our law is undeniably pagan as well. Then of course, its also heavily influenced by philosophy of all stripes.
Law probably happened in the same way that every upgrade to human life has - we suffered, and sought out practical solutions to remedy that suffering.
Not really sure what to say to that. Things certainly still exist whether faith is present or not.
then there is no point in talking to you.
-
Martin Luther was the originator of your salvation theory - and its a heresy in the eyes of orthodoxy, in large part because of the Epistle of St James. Again - your beef is with orthodoxy on this point, not me. I'm not making the argument here, I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that, well... when it comes right down to it, your opinion of Jesus' words is the minority view and certainly doesnt share any special privelidge over the orthodoxy or other theologies on the matter - so maybe you should keep that in mind while you criticize others for not conceding that your theology is an obvious fact.
Jesus was the originator of the salvation "theory"...if it can be called a theory. It is not my beef, my opinion, or my orthodoxy. So sorry, if you don't like it, you're "yelling" at the wrong person. :-)
-
Jesus was the originator of the salvation "theory"...if it can be called a theory. It is not my beef, my opinion, or my orthodoxy. So sorry, if you don't like it, you're "yelling" at the wrong person. :-)
Pretty sure the orthodox consider Jesus the origin of their salvation theory as well.
-
Pretty sure the orthodox consider Jesus the origin of their salvation theory as well.
Cool
-
WOW, it took me a long time to read over all of these posts...Thanks to you all, I won't have to study my Bible so diligently this evening....And I am just going to pray for those that do not want to believe there is a Jesus Christ, and yet, seem to know all about him...Why is this?? Me as a firm believer do not know nearly as much as you non-believers...
He was condemned all of his short life, and yet, he still loved all of us children that he died for....Meaning you and me...I know that someday in your worst possible moment, you will reach out to him, whether you want to believe it or not, you will, and he will extend his hand to you in kind....Until that time all of you poor lost souls who don't want to believe, or pretend not to believe, and just like to mimic those of us who do, thanks for strengthening my undying faith in the one and only Savior sleep well....
This whole idea that we're born in debt to a cosmic overlord is just a ploy to enslave us to the idea that we need a savior. It couldn't be more obvious.
So, no thanks. I'll have no part of this cosmic protection racket or any grotesque human sacrifice.
-
This whole idea that we're born in debt to a cosmic overlord is just a ploy to enslave us to the idea that we need a savior. It couldn't be more obvious.
So, no thanks. I'll have no part of this cosmic protection racket or any grotesque human sacrifice.
We aren't BORN in debt...we just get that way pretty quickly. ANY sin keeps us from God, and aside from one man, nobody is sin-free.
-
This whole idea that we're born in debt to a cosmic overlord is just a ploy to enslave us to the idea that we need a savior. It couldn't be more obvious.
So, no thanks. I'll have no part of this cosmic protection racket or any grotesque human sacrifice.
So, I know this changes the subject somewhat...but how do you justify remaining in a country that grants you freedom on the basis of the grotesque human sacrifices our military volunteers to risk?
-
So, I know this changes the subject somewhat...but how do you justify remaining in a country that grants you freedom on the basis of the grotesque human sacrifices our military volunteers to risk?
There is no comparison. Our soldiers sacrifice themselves for just and noble causes. Jesus sacrificed himself to appease a god which probably doesn't exist.
-
There is no comparison. Our soldiers sacrifice themselves for just and noble causes. Jesus sacrificed himself to appease a god which probably doesn't exist.
Jesus IS God.
-
There is no comparison. Our soldiers sacrifice themselves for just and noble causes. Jesus sacrificed himself to appease a god which probably doesn't exist.
I don't sacrifice shit. My intent is to kill as many of the "others" or assist in their killing as far as my skills and station permit.
Dying and discomfort are merely occupational hazards that I accept as the cost of doing business.
Would that you take the term "just and noble causes" to one of my other threads and objectively define WTF it is you're talking about.
-
I don't sacrifice shit. My intent is to kill as many of the "others" or assist in their killing as far as my skills and station permit.
Dying and discomfort are merely occupational hazards that I accept as the cost of doing business.
If you don't consider dying for a just cause a sacrifice that's your business.
Would that you take the term "just and noble causes" to one of my other threads and objectively define WTF it is you're talking about.
Just and noble causes are causes worth fighting for. What is so hard to understand?
-
Dance, little monkey. Dance.
-
Dance, little monkey. Dance.
I prefer the term primate.
-
I prefer the term primate.
how about bimate
-
heh
-
An atheist is a person that lives upon the earth God provides, eats the food God provides, breathes the air God provides, and uses the intellect God provides to deny God and to judge His works...and eventually will stand in front of God screaming, "How DARE You give me the Free Will to refuse You!"
MrsSmith, as a conservative Southern Baptist pastor of 33 years, I have never heard it said better. As far as Bible translations go I use the KJV becasue I like it best. But the AV, ASV, and NASB are good translations also.
I don't care for the NIV[don't like it style], or the RSV.
-
Uh, no. Belief in Christ is not the only requirement for salvation. It's one requirement but it's by far not the only one.
Nigh Owl, I would say that it is what you mean by your statement. If you mean that repentance and faith are required I would agree. Many people believe in Christ and are not saved. Islam believes in Christ, but they think he is only a prophet. Jehovah's Witiness's believe in Christ but believe he is only one God of many. Many people believe in Christ, but believe wrongly. But if you mean that something else other than the finished work of Christ on the cross is necessary, I would say you are wrong.
-
Nigh Owl, ...
TNO is no longer with us.
-
TNO is no longer with us.
Oh darn.
-
TNO is no longer with us.
Thanks, Snuggle Bunny, I haven't posted here much the last several months and didn't know he was gone.
-
Thanks, Snuggle Bunny, I haven't posted here much the last several months and didn't know he was gone.
You need to hang out with us more often.
-
I have a question about the Bible that no man or woman preacher in any Christian belief has been able to answer.
The very last words Jesus spoke before his death confuse me.
Did he not know he was to die to bring salvation to mankind.?
Also the Trinity that came about 1,000 or so years after his death bothers me.
I was raised in a mono theistic faith, One GOD, yet as a child the trinity bothered me.
There were parts of the Bible that made me wonder, when Mary had to hot foot it up a freakin mountain to find her son who was suppose to be helping Joseph and on finding him sitting mediating on whatever, she asked why he was not helping his father. He Replied he was talking to his real father. A real slap in the face for her.
Another that I do not understand is when his brothers and sisters came running home to tell Mary and Joseph that their brother had gone crazy and to come and get him. His siblings did not understand him or his actions, so Mary never told them that their brother was special??
To believe the Christmas story one has to believe that both Mary and Joseph walked away with great riches from the 3 wise men and knew what they were getting into raising this child.
Jesus was a Jew as were his parents, he was no weak sister as he showed when he became outraged and threw out the money changers in the Temple.
I hate the paintings of him that depict a Wuss, he had to have been one strong and big man.
Also wise about his enemy's that tried to entrap him.
He was also a realist when he told Mary Magdalene there would allways be the poor.
Kind of sad when he asked one of his followers just who had touched his cloak as he felt the power drain from him.
Jesus was half human it is is told, so I look at the human aspect of him as the other half I cannot imagine.
Have faith I was told, do not question just believe what I was told, try to believe all the different Christian segments.
When I am told that Jesus was God himself, I keep going back to his last words as he suffered on the cross.
Then the lost years, where was he, what kind of life was he leading, had he traveled allot to study other beliefs and cultures.?
A single man from 2000 years ago who when told there were others preaching the same as himself told his followers to pay heed.
Got to be a good reason why he is called Jesus of Nazareth , the name may have been so common that in order to separate him from others with the same name, the Nazareth was tacked on to denote him from the others.
Lots of questions for me in my long so life, few if any want to answer or even think about any explanation for any of this great Mystery from the past.
-
I have a question about the Bible that no man or woman preacher in any Christian belief has been able to answer.
The very last words Jesus spoke before his death confuse me.
Did he not know he was to die to bring salvation to mankind.?
"It is finished." Kind of seems like He knew what He was saying...
Also the Trinity that came about 1,000 or so years after his death bothers me.
I was raised in a mono theistic faith, One GOD, yet as a child the trinity bothered me.
Jesus said that He and the Father were One, and He sent the Holy Spirit (the Helper) right after His ascension. What 1000 years are you talking about?
There were parts of the Bible that made me wonder, when Mary had to hot foot it up a freakin mountain to find her son who was suppose to be helping Joseph and on finding him sitting mediating on whatever, she asked why he was not helping his father. He Replied he was talking to his real father. A real slap in the face for her.
Firstly, He was in a temple, not on top of a mountain, and secondly, they were traveling, nothing about Him being "supposed to help Joseph," they'd just assumed He was with another group, and thirdly Mary knew Who His Father was...she was there, remember?
Another that I do not understand is when his brothers and sisters came running home to tell Mary and Joseph that their brother had gone crazy and to come and get him. His siblings did not understand him or his actions, so Mary never told them that their brother was special??
Exactly where in the Bible is this little gem?
To believe the Christmas story one has to believe that both Mary and Joseph walked away with great riches from the 3 wise men and knew what they were getting into raising this child.
Probably a great help to a young couple that had to move into and out of Egypt in the next few years, huh?
Jesus was a Jew as were his parents, he was no weak sister as he showed when he became outraged and threw out the money changers in the Temple.
I hate the paintings of him that depict a Wuss, he had to have been one strong and big man.
Also wise about his enemy's that tried to entrap him.
He was also a realist when he told Mary Magdalene there would allways be the poor.
Kind of sad when he asked one of his followers just who had touched his cloak as he felt the power drain from him.
Jesus was half human it is is told, so I look at the human aspect of him as the other half I cannot imagine.
Jesus IS fully human, and also fully God. There is no half and half. Nor is there a "was." He is alive, you know?
Have faith I was told, do not question just believe what I was told, try to believe all the different Christian segments.
Well, if you're having trouble with your faith, perhaps you need to spend some time studying the facts...read some commentaries...read CS Lewis...read Josh McDowell. There is a lot more foundation to our beliefs than "take it on faith."
When I am told that Jesus was God himself, I keep going back to his last words as he suffered on the cross.
It is finished...
Then the lost years, where was he, what kind of life was he leading, had he traveled allot to study other beliefs and cultures.?
A single man from 2000 years ago who when told there were others preaching the same as himself told his followers to pay heed.
Got to be a good reason why he is called Jesus of Nazareth , the name may have been so common that in order to separate him from others with the same name, the Nazareth was tacked on to denote him from the others.
Lets see, maybe it has something to do with Him coming from Nazareth...and the prophesy that He would? :whatever:
Lots of questions for me in my long so life, few if any want to answer or even think about any explanation for any of this great Mystery from the past.
As I said, there is a lot less Mystery than you're making out. Seriously, if you haven't managed to get your answers directly from the Scriptures, there are a ton of books out there that explain the culture of His days on Earth and the evidence that supports the Scripture. Look for "Christian apologetics" for a quick start.
I don't know where you "learned" the things you're asking about, but a lot of it is just plain wrong.
-
"It is finished." Kind of seems like He knew what He was saying...
Jesus said that He and the Father were One, and He sent the Holy Spirit (the Helper) right after His ascension. What 1000 years are you talking about?
Firstly, He was in a temple, not on top of a mountain, and secondly, they were traveling, nothing about Him being "supposed to help Joseph," they'd just assumed He was with another group, and thirdly Mary knew Who His Father was...she was there, remember?
Exactly where in the Bible is this little gem?
Probably a great help to a young couple that had to move into and out of Egypt in the next few years, huh?
Jesus IS fully human, and also fully God. There is no half and half. Nor is there a "was." He is alive, you know?
Well, if you're having trouble with your faith, perhaps you need to spend some time studying the facts...read some commentaries...read CS Lewis...read Josh McDowell. There is a lot more foundation to our beliefs than "take it on faith."
It is finished...
Lets see, maybe it has something to do with Him coming from Nazareth...and the prophesy that He would? :whatever:
As I said, there is a lot less Mystery than you're making out. Seriously, if you haven't managed to get your answers directly from the Scriptures, there are a ton of books out there that explain the culture of His days on Earth and the evidence that supports the Scripture. Look for "Christian apologetics" for a quick start.
I don't know where you "learned" the things you're asking about, but a lot of it is just plain wrong.
Thank you Ms. Smith, I have THE BOOK that places modern day wording for better understanding.
Good question there Mrs. Smith, where did I get my ideas. Raised Congregationalist and then as an adult found that I enjoyed visiting outher denominations and compairing their rites and rituals. As the years passed I found some interesting changes in the demonations as the pastors are most human.
One very nice little Quaker Church in VA. lost their pastor due to his idea that they service should become more Charismatic. One Catholic Priest started a riot when he mentioned that it did not matter if Mary was a virgin.
Then when reading diary's of life in New England and the problems the community's faced trying to find the "Perfect Pastor" and the fact that for a few years there were only 2 out of 10 in one area that had no Pastor do to the Churches having thrown out the pastors for any number of reasons.
Where did I get my ideas from, indeed, now I am curious to find out. Again I thank you Mrs. Smith, you have been more help then my uncle that is a Minister in a small S. Baptist Church here in the North. He has never challenged me intellectually as you have.
God Bless You. My Highest Regards, Vesta
-
I hope you do some serious study. It's well worth the time. Other authors that would be helpful are John McArthur, Charles Swindoll, Dallas Willard, Donald S. Whitney, David Jeremiah. Remember, throughout history there have been those that wrote books about things they didn't really understand (like those that are popular today that stress the supposed contradictions in the Bible), and there have always been those that deliberately misled. Research the author thoroughly, so you don't absorb lies as truth. Blessings!! May God be with you as you search out truth.
-
I hope you do some serious study. It's well worth the time. Other authors that would be helpful are John McArthur, Charles Swindoll, Dallas Willard, Donald S. Whitney, David Jeremiah. Remember, throughout history there have been those that wrote books about things they didn't really understand (like those that are popular today that stress the supposed contradictions in the Bible), and there have always been those that deliberately misled. Research the author thoroughly, so you don't absorb lies as truth. Blessings!! May God be with you as you search out truth.
Current authors are just that: current.
In a hundred years--or less--they will be forgotten.
Gimme the guy whose writing outlives him. Everyone has heard of Augustine, Pascal, Aquinas, Lewis, Chesterton etc but they certainly weren't the only authors of their day.
Chesterton had a contemporary: Walter Durante and Chesterton despised Durante. Chesterton endures, Durante does not even though Durante won a Putzpuller Prize while at the New York Times.
Why?
Because Durante was a POS who denied the Stalin Ukranian famine that killed 6 million claiming it was a just propagandist nonsense against the USSR. His articles won him the Putzpuller. Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge called Durante out.
Time bore out the truth and Durante is now more infamous than famous while Chesterton is still widely published and read.
One reading of Pascal and it can be seen he was addressing the arguments of his day. His responses remain while the arguments have faded.
Go for older books.