What would YOU want to hear at church?


Serryah
+1
#631
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

I don't understand ... you used a quote from the Bible to somehow justify ignoring the Bible.

I think you're missing the point; while we can agree there might be SOME things of value said in the bible, it's the things that contradict, that are, well, evil (or at least bad) and the atrocities there-in that people have issue with. And since the bad stuff of the Bible outnumbers the good stuff, well don't be surprised if people pick up on that, especially when there are people like you who say "THE BIBLE IS TRUTH!" when clearly parts of it are evil.

Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

For sure, we go to the source. Jesus Christ is either (1) who He claimed to be (the Son of God risen from the grave) and is therefore The Source, and the recordings of His sent apostles are intended for us to search; or, (2) he was a crazy schizophrenic who somehow managed to be the most influential human being on the earth anyway.

If you choose to believe #1, then can't you see that the Bible is from Him and about Him?

There is a third choice, IMO. Jesus was sort of who he claimed to be - a son of God, just not the SON of God - a man, and possibly a healer/priest/teacher but that was it. It makes him "holy" - thanks to the priestly bit - but nothing extra-super special. And like other enlightened men, he was revered and his name carried on past his death.

So he could have been choice three, too.
 
Tonington
#632
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

You would understand that one hockey team is made of 15 separate persons... you would understand that when a man leaves his mother and father and marries his wife, the two become one flesh. These are small human illustrations.

A hockey team is not a being...the two do not become one flesh.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#633
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Oh hell yes! Give me dirty, grimy, not always pleasant reality over "paradise" any day!

You can't be really human, in my opinion, if you don't have any conflict in your life. We thrive on adversity, for the most part.

Yep. Heaven must be full of really, really, really, really bored nutcases.
hhhmmm Actually that could be fun, come to think of it. I just wanna bring a movie camera.
Oh, wait. No food or sex? I'm staying here.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

A hockey team is not a being...the two do not become one flesh.

lol The USA passed a law saying companies, corporations, etc. were legal entities and had rights equal to human beings. I'd imagine that there are a few hockey clubs included.
 
Tonington
#634
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol The USA passed a law saying companies, corporations, etc. were legal entities and had rights equal to human beings. I'd imagine that there are a few hockey clubs included.

Which makes about as much sense as the Earth stopping for one day.
 
adopted
#635
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

You'd think that being all-powerful and all-seeing, this god could make things perfectly clear to anyone in any language.

Why should He make things perfectly clear to those who aren't His children? I don't teach math, spelling, or manners to the children down the road, but I do teach these to my own children.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

There is a third choice, IMO. Jesus was sort of who he claimed to be - a son of God, just not the SON of God - a man, and possibly a healer/priest/teacher but that was it. It makes him "holy" - thanks to the priestly bit - but nothing extra-super special. And like other enlightened men, he was revered and his name carried on past his death.

"Who is Jesus?" is the most important question any of us will ever answer.

If he were merely healer/priest/teacher, but not "The Son of God," then he was a horrible teacher and a liar, what with claiming to be the Son of God. I assume then that you do not believe He rose from the grave?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

A hockey team is not a being...the two do not become one flesh.

But it is one team. We say of the Father and Son, not that they are one person, for they are two, but they are of one essence or of one substance -- there is one God, whose very nature embodies both diversity and unity, intimacy and community.

"Becoming one flesh" is Biblical language for the unity of a married couple.
 
lone wolf
#636
Why shouldn't He if 'He' wants to attract more coppers to the collection plate? As it is, all that's being demonstrated is a flash of the hypocrisy and arrogance that drove me from Church in the first place
 
L Gilbert
#637
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Which makes about as much sense as the Earth stopping for one day.

Yeah. I think they invited a whole pile of grief on themselves.

Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

Why should He make things perfectly clear to those who aren't His children? I don't teach math, spelling, or manners to the children down the road, but I do teach these to my own children.

Ya don't think it'd attract more people to its followers and clear up a whole pile of crap that happens between the existing followers?
But, you're right, I guess. It would make too much sense to make things perfectly clear for those involved.
 
Tonington
#638
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

But it is one team. We say of the Father and Son, not that they are one person, for they are two, but they are of one essence or of one substance -- there is one God, whose very nature embodies both diversity and unity, intimacy and community.

See, that's just more dancing around the fact. One god in three persons. Not logical.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yeah. I think they invited a whole pile of grief on themselves.

Definitely. As time moves forward some of those crazy movies where they depict the future and the hegemony of corporations doesn't seem quite so delusional. Campy still, lol, but not delusional.
 
adopted
#639
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yeah. I think they invited a whole pile of grief on themselves.

Ya don't think it'd attract more people to its followers and clear up a whole pile of crap that happens between the existing followers?
But, you're right, I guess. It would make too much sense to make things perfectly clear for those involved.

You assume God values quantity instead of quality. You assume His agenda is to cram stadiums full of "Christians"?

He's not like us. He says, "Jacob I love; Esau I hate."
 
L Gilbert
+1
#640
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

You assume God values quantity instead of quality. You assume His agenda is to cram stadiums full of "Christians"?

Who are you to tell me what I assume? Isn't that an assumption of itself?

Quote:

He's not like us. He says, "Jacob I love; Esau I hate."

Funny, I thought this numbskull loved everyone and all things. Ya know, like it says in the Bible? Um "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ...." etc. Jesus, whose alterego is this god, according to the Bible, said "hate not the sinner". You can't have it both ways. It's extremely illogical and downright irrational.
 
lone wolf
#641
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

You assume God values quantity instead of quality. You assume His agenda is to cram stadiums full of "Christians"?

Assume then accuse others of assumption.... Does the word hypocrite mean anything?
Last edited by lone wolf; Jan 31st, 2012 at 08:46 PM..Reason: added quote for clarity
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#642
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

So he could have been choice three, too.

Or four: the reports on him that have come down to us are greatly exaggerated. Or five: he's a fabrication borrowed from other traditions. He's certainly not the first person/deity who was claimed to have been born around the winter solstice, of a virgin, performed miracles, died, was resurrected, etc. Horus and Mithras come immediately to mind, and I know there are a few others, such claims are fairly common in antiquity. There's even a contemporary of Jesus', Appolonius of Tyana, of whom similar claims were made.
 
Cliffy
#643
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

"Who is Jesus?" is the most important question any of us will ever answer.

If he were merely healer/priest/teacher, but not "The Son of God," then he was a horrible teacher and a liar, what with claiming to be the Son of God. I assume then that you do not believe He rose from the grave?

Like I said, you know nothing of the history of the bible or Christianity. Jesus was not deified until 300 years after his death. It was then that MEN wrote in the stuff about "the only begotten Son" stuff. Before that he was just a highly esteemed rabbi. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of god.

The bible is a guide book that was written for ignorant goat herders and people who were tearing Constantine's empire apart over conflicting ideologies. The bible was put together to create the one official religion of Rome in an attempt to end that conflict. Thus began one of the worst periods in history where millions, possibly billions, of people were slaughtered over a false doctrine. The authors had no way of knowing the outcome of their folly, which was they took encoded writings and made them gospel. Their ignorance created a debacle of biblical proportions. The only reason the bible has survived to this day is than anyone who did not toe the accepted doctrinal line met with a horrible death. The self-fulfilling prophesies of the NT have already been fulfilled. The slaughter began 1700 years ago.

I guaranty that should Jesus return tomorrow, Christians, particularly the born again evangelicals would be the first to declare him a charlatan and demand his head on a pike.
 
bluebyrd35
#644
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

Why should He make things perfectly clear to those who aren't His children? I don't teach math, spelling, or manners to the children down the road, but I do teach these to my own children.


"Who is Jesus?" is the most important question any of us will ever answer.





If he were merely healer/priest/teacher, but not "The Son of God," then he was a horrible teacher and a liar, what with claiming to be the Son of God. I assume then that you do not believe He rose from the grave?



But it is one team. We say of the Father and Son, not that they are one person, for they are two, but they are of one essence or of one substance -- there is one God, whose very nature embodies both diversity and unity, intimacy and community.

"Becoming one flesh" is Biblical language for the unity of a married couple.

..................
Oh, so the "Lord's Prayer" taught by Jesus means nothing??? Remember the first words........Our Father who art in heaven. For Pete's sake who the heck have humans been praying to all these years??

As to who is Jesus,........... Perhaps a man who managed to tap into the Universal/Christ Spirit, or perhaps simply a ambitious political man who became a great irritant.

As to believing that a dead body can be reanimated after 3 days in a hot climate, come now, just imagine the shape it would have been in. This is not the way of reasonable being. If we were meant to believe something along those lines, then any good God would have made sure proof was offered to all re his existence.

Since God, according to Jesus said we were all His children, then Jesus was no more unique than any other portion of existence. If, in the beginning there was only Spirit, then it stands to reason all that exists is part and parcel of that Spirit. Now that makes me as well as you God.

Has God always existed?? Is He the one and only God ? Highly unlikely considering the contrariness of creation and the circumstances of our existence. Why did He create Evil?? Why did He create homosexuals, bisexuals, hermaphrodites etc?? He obviously did as, they have always existed. Why create these flaws and then punish us for following the natures given us?? Certainly an all knowing, perfect creator, would know we were not perfect. Ergo, either God does not exist, or the Bible and what it teaches is a fairy tale.
 
gopher
#645
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Still catching up? I just posted that to be annoying. lol

Actually, I was answering the In Between Man or the Lion of Zion, not you. But that's OK.
 
adopted
#646
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Who are you to tell me what I assume? Isn't that an assumption of itself?

I said that because you were talking about "attracting people," as if the general strategy of evangelism is the same as marketing for a Tupperware party. The strategy demonstrated by Christ is to share the word -- the law and the gospel -- this word repulses more people than it attracts. It's a beautiful message for those whom the Father gives to the Son, but is an aroma of judgment and death to those who are perishing.

Just because some fairytale Christians have decided to "fix" the offense of the Gospel by watering down the message doesn't mean that's what Christ did, or intended us to do.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Funny, I thought this numbskull loved everyone and all things. Ya know, like it says in the Bible? Um "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ...." etc. Jesus, whose alterego is this god, according to the Bible, said "hate not the sinner". You can't have it both ways. It's extremely illogical and downright irrational.

Don't call him a numbskull. Try to maintain a basic level of respect. You'd consider it quite rude if I talked about your father like that. It's difficult for people to take you seriously if you resort to language that invokes memories from our years at elementary school.

If you read the Bible, you realize that he does not "love everyone and all things." As for "hate not the sinner," I've got a newsflash for you. Regardless of what washed-out Osteen Christians have told you, God Hates Sinners. It's not even logical to "hate sin" but not the sinner. Who gets punished for sin? Sinners! That's why we're in hot soup unless another is punished in our place, as if He were the sinner.

As for how Christians are commanded to live, we aren't God, which means we don't presume to do all the same things God does. For example, it's not my place or business or right to hate a sinner, because, in the first place, I myself am a sinner! The holy and righteous God, however, is perfectly justified to hate sinners. If this were not so, then hell would not be a viable doctrine, and perhaps this explains why some are removing this doctrine, though Christ preached it clearly.

As for John 3:16, "the world" is used to indicated that Christ's saving work is not limited to one time or place but applies to the elect from all over the world. This verse must be embraced along with all Bible verses, which clearly show that there is a such thing as "reprobates," who are not receiving the remedy that God has provided, and will perish. If he loved them, this would not be happening. He does not love them -- he hates them.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Like I said, you know nothing of the history of the bible or Christianity. Jesus was not deified until 300 years after his death. It was then that MEN wrote in the stuff about "the only begotten Son" stuff. Before that he was just a highly esteemed rabbi. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of god.

The bible is a guide book that was written for ignorant goat herders and people who were tearing Constantine's empire apart over conflicting ideologies. The bible was put together to create the one official religion of Rome in an attempt to end that conflict. Thus began one of the worst periods in history where millions, possibly billions, of people were slaughtered over a false doctrine. The authors had no way of knowing the outcome of their folly, which was they took encoded writings and made them gospel. Their ignorance created a debacle of biblical proportions. The only reason the bible has survived to this day is than anyone who did not toe the accepted doctrinal line met with a horrible death. The self-fulfilling prophesies of the NT have already been fulfilled. The slaughter began 1700 years ago.

What are your sources for this revised historical account?

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I guaranty that should Jesus return tomorrow, Christians, particularly the born again evangelicals would be the first to declare him a charlatan and demand his head on a pike.

For the record, I'm not somebody who would be generally identified as an "evangelical," as that word has come to be used.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

..................
Oh, so the "Lord's Prayer" taught by Jesus means nothing??? Remember the first words........Our Father who art in heaven. For Pete's sake who the heck have humans been praying to all these years??

What did I say that contradicted the Lord's Prayer?

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

As to believing that a dead body can be reanimated after 3 days in a hot climate, come now, just imagine the shape it would have been in. This is not the way of reasonable being. If we were meant to believe something along those lines, then any good God would have made sure proof was offered to all re his existence.

This underlines one of my points -- we are those who believe that a dead man came back to life in a glorious body, so it should be evident that we're not going to have a difficult time believing in 6 day creation, the sun stopping in the sky, and the donkey rebuking Balaam.

Fact is, the message of "Christ crucified [is] a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

I cannot undo this prophecy, that to the uncalled, this message of Christ is foolishness. All I can do is identify myself with it and be ridiculed along with it -- such is my privilege.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Since God, according to Jesus said we were all His children, then Jesus was no more unique than any other portion of existence.

In a general creative sense, all men and women are children of God. However, the Bible is clear that in the strict sense of this phrase, only believers are the children of God. (John 1:12; Romans 9:8; 1 John 3:10.)

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

If, in the beginning there was only Spirit, then it stands to reason all that exists is part and parcel of that Spirit. Now that makes me as well as you God.

This sounds like Buddhism. I'm not a philosopher, but I think by confessing that God transcends the physical universe he created, this implies that the creatures are not, therefore, automatically "part of [Him]." On the other hand, our Lord speaks of a coming perfect oneness with him (see John 17:21-23). The "oneness" language used here is the same as the oneness language Christ uses about His relationship with the Father, from which the church historically articulated the Trinity doctrine.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Has God always existed?? Is He the one and only God ? Highly unlikely considering the contrariness of creation and the circumstances of our existence. Why did He create Evil?? Why did He create homosexuals, bisexuals, hermaphrodites etc?? He obviously did as, they have always existed. Why create these flaws and then punish us for following the natures given us?? Certainly an all knowing, perfect creator, would know we were not perfect. Ergo, either God does not exist, or the Bible and what it teaches is a fairy tale.

People often assume that it's Christians who've got this difficult "problem of evil" to explain. I suggest that it's the atheists who can't satisfactorily answer it.
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” -- C.S. Lewis
Evil is part of God's sovereignty, through which He works all things for the good of those who love Him -- "those who are called according to his purpose." (See Romans 8:28.)

A comprehensive answer to this question, from a theologian, is over at John Piper's website (click).

If you don't believe in God, why do you even identify something as "evil"? If all things evolved, according to the laws of evolution, then why should one behavior be called "evil" and another "good"? (Or, according to what arbitrary standard, and who has authority to decide?)

Furthermore, there are certain behaviors, such as homosexuality, that can't be satisfactorily explained by evolution theory. The Biblical view doesn't have a hard time with that at all -- for if men are fallen, then their hearts are inclined toward all that opposes the nature of God. That's why I'm tempted to hate, tempted to covet, tempted to sexual immorality. I see the problem, I see why it's happening, and I see the Solution.

P.S. you're right that he "knows we're not perfect." That's why He provided the "good news," savvy? This is the Gospel that people keep ignoring. It's not rational for you to complain to God about the bad news while you insist on ignoring the good news.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

As to believing that a dead body can be reanimated after 3 days in a hot climate, come now, just imagine the shape it would have been in. This is not the way of reasonable being. If we were meant to believe something along those lines, then any good God would have made sure proof was offered to all re his existence.

I forgot to answer that one... "proof was offered." Over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. You can't say that about most historical events that you aren't busy questioning. Oh, the 500 witnesses died and we can't talk to them? Correct, that's what happens to witnesses. As it turns out, apostle Paul wrote a letter identifying the existence of these witnesses during the time when they were still alive. The recipients of the letter could verify what he said by talking to the witnesses. If they found his claim to be false, they would have tossed his letter into the garbage. As it turns out, they instead stuck it into the canon of holy scripture, the most published book in the world. You wanted more "proof" from God? There's a neat story in the Bible about people wanting more proof:
"The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. [...] And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father [Abraham], to send [Lazarus] to my father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (From Luke 16.)
 
Cliffy
#647
"What are your sources for this revised historical account?"

My sources are historical. Your version is the revision and is only very recent. I suppose you are going to say you never heard of witch hunts, the inquisition, the slaughter of the Knights Templar, the slaughter of aboriginal people world wide, etc.Do you anything about the Gnostic Gospels and what happened to the Gnostics?

How the Council of Nicea Changed the World


Heather Whipps
Date: 30 March 2008 Time: 08:00 PM ET

When Constantine became the first Christian leader of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a hodgepodge of beliefs and religions.
Within his own young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?
It's hard to imagine riots in the streets, pamphlet wars and vicious rhetoric spawned by such a question, but that was the nature of things in A.D. 325, when Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.


That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.
The Christianity we know today is a result of what those men agreed upon over that sticky month, including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter, which celebrates Jesus rising from the dead.
Young religion
Christianity was young and still working out the kinks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God.
Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.
Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.
Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.
Savvy move
In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.
Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.
As a final order of business, the bishops decided upon a date for the holiest of Christian celebrations, Easter, which was being observed at different times around the empire. Previously linked with the timing of Passover, the council settled on a moveable day that would never coincide again with the Jewish holiday — the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.
 
adopted
#648
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

"What are your sources for this revised historical account?"

My sources are historical. Your version is the revision and is only very recent. I suppose you are going to say you never heard of witch hunts, the inquisition, the slaughter of the Knights Templar, the slaughter of aboriginal people world wide, etc.Do you anything about the Gnostic Gospels and what happened to the Gnostics?

How the Council of Nicea Changed the World


Heather Whipps
Date: 30 March 2008 Time: 08:00 PM ET

When Constantine became the first Christian leader of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a hodgepodge of beliefs and religions.
Within his own young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult as it was at the time into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?
It's hard to imagine riots in the streets, pamphlet wars and vicious rhetoric spawned by such a question, but that was the nature of things in A.D. 325, when Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.


That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.
The Christianity we know today is a result of what those men agreed upon over that sticky month, including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter, which celebrates Jesus rising from the dead.
Young religion
Christianity was young and still working out the kinks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God.
Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.
Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.
Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.
Savvy move
In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.
Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.
As a final order of business, the bishops decided upon a date for the holiest of Christian celebrations, Easter, which was being observed at different times around the empire. Previously linked with the timing of Passover, the council settled on a moveable day that would never coincide again with the Jewish holiday the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.

Of course I know the Nicene Creed, for it is approved and accepted by my Christian church along with nearly all the churches of Christendom. You're absolutely correct that this is a statement formulated by the early church, and adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381, over against the heresy of Arianism. Yet this creed was not a replacement of scripture, for we hold the same Bible that Arius himself held in his heretic hands. Rather, the Nicene Creed is a summary of the doctrine of the Word of God. It doesn't stand as a contradiction of scripture, but rather a confirmation of it. Formulations of such creeds (and their continued use today) was essential in standing firm against various heresies. Creeds/confessions are the very things that delineate us from, for example, the Roman Catholic church. (Although in the case of the Nicene Creed, I'm pretty sure they embrace it as well.)

To answer your other question, yes, I've read about the Gnostics -- even read one of their gospels. What are you going to say about them? You're a fan?
 
Serryah
#649
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post


"Who is Jesus?" is the most important question any of us will ever answer.

If he were merely healer/priest/teacher, but not "The Son of God," then he was a horrible teacher and a liar, what with claiming to be the Son of God. I assume then that you do not believe He rose from the grave?

Hey, you're the one calling him a horrible teacher and liar, not me. I actually think he was a good man, so what's that mean? And no, I don't believe he rose from the grave like you believe. I believe in the spirit moving onto the "next life", as it were, whatever that life is (an odd phrase too, BTW: Next life... could it be reincarnation is a real thing, or better yet, there's another "place" that souls go to and have a new life?). The thing is, answering the question "Who is Jesus" is all moot, as none of us were there with him and all we have are stories. And stories, as you know, get embellished over time, just like secrets and gossip.

Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post


Don't call him a numbskull. Try to maintain a basic level of respect. You'd consider it quite rude if I talked about your father like that. It's difficult for people to take you seriously if you resort to language that invokes memories from our years at elementary school.
If you read the Bible, you realize that he does not "love everyone and all things." As for "hate not the sinner," I've got a newsflash for you. Regardless of what washed-out Osteen Christians have told you, God Hates Sinners. It's not even logical to "hate sin" but not the sinner. Who gets punished for sin? Sinners! That's why we're in hot soup unless another is punished in our place, as if He were the sinner.
As for how Christians are commanded to live, we aren't God, which means we don't presume to do all the same things God does. For example, it's not my place or business or right to hate a sinner, because, in the first place, I myself am a sinner! The holy and righteous God, however, is perfectly justified to hate sinners. If this were not so, then hell would not be a viable doctrine, and perhaps this explains why some are removing this doctrine, though Christ preached it clearly.
As for John 3:16, "the world" is used to indicated that Christ's saving work is not limited to one time or place but applies to the elect from all over the world. This verse must be embraced along with all Bible verses, which clearly show that there is a...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
So basically you're admitting your God is a hateful, sadistic jerk? Then why get mad at people who point it out? They're just agreeing with you.

And yes, I've called my father lots of things in my life, because he deserved to be called them. Doesn't mean I love him less, or respect him less as he is my father, but if he's being a jerk, I call him on it. Even told him to go to hell a time or two, and worse. Families do that; they have issues, fight, reconcile and love one another. We're all different.

Your family is just a little more psychotic than mine.
 
Omicron
#650
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

M: "You are sounding like you did when you were being bush-burned"

G: "Get it down in a way for the sense to be telegraphed to the people, regardless of whether or not they know the technology from when it came. The important thing is for them to get the same emotional feeling. From there (volunteer) angels will help, and from there, we're going to do something only a human can do..."

M: "What?"

G: "Figure out a way out for a former Lucifer slave (aka demon)"


http://tunes.digitalock.com/huroncharol.mp3


It is impossible for Canadians to accept government secrecy the way of Americans.

Canadians hold the best secrets as a people.

So do Chinese, in case you didn't know.
 
Serryah
#651
Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

Of course I know the Nicene Creed, for it is approved and accepted by my Christian church along with nearly all the churches of Christendom. You're absolutely correct that this is a statement formulated by the early church, and adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381, over against the heresy of Arianism. Yet this creed was not a replacement of scripture, for we hold the same Bible that Arius himself held in his heretic hands. Rather, the Nicene Creed is a summary of the doctrine of the Word of God. It doesn't stand as a contradiction of scripture, but rather a confirmation of it. Formulations of such creeds (and their continued use today) was essential in standing firm against various heresies. Creeds/confessions are the very things that delineate us from, for example, the Roman Catholic church. (Although in the case of the Nicene Creed, I'm pretty sure they embrace it as well.)

To answer your other question, yes, I've read about the Gnostics -- even read one of their gospels. What are you going to say about them? You're a fan?

And now you admit that you're following a book that was DICTATED and VOTED on by MEN.

So, not divine at all.

Thank you very much, you just proved yourself a hypocrite.
 
Omicron
#652
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

And now you admit that you're following a book that was DICTATED and VOTED on by MEN.

So, not divine at all.

Thank you very much, you just proved yourself a hypocrite.

Except Heavenly Father came unto me in a dream, along with Heavenly Mother (the Holy Ghost) and showed me how tragic examples of dumbness would happen among humans when those of the salamander class got used but still not accepted by Lucifer as he would have a lizard.

You as a salamander thought you were being helped by Lucifer, but he needs to eat you long enough for food until he figures out how to live forever.

http://tunes.digitalock.com/whenyourajet.mp3
 
adopted
#653
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Hey, you're the one calling him a horrible teacher and liar, not me. I actually think he was a good man, so what's that mean? And no, I don't believe he rose from the grave like you believe. I believe in the spirit moving onto the "next life", as it were, whatever that life is (an odd phrase too, BTW: Next life... could it be reincarnation is a real thing, or better yet, there's another "place" that souls go to and have a new life?). The thing is, answering the question "Who is Jesus" is all moot, as none of us were there with him and all we have are stories. And stories, as you know, get embellished over time, just like secrets and gossip.

Where have I called him a horrible teacher or a liar? He was more than a good man; he is the Son of God, and our great high priest who has passed through the heavens.

Yes, stories get embellished over time / secrets / gossip. But as for prophecy, they are not someone's own interpretation, but "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit," and their writing was proven true when the things they testified came true. A fisherman and his friends were commandeered by the Almighty, and on a mountain they saw the majesty of the Son and heard the voice from heaven, and these eyewitnesses "...did not follow cleverly devised myths," but their inspired writing added a more full confirmation to the prophetic word.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

So basically you're admitting your God is a hateful, sadistic jerk? Then why get mad at people who point it out? They're just agreeing with you.

Justice is radically different than hatefulness or sadism.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

And now you admit that you're following a book that was DICTATED and VOTED on by MEN.

So, not divine at all.

Thank you very much, you just proved yourself a hypocrite.

The Nicene Creed isn't a "book." It's barely half a page that simply confesses some Biblical facts.

I don't say that it is holy scripture. But I do say that I agree with it, much how I might say I agreed with a sermon preached by Charles Spurgeon. Christians are allowed to agree with things that align with scripture. We sing hymns that agree with scripture without pretending that they are scripture.
 
Omicron
#654
http://tunes.digitalock.com/fromsmal...thingscome.mp3

Anyway... Harper can be caught in the mealstrom, but I am tired of idiots being caught out by Lucifer. Of course he is a sad representation of human capacity. It's as sad as my rich aunt raising cattle in northern BC to make money to visit every continent on the planet plus pay for the heart surgery of her husband the only one of three to survive an original battle with the VietCong before anyone knew there was a war.

Canadian leaders barely know how to shave the hair off their balls before acting idiots. They will do like Diefenbaker, which is show how much they can destroy before anyone notices how good they were to be better, as if I would not have given Diefenbaker his place, therefore I think his problem is he did not have true love.

http://tunes.digitalock.com/crucifixion.mp3
Last edited by Omicron; Feb 1st, 2012 at 04:54 AM..
 
MHz
#655
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

I've made no such contention, I've known for over 40 years that's not correct, your memory is faulty or you misread something.

Really, I thought it was in a post where the weight of water was compared to the weight of the earth as being something like 0.0002% and your view was that it was too small to make a difference in the length of days or years.

If my memory has failed me and you do think the orbits could have changed then did God put the creation of time in the right slot @ 4,000,000 years ago? I can't see you agreeing with that.
Current models have the moon moving away, at a much closer distance was it's orbit still @ 30 days or did that also change, 6,000,000 cm in 4M years @ 1.5 cm/yr. How about 60,000km in 40M years?
Again, who would know that stuff back then as the moon moving away is fairly recent (100 years)

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And you can account for the 18 years between 12 and 30? Where do you think he was and what was he doing - making furniture?

The Bible is pretty silent on those years, however there is lots written about the years between 30 and 34, wouldn't examining those verses be more worthwhile. His mother Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth and if she was a 'daughter of Aaron' the Mary was also. When God called John at about the age of 30 had he been 'trained' in any way that would apply to the priesthood? (rather than just learning woodwork) Does being in line for the 'throne' carry any special training or teaching in those 'missing years'?

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I thought time in the Bible was relative. The bit about 6 days being like 6000 years and all that crap. Or is that only in parts of the Bible? because there doesn't seem to be a scale or a note when one should use time or relative time.

Far as I know there is only one place where a day and 1,000 years is covered. In those few verses Peter seems to be lookinh forward in time rather than backward. In the future from there we have a day of wrath (a few hours long), a 1,000 years of peace, more wrath which is against any remaining fallen angels that were not put in the lake. The prophecies in the NT and OT do not usually reference a 1,000 pause in the 'day of wrath'. That might also apply to the ones Jesus kills on that day, their sins require God punish them so God does using the shortest length of time possible. The place they sent to is referenced as being a place where a person will be thirsty for water. The pain associated with the locusts could affect men in that time and they are cursing God when they are sent there but they are said to be mocking Satan after they are both there and both are there on the same day, if a person cannot serve two masters at once then only 'one God' at a time can be mocked the rest of that 1,000 years may not be as bad as the first few moments of being there. If a few of mankind are raised a few hours after the day of return starts and the rest are not raised until 1,000 years have passed that allows prophecies that mention a 'day of the Lord' or a 'last day' to cover the wrath at both ends as being one wrath in prophecy and the resurrection of both groups is classified as being on the same day.

The other half of those verses reference Judgement Day, described as being the 'last day'. The actual length of time could be 1,000 years as there are many people who are said to be 'examined' by God on 'that day'. The whole House of Israel and a remnant of Gentiles will be alive on the first day, they are judged to see what church they fit into. Sins of the previous 3 1/2 have to be repented of you become part of the group that is resurrected at the 'end of the last day'.

However it works it is for those time periods, just like in Daniel those references of a day being a year is for prophecies that are close. If you examine each instance individually there is one in Daniel that says, time, times, and half a time that ends up being referencing the time the two witnesses of Re:11 lay dead in the street, 3 1/2 days.

Since prophecies mention things as being 'within an hour' it would seem to be somewhat important to understand as much as possible before that knowledge becomes useful. Today, to me it means the Bible is one very detailed story rather than a collection of disjointed ones.
 
L Gilbert
#656
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Actually, I was answering the In Between Man or the Lion of Zion, not you. But that's OK.

oh. Well, I didn't say that to annoy you anyway. So, yes, it's ok. lol

Quote: Originally Posted by adoptedView Post

I said that because you were talking about "attracting people," as if the general strategy of evangelism is the same as marketing for a Tupperware party. The strategy demonstrated by Christ is to share the word -- the law and the gospel -- this word repulses more people than it attracts. It's a beautiful message for those whom the Father gives to the Son, but is an aroma of judgment and death to those who are perishing.

Well, sure. It's just logical to think that if something is clear and concise, people would be more willing to consider using it as a part of their lives. It would be an effect.
After all, there's only two reasons I can think of why your Yeshua would wander around preaching; to share and to recruit.
Like I said, making Judeo-Christianity complex, ambiguous, and vague only serves to push sensible, simple people away. It'd be like me and wifey favoring one kid over another but still claiming we loved both equally. Freakin stupid, IMO.

Quote:

Just because some fairytale Christians have decided to "fix" the offense of the Gospel by watering down the message doesn't mean that's what Christ did, or intended us to do.

What message? From my POV, there's only two messages in the Bible that are worth anything: "love thy neighbor...." and "do unto others ...." From that you can develop any of the commandments except for the narcissistic first 4.

Quote:

Don't call him a numbskull. Try to maintain a basic level of respect. You'd consider it quite rude if I talked about your father like that. It's difficult for people to take you seriously if you resort to language that invokes memories from our years at elementary school.

Sorry, but my father was demonstrably smarter than your god and so am I and a lot of the other people in this forum board. Like I said, for some critter that's supposed to be all-seeing, all-powerful, etc. it sure exhibits a lack of foresight and inability to correct its blunders.

Quote:

If you read the Bible, you realize that he does not "love everyone and all things." As for "hate not the sinner," I've got a newsflash for you. Regardless of what washed-out Osteen Christians have told you, God Hates Sinners. It's not even logical to "hate sin" but not the sinner. Who gets punished for sin? Sinners! That's why we're in hot soup unless another is punished in our place, as if He were the sinner.

I can understand getting pissed at sinners but hating them? That's just childish at best. Why the hell would a "father" conjure up everything in sight and knowingly throw a wrench into the works causing "sin" to occur in the "kids" he loves, and then punish them for being sinful? That's sheer stupidity and malevolent sadism, IMO.

Quote:

As for how Christians are commanded to live, we aren't God, which means we don't presume to do all the same things God does. For example, it's not my place or business or right to hate a sinner, because, in the first place, I myself am a sinner! The holy and righteous God, however, is perfectly justified to hate sinners. If this were not so, then hell would not be a viable doctrine, and perhaps this explains why some are removing this doctrine, though Christ preached it clearly.

By introducing sin in the first place, the silly numbskull brought all the troubles onto itself.

Quote:

As for John 3:16, "the world" is used to indicated that Christ's saving work is not limited to one time or place but applies to the elect from all over the world. This verse must be embraced along with all Bible verses, which clearly show that there is a such thing as "reprobates," who are not receiving the remedy that God has provided, and will perish. If he loved them, this would not be happening. He does not love them -- he hates them.

Like I said, if the goofy critter had any wits it could fix it all easily, given that and according to the Bible, it really is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all that baloney. IOW, if the Bible is correct, then this god, simply by creating everything to be as it is, is ultimately responsible for what it is.
 
Dexter Sinister
#657
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Really, I thought it was in a post where the weight of water was compared to the weight of the earth as being something like 0.0002% and your view was that it was too small to make a difference in the length of days or years.

Okay, that rings a distant bell, but that's quite a different claim than saying the orbital parameters have never changed at all.
Quote:

If my memory has failed me and you do think the orbits could have changed then did God put the creation of time in the right slot @ 4,000,000 years ago? I can't see you agreeing with that.

The visible universe is about 13.7 billion years old, the earth's in the 4-5 billion year range, so certainly time must have existed prior to 4 million years ago.
 
Cliffy
#658
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

The Bible is pretty silent on those years, however there is lots written about the years between 30 and 34, wouldn't examining those verses be more worthwhile. His mother Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth and if she was a 'daughter of Aaron' the Mary was also. When God called John at about the age of 30 had he been 'trained' in any way that would apply to the priesthood? (rather than just learning woodwork) Does being in line for the 'throne' carry any special training or teaching in those 'missing years'?

The bible is silent. Yup! Because it would change the whole story if that part was known. That part of the story was left out because it did not agree with the political agenda of forming a church; a church that was about Jesus and not one based on his teachings. It was Paul who deified Jesus. His revelation on the road to Damascus was that for every Christian he martyred, ten more would pop up, so he decided that it would be better to form a religion, deify the guy and control them instead of trying to eradicate them. Paul was not divinely inspired, he was inspired by a lust for power.

According to the Hindus and Buddhists, Jesus spent time in India and Burma learning at the feet of their gurus during those "missing" years. They even claim that his burial plot is in Burma and that he never died on the cross. He moved east after he escaped death at the hands of the Romans and Jews. Many of the aboriginal peoples of central America also have legends that he and the apostles visited them before returning to the west (Burma?).

The crucifixion and resurrection are made up stories to embellish the deification of a simple, pious and well revered rabbi who brought a new covenant to the Jews, one that was embellished with eastern philosophy. If you would bother to study Buddhism and Hindu religions you would see the similarities. Try looking into the story of Krishna (sounds pretty close to Christ). It might blow your mind, but by the sound of some of your rants, it has already been blown.
 
adopted
#659
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Well, sure. It's just logical to think that if something is clear and concise, people would be more willing to consider using it as a part of their lives. It would be an effect.
After all, there's only two reasons I can think of why your Yeshua would wander around preaching; to share and to recruit.
Like I said, making Judeo-Christianity complex, ambiguous, and vague only serves to push sensible, simple people away. It'd be like me and wifey favoring one kid over another but still claiming we loved both equally. Freakin stupid, IMO.

You still think that everyone is universally a "child of God" and that he is therefore obliged to love and enlighten everyone. That's not a Biblical doctrine. Listen to Christ on this:
...but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one. (From John 10.)
See, the Father is giving to the Son specifically and particularly those who are elected for salvation, called here his "sheep." The "sharing and recruiting," in their case, has a 100% success rate.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I can understand getting pissed at sinners but hating them? That's just childish at best. Why the hell would a "father" conjure up everything in sight and knowingly throw a wrench into the works causing "sin" to occur in the "kids" he loves, and then punish them for being sinful? That's sheer stupidity and malevolent sadism, IMO.

So, you want the freedom to make choices, but when there are consequences for your stupid choices, you want to complain to God. You're basically saying, "I have sinned God, so you should have made me into a robot instead." (As you continue to ignore the remedy for sin that He is holding out on a golden platter.) This is a logical error, and a foolish decision. If God creates people who choose him, with a real choice, then the possibility of making the wrong choice must exist. If God is consistent, then there must be consequences for wickedness.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Like I said, if the goofy critter had any wits it could fix it all easily, given that and according to the Bible, it really is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all that baloney. IOW, if the Bible is correct, then this god, simply by creating everything to be as it is, is ultimately responsible for what it is.

You're right, he could fix it all easily. Right here, right now, by destroying us all ... better yet, 6000 years ago. You think the big question is, "why does God punish people?" I think the big question is, "why does he ever show mercy?" Why did he permit Noah and family to live? God could have destroyed them along with the rest. (In which case, we wouldn't be here today, having our opportunity.)

Yes, he's responsible, he's in control, and he knows what he's doing. He's the great author of history. Every good story has conflict. Every good painting has contrast. You grant permission for JK Rowling to write evil into her plot, but you don't grant permission for the Almighty? How will the Light be glorious if darkness does not exist?
 
darkbeaver
#660
JUNK SCIENCE ALERT! one of our forum members has stated that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's pure horse**** since expansion is disproved by redshift facts.
 

Similar Threads

8
Did ya hear about this loser?
by Locutus | Dec 6th, 2011
no new posts